Jason Bourne

photo courtesy of youtube.com

     Jason Bourne is the fourth installment in the main series of the Bourne franchise, and thus bears the weight of carrying on the hallowed Bourne legacy. (see what I did there? Cuz The Bourne Legacy was a thing.) Jason had its work cut out for it long before it ever hit theaters, hoping to revive an old fan-favorite franchise, correct Legacy’s mistakes, and do justice to its critically and financially successful predecessors. And while it does assemble an impressive array of Bourne veterans in front of and behind the screen, Jason Bourne doesn’t quite live up to that lofty mark—though it should still entertain a casual viewer.

     Jason Bourne tells the ongoing story of its titular secret agent, who continues to hide from the CIA and make a humble living for himself in anonymity. His world is turned upside down, however, when old CIA contact and ally Nicky Parsons re-enters his life. With her new information, Bourne realizes he still has more secrets from his past to uncover, and more revenge to deal out.

photo courtesy of thecriticalcritics.com

     So let’s get one thing straight from the get-go. I have a lot of critiques of this film, which I’ll get into shortly, but you should know this up-front: it’s really a fine action film. It’s a fun time at the theater and an enjoyable experience—maybe even worth a repeat viewing. My critiques are mostly leveled from the perspective of the film as an entry in the Bourne franchise, which, unfortunately, it doesn’t quite honor when all is said and done.

     I doubt most viewers will care, however, because even a lesser entry in the Bourne world is head and shoulders above the rest of our action-spy-thriller fare these days. So take everything I say from this point on with a grain of salt and remember that all things considered, it’s a very decent film.

     If nothing else, it absolutely proves that at least until they can provide a counterexample to this rule, there is simply no Bourne without Damon. He is the magic ingredient. And there’s no denying there’s quite a bit of talent in this movie. Matt Damon reunites with Julia Stiles as Nicky Parsons and Paul Greengrass as writer/director. Tommy Lee Jones and Alicia Vikander round out the cast in the essential Bourne role of alternatively sympathetic or ruthless but ultimately inadequate CIA officials.

photo courtesy of collider.com

     What Jason does, it usually does well. It provides plenty of spy-game intrigue and a heavy dose of action, usually in the form of the classic car chase. It also makes a noted effort to update the spy lingo from the early 2000s to include the modern layout of social media and popular gadgetry. For the most part, it succeeds on integrating those changes believably, but it could perhaps have done so with a bit more subtlety.

     Tommy Lee Jones plays CIA director Robert Dewey, and it’s his dealings that often prove to be the most interesting. His various machinations and schemes are the most cutthroat and the most devious, so they’re fun to watch. Under his leadership, the CIA runs as an efficient, slick, and genuinely frightening machine (with the exception of naming its privacy-invading, social-media surveillance operation “Iron Hand”).

     On a critical level, however, it becomes clear fairly quickly that there’s not nearly as much to Jason Bourne as there was to Identity, Supremacy, or Ultimatum. It’s fairly simple actually; Jason is just not as smartly or tightly written. The chilling, compelling heights of lines like Bourne Identity’s “Look at us. Look what they make you give,” are long gone.

photo courtesy of screenrant.com

     The trademark of the series has been its ability to weave together intricate, mature storytelling with an exciting dose of action. This story, by comparison, is nowhere close. SO. MUCH. happens by sheer coincidence. At times, it flies right past convenient-but-believable and lands squarely in “you-have-got-to-be-kidding-me what-is-this-writing.”

The motivations and characterizations, too, are less believable. While Jason’s primary motivation is, I suppose, a plausible one, you can’t help but feel that the whole thing seems below the quick-witted, emotionally-cauterized character we’ve come to know and love.

     As for the CIA, I’m just never sure why they do what they do. After 10 years have passed since Ultimatum, why would they even care about Jason Bourne? Especially when he’s been undisturbed in hiding, and when every time they mess with him things go rather poorly? Director Dewey and Heather Lee (Alicia Vikander) are the two main CIA characters, and both of them do things that are cool...but unmotivated, or at best, unwise.

     The movie often relies on bigger, badder, more action-filled scenes in place of a sophisticated plot. They're even set in chaotic, indiscreet locations to make the whole thing feel more dangerous. Now don’t get me wrong, the other movies had plenty of action too, and even there they were often epic, all-out action brawls. But they were also smart, contained, and served the plot naturally. These action scenes are on a notably larger scale, far more destructive and far-fetched, and less plot-driven. It’s a sell-out (though admittedly, the scenes and settings were pretty cool).

photo courtesy of digitaltrends.com

     Another aggravating point is that this movie follows the same. exact. formula. as the other Bourne movies. The biggest critique of the series as a whole is that they all look pretty similar: group of inept agents behind computer monitors fail to keep up with Bourne as he uncovers yet another critical piece of his story, leading to the death of the inept agent in charge. In the original trilogy, you don’t mind as much because there still seems to be an overall trajectory of the series. But in this new film, it just feels like more of the same of a formula that’s running dry—for no real reason.

     And that’s perhaps the most critical flaw of the film: it just doesn’t seem to justify its own existence. The critical thing for a sequel like this is to make us feel like it earns its own way—as if it’s not just skating by on the reputation of its name for a quick cash-grab. But Bourne doesn’t convince.

     Bourne himself doesn’t feel like the same person. He’s not the slick yet fervent spy we’ve come to know and love. And he’s not a grizzled, 10-years later version. He’s more passionate, less rational, and less super-suave. And as the oh-so-uncreative title tells us, it’s Jason Bourne that the whole thing should be about.

     So. It’s not the greatest, and it isn’t the excellent spy-thriller that its predecessors were. But it manages to be a thrilling, engaging, and worthwhile adventure all the same. 

photo courtesy of wired.com