From the Bourne tradition of naming every movie with a badass title, calling this Jason Bourne seems like phoning it in. Whilst getting the message across for a revamp, having come out of the Bourne closet after 9 years, JB demands a better title than the first thing he’ll see on his power bill. Maybe the next movie can be Mr Jason Bourne.
Petty grievances aside, Jason Bourne does retain the 101 of its creed, but its necessity is brought into question (inasmuch as any movie could be called ‘necessary’). People wanted a sequel, like a proper sequel, but the big mystery was already solved. Digging the well further may not be worth the risk of contamination. Making any movie is risky – making a movie that’s lost it’s narrative-will-to-live is doubly so.
Taking Bourne off the grid means finding another reason to get him back in. Incidentally he’s given information about his father from a former accomplice. While an entirely plausible reason to renew the antics of espionage, Jason Bourne has the unnatural feeling of a story told by studio, and not by storytellers. Started and reined by lucrative incentive, instead any compelling one.
The movie itself doesn’t seem interested with its own existential motivation, and more so in being a Bourne movie for no Bourne good reason. The CIA hacks everyone’s Facebook feed to find Bourne; CIA starts using G+ instead ‘cause it’s better; CIA gets frustrated when they can’t find the superman spy they created.
You’ll see every fist-efficient, quick-thinking technique Bourne movies thrive off, maybe with slightly less panache. So the Bourne Repetition does square itself firmly in the sights of its peers, but has the air of a secondary objective. The primary mission is done, and now we’re just cleaning up. The mission, like the movie, is entirely optional.