Jason Bourne

That Greengrass made a remake of the 'best of' moments from the past doesn't bother me. It bothers me that he did it in the worst possible way, perhaps having Universal using F&F dramaturgists because Jason Bourne is one long action scene lacking any semblance of a meaningful plot. Last time, Gilroy delivered a simple but striking story based on the ambiguous past of an agent with amnesia. This time, it’s a primitive plot with the cheapest overlaps (Snowden, social networks), relegating the protagonist to a field of uninteresting and unnecessary figures who simply happen to pass through scenes, and yet we know that everything will be resolved in an effective way, without any frills or embellishments. This was supposed to keep us, the fans, who were a bit hesitant about the meaningfulness of the sequel, in our seats and massaging the first signal for two hours. But this is wherein the film ultimately loses the most. Yes, Greengrass keeps serving up epic action outpourings, but what's the point of them when Ackroyd, unlike Wood, doesn't know how to work the shaky cam? Those half-second shots, which the viewer processed somewhere in the depths of his brain and only with a slight delay appreciated their informational value, don't work this time. As a whole, they lack the flexibility and momentum that the head of the second staff, Dan Bradley, added last time. The result is desperate and predictable... and boring. Quite possibly because Bourne isn't being pursued by a crucial pursuer this time, and the intoxication of his tactical evasion, where he's a step or two ahead of the pursuer, is there. The aging Tommy and the pretty naive girl Alicia are both not up to the task, and Cassel seems to have dropped out of a 1990s B-movie (some of the flashbacks should be punishable). In short, I didn't leave the movie theater this year more pissed off. (07/29/2016)

A continuation I had resisted and wished for a long time that it would never happen, because the original trilogy works as a perfect action-spy diamond that doesn't need further polishing. And as The Bourne Legacy has already shown, continuing from elsewhere is not the best idea. Nevertheless, here we are and as expected, it reminds me so much of Paul Greengrass's previous contributions that it almost feels like a quote. I see the myth in specific scenes or twists, and the plot paraphrases The Bourne Ultimatum, and before all the flashbacks and assumptions settle in, I didn't have a very light feeling, especially when one of the targets is the surprisingly terrible Tommy Lee Jones. But it's still there in Matt Damon's bulldog face, and even though the action this time already slightly steps out of its established boundaries and flirts with (by previous standards) a surprising lack of realism, the physicality and uncompromising nature of it still raise my adrenaline level so much that it stayed high the whole way home from the cinema. Along with Nicky's return, the unreadable Heather, and the incomparable atmosphere, it is indeed an unnecessary digging into something already resolved, but the personal subplot ultimately fulfills its purpose perfectly. 75% (07/28/2016)

It's not really a return to Bourn(e)s roots, it's more of a new offshoot, which fortunately isn't as ordinary as people say it is. Bourne play an interesting role here of an involuntary puppet, whose strings are pulled by many people, and I'm glad that there was still a story to tell about him, and especially that Paul Greengrass is telling it again. Thanks to him and, of course, thanks to Matt Damon, amazing things are happening in movie theatres again - like the London chase or the final car chase (I probably won't see better on the big screen this year).___P.S. The Bourne Legacy, which was useless four years ago, now seems to be even more useless.___P.P.S. Unfortunately, Kateřina Hámová and her subtitles traditionally full of mistakes did not disappoint. Like when one character says, "Put everything on the table..." but the subtitles read "Everything's on the table." Or when the computer command "Run" according to the subtitles does not mean "launch" the program, but "browse". (08/06/2016)

If you come back with something that was once a phenomenon, you won’t please everybody. Jason Bourne doesn’t have nearly as good a story as the previous two parts of the memory jigsaw, but it is still among the best of movies of this genre. The main role in this picture belongs more to Alicia Vikander than to man from the title with the Damonic face, but that is quite refreshing. If she hadn’t let herself down a little toward the end, brighter tomorrows might have awaited us in this series. That would be just dandy… Tommy Lee Jones is a little subdued, he can act better, but he looks really tired. Cassel is unexploited, just a well-known villain’s face. I was surprised by some decisions made by the screenwriters, the story sometimes seems like superfluous stuffing that simply moves the action from one place of interest to another. Athens super, Berlin and London we’ve seen before. Vegas is really over the top, but I preferred the car chase from Supremacy for being more down to earth. To tell the truth, I didn’t need to see this episode. Ending to the trilogy by saying “it’s all your own fault" was quite powerful and resounded in me. But it also works when, right at the beginning, we see our battered hero, and we have an idea that his evolution in the movie might still be interesting, but we just haven’t got there yet. This is just a bridge. Next time, leave Bourne to agree to the offer and send him against Renner. (07/28/2016)

The purest and most classic action film of the four-part series, which once again expertly mixes elements of hi-tech espionage and typically thriller-like, escalating plots, including an over-the-top finale where a police car dismembers dozens of cars in Las Vegas. All that was missing was a bald John Malkovich with an plane and we could have had Con Air 2. Apart from that, the film is not without quite a lot of scripted filler, a somewhat artificial plot and a rather visible aspect of coincidences. On the other hand, it's still the camera-volatile and uncompromising Paul Greengrass, in whose rendition all those CIA spy tricks are terribly entertaining, engrossing and hard to tear yourself away from. Alicia Vikander and Vincent Cassel are also refreshing change. The trilogy is phenomenal and consistent, with the fourth part following close behind. Still exceptional filmmaking, though. (07/31/2016)