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)

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)

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)

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)

As if Jason Bourneʼs stories had become routine. And not only his stories but also the action. And on top of it all, the action starts to have some balls only at the end of the movie, at the moment that is unBourne-like set in the USA. However, it is true that I am quite critical of the movie. On the other hand, I think that the first and second installments had at least some story while this one is only a series of escape – find – kill. Even though the Paul Greengrass’ filmmaking craft is still pretty on point. I just need something enlivening and Alicia Vikander isn’t going to salvage it, because you get exactly what you would expect from her in a spy thriller. Nothing more, nothing less. (24/12/2016)