Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This is a genuine question, as it came up again in a piece I was reading on the ridiculous pricing of 4K UHD discs, and I remain baffled by how much people seem to dislike this movie.

Was it a necessary film? Nope. Was it a cinematic classic? Not even a little. But folk seem to get really, really worked up about it and I don't get it. It was an implausible conspiracy thriller with some decent action scenes, not up to the best of the other Bourne films but not really any worse than the rest of them. Is it really just that people hate the idea that the patently ridiculous and physically improbable antics of Bourne himself are explained beyond "he's just totes awesum brah!" with some pop-science viral genetic engineering plot?

Like I say; baffled. I watched it, it was alright, I watched it a second time a while later, and that was probably enough - exactly the reaction I had to the other Bourne films.

I think people hate the Bourne Legacy for the same reason movies in it's genre get hate: it's just another boring action flick. Plus, the original 3 were pretty good, and I think people hoped that would be the end, but then they made a "sequel" and replaced Matt Damon.

Yeah, they replaced Matt Damon, and the last half was just boring.

Hmm, fair enough, I suppose I just don't get it because I don't consider Matt Damon or the "proper" Bourne films to be that transcendent by comparison; after the first one which was notable for shaking up the whole genre they all seemed much of a muchness to me.

I've seen this movie twice and it is certainly enjoyable enough.

I was surprised and a little disappointed when Jeremy Renner's Aaron Cross didn't show up in Jason Bourne.

But then, I also wasn't aware of the high level of 'hate' out there directed at this film?

It may have just been burn out over the franchise in general. if I recall the last Bourne movie that came out with Matt Damon didn't do all that great either. Advertising may have played a part as it made it seem like an action film when it was more of a drama with some action bits, which would probably generate some bad word of mouth.