MovieChat Forums > Jason Bourne (2016) Discussion > People hate on this movie, yet love The ...

People hate on this movie, yet love The Force Awakens.


Both movies served as minor reboots without erasing what was already established. Both were highly anticipated films and only one of them gets any praise from its fans and critics, and sadly it ain't Jason Bourne.

Was this film flawed? Very. Was it anyway bad? No. Was it as good as the last three, yes and no Ultimatum imo is still the best.

Did I give this movie a perfect 10 or a near perfect 9 out of 10? Nope, I give it a 7.5/10 but after viewing it a second time I'll bump it up to a 8 out of 10.

So what is the point of this post? To show not everyone hates it, dislikes it, was disappointed,etc.

And yes this installment tried nothing new, which held it back, but they tried nothing new with TFA and it has a 8.2/10 with hundreds of thousands of votes, hell in a way Lucas's prequels tried to be different in ways TFA never dreampt of (like visual effects).

reply

The problem is not the reboot but the execution. The Bourne series were always grounded in reality (as much as spy films can be anyway) and character development or discovery. Neither of those things happened in this movie. The character development in the earlier films actually seems regress in this movie. From a character who finds out he actually chose this life and now has to deal with the consequences of his own actions to being another victim of the Big Bad CIA who shouldn't have to bear the burdens of his choices anymore.

The Force Awakens treads on the same material (Starkiller Base still makes me sigh in irritation) but crucially you have new characters doing it so the repetition is less obvious. If you made Luke rediscover himself again then there would also be criticism. Also TFA struck a note of nostalgia which is a lot different than being set on repeat.

TFA was a reboot. Jason Bourne was a repeat.

reply

I took the time to read your post carefully, as well as watch both TFA and Jason Bourne. I like them both but they are both in the repeat category for me, I don't see one or the other just being a reboot.

reply

"The Bourne series were always grounded in reality (as much as spy films can be anyway) and character development or discovery. Neither of those things happened in this movie. The character development in the earlier films actually seems regress in this movie."

spot on

reply

Was this film flawed? Very. Was it anyway bad? No.
That makes zero sense my friend. Flawed = Negative aspect = Bad.

"A man chooses. A slave obeys."

reply

A Flawed film does not equal bad.

reply

I liked TFA, and I've never been huge on Bourne. But I'm confused, are you unaware of all the fanboys who hated on TFA because it had a female lead? Or that it was too different from older entries? Or too similar? They couldn't fully win either.

reply

I remember movie critic Roger Ebert cynically saying that people don't want to see good films. They just go to the movie for 2 hours, don't pay much attention, and go home. I thought he was crazy by saying this but it's really true. The American public? Just go to the store and look at what you see. It's really terrifying.

reply

This movie was actually fairly good, not anywhere near as bad as the reviews suggest. It's just not in the same league as the first three films. It's on par with The Bourne Legacy which is good entertainment.

reply

It's because Matt Damon was older and didn't do stunts very well anymore, so the movie felt totally different from the action-packed three movies prior were know for.

Star Wars, on the other hand, were primarily SFX movies first and foremost, and TFA had the same or even better SFX / CGI than it's predecessors.

In short. TFA gave the Star Wars experience audiences expected, while this movie didn't deliver the Bourne experience at all.

reply