Skip to main content

Why would he come back now?

Jason Bourne
(2016)

(SPOILERS) The Bourne Jasonity, as it is also known, makes one wonder a bit. Did the added luxury of time, notably absent from the pressure-cooker production schedule of the previous Greengrass-Damon Bourne efforts, ultimately have a negative effect on the end result? Does Bourne need conflict and up-against-it difficulties to make something special (there were copious reshoots on Identity too, of course)? Because Jason Bourne isn’t anything special. It’s a serviceable thriller, but as a Bourne movie, and the high standards by which the series is rightly judged, it’s something of a disappointment.


Which leads one to doubly question the wisdom of blowing the cobwebs off Damon’s most iconic role, and leading the faulty-memory man, greying of temples but even more relentless of physique, back into the fray. I haven’t rewatched it since, so I may come up with a different response when I do, but on first impressions the much maligned The Bourne Legacy is a more interesting picture than this one, for all the derided greens and blues and the failure of Jeremy Renner (not really his fault) to fashion Aaron Cross into an effective replacement black ops operative.


Perhaps the greatest failure of Jason Bourne (and that title, so utterly lacking in creativity or enthusiasm, sadly reflects the final product) is its inability to exert a relentless pace, a driving plot that keeps the viewer on the edge of their seat, compelled to push on to whatever may happen next. While there are individually superior set pieces, up to the standards of the series’ past achievements, there is little sense of cumulative, wholer vitality running through the this third/fourth sequel. This is most clear in the piecemeal fashion by which Greengrass and Christopher Rouse have failed to fashion a narrative justifying the re-emergence of the former David Webb.


To wit, he has now been retrofitted with a father in charge of the project, to give Bourne a measure of personal investment, the kind of unnecessary retooling we have also (bizarre to draw this comparison, but symptomatic of studios struggling to feign validation for milking every penny out of a potential or moribund franchise) seen this summer in Finding Dory. More damaging is the dogged desire to be topical, since it is manifested in an almost out-of-touch, dodderingly parental fashion, contrasting to the manner in which such material appeared germane, vital and congruent when addressed in previous pictures.


Greengrass and Damon want to address the surveillance state, but do they have anything to say about it? Not when they come out and say it, no. When they show it, in terms of the added weight that can be brought to bear on tracking Bourne at every turn, it’s incredibly potent (not just watching him, but wiping his secrets-laden laptop simply by hacking a nearby cell phone). When they say it, or overtly plot it, all resonance crumbles. Snowden is name-checked, but if feels like weak bandwagon jumping rather than keen understanding.


There’s the Google-type head of Deep Dream (Riz Ahmed as Aaron Kalloor), whose software/platform has been compromised from the get-go, but is now having qualms about further prospective intrusiveness, which frankly seems like a limp plotline set in motion after the horse has bolted. Bourne should be cynically assuming any and all means of access are already in place, whatever protests service provides offer in the media, and that a head of company doesn’t need to be on board for the intelligence services to have all the access they want. It’s a problem when you get a conspiracy-minded movie that is too level-headed for its audience, that ought to push the conspiratorial aspect further because it isn’t credulous enough. No one would be surprised any more.


It’s also there in the balanced-but-unenticing debate over the push-pull of state surveillance in aid of fighting the forces of darkness (the results are no more than the average media think piece comes up with in terms of rigour). How much is the construct of the argument justified and how much is it manufactured, might be a more provocative place to come from, rather than the lightly poised indifference of Bourne or the judiciously dismissive riposte of Tommy Lee Jones’ CIA Director Dewey, responding to Kalloor’s qualms.


It doesn’t help matters that this plotline barely intersects with Bourne’s mission, at least until the Vegas-set finale, further reinforcing the sense that the movie has been awkwardly built upon a shopping list of elements the makers are seeking to address (or pay lip service to) in order to demonstrate their passionate social consciences, rather than in the service of a clearly defined tale that “needs” to be told.


Greengrass is on firmer ground when referencing the financial crisis obliquely, setting Bourne’s flight from the limelight against a backdrop of Greek unrest (it can be no coincidence either that Nicky Parsons is pulling off her Snowden hack from Iceland, the country that most instantly and overtly suffered fallout from the crisis, and also seen to be one of the few willing to actually prosecute anyone over it). Really, though, this is symptomatic of a movie casting a wide net and coming up short of even a light haul. There’s a would-be assassination at the climax, the blame to rest on a lone Iraqi gunman, and the old corrupt CIA regime is replaced by a new corrupt CIA regime, but Greengrass is unable to summon any drama, urgency or immediacy from the intrigues. 


Of Bourne himself, Matt is dependably grim-faced and taciturn, but the attempts to motivate the character don’t entirely convince. Bourne doesn’t, it appears, now remember everything (like Dory, it comes back to him in carefully apportioned chunks, as the plot demands). There’s an attempt to seed the idea that he might return to the agency, to come home, right up to the point where he pulls a Pamela Landy-esque reveal on new head of operations Heather Lee (Alicia Vikander), but we’re not really falling for it.


The more powerful motivating force, never really picked up on, is the pointless, perfunctory killing off of Julia Stiles’ Nicky (I expected this, as that’s just the sort of thing they would do, and the trailers seemed to be very sequential about her involvement), but it gives him no impetus whatsoever (perhaps they thought it would be too much of a rehearsal of Supremacy, or Lethal Weapon 2 before it, but it’s much worse that Bourne seems entirely unaffected). Nicky is dispatched with kind of incidental disregard reserved for Paddy Considine’s journalist in Ultimatum, ignoring that she had survived as the only other constant in the series besides the title role. It’s not a case of not killing off beloved characters, but at least make it matter.


