Jason Bourne

[Gold Samurai]

I went back to rewatch the first three movies. It's funny to look at the computer tech.

The 1st movies "computer room" looked like a messy start up company compared to the later movies. Those look like NASA mission control

I'm sure it looks like this in real life but just thought I'd point it out

 

[slimshady247]

For me, there was no tension because it was too telegraphed.

[BLACKOUT]In Supremacy, we had no idea what would happen to Marie. And because it already happened in Supremacy, it seemed obvious it would happen to Nicky because the timing of the Athens scene in the movie practically aligns with Marie's death.[/BLACKOUT]

And that, along with [BLACKOUT]Bourne's father's involvement with Treadstone[/BLACKOUT], only adds to why this movie is a little too desperate to justify its existence.

Yeah I understand what you mean, I guess I'm just a little more biased/forgiving, haha. I thought the tension built well even though I sort of knew what was coming, but I get where you're coming from. I think the stuff with [BLACKOUT]Bourne's father[/BLACKOUT] could have been more effective if there was more time spent on it, like how in Supremacy, the consequences of the Neski assassination come back to haunt Bourne and other characters like Abbott - thus ensuring there's no disconnect between Bourne's personal story and the drive of the other characters (in the CIA).

Plus there's multiple layers to the Neski flashback that peel back over the course of the film, snowballing into Bourne's final epiphany and his confession to the Neskis' daughter.

The problem in JB is that the one flashback we're given has its only additional "layer" being that [BLACKOUT]the Asset killed Bourne's father, which is far too convenient. I would've been fine if they left his motivation at "Bourne compromised him by releasing the Treadstone files." Also, I would've appreciated a little more depth to the relationship that Bourne had with his father beyond his dad saying "I did some bad things, son." While the other films certainly took a minimalist approach to the flashbacks, this one doesn't quite nail the "less is more" approach of the original trilogy flashbacks. I did like the implication that Bourne's father was protecting him/never wanted this for him, hence why he was killed, but like I said, we needed to see more of the relationship beyond the sentence or two he says in the film to really empathize with the guy.[/BLACKOUT]

Again though, I'm open to more films if the writing gets tightened and the focus shifts to telling truly new stories for the series.

It seems to me that the only way to get Bourne back into action is to give him a piece of information about his past that he did not know and that is exactly what they did.

I am okay with it.

True, although I do feel like in future films (because judging from the box office, there will be future films), it would benefit the series to diversify the formula a little bit and break some new ground. I don't think Greengrass and Rouse should write a script alone again, they definitely need additional/different writers. If Scott Z. Burns is free, I don't see why they can't bring him back.

 

[Rowsdower!]

I still haven't seen this and I know RT scores don't really matter but if you would have told me two weeks ago that "Bad Moms" would have better reviews than this, I would have laughed in your face.

 

[kguillou]

Wow, I guess, like Xmen Apocalypse, I'm just more forgiving with the elements that seemed to annoy people. I wont deny there is familiar ground treaded here but the movie's tone, attitude and badassery made it all highly enjoyable for me. Plus, and i'm just gonna go and say it, this film had a better "ending" for Jason Bourne than Ultimatum's abrupt swimming away ending. For me at least. I feel satsifed ending Bourne's story on this note. I look at this film as like an Epilogue of sorts to the original trilogy.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

How was that 'abrupt'? The swimming away is an echo of the opening of the original. Except this time he knows exactly who he is and what he worked for. In the opening of the Bourne Identity he was in the water after failing to carry out his orders. In the ending of Ultimatum he falls in the water after succeeding in exposing those who gave the orders.

It's a beautiful, poignant completion of the full circle most trilogies try and fail to do.

 

[kguillou]

How was that 'abrupt'? The swimming away is an echo of the opening of the original. Except this time he knows exactly who he is and what he worked for. In the opening of the Bourne Identity he was in the water after failing to carry out his orders. In the ending of Ultimatum he falls in the water after succeeding in exposing those who gave the orders.

It's a beautiful, poignant completion of the full circle most trilogies try and fail to do.

