JASON BOURNE REVIEWED
“Jason Bourne” is the first Damon starring Bourne film to disappoint me. I saw the first movie on a lark after being thoroughly disappointed with the Ludlum novel. Matt Damon handling a franchise was supposed to be a big deal, but all I had were memories of that book and the off-putting Richard Chamberlin mini-series from the 1980s. Then, I was won over. Whether it was taking down Clive Owen, losing Marie in the car accident or returning to NYC, I was won over by the world of Bourne. Hell, I felt that we finally had a modern trilogy that ended in a satisfactory matter.
Then, the Jeremy Renner side-series attempt started. I’m not a huge Renner fan, but it was a noble effort to tweak a franchise in new ways. Damon had his time and crafted a satisfactory tale with the help of Greengrass and Gilroy. Now, it feels like we’re getting a late cash-in that echoes “Rambo III” and “Star Trek VI” more than it does a Bourne film. While Tommy Lee Jones makes for a great new central heavy, Alicia Vikander feels shoe-horned into her role to give us an evil Nicky of sorts. Prep an international assassin to allow for a talented actor to co-star and you’ve got a cookie cutter movie.
Matt Damon is one of the few true A-List actors that we have left and he shouldn’t have to return to the well like this. Greengrass has done better and he shouldn’t have to resort to stealing from himself to give Universal a late summer movie. Many have brought up the impact that missing Gilroy on scripting duties has caused and I have to agree. What we get onscreen here feels less Ludlum and more Cussler. That’s a literary slam for the nerds in the audience.
If you’re a fan, it’s worth checking out to see what it didn’t work and what did. If you’re a fan of sullen Tommy Lee Jones, then you can probably drink yourself to death by the third act. There’s something for everyone to enjoy.
- 2 hrs and 3 mins
RELEASE DATE: 7/29/16