DOCTOR STRANGE: Fantastic or Flawed? - A Short Discussion

 Hello there puny humans,
about a week ago my good friend B.A. and I had a short discussion about Marvel's latest: "Doctor Strange". While he (as a student of literary studies) was incredibly excited about this film and the way it was made, I thought that although being a very fun film, it had a few flaws that kept it from being great. I thought that our argument actually got quite interesting. So much so, that I didn't want to withhold it from my readers. It might help if you read his and my full review first, so if you have the time click on the hyperlink to check them out. Other than that it should be noted that this is the transcript of an early morning whatsapp conversation that was held between showering and getting to university, so these are our raw, spontaneous and unpolished thoughts (usually we sound much more intellectual). Oh, and of course this text his spoilerific, although it probably just doesn't make sense to you if you haven't seen the film. But without further ado, here it is:

Cinemartian: My Doctor Strange review is finally online. B.A., I hope you forgive me that I wasn't as enthusiastic as you were. :D

B.A.: I was just about to write you a message on that. ^^ To put it in the words of Nick Mason: "It's okay, but you're wrong, but it's fine, but you're wrong.

Cinemartian: I think I laid out my criticism pretty clear :D also I said that I did like it!

B.A.: In general I understand your Iron Man argument, but I feel that saying "the movie is like such-and-such" keeps you from looking closer. I mean you do touch on the fact that it is tonally different, but such an argument would have been a good opportunity to take a look at where exactly the differences are on a story level. And they certainly exist between Dr Strange and Tony Stark.

Cinemartian: Of course, but then these need to be emphasized more. Something that Star Wars: The Force Awakens did much better. And the darkness in Doctor Strange doesn't come back after the first third. Especially the end would have benefited from a bit more seriousness. There should have been a real struggle. Put him a hundred years in that time loop with Dormammu. Let him die a thousand deaths. Show the pain and the sacrifice he makes. Not a montage of funny deaths. I mean, you are totally right, that his hands are the perfect symbolism for the fact that he will never be able to control everything. It's a good message, but overall he seems very much in control of the situation during the showdown. It should have looked like a dauntless attempt and not like an elaborate plan where a positive outcome is anticipated from the get-go.
….. aaand I hate evil space clouds.

B.A.: But that is simply not what the story structure that Marvel uses is like. Four acts: Introduction, rising action, internal climax, external climax. The emotional climax takes place when Mordo confronts him with the fact that he only defends New York, because his own life was at stake, as well as in the conversation with Tilda Swinton. And Dormammu is an evil dimension cloud, if you please!  But I admit that on the spectrum of reactions to the film I might be above average positve. Although everybody I talked to loved it just as much. But those were all people from literary studies. :D

Cinemartian: I just didn't think the pay-off was big enough. Compared to the build-up.

B.A.: That's where the movie scores through the brilliant casting of Tilda Swinton.

Cinemartian: You mean because she is so good at making the same face all the time?

B.A.: Whoa, you don't wanna tell me that you didn't like Tilda Swinton?!

Cinemartian: Just kidding. I just wanted to poke the bear :D

B.A.: Oh youuuu!

Cinemartian: :D

B.A.: But I am not sure if I can agree with you concerning the pay-off. Because throughout the film Dormammu is constantly displayed as this timeless force that is technically unbeatable, unless you find a big weakness and are ready to utilize it. If Strange wouldn't have reached the point, and instead would have desperately looked for a solution, then he would have never gone to Dormammu, but instead would have had a desperate fight against the superior Kaecilius.

Cinemartian: That is theoretically what lies in that story. They just didn't really get it out of there. And since every evil space cloud has been defeated until now, I need a little more than „destroyer of worlds“ to frighten me. Ten years ago I might have liked the film better.

B.A.: Well, it's not like I am over-interpreting here. That is exactly what happens, and exactly what people love about that film. Strange wins, not because he fights desperately in the end and can take one punch more, but because he doesn't stop questioning things and therefore finds Dormammu's weakness. Brains over brawn. The only thing I can admit with a clear conscience is that the movie could have done a little more to show for how long he is stuck in that time loop.