I agree with everything you said, but what I mean by abrupt is the moment leading up to it. It just, I dunno, it all felt so quick, from his confrontation with the head of Treadstone and him ending up in the water. I felt like there could have been more time giving closure to his whole journey. He gets some flashback memories, is chased to the roof, falls in the water and thats it.

I mean, maybe its just me. But it almost felt like they were rushing to get to the end.

 

[kane9321]

loved it
That chase scene .badass

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I agree with everything you said, but what I mean by abrupt is the moment leading up to it. It just, I dunno, it all felt so quick, from his confrontation with the head of Treadstone and him ending up in the water. I felt like there could have been more time giving closure to his whole journey. He gets some flashback memories, is chased to the roof, falls in the water and thats it.

I mean, maybe its just me. But it almost felt like they were rushing to get to the end.

It's not just you, I just got done watching Ultimatum tonight as part of m trilogy re-watching, and too this day I don't get the praise for the movie or the ending. The first hour is superb, but once Bourne kills Desh it goes downhill for me.

I find the ending wholely unsatisfying, we find out he volunteered instead of being chosen, some people go to court which we don't even see the outcome of. And Bourne swims away . It never sat well with me and Ultimatum is my least favourite of the trilogy for those reasons.

I am seeing the 4th movie tomorrow, so the news it ends the story better is welcome to me.

 

[BlackFox]

I thought this was decent, not as good as any of the original trilogy but a big step up from Legacy and at least felt like a Bourne film. The only problem is it didnt really have anything as good as or better than previous ones and there was a lot of similar moments and retreads from the previous films to really set it apart from the others. It still has that adrenaline ride as you go along with it but the formula is going to get stale pretty soon if they persist with certain things. They need to find a new direction to go in or pit Bourne against a different foe to keep things fresh it feels as things are a little predictable at times now.

But overall enjoyable and still better than a lot of stuff around. 7.8/10

 

[Jay Beezy]

Yeah I understand what you mean, I guess I'm just a little more biased/forgiving, haha. I thought the tension built well even though I sort of knew what was coming, but I get where you're coming from. I think the stuff with [BLACKOUT]Bourne's father[/BLACKOUT] could have been more effective if there was more time spent on it, like how in Supremacy, the consequences of the Neski assassination come back to haunt Bourne and other characters like Abbott - thus ensuring there's no disconnect between Bourne's personal story and the drive of the other characters (in the CIA).

Plus there's multiple layers to the Neski flashback that peel back over the course of the film, snowballing into Bourne's final epiphany and his confession to the Neskis' daughter.

The problem in JB is that the one flashback we're given has its only additional "layer" being that [BLACKOUT]the Asset killed Bourne's father, which is far too convenient. I would've been fine if they left his motivation at "Bourne compromised him by releasing the Treadstone files." Also, I would've appreciated a little more depth to the relationship that Bourne had with his father beyond his dad saying "I did some bad things, son." While the other films certainly took a minimalist approach to the flashbacks, this one doesn't quite nail the "less is more" approach of the original trilogy flashbacks. I did like the implication that Bourne's father was protecting him/never wanted this for him, hence why he was killed, but like I said, we needed to see more of the relationship beyond the sentence or two he says in the film to really empathize with the guy.[/BLACKOUT]

Again though, I'm open to more films if the writing gets tightened and the focus shifts to telling truly new stories for the series.



True, although I do feel like in future films (because judging from the box office, there will be future films), it would benefit the series to diversify the formula a little bit and break some new ground. I don't think Greengrass and Rouse should write a script alone again, they definitely need additional/different writers. If Scott Z. Burns is free, I don't see why they can't bring him back.

Here's my deal. Everyone's enjoying the action sequences as they're a return to the Greengrass style, but from my experience, the action sequences were special because they were always driven by a strong story. Practically every action beat felt necessary to the plot. So when the action has to be driven by a weak heavy-handed story and/or there are beats that don't feel necessary ([BLACKOUT]Vincent Cassell plowing through traffic with the armored truck[/BLACKOUT]), regardless of it being filmed with Greengrass's signature style, they feel less impactful to me.

