Jason Bourne

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)

A proven director? Yes. A star from previous episodes? Yeah. Excited fans? After a not-so-good spin-off, they're just itching for a rematch. Perfect conditions for a hit. Perfect conditions for a good movie, but there is one thing they must not screw up, the story. And unfortunately Jason Bourne’s, the story grinds and quite a lot. I haven't read the script, so I won't say that it's bad, but the fact remains that the return of an agent who can't even rely on his own memory didn't turn out as I'd hoped. Matt Damon is still in form and the Greengrass action doesn't get old. The action scenes are properly long and build up nicely, transitioning seamlessly from silent stalking on the city streets to uncompromising chases. Just the way we like it. It's good to watch until someone starts talking. In fact, the film's plot is so trite and so B-movie that you might forgive it for Dolph Lundgren, but not for a thriller that aspires to be the thriller of the year. (15/05/2017)

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)

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 only reason Bourne continues is that he can't quit, and that the fans didn't want him to quit. Greengrass did not find the ideal motivation, and the film unexpectedly often works with the motif of chance or a somewhat desired twist. Not even the promised overlap is the brightest - it's more a bunch of obvious motifs (whenever Snowden is said aloud in a movie, a kitten dies). But Jason is still an interesting character, and the dilemma of whether it's better to adopt an artificial identity or to be someone I don't quite know is still cool. And the humanoid GPS Greengrass still finds delightful patterns in chaos. It's not at the level of the last two episodes of the trilogy, but it's still a pure techno thriller pleasure that only Paul can do. BTW, Alicia is great again and offers a dignified virtual counterpart to the contact killer Jason. His offensive stampede won't bore me. The adrenaline that I miss in the cinema is still here. (27/07/2016)