Possible the worst book adaption of all time - but not a bad little thriller if taken on it's own terms.

Rating: 6/10 (9 July 2003)

I don't think I have ever felt more conflicted about a movie than I did about this one. Tony Gilroy's script absolutely mutilates the source material, Robert Ludlum's gripping, intricately woven novel. The simplified, dumbed-down version of the story seen here is down right painful to those who know the real story. The change to the central premise of Jason Bourne's identity is roughly equivalent to remaking "Citizen Kane" and saying "Rosebud is . . . a flower . . . or something" (okay, the book isn't as good as "Citizen kane", but it's the best analogy I can think of).
That said, had I seen this film without ever having read the book (or seen the Emmy nominated mini series, which may be a little hokey put retains far more of the intelligence of the plot), I have no doubt I would have quite liked this film. It's a good little thriller. Matt Damon, one of the most talented of the current crop of overexposed young actors, surprises again by making a credible action hero, as does director Doug Liman (who would have thought the "Swingers" guy could do action/suspence?).
If you aren't familiar with the real story, see this movie first, and you'll enjoy it. If you have seen this movie but not read the book, read it and you'll understand what we Ludlum fans are complaining about.