 

[slimshady247]

Here's my deal. Everyone's enjoying the action sequences as they're a return to the Greengrass style, but from my experience, the action sequences were special because they were always driven by a strong story. Practically every action beat felt necessary to the plot. So when the action has to be driven by a weak heavy-handed story and/or there are beats that don't feel necessary ([BLACKOUT]Vincent Cassell plowing through traffic with the armored truck[/BLACKOUT]), regardless of it being filmed with Greengrass's signature style, they feel less impactful to me.

Yeah I totally understand, I mentioned this in an earlier post with regard to story-driven action in Supremacy and Ultimatum in contrast to this film.

Assuming Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass do come back for another sequel, I hope they manage to secure better writers for their next outing. I'd like to see something a little more offbeat for Bourne next time.

 

[Dark Victory]

Caught this over the weekend. Not necessarily a bad movie, but it's a huge step down from the original trilogy and even "Legacy".

I completely agree with the general consensus that the inclusion of

Spoiler

Bourne's father assassinated by Vincent Cassel

was a weak excuse for a sequel, which is such a disappointment since Bourne's identity crisis in the trilogy is so compelling. This movie feels more like something Charles Bronson
would've done.

The premise showed promise. I love the idea of Bourne still struggling with who he is (he's essentially fighting his own fractured self in the opening scene's fights), and a surveillance-state U.S. government that hasn't learned from the repercussions of Treadstone.

But a lot of it is half-baked and reduced to headline buzzwords (mentions of the Snowden leaks, data privacy, etc.). It has to rely on the audience's preconceived importance in these topics, because the movie doesn't have anything unique to portray or say about them. At least Alicia Vikander is hot.

 

[Fallen Angel]

I liked it wouldn't say it's as good as Ultimatum or Supremacy on first viewing but it's better than Renners 'Legacy'.

 

[Filmfan93]

A few days after my 1st viewing, I really want to see this again. Next weekend is all about SS, though.

 

[Quasimod0]

Just saw it. It wasn't BAD, but it wasn't anything to rave about, unfortunately. I'd say 6.5 or 7/10.

Pros: Good boss battle at the end
Some fun car chases
The actors did fine
Cons: everyone seemed incredibly bored
-Vikander showed no emotion and idk what her accent was. Sometimes it sounded American, sometimes not.
-Jason Bourne was almost just a cardboard cut out (though he did have some good moments)
-Some of the camera movements choices were awkward (zooming in on people's faces mid speech)
-Cliche villain plot
-Sometimes it was so serious that it felt like a parody


I don't remember much about Legacy, but I enjoyed that one more.

 

[Maximus 36]

But overall enjoyable and still better than a lot of stuff around. 7.8/10

I have to ask, and I'm being sincere about this, how do you critique movies with your rating system? I can understand a 7.5 or 8 out of 10, but how on earth do you rate movies so specifically? I'm just trying to have a better sense of your guidelines.

Saw this with a couple of buddies on Sunday and we all felt the same.

 

[slimshady247]

I thought this was decent, not as good as any of the original trilogy but a big step up from Legacy and at least felt like a Bourne film. The only problem is it didnt really have anything as good as or better than previous ones and there was a lot of similar moments and retreads from the previous films to really set it apart from the others. It still has that adrenaline ride as you go along with it but the formula is going to get stale pretty soon if they persist with certain things. They need to find a new direction to go in or pit Bourne against a different foe to keep things fresh it feels as things are a little predictable at times now.

But overall enjoyable and still better than a lot of stuff around. 7.8/10

Agreed. I'd round it up to 8 myself just based on my own enjoyment.

 

[BlackFox]

I have to ask, and I'm being sincere about this, how do you critique movies with your rating system? I can understand a 7.5 or 8 out of 10, but how on earth do you rate movies so specifically? I'm just trying to have a better sense of your guidelines.

Saw this with a couple of buddies on Sunday and we all felt the same.

I use it primarily to make it easier to make a list at the end of the year and to give me more leeway between films where this is not much between them but still want to rank them. No more than that really, dont worry your not the first to ask, lol.

As for how to determin a 7.4 from a 7.6, its nothing very scientific just what you feel, no different between saying something is a 7 or an 8 or the difference between B- and B+.

Everyone has their own way and what ever works I guess for you. I have only used it the last couple of years as an experiment. But yeah the main thing is to make a list at the end of the year a little easier, simple as that.

