"Like a door that keeps revolving, in a half forgotten dream" !

Rating: Null/10 (14 February 2013)

OK, there is nothing new here. I saw (Rachel Weisz) running with a guy through many action sequences before in (Chain Reaction). I saw a long motorcycle chase before in (Torque). And I saw the matter of rogue secret agent on the run, being monitored by high CIA execs, who damn him all the way, due to his permanent elusion from them, obviously in 3 previous (Bourne) movies!
Actually the plot is so silly. The secret intelligence program, by the name of "Treadstone" or "The Outcome" (the movie can't decide!), has been failed because its founder downloaded his birthday or something on YouTube! There is even more. As a result for that, the intelligence has to terminate ALL THE AGENTS AND THE DOCTORS OF THE PROGRAM!!!!! Now, this is silly and dumb. Why not reusing them for something else, after plastic surgery or anything?! So, if another secret got leaked, the CIA would terminate itself, killing all of its staff??!! What a drivel! And to fairly sum it up, the rest of the plot is just an excuse to watch the 2 leads running and running and running. And then, at an abrupt point, the movie ends, as if it's "Hey, our time is up, we'll catch you later, with the answers, in the sequel. Bye Bye!". Don't tell me that this didn't make you unsatisfied and provoked?!
While this is, I think, an intro to a new Bourne series, it should have, at least, built some dramatic ground. However, drama, and characters, aren't things to be cared about or heard of in this territory! So don't shout "How they forgot that writing a history for the lead, makes him more human, and makes the audience get attached to him as well?", or whine about "Why they didn't elaborate on the story of the girl who he was using her name in his partner's fake passport?". Because the movie-makers had no time for this or that. They just wanted to utilize the Bourne formula of super secret agent, who runs from his superiors, all over the world, doing some hot action while that, and wins at the end. However, I missed (Matt Damon). He provided some serious inner bitterness as the title character, strongly in the first movie, of which this one doesn't know how to make, or doesn't want to make!
After putting the plot, or any seriousness, aside, what could be left? I know. Firstly, the very talented (Rachel Weisz). Although it's originally not a movie to "act" in, only "run", but (Weisz) did some good acting, mastering her role as emotionally stressed person, who found herself suddenly thrown in an ocean of blood, while not understanding a thing (surprisingly her lines were well-written). Secondly, (Jeremy Renner). There is some good fighting on his behalf. Not to mention that he looks so macho unlike (Matt the-forever-boyish Damon). And thirdly, some cool action with catchy directing. Other than this, there is no "other than this"!
The ultimate fact about this movie is that it is frankly empty. So, I kept asking questions about its reason of being; why to repeat the whole Bourne world again? It wasn't great world in the first place. And why not making a movie of its own, away from the legacy of Bourne? The answer: 1) it's Hollywood. It became lately like a pure merchant, and no artist, who sees just deals not movies. Therefore, whenever glimpses a movie with a box office glow, Hollywood must exploit it to the end of it (or us!). And 2) when it comes to ideas, they're bankrupt. Hence, prolonging Bourne's life, or rather name, could be good for another movie to keep the industry going on anyway. Apparently, the Windmills of "Hollywood" Mind have become so boring, industrializing only more and more of air.
So, accordingly, this is a project, a moneymaker, a commercial movie, with some action and thrill. And also, this is unnecessary sequel; unoriginal, repetitive, and deprived of anything unique. Undoubtedly, making it as a parody out of the Bourne trilogy should have been more creative and seductive to watch. But in another, more necessary, movie then.