Cinemartian: I get what you are saying. And since he is in a time loop, the physical pain disappears immediately. But the suffering I talked about earlier can also be psychological. To show how much time he spend in that loop would have definitely helped.... Instead of „Monty Python's Ministry of silly Deaths“.

B.A.: Haha. But I guess that's always the risk if you kind of change the traditional external climax, that you lose seriousness. That seemed to be the problem with Iron Man 3 for a lot of people. I guess this time we just are on opposite sides ;)

Well, there you go. I hope you enjoyed the insight into B.A.'s and my argument. In the end, we agreed to disagree. But what did you think of Doctor Strange? With whom do you agree? Or do you have a completely different opinion? Feel free to comment below, as well as to like and share this blog. Till then I wish you a marvelous week!

Your Cinemartian

FANTASTIC BEASTS AND WHERE TO FIND THEM - Movie Review

Title: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
Running Time: 133 min
Director: David Yates
Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Katherine Waterston, Collin Farrel, Ezra Miller, Dan Fogler, Alison Sudol

Review:
Harry Potter. Even if you've never seen any of the movies or read one of the books that name definitely rings a bell. It is a worldwide pop culture phenomenon and so many super fans claim to be the biggest admirer of the franchise. 2016 marks a special year for its devotees as (nine years after the latest book was published) a large scale stage play premiered in London continuing the story. Not only that, but its script was released as a bound book, and the movie "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" was set to kick off a brand new five film prequel series to expand the universe. And while "Harry Potter and the Cursed Child" received rather mixed reviews, the jury is still out on this new franchise revolving around the potterverse's famous magizoologist: Newt Scamander.
"Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" is a special new treat for Potterheads, but is also independent enough to be a fun family film for everyone who (somehow) doesn't know the franchise at all. This is probably due to the experience of the creative team. For one, there is David Yates who has spend his fair share in the Harry Potter universe, having directed half of the eight previous films. It is very apparent that Yates knows exactly how to stage, shoot and in general use its magical elements to great effect. He can put you in awe through a perfectly timed pan or wide shot, make you uneasy through fast tracking shots or make you laugh through a classic action/reaction interplay. Furthermore, Yates has always had a special attention to detail and his personal muse, J.K. Rowling (who directly wrote the screenplay this time), has always impressed through thorough world-building. There is a scene for example, where we find ourselves in an official government execution room, and just for a few seconds the camera pans upwards and reveals empty rows of seats on an upper level. Nothing is ever said about this, but it totally implies that it is common to  have spectators at an execution, which says a whole lot about the society in which the movie takes place. It's wonderful.
Rowling, who has always had a sweet spot for political subplots in her books, doesn't pass on the opportunity to do so in this screenplay as well. Although to some this might seem as unresolved or unrealized story-lines, I felt it gave the world a sense of realism and multidimensional nature. The creatress' direct and exclusive involvement in the film's script leaves no room for contradictions or inconsistencies (unlike the stage play) and thus, it fits seamlessly into the overall story. Luckily, she also refrains from making too many references to past films and keeps fan service to reasonable limits. As a result, this franchise very much manages to stand on its own.
There are only a few points where it comes noticeable that this is Rowlings first screenplay: On the one hand, there is the classic Joanne Kathleen cheese and she takes a bit too much time to wrap up her film all nice and happy (resulting in an almost "Return of the King"-Style amount of endings). On the other hand, there is the character of the muggle Kowalski, who is no more than a very obvious screenwriting device. He has absolutely no function to the film's story other than to ask questions and therefore force the other characters to give some exposition. Just when it seems he might actually become useful (and by doing so actually teach a great lesson about how wizard superiority is a delusional construct) he basically disappears for the showdown of the film.
The character benefits, however, from an extremely charming performance by Dan Fogler, who is so sympathetic that the untrained viewer might forget about his insignificance. But he is not the only actor who does a great job in the film. The whole cast does. Leading the way is Eddie Redmayne, who brings the perfect adorable quirkiness to Newt Scamander that has always been the unique forte of this British wizarding world. He especially shines when playing characters with a soft core, which the animal-lover Newt definitely has. And then there is Colin Farrel, who is absolutely fantastic as the grim looking wizard with ambiguous motives. Even though I was not too happy with his character development, I thought he absolutely nailed the part.
I could go on and on about the other actors, the creature designs, the different story arcs or about how it was one of the few movies where I thought the 3D actually enhanced the experience. But in the end, all you need to know is that "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" is an enchanting,  charming and magical ride (all puns intended) that everyone can enjoy. A definite recommendation for newbies and a must-see for Potterheads!

