|Page 1 of 53:||          |
|Index||528 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Actually reviews are not supposed to be based on wishful thinking.
Nonetheless for those members who gave this a high rating more out of frustration than anything else, I do feel your pain.
The original Bourne trilogy was not merely good, it was superb. As a top reviewer here with some 1200 reviews under my belt I said more than once that the original was the best spy trilogy I had ever seen and I am unashamed of the fact that I have seen each film in that series four or five times since original release. They are an adrenaline rush, the perfect mix of story, form, and effect.
Even 2012's Bourne Legacy -- a feature where it was ever so clear that Damon had been offered a fortune just to walk-on and smile at the camera, but refused anyway -- was a solid movie, great script, held the attention, and Renner did a great job.
However, now that I have seen Jason Bourne 2016, I cannot help but wish that Damon had agreed to participate in Legacy, rather than be lured back 4 years later for a part he clearly no longer likes, in a production he would rather not be in.
I tend toward "purist" reviews, that is to say, I don't really care WHY a film was made as much as I do about how entertaining is it to watch ...?
(That said, I have to "assume" that Damon broke his vow and came back simply for the cash. And Greengrass agreed to take hold of the camera one more time only if he could get a writing credit too. Ugh!)
So, speaking of entertainment, there is almost none in this movie. The script is a mess. Written by the director for the clear purpose of showcasing his action and camera-work skills, there is no attempt to build connection from the top.
The script is so bad that even viewers in love with the original trilogy -- like this one -- have to keep reminding themselves who Bourne is supposed to be, and what is supposed to motivate him.
(Not to mention major plot holes here and there. Am I the only one who noticed that the most WANTED MAN IN America attempted to enter customs under his own name with no advance certainty that the computer would be "fixed" in time? Remember, from the second film in the series, this is a man who "never guesses and never makes mistakes." Other than accepting to do this film, that is.)
A good film makes the viewer feel good. The scientists call it endorphin production. This 120 minute endless chase, from the top of the movie to the ending, merely produces a caffeine buzz and sets your nerves on edge. Yes, Greengrass can use this production in his own personal highlight reel to showcase his moving camera skills. But his writing skills? Not so much.
Tommy Lee Jones delivers possibly the most superficial performance of his excellent career and the money he was offered cannot begin to make up for the indignity of the closeups.
Newcomer Alicia Vikander acquits herself well. Then again, she is a newbie with a whole string of good movies ahead of her, career-wise, whereas the actors in this film seemed more interested in taking the money ... and running.
Finally, dear reader, before you start to monkey-hammer the NOT USEFUL key -- which has somehow morphed into an I Don't AGREE key -- I will add that the variance between the score here and the score on Rotten Tomatos is the widest I have ever seen for a major release. Over at RT, this mess barely made 60%. Here at IMDb, the "fans" just can't seem to get enough...?
Lacklustre story line lacking intelligence, dialogue, and character
I am a big fan of the franchise and my expectations may have been too high for this sequel. Was hoping for same kind of substance and kept waiting for something impressively unexpected, like previous. Legacy was a better film. Even fight scenes and car chases from all previous had a different "feel" than typical action films, but formula made these redundant and confusing, not fun like others. The predictable plot had me thinking, hoping for intelligent twist that did not happen. It's a good rental I suppose.
Any true fan of Jason Bourne knows Matt Damon said that the next Bourne after Ultimatum should be named The Bourne Redundancy. He was right! The story line is stupid and lazy. The directing is also lazy. The special effects are good. Bourne is no longer a meticulous planner, his actions are ridiculously reckless and would make you wonder WTH !!!!! The technology used by the CIA is fantasy technology imagined by the kind of people who don't know anything about technology or even science, you would probably laugh at the programming language used by the CIA in the first few minutes of the movie, and it only gets more ridiculous from there. This movie also serves as a advertising tool for some very wealthy and infamous businesses, and those scenes showing the business names are so painfully long and awkward. The story line also has to serve those special interests.Go see it and you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. In general, don't waste your time, other people's time, and money to see this piece of junk.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This movie made me want to leave after one hour, and kill myself after
2 hours. I am a huge Bourne fan I was very exited for Matt Damons
return to the Bourne franchise. Also there was fresh face of Alicia
Vikander and not so fresh face of Tommy Lee Jones and Vincent Cassel as
the bad guy so what can go wrong? Well it turns out if you have a
horrible script, plot that only a person who wears helmet indoors can
consider exiting you are left with the biggest disappointment in the
cinema this year.
Spoiler alert everybody! Jason Bourne walks for 2 hours, sometimes he remembers things sometimes he doesn't - the end.
So to conclude : Do not see this movie! I had to watch the trilogy the next morning just to get over the disappointment of the new Jason Bourne.
