Jason Bourne (2016) Poster

(2016)

User Reviews

Review this title
639 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
Lacks intelligence of all previous
franciscote-9099329 July 2016
Lacklustre story line lacking intelligence, dialogue, and character development.

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.
307 out of 376 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Jason Bourne walks for 2 hours
gigs154130 July 2016
Warning: 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.
255 out of 312 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
More "Where's Waldo" than Jason Bourne
A_Different_Drummer29 July 2016
Warning: 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.

---------------ADDENDUM NOV 2017-------------

If you are curious to see the kind of film that JASON BOURNE (2016) should have been in a perfect world -- or a parallel universe, or whatever -- than have a quick peek at ATOMIC BLONDE 2017. Presumably when you read this review in the far future, you can snag it on streaming media or DVD or possibly even beamed directly into your cortex. Theron, for the first 2/3 of the film, is the Bourne of old. She is an agent with a mission and a purpose and a predisposition for removing obstacles from her path with the same ease a gardener pulls weeds from a flower bed. And the script is intelligent and purposeful. Yes, she has more estrogen than the Bourne we are used to (well, a LOT more, actually) but, other than that tiny discrepancy, ATOMIC BLONDE is more a Bourne sequel than this soppy entry.
486 out of 629 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
What a shame, Just plain boring. (my review doesn't give any plot away)
elboy30 July 2016
Warning: 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!
140 out of 176 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Poor story and even worse directing
iliyanyankov30 July 2016
Warning: 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.
138 out of 174 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
As an action movie, it's great. As a true Bourne-like thriller, not so much.
themadmovieman27 July 2016
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 concerned.

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.
190 out of 248 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Pathetic!!!!!
dimeconcac30 July 2016
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.
363 out of 510 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Lack of intelligence in the intelligence community
goodtime-336-7408130 July 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Greengrass returns to the Bourne franchise and brings with him the same cameraman with Parkinsons that he has used all to often in the past. The shaky camera thing is so old that it ruins what is an already pretty average movie. As with all previous Bourne movies this one suffers from credibility gaps but even more so than in the past. Even the Jeremy Renner version was better than this effort. The biggest problem I have with this offering is that even though Bourne and Nicky Parsons are portrayed as sharp as tacks and well versed in all aspects of covert ops and computer surveillance, especially facial recognition capabilities, they still run around with faces uncovered and wonder why the bad guys keep catching up with them. They keep making rookie mistakes all through the move. The first half was agony to sit through. Unless you are an intellectual midget with no eye for detail I'd save my bucks and wait for the free to air TV showing if you must see it!
59 out of 77 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Worst Bourne Yet
samuelrduncan30 July 2016
Warning: Spoilers
This was the worst Bourne flick yet and there is no way I will watch another one.

What began as a refreshing alternative to the stale James Bond franchise has become even less imaginative, and the latest installment was nothing but formulaic schlock.

Bourne staples:

  • Bourne living in a 3rd world country minding his own business when something happens to make him leave his life and reengage with the CIA


  • Female CIA agent sees the good in Bourne while the evil white males in charge conspire to kill him and infringe somehow on civil liberties in the name of freedom


  • Bourne has flashbacks and finds out more about his past


  • Multiple car chases


  • Multiple scenes of Bourne taking out guys with guns in close combat, in many cases taking their guns


  • Use of tracking devices


  • Use of hacking


  • Bourne outwits pursuers after arranging public meet


  • Bourne takes a train somewhere


  • Aerial shots of European capitals


  • Bourne races the clock


  • Bourne tempted to "come in"


  • Bourne is faced with another agent called an "asset" who is almost as good as him and will never lose him in a chase but never quite good enough to beat him in a hand to hand fight to the death


  • Bourne thumbs through old passports


  • Bourne fights on despite serious injuries
53 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
This is a good dish of leftovers
ctowyi28 July 2016
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.
127 out of 179 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The worst Bourne movie.
mrudinec8 August 2016
I re-watched the old ones before going to see this in the theater, and in my opinion, this is the worst Bourne movie.

My 2 main problems with this one:

1) The plot is stupid. The whole "hacker" part was probably written by somebody who's still using a typewriter. All the previous films had a computer room full of furiously typing agents too, but those were thankfully never the main focus. The focus used to be on Jason Bourne's ability to creatively solve seemingly hopeless situations. This film has it the wrong way around. It tries to be about computer hacking and data privacy, and does all of that wrong too.

2) The cinematography is awful. Watching this on a big screen will give you motion sickness. You can never tell what's going on during most of the action scenes, because it's all shaky cam close-ups.

Do yourself a favor, and watch the 3rd one again instead. The perfect end of the trilogy.
88 out of 126 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Worst cinematography Ever!
jb07-660-9443958 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Jason Bourne hurt my eyes.