For Fans Of: 
The Harry Potter Series (2001-2011)
Alice in Wonderland (2010)
King Kong (2005)
Doctor Strange (2016)
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

Click Here To Watch Trailer!

DOCTOR STRANGE - Movie Review

Title: Doctor Strange
Running Time: 115 min
Director: Scott Derrickson
Starring: Benedict Cumberbatch, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Mads Mikkelsen, Rachel McAdams, Benedict Wong, Tilda Swinton

Review:
By now, there is no need to introduce the studio producing this film. Marvel is at it again, reaching deeper into their treasure chest of comic-book characters. This time, they pulled out the arrogant but highly skilled Stephen Strange, also known as the Sorcerer Supreme. He is played by none other than Benedict Cumberbatch, who in the past has played a variation of characters such as an arrogant but highly skilled private detective, an arrogant but highly skilled mathematician, an arrogant but highly skilled whistle-blower, and an arrogant but highly skilled space captain. Yes, you can see how he got the part and even though Joaquin Phoenix had previously been approached for the role, the film makers admitted they always had wanted Cumberbatch. With him on board, the studio is now determined to expand their universe by exploring its magical elements and introducing us to a whole new set of possibilities in order to set up the "Infinity War" story-line. Oh, and of course to establish their main character as someone you will want to follow even when Chris Evans' and Robert Downey Jr.'s contracts are long expired.
"Doctor Strange" is a fun new entry in the long list of Marvel films. Although some of its elements still suffer from feeling very familiar, it manages to bring a lot of new things to the table. Of course we are dealing with an origin story here and so, there is a bunch of standard plot points the movie hits: We start with the hero seemingly at the height of his powers, when an unexpected tragedy hits him, and the man who used to be so full of himself has to adjust to his new situation. During the movie he learns to be less cocky and finally after failing to completely beat the villain, he ultimately defeats him by overcoming his inner demons. It is the exact plot outline of the first "Thor" and "Iron Man" movies. Especially in the beginning however, "Doctor Strange" pulls off a much grimmer tone than its predecessors before it picks up the typical Marvel humor. Cumberbatch manages to own both, the dramatic and the humorous part and thus, makes the doctor a very compelling character.
Furthermore, the film impresses with its outstanding visual voice. The original comic was created in the early sixties. A time where LSD was not only legal but frequently used among artists, and it becomes apparent in this adaptation of the source material. In a good way. If you thought Inception was (literally) breaking ground with its concepts of twisting cities, this movie dares to top that. It is absolutely gorgeous, and when the film makers are done with twisting space, they turn to time and create one of the coolest looking showdowns in a superhero movie in a long while. It's a blast.
Mads Mikkelsen plays a sympathetic villain, and his interplay with Cumberbatch works really well as both actors bring the same level of gravitas to their roles. It wouldn't have hurt however to give his menacing yet charming Kaecilius a little bit more screen time. Another problem lies in the fact that he is "only" a henchman to the real big bad: An enormous, evil space cloud. This kind of villain has already failed to work in films like "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer" and "The Green Lantern". In this movie, they kind of make it work and find a creative version to defeat the monster. Unfortunately they took a quick humorous approach, even though the concept had the potential to bring back the darker tones from the first third of the film and really let them pay off.
At the end of the day however, "Doctor Strange" is a slick new superhero movie that charms you with its awesome visuals and a few fresh ideas. It opens new doors for future films and makes the the upcoming "Infinity War" even more intriguing. Worth the movie ticket. Even with the extra 3D free.

