Went to see a much anticipated Jason Bourne last night. Was not a pleasant experience.
Spent $20 and I probably stayed for 30 minutes of the movie. I became annoyed and then angered over multiple things, looked over to my wife and said “Do you want to go home?” Asked if I was sure, I said, “I would much rather be home with our dogs then have to sit through the rest of this.” My only regret is that I didn’t get to hear ‘Extreme Ways’ start playing at the end.
Incredibly disappointed. I am a huge fan of the first three Bourne films. Legacy was terrible. I had hoped for this to be a return to what was good. Greengrass and Damon would indicate that it was, but the truth is different. From what I actually saw, Matt Damon was fine. He didn’t write it, so he can’t help that he barely speaks, but his physical presence was pretty vintage Jason Bourne. Greengrass became the problem.
I will enumerate below and try to keep it pretty generalized and spoiler free. Since I saw maybe a quarter of the film and have read about the rest, I really don’t know many spoilers anyway.
Calling this a Shaky Cam film does not do justice to its constant and mind numbing presence. It was the overarching visual style of this movie. Greengrass is known for employing it, but I have never, ever seen it so bad and so omnipresent. Supremacy and Ultimatum had some, but it was mainly during action and, as I recall, even more coherent. In Jason Bourne, the shaking started immediately and did not let up. Even scenes at Langley in a situation room or around a conference table had a constantly moving, POV type shot. I distinctly remember a scene where the audience was viewing something stationary and the camera just shook for no apparent reason. Completely unnecessary. Action scenes were 98% incomprehensible. Combining the shaky cam with very quick editing compounded the effect to the point that you could hardly process images as they blurrily came across the screen. One other review I read aptly called Greengrass’ technique “photographic impressionism”.
Julia Stiles was particularly uninspired. She has, in times past, seemed a little distant as Nikki Parsons, which I chalked up to her character. However, this time her dispassion was painfully evident. The one scene in particular I can reference is when she and Bourne meet in the midst of a riot in Athens. She preaches to Bourne in an expository manner about what he has experienced, what he knows and how he feels; somewhat pleading with him. Amid all the chaos around her and the knowledge that she is probably being hunted, she delivers her lines completely flat and deadpan. Her voice doesn’t even modulate. Like she is reading the dialogue for the first time and half-trying to impart some very reserved emotion. It was so blatant to be distracting, especially given their stressful surroundings.
Tommy Lee Jones filled the role of basically every other (very grizzled) old CIA boss we have seen in the franchise. Nothing new there. My wife said he looked like a corpse and I had to agree.
I was somewhat impressed with Alicia Vikander as a young CIA computer data analyst, or something. She acted her part quite well, even if she also filled the established Pam Landy role of naive and idealistic inside circle operative.
Beyond the characters and shaky cam, the story itself was not very engaging. Obviously I didn’t see it through, but the premise appeared to center around an Edward Snowden - Steve Jobs - Apple -like hacking or leaking of classified documents. In trying to update Bourne for a post 2010 world, the story came off as being extremely derivative. When fictional characters or companies are synthesized analogues of recognizable ones in reality, it rubs me wrong. I kinda reminded me of watching Blackhat (with Chris Hemsworth), which coincidentally dealt with computer hacking and exotic locales. That was a lifeless movie itself, so any comparison to it is not a good sign.
There were a number of not-so-subtle callouts in the film that made me feel like my intelligence was being coddled. Or maybe they were just conveniences to visually explain the plot. Either way they were included to make it more understandable, when it really didn’t need to happen. Focusing the camera on certain on-screen words, unnecessary verbal and written exposition and even just the same archetypal characters gave the impression that the audience needs these cues to understand who the characters are and that it is a Bourne movie.
All in all, very disappointed. In one word, the film was incoherent. If you do go see in theaters, which I cannot in good conscience recommend, the farther away you sit the better; less chance of a migraine.
If Frimmel saw this movie, he may not have made it out of the theater alive. Might have blown his brains out while still in his seat. If we don’t hear from him, then we all know what happened.
