Monotonous, trite

Rating: 2/10 (27 November 2008)

This movie is quite cryptic, not having much of an interest outside its franchise; and as a matter of fact, it is more like an episode in a series, than like an installment in a franchise; it has not even a relative autonomy. On the other hand, it was made without any idea of the 'Bourne' narrative. It should narrate something. What does it narrate? Look, the newest 'Bond' has an intelligible tale of revenge (not to mention that Craig is matchlessly superior to Damon). But, again, there's no peculiar notion of 'Bourne', and of what 'Bourne' is about here! I'm glad I made it once , I will not see this movie again.
I understand the lack of 'Bond' elements; but I do not excuse the lack of 'Bourne' elements.
Its protagonist is an actor that I very much dislike, and there is like a general like of glamor in this movie (is this the Ludlumian realism?look at the '88 TV adaptation'Bourne' does not require absolutely unglamorous characters). So I did not like any of the actorsnot even the mildly attractive Pam.
Then, it's very poorvery thinonly a rush, a hurry, a runwith not much elseand quite unspectacular action. As it is ,the movie is not suspenseful or funbut quite monotonous.
I know 'Bourne' it's supposed to be fast movingbut so is 'Bond', so is Hitchcockand the results are very different! What is BOURNE ULTIMATUM about? No characters, monotonous and thirdrate action, no meaning, no fun. Truly, one of the most mindless and empty, _uni-dimensional movies. Completely unlikable actors.
Revenge? No, just mindless monotonous fast moving.
It's not only monotonous and insipid; it's astringent as wellso that it misses even the lure of a straight B movie.
'Bourne' is not 'Bond' exactly because it should be so much more psychologicaland here the movie offers nothing, no character is alivesimple agitated puppets! The most importanta 'Bourne' should be humanly very interesting and involvingnot a stupid mindless chase.
The villains, 'Noah', etc., are also as uninteresting and underdeveloped as possible.
The director seems to have had to aimsto evacuate everything 'Bourne'; and to replace it with everything 'unbourne', badly executed.
The only moment is when Noah asks 'Bourne?', and is answered 'No, Dash!'.
This is Bourne without Bourne. It's also very assuming and unfriendly to the audience _un-familiarized with the Bourne story. (But this is the problem with many recent quickly made trilogies or franchiseslike MATRIX, RINGS, WARSthey assume the previous installment is already well knownthey are for fans, not for the general audienceand even BOND took now this path too ).
This 'Bourne' does not try to be something elseit only strives not to be itself.
How comes even the action is so _unenjoyable and dull? There's no suspense, no excitement.
So, it's a nonexistent content, extremely badly narrated. 'Bourne' should be about so many things; this one is about nothing.
No excitement, no verve, no suspenseso, if these directors do not like either 'Bourne' or the '88 TV movie, why do they make these 'adaptations'?