For Fans Of: 
Thor (2011)
Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)
Star Trek: Beyond (2016)
Batman Begins (2005)

Click Here To Watch Trailer!

SWISS ARMY MAN - Movie Review

Title: Swiss Army Man
Running Time: 97 min
Directors: Daniel Kwan, Daniel Scheinert
Starring: Paul Dano, Daniel Radcliffe, Mary Elizabeth Winstead

Review:
To some people Daniel Radcliffe will forever and always be Harry Potter. A shame, really, because the young man has since evolved as an actor, giving excellent performances in a very diverse list of projects. Drama, Rom-Com, Horror, Thriller, Action-Adventure, Theater, Biopic, you name it. Radcliffe is more than a one-trick pony. And now the man who became famous for playing "the boy who lived" stars in an independent comedy-drama in the role of, well, "the boy who's dead." Yes, the movie at hand revolves around a stranded young man who is about to commit suicide, when he sees a corpse washed ashore. A corpse that does not only turn out out to be able to speak, but also proves useful as a multifunctional tool (there is for example his ability to be used as a vehicle powered by his postmortem flatulence). It is a ludicrous concept, and 'Robinson Crusoe meets a farting carcass' is a plot-summary that might not win everyone over.
"Swiss Army Man" is however a truly special and unique movie. In a good way. In a world where sequels, prequels and reboots are the norm, this film dares to be different. Daniel Radcliffe's Manny has no idea about what life is, and in beautiful irony the only person he has to teach him about it, is a man who was just about to kill himself before they met. The unlikely mentor is played by Paul Dano, who himself has quite an impressive résumé. His body of work reaches from "Little Miss Sunshine" to "There Will Be Blood" to "Looper" and he is especially excellent in giving his characters a very genuine vulnerability. As is the case with his portrayal of Hank, who is shaped by everything he was never allowed or never brave enough to do. Manny on the other hand looks at the world with adorable simplicity and questions conventions that we do not even really think about anymore. The friendship that develops between these two characters is based on a level of impartiality that seems much needed in today' society. While some critics have acused the love story that is woven into the plot of being plain, it is merely a gateway to access the character's deepest wishes, hopes and feelings. As they get more intimit with each other, they allow themselves to be childish, to be crazy and to be creative. And this is exactly what the film makers do as well.
The Daniels (as the directing duo calls itself) have created an endlessly imaginative film. As much as the dialogue sticks with you, it is their visual realisation of the themes and concepts of the film that make it stand out. The cinematography is gorgeous. Their shot compositions are inspiring and informative at the same time, and they often manage to convey feelings and thoughts simply through camera work. The score is no less interesting. Relying almost exclusively on atmospheric accapella sounds, it contributes an additional level of enchantment to a film that is already engaging. And even here, the directors don't miss out on making a joke, having the word 'montage' being sung in the song that plays (you guessed it) during a montage sequence.
As a whole piece, "Swiss Army Man" is an engaging celebration of life and the beauty it holds in the strangest places. Yes, there are sex and fart jokes, but they are the most philosophical fart jokes you will ever see. The film breaks conventions, and is therefore unpredictable until the last minute. It speaks especially to those who have seen themselves as misfits at some point or in some way in their life. To people who hold on to their inner child. In all its oddness, it is incredibly honest. And while some people say the concept is just too bizarre to get behind, I say: If people can get behind the fourth movie about space robots that can shapeshift into humans and toasters, and destroy entire cities that then miraculously appear unharmed in the sequel, then why the hell not this?
So if you were looking for something you haven't seen before, something that thinks outside of the box, something that is bubbling with imagination and refreshingly strange, then search no more: This is the film for you!

For Fans Of: 

Simple Simon [orig.: I rymden finns inga känslor] (2010)

Captain Fantastic (2016)
Little Miss Sunshine (2006)
The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2013)
Weekend at Bernie's (1989)
Seven Psychopaths (2012)
Cast Away (2000)

Click Here To Watch Trailer!