 

[Loki882]

Caught this over the weekend. Not necessarily a bad movie, but it's a huge step down from the original trilogy and even "Legacy".

I completely agree with the general consensus that the inclusion of

Spoiler

Bourne's father assassinated by Vincent Cassel

was a weak excuse for a sequel, which is such a disappointment since Bourne's identity crisis in the trilogy is so compelling. This movie feels more like something Charles Bronson
would've done.

The premise showed promise. I love the idea of Bourne still struggling with who he is (he's essentially fighting his own fractured self in the opening scene's fights), and a surveillance-state U.S. government that hasn't learned from the repercussions of Treadstone.

But a lot of it is half-baked and reduced to headline buzzwords (mentions of the Snowden leaks, data privacy, etc.). It has to rely on the audience's preconceived importance in these topics, because the movie doesn't have anything unique to portray or say about them. At least Alicia Vikander is hot.

Having scene Ex Machina, The Danish Girl, and The Man From UNCLE, I already knew that. Them Swedes just go good genes I guess.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Saw it tonight, I enjoyed it, and actually agree with a few others in that I feel it has a more satisfying ending than Ultimatum did. So overall I am happy they did this sequel as I feel this is more closure with the character with the opportunity to continue if they want to.

I do feel the story needed some work though, adding [BLACKOUT]Bournes father[/BLACKOUT]into the Treadstone story I didn't mind, but I thought [BLACKOUT]Cassels Asset being the one who killed him was a bit of a stretch too far[/BLACKOUT]. And then at the time, it was nice of them to give a personal connection between Bourne and 'the asset' this time as it seemed to up the stakes of the finale. The finale I really enjoyed.

Also, there seemed more slow moments in this than the others, but there was also quite a bit of new story to tell at the same time. It seems for every good decision they made, they made a bad one straight after. So I can see why this is getting mixed reactions, but I still enjoyed it thoroughly. The action was great, as was the cast and there seemed less shakey cam this time also. Damon is still awesome in the role, and I liked where we found him at the start. I also liked [BLACKOUT]Nikki's death scene[/BLACKOUT]. I didn't think it copied a previous casualty in the series and also there was an emotional connection in the scene.

I do hope we get another one, but I agree he needs a new enemy to fight next time, I mean, how many corrupt CIA bosses can there be? We have had at least one or two every movie so far. 8/10 for me. Maybe in a sequel it could be another country trying to capture Bourne instead for different reasons though.

And also, I have add, as others have, that Alicia Vikander is frigging hot as hell.

 

[slimshady247]

I think there may be potential in them exploring what happened to characters like Pam Landy and tying that in with Bourne's continuing existential struggles. I just hope their reunion, if it were to occur, [BLACKOUT]isn't as tragic lol.[/BLACKOUT]

I guess a Renner team-up film is also possible, but considering Legacy's mediocrity both critically and in terms of its box office, I don't know that that idea is all that close to becoming a reality.

 

[Loki882]

To be fair, this film isn't lighting up the charts critically either.

 

[Mysteryman]

Have any critics said that the Bourne Legacy was actually better than Jason Bourne?

 

[Asr]

Just caught this tonight. My expectations were a bit lowered from reading this thread (heh), and in that respect, I thought it was ok. Not great, but not bad, around 7/10 for me. IMO, the best parts were the beginning (catching back up with Bourne and Nicky) and the end (particularly the build-up to Bourne vs the Asset). Most of what transpired in the middle, while well-paced, just didn't quite work as well. This movie just didn't have the "glue" that held together the first 3 movies, which I now want to re-watch from my DVD collection.

Oh and as a software developer, I couldn't help but facepalm at the subtitled line during Nicky's opening scene when someone said "Use SQL to corrupt the database". Do film screenwriters ever try to run anything computer-related past someone who actually works with computers? And then later on when the teams were trying to find Nicky and shot that super-pixelated image of her face, and Alicia Vikander's character said "enhance" and the image became crystal clear I couldn't help but facepalm again. Geez, I thought we were past this level of stupidity in movies by now, it's not flippin' possible to "enhance" super-pixelated images to form a clearer one, it doesn't work that way!

 

[Loki882]

The "rule of cool" still rules it would seem.