So Bourne is left doing stuff because he’s Bourne, pretty much, thrown the spectre of a persuasive parental force (Gregg Henry, a good fit facially) and an antagonist who is… laughable. Not that Vincent Cassel doesn’t play him with commendable conviction (if ever they want someone to play Rod Hull in an Emu biopic, he’s a shoe-in), but anyone alarmed at the suspension of disbelief required for Legacy’s lead’s drugs of choice will have a field day with a character who makes it his mission to create as much collateral damage as unfeasibly possible on any given assignment. Most risibly – the kind of thing you worried Star Trek Beyond was angling towards with its crashed starship but recovered from by making it integral – Cassel’s Asset is not only bent on revenge against Bourne for exposing him (and in so doing getting him tortured) as a result of the info dump in Ultimatum (Bourne’s like Snowden see, traitor or hero, depending on your perspective; not so clever that), he’s also the guy who put paid to pappy all those years back.


This is the kind of rudimentary plotting that makes you rather wish they’d made things up on the fly; under a show of hands they’d all surely have gone “Nah, no one would buy that, too convenient” rather than going through a drawn-out discussion where they convinced themselves it was not only acceptable but even a good idea. Also aboard with the pervading sense of unwelcomely familiar tropes is Tommy Lee Jones playing Tommy Lee Jones for the umpteenth time in a Tommy Lee Jones-through-and-through hard-ass authority figure role. There’s precious little point clearing the decks of previous characters if you then go and replenish stocks with ones even more stock.


On the plus side, Alicia Vikander is really good as Lee, striking an impenetrably ambivalent tone that turns out to be all about climbing the career ladder and nothing to do with what’s best for her country (or Bourne). Scott Shepherd, who made a lot from a little in last year’s Bridge of Spies, is unable to repeat the miracle as National Intelligence Director Russell, while Riz Ahmed is also defeated by slipshod characterisation (the last we see of him is a face palm moment where he informs the media he will not further divulge the cancer at the heart of Deep Dream, as if the most elementary guesswork couldn’t reach a conclusion).


And what of the action? Bourne indulging bare knuckle boxing, taking out opponents in a single punch, is what we want to see, the instinctive machine mind that knows what to do in any given scenario, and the early conflagration in Greece, as he appropriates a police motorcycle and avoids protesters, police, CIA personnel and the Asset is thrillingly coordinated. Later in London, his subterfuges enabling a meeting with a surveillance operative (Bill Camp) are also the stuff of classic Bourne lateral thinking.


Unfortunately, the final car chase along the Vegas strip fails to live up to Diamonds Are Forever. The preceding piece of Bourne play, as he bursts into the convention hall (holding a debate on privacy rights) and distracts the Asset, is far superior. Whose bright idea was it to have a SWAT vehicle up against a Dodge Charger, as the altercation never feel other than silly? It’s partially saved by a superlatively brutal fight in a tunnel between the two veteran operatives, but Bourne isn’t a series that satisfies through being glass half full.


The picture I most came away thinking off was not prior Bournes but the previous damp squib collaboration between Damon and Greengrass, Green Zone, a movie with many commendable elements, but ultimately stymied by its desire to be pertinent, relevant and laudable, and which arrived virtually obsolete as a result of such misconceived diligence. For all that Greengrass can be fired up and propulsive in his political conscience (Bloody Sunday) he can equally come across as slickly superficial (Captain Phillips). I’d have taken slickly superficial in Jason Bourne, or just plain slick. Honestly, it might have been more interesting, all told, to have seen that second Aaron Cross movie, with the promise of Justin Lin at the helm (particularly given Lin’s work on the recent Star Trek movie). I know, I know, I’ll just keep popping those Greens and Blues.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

This guy’s armed with a hairdryer.

An Innocent Man (1989) (SPOILERS) Was it a chicken-and-egg thing with Tom Selleck and movies? Did he consistently end up in ropey pictures because other, bigger big-screen stars had first dibs on the good stuff? Or was it because he was a resolutely small-screen guy with limited range and zero good taste? Selleck had about half-a-dozen cinema outings during the 1980s, one of which, the very TV, very Touchstone Three Men and a Baby was a hit, but couldn’t be put wholly down to him. The final one was An Innocent Man , where he attempted to show some grit and mettle, as nice-guy Tom is framed and has to get tough to survive. Unfortunately, it’s another big-screen TV movie.

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Captain, he who walks in fire will burn his feet.

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen returns to the kind of unadulterated fantasy material that made Jason and the Argonauts such a success – swords & stop motion, if you like. In between, there were a couple of less successful efforts, HG Wells adaptation First Men in the Moon and The Valley of the Gwangi (which I considered the best thing ever as a kid: dinosaur walks into a cowboy movie). Harryhausen’s special-effects supremacy – in a for-hire capacity – had also been consummately eclipsed by Raquel Welch’s fur bikini in One Million Years B.C . The Golden Voyage of Sinbad follows the expected Dynamation template – blank-slate hero, memorable creatures, McGuffin quest – but in its considerable favour, it also boasts a villainous performance by nobody-at-the-time, on-the-cusp-of-greatness Tom Baker.

Archimedes would split himself with envy.

Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger (1977) (SPOILERS) Generally, this seems to be the Ray Harryhausen Sinbad outing that gets the short straw in the appreciation stakes. Which is rather unfair. True, Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger lacks Tom Baker and his rich brown voice personifying evil incarnate – although Margaret Whiting more than holds her own in the wickedness stakes – and the structure follows the Harryhausen template perhaps over scrupulously (Beverly Cross previously collaborated with the stop-motion auteur on Jason and the Argonauts , and would again subsequently with Clash of the Titans ). But the storytelling is swift and sprightly, and the animation itself scores, achieving a degree of interaction frequently more proficient than its more lavishly praised peer group.