Written by the director for the clear purpose of showcasing his action and camera-work skills, there is no attempt to build connection from the top. Ugh!) So, speaking of entertainment, there is almost none in this movie. And Greengrass agreed to take hold of the camera one more time only if he could get a writing credit too.
? (That said, I have to "assume" that Damon broke his vow and came back simply for the cash. I tend toward "purist" reviews, that is to say, I don't really care WHY a film was made as much as I do about how entertaining is it to watch. However, now that I have seen Jason Bourne 2016, I cannot help but wish that Damon had agreed to participate in Legacy, rather than be lured back 4 years later for a part he clearly no longer likes, in a production he would rather not be in.
Even 2012's Bourne Legacy - a feature where it was ever so clear that Damon had been offered a fortune just to walk-on and smile at the camera, but refused anyway - was a solid movie, great script, held the attention, and Renner did a great job. They are an adrenaline rush, the perfect mix of story, form, and effect. As a top reviewer here with some 1200 reviews under my belt I said more than once that the original was the best spy trilogy I had ever seen and I am unashamed of the fact that I have seen each film in that series four or five times since original release. The original Bourne trilogy was not merely good, it was superb. Nonetheless for those members who gave this a high rating more out of frustration than anything else, I do feel your pain. Actually reviews are not supposed to be based on wishful thinking.
0 kommentar(er)