CAPTAIN FANTASTIC - Movie Review

Title: Captain Fantastic
Running Time: 118 min
Director: Matt Ross
Starring: Viggo Mortensen, George MacKay, Samantha Isler, Annalise Basso, Nicholas Hamilton, Shree Crooks, Charlie Shotwell, Kathryn Hahn, Steve Zahn, Frank Langella

Review:

Viggo Mortensen could have been a glamorous Hollywood celebrity. When the then 41 year old Danish-American replaced Stuart Townsend last-minute in a little trilogy called "The Lord of the Rings" he showed the world what a fantastic actor he was and all of Tinseltown's doors suddenly stood open for him. It seemed however that Mortensen didn't want to become that kind of movie star as he continuously turned down big blockbuster roles. Since his last appearance as Aragorn in "Return of the King" the man has played the leadrole in only above a hand full of movies, all of which got very limited media attention, but had one thing in common: Viggo on the top of his game. So whenever the guy finally decides to flex his acting muscles once more, you are almost obliged to watch it, since you never know when you will get to experience his prowess again.
"Captain Fantastic" joins the ranks of Mortensen's outstanding works, but is enchanting enough that it satisfies even beyond his brilliant performance. It is the story of a man, Ben, that brings up his kids in the woods, shielding them from what he thinks is a reprobate society, teaching them to survive in the wild as well as to understand the complex nexus of the world through studying books of different humanists and philosophers. When his wife passes away and his father-in-law denies him attendance to the funeral, the whole family jumps into their rusty tour bus to go there anyway. However this of course constitutes the first time Ben's children come into contact with the "normal" world. Complication are bound to occur.
Accordingly to its premise the movie has a lot of that charmingly innocent kind of humor where characters encounter a world that is so different from their own. It is one of the reasons the first Thor movie worked so well for example, and it made me laugh out loud multiple times. Wrapped under the funny bits however is a critical look at our society that really gets you thinking. But unlike some more radical indie flicks, the film doesn't hit you over the head with its message. On the contrary, the strength of "Captain Fantastic" lies in the fact that it shines light on multiple sides of the story. Of course our main character is made to be sympathetic as we mainly follow his path, but more than once his worldviews are reasonably questioned by other characters in the film, and every now and then he even comes across as a little too full of himself, holding on to believes that seem somewhat irresponsible. The perfect world he thought he built is not perfect after all, but it isn't all bad either. The exploration of this realization makes the film an interesting character study and so this family's physical and psychological journey gives the film its more than solid framework. The performances are great across the board and at one point the child-actors play a rendition of a Guns'n'Roses song that keeps running on repeat on my soundsystem since I first heard it. Unsurprisingly though, Mortensen stands out with a lot of heart and genuineness. Finally the cinematography tops the movie off to a perfect cinematic experience as you will get beautiful nature shots as well as some accentuated visual comedy.
To people who are not into that kind of indie stuff or already sighed when reading the premise, this film might still come across as obnoxious. But if you are open for it and found the idea of the film even just a little intriguing then "Captain Fantastic" can take you on an engaging trip that will stick with you for days after watching it. Funny, clever, surprising, charming, thought-provoking and heartwarming: This movie gets a definite recommendation!
 
For Fans Of: 
Little Miss Sunshine (2006)
Into The Wild (2007)
Lost In Translation (2003)

Click Here To Watch Trailer!

SUICIDE SQUAD - Movie Review

Title: Suicide Squad
Running Time: 123 min
Director: David Ayer
Starring: Will Smith, Margot Robbie, Jared Leto, Cara Delevingne, Viola Davis, Jai Courtney, Joel Kinnaman, Jay Hernandez, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje

