Jason Bourne

The weakest Bourne and perhaps the biggest disappointment of the year. A lot of people complain about the weaker story, but I wouldn't mind it so much in the action genre, but it is so unbelievably bland, everybody is constantly dealing with something (from the past, present, future) and you don't really know what you're walking into and that's problem number one: grabbing attention and pulling you into the plot. I thought I would at least enjoy the actors and the action and unfortunately I was wrong there too. Matt Damon looks tired the whole movie and like he doesn't really enjoy the role, Tommy Lee Jones is an old dog and could be done with acting, he has nothing to offer, Vincent Cassel as the main bad guy is only in the movie for maybe 25 minutes, especially at the end, we don't learn his name and the only thing he says in the film is “Copy That”, a disappointment. The only bright spot is the beautiful and bright Alicia Vikander, who in two years has moved into the female acting elite. The action is a big stumbling block, too. On the one hand it is woefully short. two major action sequences and about three short ones, of which only the ending was worth mentioning, with a fabulous car chase and a decent final fight, otherwise everything else is cluttered, choppy, very unexciting and bloodless. Taking into account that I was bored for most of the film, because there can be no question of suspense and fast pace, I came out with one of the weakest cinema visits of the year. Unfortunately, this is a travesty that doesn't even offer a twist. 45% (31/07/2016)

That Greengrass made a remake of the 'best of' moments from the past doesn't bother me. It bothers me that he did it in the worst possible way, perhaps having Universal using F&F dramaturgists because Jason Bourne is one long action scene lacking any semblance of a meaningful plot. Last time, Gilroy delivered a simple but striking story based on the ambiguous past of an agent with amnesia. This time, it’s a primitive plot with the cheapest overlaps (Snowden, social networks), relegating the protagonist to a field of uninteresting and unnecessary figures who simply happen to pass through scenes, and yet we know that everything will be resolved in an effective way, without any frills or embellishments. This was supposed to keep us, the fans, who were a bit hesitant about the meaningfulness of the sequel, in our seats and massaging the first signal for two hours. But this is wherein the film ultimately loses the most. Yes, Greengrass keeps serving up epic action outpourings, but what's the point of them when Ackroyd, unlike Wood, doesn't know how to work the shaky cam? Those half-second shots, which the viewer processed somewhere in the depths of his brain and only with a slight delay appreciated their informational value, don't work this time. As a whole, they lack the flexibility and momentum that the head of the second staff, Dan Bradley, added last time. The result is desperate and predictable... and boring. Quite possibly because Bourne isn't being pursued by a crucial pursuer this time, and the intoxication of his tactical evasion, where he's a step or two ahead of the pursuer, is there. The aging Tommy and the pretty naive girl Alicia are both not up to the task, and Cassel seems to have dropped out of a 1990s B-movie (some of the flashbacks should be punishable). In short, I didn't leave the movie theater this year more pissed off. (29/07/2016)

Decent and magnificent in terms of craftsmanship, albeit ridiculously naive and dull (the current commentary is late by a few years), an action techno thriller trying to remark The Bourne Ultimatum too faithfully (and above all unsuccessfully) to its own detriment. It's not a bad movie in any way (except for the script, Gilroy is noticeably missing), it's just an unworthy and useless Bourne movie. (27/07/2016)

When the series about the tough guy with gaps in his memory grew with a fourth installment, I decided to ignore it in the movie theater, even though I consider myself a Bourne fan. The third movie hinted that the conspiratorial world of the secret services of the United States and their manipulation of the human psyche is evolving in a way that I don't like. What the third movie suggested, the fourth confirmed completely. The form remained and what fans liked about the Bourne series, namely adrenaline overdose, dynamics, and handheld camera, can reliably be found here. Even Matt Damon confirms that he continues to visit the gym intensively. The problem, however, is the content. Greengrass clearly holds the opinion that it is enough for the film to be wildly thrilling, not giving the viewer time to breathe, and God forbid, start thinking about the plot, motivations, and actions of his characters. In that case, the viewer would quickly realize that the quality of the screenplay has fallen somewhere to the bottom of the ocean abyss. A lot of action stupidity has been filmed over the years, and this movie fits right into that category. It is a pity because poor Jason did not deserve such an ending... Overall impression: 40%. (06/01/2020)

The purest and most classic action film of the four-part series, which once again expertly mixes elements of hi-tech espionage and typically thriller-like, escalating plots, including an over-the-top finale where a police car dismembers dozens of cars in Las Vegas. All that was missing was a bald John Malkovich with an plane and we could have had Con Air 2. Apart from that, the film is not without quite a lot of scripted filler, a somewhat artificial plot and a rather visible aspect of coincidences. On the other hand, it's still the camera-volatile and uncompromising Paul Greengrass, in whose rendition all those CIA spy tricks are terribly entertaining, engrossing and hard to tear yourself away from. Alicia Vikander and Vincent Cassel are also refreshing change. The trilogy is phenomenal and consistent, with the fourth part following close behind. Still exceptional filmmaking, though. (31/07/2016)