Jason Bourne

Der einzige Grund, warum Bourne fortfährt, besteht darin, dass er nicht in der Lage dazu ist aufzuhören, und die Fans nicht wollten, dass er aufgibt. Greengrass hat keine ideale Motivation gefunden, wobei der Film so unerwartet oft mit dem Zufallsmotiv oder einer etwas gewünschten Umkehrung arbeitet. Selbst die versprochene Überlappung stellt nicht gerade eine der schlauesten dar, sondern eher eine Reihe offensichtlicher Motive (jedesmal, wenn in einem Film der Name Snowden erklingt, stirbt irgendwo ein Kätzchen). Doch Jason ist immer noch ein interessanter Charakter, wobei das Dilemma, ob es besser ist, eine künstliche Identität anzunehmen oder jemand zu sein, den man eben nicht ganz kennt, ist immer noch cool. Und der humanoiden Greengrass GPS gelingt es immer noch im Chaos entzückende Muster aufzufinden. Das ganze kann mit dem Niveau der letzten beiden Teile der Trilogie nicht mithalten, doch es ist immer noch ein reines Technothriller-Vergnügen, und sowas kann eben nur Paul. Übrigens ist Alicia abermals großartig stellt im Vergleich zum kontaktwilligen Schlägertyp Jason einen würdigen Gegenpol dar. Seine offensive Flucht wird mir nicht so schnell langweilig werden. Mit Adrenalin, welches ich im Kino vermisse, wird hier immer noch regelrecht und munter gedealt. (28.07.2016)

Es ist keine ausgesprochene Rückkehr zu Bournes Wurzeln, es ist eher ihr neuer Spross, der zum Glück nicht so gewöhnlich ist, wie manche leider behaupten. Bourne hat hier die interessante Rolle einer unfreiwilligen Marionette. Einmal zieht da jemand die Strippen, dann wieder dort ein anderer, je nach dem, wie es gerade passt. Ich bin froh, dass es noch genug zum Erzählen gab und dass es wieder Paul Greengrass erzählt. Dank ihm und natürlich dank Matt Damon passieren in den Kinos wieder tolle Sachen – z. B. die Londoner Observierung oder die Autoverfolgung am Ende (eine bessere werde ich dieses Jahr auf der großen Leinwand wahrscheinlich nicht mehr sehen). PS: Das Bourne Vermächtnis, das schon vor vier Jahren überflüssig war, sieht jetzt noch überflüssiger aus. (06.08.2016)

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. (29.07.2016)

A proven director? Yes. A star from previous episodes? Yeah. Excited fans? After a not-so-good spin-off, they're just itching for a rematch. Perfect conditions for a hit. Perfect conditions for a good movie, but there is one thing they must not screw up, the story. And unfortunately Jason Bourne’s, the story grinds and quite a lot. I haven't read the script, so I won't say that it's bad, but the fact remains that the return of an agent who can't even rely on his own memory didn't turn out as I'd hoped. Matt Damon is still in form and the Greengrass action doesn't get old. The action scenes are properly long and build up nicely, transitioning seamlessly from silent stalking on the city streets to uncompromising chases. Just the way we like it. It's good to watch until someone starts talking. In fact, the film's plot is so trite and so B-movie that you might forgive it for Dolph Lundgren, but not for a thriller that aspires to be the thriller of the year. (15.05.2017)

As if Jason Bourneʼs stories had become routine. And not only his stories but also the action. And on top of it all, the action starts to have some balls only at the end of the movie, at the moment that is unBourne-like set in the USA. However, it is true that I am quite critical of the movie. On the other hand, I think that the first and second installments had at least some story while this one is only a series of escape – find – kill. Even though the Paul Greengrass’ filmmaking craft is still pretty on point. I just need something enlivening and Alicia Vikander isn’t going to salvage it, because you get exactly what you would expect from her in a spy thriller. Nothing more, nothing less. (24.12.2016)