I had to look away from the action sequences because the blurred confusion of light and colour gave me a headache. The almost steady establishing shots were way too brief, and were gone before you had a chance to marvel at the city of Rome or Athens laid out before you.

I've rated it awful because it is the only movie I've thought about asking for my money back - the camera work is really that bad.

The same old story is getting very old. Surely the CIA would have brought Bourne in by now, instead of wasting all their time, energy and agents, trying to kill him?

Does the CIA have external enemies, or does this series of movies suggest it is a self perpetuating entity that spends all its resources fighting among itself?

As for the way the agency can see and hear everything, that too is getting old. The fog of war is real, and should play a part in the story. If only Uber drivers could get to you as fast as the agency can get to Bourne, in the middle of a city, during rush hour, it would be amazing.

This tired old horse of a movie series died from flogging quite a few movies back. It is time for Bourne to move on, and with a much better cinematography director.
50 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Surgeon's warning: Don't watch this from the first row
angelccampoamor31 July 2016
Warning: Spoilers
The last Borne entry is just OK. Summer entertainment movie, no more, no less. On the bad side: The script is pointless and tricky, Alicia Vikander sounds really like a bad actress and the fist fights are poorly staged. But the worst problem here is the direction: one gets really tired of that shaky camera. I watched the movie from the 5th row of the Multiplex (escaping form the pop'corn munchies) and 5 minutes into the movie I was feeling dizzy alright. I cannot imagine what could be the effect of watching it from the first or second row.

Just two more objections: Can anyone tell me what car is Bourne driving in the final chase? I definitely want that brand, as it seems kind of unbreakable after all it goes through!! (even if it has a major drawback: air-bags don't seem to work at all). And the last one: Really??? Can a SWAT truck do that??? C'mon, guys!! You really stressed out my suspension of disbelief muscles with that!!!
90 out of 130 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Worst of the Bourne series
bsp-polavarapu1 August 2016
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.
208 out of 328 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Avoidable Garbage
nzvikram30 July 2016
Warning: Spoilers
The biggest let down. I love the Bourne series including legacy which was without Matt Damon. This movie is poorly thought out and has a weak script which we all have seen and heard before. Camera work is what really put me off - show me perspective, not in your face cameras with flashing lights. The camera work is so poor at times that even the car chase on the Vegas strip with tanks and RVs is less exciting and a poorer construct than the slow little red car chase in Paris in Bourne Identity. Tommy Lee Jones looks like 95 years old and the woman trying to get his job looks like 25 !! How believable is that ? The only thing good was the movie moves quite quickly from city to city - sometimes without reason. Save your money and watch something else.
164 out of 260 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Jason Bourne is totally beat up by "three cuts per second" and shaky cam
taikuriristiharju2 August 2016
I am a fan of the original trilogy. They are one of the best action-spy movies of the last 10 years but sadly the new movie in the series isn't nearly as good. I would go as far to say that it was just made in hopes of making quick buck.

The script is really bad. Its easy enough to fool but it doesn't really expand the previous movies in the series any way... Jason Bourne has been missing for years, he comes back without a clear reason, does his thing and goes back to where he came... The movie really didn't need to happen at all.

The worst thing however is the action scenes and they are plenty. I have NEVER seen so many cuts done in action scenes. Camera easily cuts 3-4 times EVERY SECOND! Add the most shaking camera to that and it is PAIN trying to figure out what is going on in action scenes. This totally ruined the movie for me. It will be the only movie in Bourne franchise that I don't want to see ever again. Save your money until it comes from TV
21 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not as good as the "Bourne" trilogy but a good action movie!
Cinefil_Original22 July 2016
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 least entertaining.