Review:
Everyone was quite confused when Marvel Studios announced they would be making a movie about a superhero team including a talking racoon and a tree alien with Hodor-level vocabulary. But this group of misfits and D-list comicbook characters took audiences by storm from the first trailer all the way to the Box Office. Fox made its own risky move early this year by releasing Deadpool, which ended up proving that your protagonist could as well be a foul-mouthed, ruthless killer. Warner Brothers and DC were watching closely and have now answered with a combination of the two: "Suicide Squad" became one of the most anticipated movies of the year and spawned tons of cosplays and merchandise even before its release. Everyone seemed pumped to see Will Smith's charismatic portrayal of Deadshot, the beautiful Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn, and of course Jared Leto's introduction of a brand-new version of the Clown Prince himself. All eyes were on the DCEU this summer. Audiences were expecting the extravagant fun ride that was promised in the trailer. Warner Bros hoped for an all around hit. Critics sought redemption for BvS. Should this be the film to please them all?
Unfortunately it is not. "Suicide Squad" leaves you with the same overall impression you seem to get from every cinematic DC property nowadays: Extremely cool idea, frustratingly sloppy execution. Yes, frustrating it is, because in its core there is actually a lot to love about "Suicide Squad". Will Smith is back in action and brings his trademark charm that has been missing on screen the last couple of years. In the second third of the film he has a scene where Deadshot is just on a roll, shooting folks left and right as if he never did anything else. It's pretty phat. Next to him is Margot Robbie, showing that she has not only a bombshell body, but also a crazy-fun persona that absolutely enchants you. Even Jai Courtney, who has been terrible in everything else he was in (but seems to have the best agent in the world as he keeps getting roles in big budget blockbusters), is absolutely hilarious as the weirdo from downunder. Generally unkown Jay Hernandez is surprisingly genuine, Joel Kinnaman definitively redeems himself for the RoboCop Remake and Cara Delevingne's first few transformations into the Enchantress look just god-damn cool. The costume and prop department do a fantastic job in making these comicbook characters come to live in a stylish and unique way (with few exceptions, but we'll get to that). And then especially Harley Quinn and Captain Boomerang have some pretty comedic moments that totally work. Furthermore, the soundtrack of the movie consists of some dope tunes from years past, but this is also the point where problems start to surface:

Too often do these songs feel shoehorned in so unsubtle that you can almost hear the filmmakers shouting at you: "Just look how cool and rebellious this is!" Then there are the character arcs which aren't really arcs for most of them but rather straight lines. Slipknot's is more like a dot, and Killer Croc doesn't bring much more to the table. He is basically just a walking prop that is just there for looking bad-ass. 

The way the film is put together is problematic as well. A series of flashbacks explains a lot of backstory, but they seem to be scattered through the film randomly. Sometimes we don't really know what that flashbak is supposed to tell us, sometimes we already know the things the flashback tells us. It's a little messy. And as so often with DC, the movie doesn't quite know what kind of story it wants to tell. On one hand it tries to be a movie about "the worst of the worst", on the other hand it tries to humanize them and make them "not-so-bad-after-all". It is a very apparent contradiction. And let's not forget there is a Harley Quinn & the Joker story in there as well. What you get to see of their relationship really envokes your curiosity but is too little to completely grab you. The same goes for the Joker himself. Jared Leto's performance is a unique one, and he creates something of his own instead of trying to replicate what Ledger and Nicholson have done. Whether you are on board with his interpretation is certainly a question of taste, but even if you enjoy his take on Gotham's Craziest there simply isn't enough to give you a fully realized picture of the character. If you can believe Jared Leto there were a whole lot more scenes that ended up on the cutting room floor. One could argue that this footage probably would have been very interesting to explore, but then again the movie is already convoluted enough.

And with all the fuzz and all these crazy characters, the film ends with a third act that couldn't be more generic. The Enchantress, who started as an intriguing character, turns into a cookie-cutter female version of the X-Men's boringly executed Apocalypse, striving for the most uninspired villainous goal of them all: world domination. She does so by using a gigantic blue beam to destruct/attak earth as previously seen in The Avengers, Man of Steel, Fant4stic, Avengers: Age of Ultron and so many more. By this time her outter appearance has already turned from a bad-ass creepy witch into an awkwardly dancing CGI disaster that would have blended in better with a schlock fest like "Gods of Egypt". Oh, and she brings her (even worse looking) brother along, who brings as much depth to the screen as the fake plastic baby from "American Sniper". The Squad however is able to defeat them with the power of friendship. It is really really lazy.

