You break the ‘Bourne again’ headlines: nearly a decade on from The Bourne Ultimatum, Matt Damon and writer Director Paul Greengrass have reunited for Jason Bourne, another driving yarn about the CIA-memory-impaired, the rogue super-spy. The character was born debut in a Robert Ludlum novel, and his canvas, The Bourne identity was directed by Doug Liman, but the series is now associated so closely with Damon and Greengrass, if someone else makes a Bourne movie, The Bourne legacy, with Jeremy Renner – it feels like a karaoke version of a classic song. Jason Bourne, on the other hand, is the sound of the band.
Since we have seen him for the last time, Bourne has lived for years off the grid as a bare-knuckle boxer. It is disappointing that he is from a more productive use of his phenomenal abilities, but the idea that he was traumatized from his time as a brainwashed black-ops killer. The fact that the viewers will see a shockingly muscular Damon with his top off, I’m sure, an unintended bonus.
Anyway, Bourne anonymous existence is interrupted, when the followed his old CIA buddy Nicky Parsons (Julia Stiles) him until some new information about his hazy past. Bourne is curious enough to investigate further, but his requests get upset, the Director of the CIA (Tommy Lee Jones, the deployment of the air of elder-statesman gravitas, and deviousness, Brian Cox, Chris Cooper, David Strathairn and Albert Finney brought rates). He believes that Bourne should be the dispatch of an assassin known only as The plant (Vincent Cassel, who is an asset in fact), whereas his crafty Lieutenant (Alicia Vikander) argues that the Bourne convinced, again in the Agency.
No one else can construct a fight sequence that is so head-spinningly fast, but is it also possible to follow
It is like old times. Once again, Bourne halftone of a gray and gloomy European metropolis to the other in a breathtaking speed. Once again, he more than half-a-step ahead of his enemies. And, once again, Greengrass, the action is staged with a bone-jarring immediacy, with shaky hand-held cameras, and rat-a-tat editing, the viewer made the impression as they could be, by a stray fist or ball, in every moment. Greengrass hectic, captivating style has been much imitated since, The Bourne conspiracy, wrote the rules of the secret agent genre in the year 2004, but no one else has his ability to construct a battle sequence, so head-to-follow spinningly fast and fragmentary, but what is also possible.
Just to show the imitators how it is done, he puts the film in the first longer piece in the middle of an anti-government demonstration in Athens, and the confidence with which he orchestrated the chaos is amazing. If you choked once seen Bourne drum by the masses of demonstrators and police in a city that, through the smoke and the tear gas, you will never be able to rewatch 007 daft chase in Spectre, through a deserted Rome, without smugly.
Bourne, Jason Bourne
But even if Jason Bourne has you on the edge of your seat, it is still to shake hard to get the feeling that it’s not as satisfying as the previous films. In part, it is simply a question of the law of diminishing returns. Greengrass and Damon (and, to a lesser extent, Liman), a positive-scientific work of the refinement of the Bourne movie formula. You know exactly what elements it has, in order to distinguish from any other spy thriller on the market. The downside of this precision, though, is that you don’t leave a lot of room for maneuver.
It is not so, if you can share it Bourne-ski-jump of a cliff, or hop on a space shuttle, or acquire a taste for vodka Martinis, and risque one-liners. You can’t let him do anything that he is not in The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum – and there is no way he can’t electrifyingly as he in the. After two films that have earned it, “supreme” and “ultimate” in the title – more or less – all the consequences-the inevitable seem like a less impressive retread of what we’ve seen before.
Maybe the film should be called “Chasin’ Bourne”
Sometimes, repetition makes you roll your eyes. Is it not ridiculous that, for example, the CIA is still on the hunt for Bourne, a task they first had a crack in The Bourne identity 14 years ago? If you consider how much money, man-power, and futuristic technology that you have at your disposal in the film, you think they would have captured him well – and yet, here you are spending a fortune, and fight countless innocent bystanders in the attempt. What a palaver. Wouldn’t it make more sense if you are concentrated to catch the terrorists, instead?
But the problems not to do with Jason Bourne all to be breeding familiarity breeds contempt. There are a couple of other off-key notes, not, that, after they reunited, the band is playing in tune. For one thing, the Greengrass resorts to more spy-movie hokum, as he used to: more jargon, absurd, quick-computer-uploads, more scenes in which someone looks at a photo on a screen, and barks, “enhance!” and the blurred image magically comes into pin sharp focus.
For another thing, it seems as if Greengrass is trying to be two movies at once. One of them is about Bourne and his identity, in the same way as the previous ones were. But the other is a high-tech cyber-conspiracy that has nothing to do with him. It is curious that Jason Bourne should have the full name as the title, as Bourne almost a minor character with less screen time, less depth and less dialogue than ever before. Maybe the film as “Chasin’ Bourne should take place”.
The non-Bourne-plot concerns the CIA’s shady dealings with a Silicon Valley entrepreneur (Riz Ahmed), whose social networking service is more popular than Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. Inspired by Wikileaks and Edward Snowden, it is a story that turned in to many movies already. After all, the villain’s scheme, includes “full-spectrum-monitoring – watch all, all the time.” But it was not what had planned to be Blofeld in Spectre? You know that something is wrong with a Bourne film, if it lags a year behind Bond.