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.
185 out of 298 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Jason Bourne
brainfast29 July 2016
For any fans of previous installments, do not see this movie. It ruins its own legacy with ridiculous and incoherent plot, bad acting, unnecessary characters and totally repetitive action sequences we all seen before. Especially acting in second-hand and I am surprised by wooden performances from usually great actors like Tommy Lee Jones. Matt looks fat, uninspired and totally lacks any energy which was so captivating in previous movies. Vincent should be most un-scary killer in the history of cinema. Alicia is utterly unbelievable as a CIA cyber-chief. Previous episodes, while stretching imagination a bit ( this is Hollywood at the end), at least tried to portray all action, reasoning behind it and technology as possible. Jason Bourne discards this completely and transforms it in Marvel-type action hero movie. Again, do not see it in theater, save some bucks and rent it for boring evening with fast-forward remote nearby.
83 out of 133 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Not a great Bourne movie
dev_alok31 July 2016
Warning: Spoilers
To me Bourne movies changed the face of a genre. After the Bourne movies James Bond couldn't remain the same and had to morph to meet the new standards. In this movie, I found that there was nothing new. Head of agency is again evil. Him and the asset that is going against Bourne are conveniently the ones who also killed his father. Female lead was not well developed. We are not sure what her motives are and where she is coming from. Chases and fights were stale and we have seen those in previous Bourne movies. Overall this will not be a movie that will live up the reputation of other Bourne movies. It feels like a movie that was made in haste to cash the reputation of this series.
32 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A violation of the Bourne Trilogy's reputation
Martin0105 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
The main story in the trilogy was all about Jason trying to find out his true identity. That search came to an end in The Bourne Ultimatum (2007), answering all the questions and bringing the series to a satisfying closure. The negative critical response on The Bourne Legacy (2012) should have been a warning for any filmmaker with plans for a reboot or spin-off. When they announced the release of Jason Bourne (2016) I did not have high expectations of it. I found it unnecessary and close to impossible to create a successful installment without infecting the reputation of such a great movie franchise. And my feelings were right. I almost fell asleep in the cinema. The forced plot of tempting Jason Bourne to come out of his retirement was lame, the characters were boring, the acting was nothing special and the car chase scenes were too exhaustive and boring. Save yourself some time, don't watch this movie, even if you liked the Bourne Trilogy. It will ruin the way you'll remember Jason Bourne.
22 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
no plot, shaky camera work ruins the film
madelinehind4 August 2016
The Bourne films have always suffered from director Greengrass' inability to shoot a coherent action sequence, but in Jason Bourne (2016)the problem increases tenfold.

All of the action is almost unwatchable, and literally impossible to follow,in fact even scenes of dialogue only- and there are LOTS of long scenes of dialogue- are spoiled by the directors insistence on randomly zooming in and out of the film.

Even more than this, Jason Bourne (the film) suffers because Jason Bourne ( the character) has completed his story.The Bourne Ultimatum concluded the Bourne trilogy very satisfyingly.

This film just seems like a petulant insult to Tony Gilroy ( Greengrass and Gilroy famously don't get on), or a cynical cash grab. Probably both.

Everything in this feels like deja vu: you've seen it all before in other Bourne films.

Alicia Vikander is the stand out acting wise. Damon does his usual schtick. Vincent Cassel does nothing and Julia Stiles embarrasses herself.

Wait for it on TV
23 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Terrible camera shooting. Shaking and too close.
tgflag13 August 2016
Quite "shaking" the dang camera so we can see. Absolutely terrible camera action and you can hardly make out the action scenes. I was SO disappointed as it was hard to make out what was going on. WHY does it have to be like that? Back the camera up, quite moving it, and enjoy the action. Even if you had to insert CGI, it would have been better than this.

AND, even the last 2 of the Bourne Trilogy was a bit much with the camera. I just don't get it. I was SO looking forward to this movie. As far as it being just another Jason Bourne, isn't that what we want? The story was okay, but by far, no forethought with Jason. Things were random. And remember what Nicki said? "Jason doesn't do random". Well, he did random in this movie and it took away from his character.

Not a good movie at all. I NEVER go to the movies. I haven't been in over 10 years. I just wait for them to come out DVD as I have a home theater system at home. But I wanted to see this SO bad I couldn't wait.

Well, I should've have waited. What a disappointment. Does anyone know where we can write to complain about the camera action? Don't they get it ?!
19 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Same old garbage
jerry_sebastian7 August 2016
I would so like a refund for our movie expense.

NOTHING was remotely believable... even down to the screen that says, " Use SQL to hack into the CIA computers.." Or something like that...

I hated the movie. Matt Damon looks great as a rugged, action star. He needs a different vehicle to showcase his acting talent. This movie doesn't give him an opportunity to provide the nuances in personality that we humans bring to the world we live in.

The action sequences were implausible.

Tommy Lee seemed out of place and would be better suited for a horse and buggy movie.
22 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
WHY is VOMIT CAM still a thing in 2016?
I want to watch spy thriller. I don't expect superb plot, just classic Bourne quality will suffice.

Instead, I got served some boring, stomach churning, UN-WATCHABLE 3rd grade thrill rides...

...with pointless intentionally extra-grating violent chaos sound effect to top it off!

Seriously? This is how people win awards and next big projects these days?

The camera simply refuses to let you ignore its SICKED, EVIL PRESENCE - even during quiet restaurant latte-sipping white table cloth discussion scene! No, the camera cannot STAY STILL!

The sound has to be cranked to 11 so that old grannies can hear cars and humans in the process of being DESTROYED!

Apparently, someone reckons bad sound and bad cam work equals bad-ass!

Because the camera guy is so ruined by 90's drugs and partying and golfing his hands are shaking from premature arthritis!

Oh wait maybe Vomit Cam treatment is actually a necessity! If the cam stays steadily focused on scene subjects, we will notice how EMPTY the plot and character design is?