The original Bourne trilogy of Identity, Supremacy and Ultimatum were
brilliant displays in effective storytelling and great action. Jason
Bourne, however, isn't quite as proficient in both of those areas. On
the one hand, it's action-packed to the brim, and provides for a hugely
entertaining watch, but on the other, it's a disappointment as far as
bringing yet another intriguing and truly thrilling mystery to life is
Let's start on the bright side, however, with the action. Paul Greengrass does yet another sterling job at directing some hugely exciting action sequences (including a thrilling chase in Athens that harks back to Ultimatum's Tangier chase), and in tandem with yet another excellent performance by Matt Damon as Jason Bourne himself, the action is definitely the best part of this film.
Where the story lacks, Jason Bourne more often than not gives you some insane action to revel at. Sure, it's not the work of storytelling geniuses, but if you're the sort of person who can turn their brain off for two hours and watch wall-to-wall action and explosions, then this film will have you in dreamland. It's not a Michael Bay movie, and Greengrass' style lends a lot to making more vibrant action sequences, but there's no doubt that fans of big action will love this film.
On the whole, I did enjoy this film, and I was able to recognise its flaws and just watch it as a big blockbuster. However, I can't escape feeling disappointed at the film's total failure to tell as intriguing a story as the first three films in the series.
The enthralling mysteries and gradual revelations about Jason Bourne's past were what really separated this series from any other spy thriller. In this movie, however, everything felt a lot more generic, with a much bigger emphasis on action than clever storytelling and patient, gradual character and plot development. Unfortunately, it's that that makes Jason Bourne look pale in comparison to the original trilogy, and those who are expecting yet another engrossing and intelligent thriller will certainly be disappointed.
That said, there are bright moments in the story too. It's not a horrifically dull film, and there are a few details that relate right the way back to The Bourne Identity. What's more is that Matt Damon, Alicia Vikander and Tommy Lee Jones all put in very strong performances to add a degree of gravitas to what is in truth a very clichéd and repetitive story, which was good to see.
Overall, I am disappointed by Jason Bourne, in that it doesn't manage to tell such an enthralling and intelligent mystery as the series' original trilogy, but its top-quality action and strong directing and performances still allowed me to have a lot of fun for two hours.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
How do you make Bourne boring? The original film is probably one of my
favourite films. This one however, I just found myself rolling my eyes
every few minutes especially during the first 30 minutes. After about
1.5 hours I had given up and was just waiting for it to finish.
When are these film makers going to stop it with the totally unbelievable computer hacking rubbish? In one scene they execute a program by typing "run predictive algorithm". In another scene, they spot someone on a surveillance camera and the female character actually says "enhance". Come on! How cliché. What is this, the 1980's??
It isn't total and utter crap. It is as well made as the other Bourne films, except for that annoying, erratic fight scene camera work that seems to be in every action film at the moment, So you can't actually see what is going on. It has some OK action scenes but they do nothing to make it interesting. Nothing really happens. The plot is weak and the film is just plain boring. And I'm a fan of the trilogy! (Not the odd number 4 film which incidentally is better than this)
Matt Damon is as good as he can be I suppose. Tommy Lee Jones, who I like as an actor, doesn't really bring anything to the film because his character is boring as well. I just can't help but feel they cashed in and made another one without really caring if it was any good or not as they knew everyone (me included) would go and watch it because all the others are so good!
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I've seen the other reviews of Jason Bourne and I am starting to
question my own judgement, maybe I am too biased to write a review for
this title. But I can't help it as I absolutely hated the movie. And I
hated it after I had low expectations for the latest title, since I
heard Tony Gilroy wasn't involved in the script.
The story is atrocious, I realize that it is supposed to set the basics for another 15 Bourne movies, but the story is so bad that they decided to overcompensate for it with prolonged action scenes, which are just terrible. It reeks of desperation to watch nothing happens for so long periods, just throwing dust in the eyes of the viewers with effects and low quality action. I realize that this goes beyond Ludlum books, but Greengrass is pretty much willing to do anything to fill the movie, other than to continue with the traditions of the original Bourne series known for Ludlum's excellent story-telling and spy- craft realism.
The fight scenes, they're just terrible. Too fast camera shifting, even more than previous Bourne series, leaves you thinking that those actors are good for nothing amateurs who can't act a fight scene, so you need to make sure the viewer never really sees it.
I loved the first 3 movies, even liked the Bourne legacy, and I adore the books. But this movie is so bad, that it shouldn't be even put anywhere near them. The acting is good, the story is bad and the directing is just painful.
And btw, when you're doing realism spy thrillers, don't make hacking look like a freaking Pokemon hunt. It's just pathetic and unbelievable. Go watch Mr. Robot and think again how hard would be to present the "hacking" with at least proper interfaces instead of embarrassing yourself.