There was a hell of a lot of potential in "Suicide Squad" that sadly stays untapped. Still, you can find a good amount of fun in this film and you can not help but get excited for what they could do with the characters in the future. With all its flaws it stays a watchable blockbuster. Already there is talk about a director's cut that apparently fixes the problems. So if you are just seeking two-hours of simple entertainment then this film does the job. But (unlike people who piss Amanda Waller off) your mind will not be blown.

For Fans Of:
Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)
X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)
Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)
The Expandables 2 (2012)
The Losers (2010)
Batman: Assault on Arkham (2014) 
Man of Steel (2013) 

Click Here To Watch Trailer!

JASON BOURNE - Movie Review

 Title: Jason Bourne
Running Time: 123 min
Director: Paul Greengrass
Starring: Matt Damon, Alicia Vikander, Tommy Lee Jones, Vincent Cassel, Julia Stiles & Riz Ahmed

Review:
The name was Bourne. Jason Bourne. And he sure was licensed to kill. Yes, in an era where James Bond had become a cartoonish goof-fest with ice castles and invisible cars, the Bourne franchise reinvigorated the spy genre with its gritty and realistic approach. Rough fights, believable technology and handheld camera work were the trademarks of this trilogy that many films soon started to copy (including the above mentioned 00-agent himself). Nevertheless, launching a somewhat spin-off story with Jeremy Renner's Aaron Cross in "The Bourne Legacy" didn't work out, and so Matt Damon and director Paul Greengrass are back to tell yet another story about the ass-kicking amnestic agent.
"Jason Bourne" really tries to stick to the formula that made its predecessors so succesful, and yet still only feels like a light version of them. The direction of this film, of course, is top quality as usual and the action pieces are well realized too. The typical car chase for example is pretty damn awesome as our hero and his antagonist are really wrecking shit up (sources report 170 cars to have been destroyed for the filming of the sequence). Then, there is a particulary thrilling scene where a team of CIA agents move in on Bourne, which is as cleverly constructed as you would expect from the franchise. 
However, the movie fails to really sweep you off of your feet or get you as invested as the former films have gotten you. The problem probably lies in the way the characters are handled. 
Tommy Lee Jones plays a one-note "I-am-a-dick" CIA boss, which might suit his face, but is kind of generic. Alicia Vikander brings a few layers more to her ambitious and tough young agent, but while I still deem her one of the most beautiful and talented women in the world, she has acted much better in other films. The third new addition, Riz Ahmed, plays his character quite sympathetic. His past and motivations however are presented in a rushed exposition and are thus acceptable, but not accessible. His whole storyline seemed to have had more potential if the filmmakers had dug a little deeper. The same goes for Vincent Cassel's character's vendetta, which could have made for a very personal and heartfelt arc, that is never tapped on. 
And then of course, there is Jason Bourne himself. The thing that made his character so compelling in the past was that eventhough he was a precise and efficient killing machine there was an immense vulnerability and genuineness to him. Sometimes he was devastated, broken and confused. At other times determined and focussed. And then in some moments, there was even a smirkiness to him where (despite all his trouble) he seemed to enjoy his own cleverness and superiority. In contrast, this Bourne seems to be more bitter. So much so that you feel like you can almost count his number of lines on two hands. Unfortunately, the relationship with his father in this film seems to be coming out of nowhere and feels a little forced, failing to deliver the emotional weight the movie needs. One quiet but fantastic scene from "The Bourne Supremacy", where Jason confesses his crimes to the daughter of one of his victims, hits you in the heart harder than anything from the entirety of this latest installment. Further, there are some other minor issues, like Bourne coming to his spy tech in a little too convenient way, which showcase the slight slopiness in writing even more.
As a whole "Jason Bourne" gives you an entertaining two-hours that are fun to watch but not particulary memorable. Lacking an emotional core, the film does not manage to fill the big shoes it tries to wear. No need to see it in theatres, but you might want to catch it once its available on the streaming service of your choice.

For Fans Of:
The Bourne Legacy (2012)
Safe House (2012)
Quantum of Solace (2008)

Click Here To Watch Trailer!