Its not Bourne but its not bad either

Rating: 7/10 (10 June 2013)

I think too many people, myself included, expected wayy to much from this movie. A movie, especially with a new director and new leads, has to be able to stand on its own legs, even though its part of a series.
If you took this film out of Bourne land it was by itself, it will still stand. Would it be super great, no. Would it be the same as the first Bourne, no. But its a different direction so you're going to get a different vision.
To those who criticize Tony Gilroy as being arrogant and lacking the ability to gauge the audiences intelligence, I have to disagree. Is he arrogant? I dunno, I've never met him. Neither have you so be reasonable in your character accusations and keep your reviews to the film. I think he's a good writer, now granted the first three Bourne's were better, however they were written, as stated by Matt Damon, pretty much on the fly and Greengrass you know had a hand in it.
There are subtle moments, things in this story that make you wonder and question Aaron Cross' background. I think the science behind it is completely plausible and I don't put much past our government. I think the whole government cover up situation with more programs is again completely plausible. This is years after Bourne one - so the idea that they've stepped things up should be no shocker and completely reasonable. Im interested to know more about this world.
To those who say there is no reason for this movie, again I disagree. The character motivation is there. For Renner, For Weisz and for Norton.
Granted its not as well written as the first three and its not as good as the first three. But I'll accept it as the next step in the Bourne series and hopefully Damon and Greengrass return to finish it right.