Now there's a question that needed asking sooner.
Don't get me wrong - I like the character of Jason Bourne. As lethal ex-CIA operatives go, he's a decent bloke. The original trilogy box-set retains its proud place within my DVD collection, each film smart and thrilling to its final frame.
Take The Bourne Identity, which introduced us to the amnesiac hitman. It spliced old-school spy thriller with 21st century tech, as our hero tried to work out who he was and why he was possessed with such deadly skills.Then The Bourne Supremacy had him on the run again from his former bosses, uncovering the types of dubious mission he'd been sent on along with their consequences. Finally The Bourne Ultimatum saw him confront the origins of his violent alias, facing down his tormentors one last time. Well I say last time...
For then this came along, a blatant cash-grab that didn't even bear the same title pattern as the others. Let's call it The Bourne Regurgitation.
Yes, Matt Damon is indeed back as Bourne. And once again he's being tracked down by a morally bankrupt senior CIA official, this time played by Tommy Lee Jones. Plus there's the lower-ranking agent who may possibly be sympathetic towards him, this time played by Alicia Vikander. Throw in the 'asset' currently employed by the CIA, whose job it is to take him out, this time played by Vincent Cassel. Everyone's in place, including Paul Greengrass, whose edgy direction stole James Bond's thunder in the previous two installments. Only one thing is missing - any damn point!
Yes there's a global surveillance element woven in, to give the plot some additional contemporary bite. And what do you know, they've invented an additional chunk of traumatising backstory for Jason to unearth from his addled memory and fret over - just when you thought he'd finally got his head clear!
The film is undeniably classy-looking and well-acted. Jones is craggy, Vikander tenacious and Cassel malevolent (while Matt Damon is silent as Bourne; if he got paid by the word, then each one was expensive).
On one level it's perfectly serviceable entertainment, moving at a good lick and sporting a couple of well-shot action sequences. But in the end everything feels terribly tagged on.
Bourne had faced his demons, paid his dues and settled his scores. His character arc was complete. He should either have been killed off or allowed to go fish near a log cabin in the woods for the rest of his days. Instead he was dragged back for this sorry two-hour coda. How could it not be lacklustre?
Look - we all know the studio is primarily concerned with a film's cash return, but that doesn't make every resurrected franchise a bad product. Take last week's Fantastic Beasts. Warner Bros. must have been properly salivating over a new J K Rowling adventure to produce, but the film was packed with invention and new storylines, so let them rub their avaricious hands together, while we sit back and enjoy. Jason Bourne, however, is your classic triumph of commerce over creativity. Whatever the surface gloss, there is no justification for its existence beyond a financial one.
Seems I'll have to attempt the same trick I pulled off with Rocky V and the second two Matrix titles then. Pretend they don't exist, so I can enjoy the films I love without a bad taste in my mouth. The Bourne 'trilogy'. The Bourne 'trilogy'. Keep saying it. I mean - is 'quadrilogy' even a word?
Don't get me wrong - I like the character of Jason Bourne. As lethal ex-CIA operatives go, he's a decent bloke. The original trilogy box-set retains its proud place within my DVD collection, each film smart and thrilling to its final frame.
For then this came along, a blatant cash-grab that didn't even bear the same title pattern as the others. Let's call it The Bourne Regurgitation.
Yes there's a global surveillance element woven in, to give the plot some additional contemporary bite. And what do you know, they've invented an additional chunk of traumatising backstory for Jason to unearth from his addled memory and fret over - just when you thought he'd finally got his head clear!
The film is undeniably classy-looking and well-acted. Jones is craggy, Vikander tenacious and Cassel malevolent (while Matt Damon is silent as Bourne; if he got paid by the word, then each one was expensive).
Bourne had faced his demons, paid his dues and settled his scores. His character arc was complete. He should either have been killed off or allowed to go fish near a log cabin in the woods for the rest of his days. Instead he was dragged back for this sorry two-hour coda. How could it not be lacklustre?
Seems I'll have to attempt the same trick I pulled off with Rocky V and the second two Matrix titles then. Pretend they don't exist, so I can enjoy the films I love without a bad taste in my mouth. The Bourne 'trilogy'. The Bourne 'trilogy'. Keep saying it. I mean - is 'quadrilogy' even a word?
No comments:
Post a Comment