I am a big fan of the Bourne trilogy and was really looking forward to this one. Disappointment would be an understatement. Bad story and bad direction along with a really shaky camera to make it worse. Not sure what Paul Greengrass was thinking when this movie was being made. I guess this movie was made with just one thing in mind i.e. make as much money as possible on the back of one of the most successful trilogies ever made. Matt Damon was no where close to the Bourne we are used to see. Tommy Lee Jones (one of my favourites by the way) did not really put in much into his role. Alicia was OK'ish but I felt like she could have done a lot better and she seemed too young for the role she was playing. For the lack of a zero, I am giving this a 1 rating.
The Bourne franchise started with "The Bourne Identity" back in 2002,
continued with "The Bourne Supremacy" in 2004 followed by "The Bourne
Ultimatum" in 2007. I do not consider "The Bourne Legacy"(2012) part of
this franchise because Matt Damon didn't take part in it and because it
has much lower quality in script and filming. "The Bourne Identity"was
one of the best action movies I had seen at the time and it really made
an impression on me. The sequels were almost as good as the original,
although they didn't have the same vibe. I will not go into details
about this year's film since I don't want to spoil your fun. If you
enjoyed the previous "Bourne" movies you will find "Jason Bourne" at
About the 2016 movie "Jason Bourne", it is an American movie directed by Paul Greengrass(director of "The Bourne Supremacy" and "The Bourne Ultimatum")based on a script by Greengrass and Cristopher Rouse, it had a budget of $120.000.000 which definitely paid off in the movie quality. The movie has a solid cast(Matt Damon, Tommy Lee Jones, Alicia Vikander), good plot, not so good script, no cliché lines, great action/visual effects, it has common sense and it does not defy logic like most action movies do. "Jason Bourne" definitely lives up to the expectations. In this movie we have Jason Bourne knowing who he actually is, cured of amnesia, and battling an even larger enemy than before. There are car chases, well choreographed fight scenes,shootouts,explosions and everything else you would want from an action movie. Even though we are used to seeing Jason Bourne being chased by a government agency we still love it. Unfortunately, this movie has a weak script and plot holes, it is far from the quality of the "Bourne" trilogy. "Jason Bourne" still is one of the best movies released this year and I would confidently give it a 8.0/10.
I have watched over 1200 movies and this one is for sure a good one. I advise you to go watch "Jason Bourne", you sure will enjoy it!
This review may be altered by the fact that I am a "Bourne" fan.
Jason Bourne wants so hard to believe in its own supremacy, forces an
ultimatum of thrills and spills, but ultimately lacks identity.
The original trilogy still stands out as one of the most intelligent post-Cold War spy action thrillers and it mostly succeeded in being the last word in the genre. Its huge success and relevance also gave the Bond franchise a big wake-up call. Amnesia-assassin Bourne is the real thang!
So 9 years later, Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon decided it is opportune time to inject a dose of Bourne-adrenaline and his extreme ways into us. The only problem is that instead of innovation and reinvention, it serves up last night's fried rice paradise. One shouldn't mess with paradise! Greengrass regurgitates out plot points from the three predecessors. From Operation Threadstone to Operation Blackbriar, we get yet another black-ops organisation called Ironhand that wants to stay hidden and will whack anyone to Kingdom Come to prevent its knowledge from getting out. It once again exploits Bourne's amnesia as he glimpses yet another piece of his jigsaw mind-puzzle. We get the same old CIA foggies uttering "Where's Bourne?" and everyone wearing pained expressions as Bourne evades everyone in Athens, Berlin, London and Las Vegas. We get yet again a woman who thinks she know best but Alicia Vikander has none of the gravitas of Joan Allen because she is too young to be convincing.
The screenplay does offer up an promising post-Snowden scenario but it still feels a little too familiar. These issues aside the movie is still a pulsating ride. The pace is relentless and Damon's taciturn Bourne still represents a driving force of reckoning. The spycraft and action set-pieces ooze uber-coolness and you will want to see it again just to catch how they did it. However I have one major complaint - I absolutely abhor the schizophrenic editing and jumpy hand-held shots. The camera never stays still for more than two seconds for you to marvel at the fight choreography and the vehicle mayhem-chases. In my book, hand-held shots coupled with split-second cuts are the cheapest type of cheat codes in action thrillers. With these type of cinematic trickery anybody can be a martial arts exponent and a world-class spy. No class.
This is a good dish of leftovers. It may harken you back to the days of the original trilogy but it never truly pushes the character to a new frontier re-examining his psychological state. In the end, a dish of leftovers will still serve its purpose, especially when you are famished.
|Page 1 of 53:||          |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|