You know, the insecure but loud types, how they refuse to speak properly, refuse to let you look them straight in the eye and make big pointless gestures to distract you from their vacuity?

Oh it's not some little insecure guys doing this to us?

It's actually some OVER-CONFIDENT OVERPAID BIG NAME director and his VIP cam guy buddy showing of their so freaking cool over-the-top latest hottest virtual reality style run-down-everything- in-your-path destruction joy rides?

Their sons should introduce them to VR360 car racer games with 100X more smooth and steady cams?

Who let the grit-craving flabby-brain aging cowboys out of the retiree golf clubs?

Hollywood degenerating into pseudo-angry old man town stuck in (their still unresolved) teenage angst mode?

Is this how they try to relate to young people? With their mental vomit and noise plus plus?

I would just laugh this off if I didn't pay extra to watch Bourne in the premier theater!

Plush sofas and HD sound system just made the whole dizzying ugly audio visual experience all the more vomit inducing and painful!

Sheesh, Matt Damon, what have you done to your baby franchise? It's growing into a loud ugly monster and you don't care?

I'm not even that fussy. I'd pay to watch anything entertaining, just for the ride. It doesn't matter if it's Zootopia or shallow mainstream aging cowboy spy thriller like James Bond. Bourne series a few notches of plot realism integrity above James Bond series.

But now it is hijacked. a freak show of VIOLENT CAM MOVING THROUGH THE "BEST" MOST GRITTIEST DESTRUCTIONSSS!

Maybe I'm just too soft, I don't understand the fun in that sort of mental ejaculation.

Maybe spy thriller means random excuses to simulate speeding through explosive riots in European public square full of perishable human meat.

Maybe there's a positive angle in psychotically jamming the latest product placement posh car into hotel lobbies and unsuspecting CBD pedestrians.

Maybe it's cool to do ANYTHING it takes- including risking the lives of the commoners - all in the name of catching your personal villain.

LOL Matt Damon. Project Greenlighting anything these days? Feeling broke?

So heroic and worthy. It is important, I'd risk everything. I'd come out of my unnecessarily brutal and muscular and sweaty existence, back into the limelight of spy cams. Because?

I WANT ANSWERS!

I don't have to worry too much, the agency is obsessed with me, because I'm The Only One. Those spy chicks, they always risk their own lives for me, for really personal reasons. Because I'm hot, so muscled up for my age, I guess.

Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible has more humor and humanity than the latest Matt Damon. I mean Bourne. Tom's hero actually laughs at the ridiculous one man anti-hero trope, actually team-play, actually tries to do good, actually mocks the (fantasy pretending to be realism spy) genre.

Bourne? Now he tries not to run over too many dogs and pedestrians while he pulls his self-serving stunts.

How noble of the new Bourne. Noble enough I guess, in the half blind half deaf perspective of aging cowboys co-producers.

Matt Damon totally wasted his clout, esp when he charges a million a line. Surely he would notice how awful the production quality is, how pointless violence brings him down.

But never mind, it's not Damon's job to save the franchise. This genre is a glut of cliché upon cliché?

If Damon is retiring Bourne then I understand. The aim is achieved.

Tommy was a yawn and the visual rep of post-addict post-arthritis aging cowboy directors with nothing but gritty bravado to offer.

To watch it or not, depends fully on your tolerance for Vomit Cam. Not for pregnant women that's for sure. I wish I watched it at home, so I could frequently go to the fridge when the most exciting as in boring Vomit Cam sequence start.

Warning: there are 3 of those too-long bore Vomit Cam sequences.

Those undeterred, watch it for Matt's new born physique, Cassel's sharpness and the subtle lethal Vikander, the sole redeeming thing of this cowboy wasteland effort.
145 out of 252 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Who asked for this?
calle_25654 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
So... I haven't seen a Bourne-film since two. But I decided to see if I was missing out on something, after 30 minutes in I got several flashbacks to why I stopped following this series.

In this mishmash there is shaky-cam to simulate gritty action (however, it makes the movie look like a five year old with parkinsons was in charge of the cinematography). Close ups so close that I can count the blackheads on Tommy Lee Jones' face, 46. The direction is, nicely put, cluttered; another black-ops to uncover (is not uncovered?), Jason's father's murderer tries to kill Jason (killer is killed), and some hypocritical side thing about a social media mogul not wanting to play ball by selling the information about his users to the CIA, but that can't happen to the CIA, especially not for free!

But in all seriousness, if you like the Bourne series by all means this is probably the movie for you. I just don't see the action for all the close ups, makes the whole point of an action film to fail if you ask me, so does the shaky-cam. Also, the script seems to be lost within itself and leads it back to square one, progress...

Enjoy it, hardcore fans.
14 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed