[#55 in 100 Films in a Year 2013]
I'll write a full review of this on 100 Films in due course (hopefully by the end of the week, as it's on Sky Movies Premiere from Friday and I do like to tie in to things); but for now I'll say that it's massively disappointing. It puts all my criticism of Ultimatum yesterday in the shade, because (as I said) that's only a smidgen off the other Bourne films, while this is leagues apart. For much of the running time it's not even good as a generic action-thriller, because it's quite spectacularly dull.Ironically, this is the first Bourne film that leaves the storyline truly open-ended. The other sequels found threads to pick up on, true, but if the series had stopped after either Identity or Supremacy, you had a complete tale (and Ultimatum too, of course). This closes on basically a cliffhanger. And I say that's ironic because it's also the first time that I have no desire to see a follow-up.
I believe they could have continued this series without the character of Jason Bourne -- there's potential in some of the ideas here. But this version just doesn't work, as a compelling film or worthy successor.
Here we go, then: the most uber-praised of all the Bourne movies, which I haven't seen since it reached DVD in late 2007.
The second Bourne film attracted much controversy and debate when it was first released, mainly to do with director Paul Greengrass' style of up-close, fast-cut, handheld photography. Watched nine years on, it doesn't look anything like as radical -- this style has become fairly standard. It's one I think works better on a small screen than in the cinema, I think. A wall-sized picture moving around at such a dizzying rate can be confusing and troublesome, but a smaller TV context makes it more followable.
The last time I watched a Bourne film was when I saw 


