Over the course of the past fourteen years, we’re five
movies deep into the Bourne franchise, four of which have starred Matt Damon,
with three of those directed by Paul Greengrass. I give you the numbers because
Jason Bourne paints very close to
them, tampering very little with what has worked in the past. Ultimately it’s a
very enjoyable fifth outing, but at the same time it is the
fifth time
we’ve been down this road.
Once more a hidden secret emerges about the mysterious past
of Jason Bourne (Matt Damon), sending him on a quest for answers. Placed in the
crosshairs of the CIA director (Tommy Lee Jones) and his ambitious assistant
(Alicia Vikander), Bourne crosses continents in order to uncover the truth
about one last mystery surrounding the shadowy Treadstone project that gave
birth to Bourne.
Both Damon and Greengrass took a film off, allowing Jeremy
Renner to fill in for
The Bourne Legacy,
and so there’s an atmosphere of “back to your regularly scheduled programming”
at play in
Jason Bourne, right down
to the back-to-basics title.
I had said that the fourth one “may be my favorite
of the Bourne films,” but to be perfectly honest I’m not certain I can
distinguish among them in the mind palace of my memory. To be fair, I’ve seen a
lot of movies in my day, but the
Bourne movies have a way of running together for me.
They all seem to rely on a pretty transparent formula –
Jason Bourne comes out of the cold, discovers a secret from his past, jet-sets
across continents following leads gleaned from snippets of classified documents
(one of which always takes him into a dense crowd where he has to duck
surveillance), and confronts the gatekeeper of secrets at gunpoint, only to
demonstrate he’s still not at peace, slinking off into the sunset. It’s theme
and variation at its most reliable; I can’t say that I’ve been disappointed in
the execution of a Bourne movie yet, this one included, but there’s also
something to be said for the fact that it’s exactly the film promised by the
trailers.
The action sequences are precisely as compelling as before,
more so the further we get into the film. It gets better once the audience has
a better handle on the mysteries of the film and as the direction of the plot
becomes clearer. That is, once we know the stakes,
Jason Bourne is about as good as a Bourne movie’s ever been. Damon
is credible as ever in the role, a welcome return in spite of the ever-reliable
Renner filling in last time around. Tommy Lee Jones is inspired as the
craggy-faced CIA director; no one does dialogue about morality and
greater-goods than Jones. And Vikander, in a role that’s probably built to
extend into sequels (about which, more in a bit), is a credit, just suspicious
enough for us to wish for a bigger role for her.
For two more hours of exciting action and espionage,
Jason Bourne is about as good as it
gets, competently presented but never too taxing. Throughout the film, though,
nearly everyone tells Jason Bourne some version of, “You can’t keep doing this
forever. You’ve got to do something else with your life,” and to that I’d have
to say I agree wholeheartedly. If there’s going to be a sixth Bourne film, it’s
got to move forward (perhaps bringing in Renner as Aaron Cross?) and show us
something we haven’t seen from Bourne. It’s a bit like hearing Paul McCartney
play “Hey Jude” for the fifth time in a row – we know it’s a great song and we
know he plays the heck out of it, but what about “Get Back”?
Jason Bourne is
rated PG-13 for “intense sequences of violence and action, and brief strong
language.” Car chases, explosions, gunfire, and stabbings comprise the
violence, with some degree of blood.
The Man from
U.N.C.L.E. (2015) – My immediate reaction after seeing this film, one
confirmed by consulting with my resident expert (hat-tip to you, pops), was
that this was a film that didn’t need to be called The Man from U.N.C.L.E. to succeed, both in its construction and in
the general lack of major audience appeal for the 1960s television show. Put
another way, this could have been “The Adventures of Jack and Vlad” without
affecting the plot at all. As it stands, though, we have an entertaining action
flick which would have been just as good on its own strengths; slick CIA man
Napoleon Solo (Henry Cavill) begrudgingly teams up with his opposite number
from the KGB, Ilya Kuryakin (Armie Hammer), to guide an East German mechanic
(Alicia Vikander) into the lion’s den to stop a nuclear weapon from falling
into the wrong hands. I very much enjoyed the period piece aspect of the film,
set in 1963, and the trademark Ritchie sense of humor, reminiscent of Ritchie’s
Sherlock Holmes films. While this is
clearly intended as an opening salvo in a franchise which the mainstream
audience didn’t seem to demand any too highly, Armie Hammer acquits himself
finer than he did in The Lone Ranger;
though it’s difficult to see Cavill and not think “Superman,” he’s well-cast as
a smooth operator, a kind of American James Bond. Vikander is her usual engaging
self, though the film waits until the third act to give her more to do than
wear mod fashion; surprisingly, it’s Elizabeth Debicki, late of Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2, who
gets the meatier role as the scheming villainess. In short, I dug it, and I’d happily watch more installments.
