Login
I know I am probably in the minority but I actually think this movie is better than part 2 and 3. The reason why is actually pretty simple. In this movie, Jason Bourne is a vulnerable and insecure hero and it is something which I found rather refreshing and original but in the part 2 and 3, he just becomes another invicible and omnipotent action-hero, something I have seen already 1000 times. I mean, those sequels are pretty good, definitely, but I think they are popular mostly because of the badass action scenes (which are indeed pretty awesome) but the story is nothing really original or mind-blowing in my opinion. With this first movie, I thought that the action scenes were pretty cool AND that the story was really spellbinding to watch and I missed this great combination in the sequels. I have to admit that the way Matt Damon and Franka Potente hook together was rather unlikely but since both actors played so well, it didn't bother me that much. Back then, Potente was one of those rising European actors and it is just quite unfortunate that she never broke through stateside. On the contrary, it was a star-making performance for Matt Damon who suddenly became overnight a major action actor, even though he never made many movies in this genre. Eventually, Paul Greengrass got a lot of praise for what he did with this franchise and it is deserved but I think Doug Liman did a great job and should be credited as well. Anyway, to conclude, I think it is a very good action flick and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.
8/10
