How Masculine Is Jason Bourne?

Action movie franchises, like the Bourne series, are meant to reflect the times they live in. As mammoth works of pop culture, they are designed to reinforce—and, ideally, challenge—popular tastes, aesthetics, and contemporary politics.

For example, with today’s craze of third-wave feminism, is it any coincidence that James Bond is being criticized for his “misogyny”? While it is true that Bond, like Jason Bourne, is a “tough guy” who does not suffer fools–male or female–that is not an extension of a hatred squarely aimed at women.

Rather, since 9/11, Bond has been portrayed as a damaged antihero, embodying a rugged confidence and defiance that is condemned and, frankly, misunderstood nowadays. Wielding a firm set of skills and principles, Bond knows how to get exactly what he wants–qualities which women love (whether they admit it or not) and other men respect.

Jason Bourne is an interesting case of masculine ideals. He shares 007’s physical endurance and mental sharpness that, with age (Damon is 45; was 29 in The Bourne Identity), has grown cynical and world-weary. Bags darkening under his eyes and wrinkles lining his face, Bourne moves through his environment with the same precision a horseback John Wayne acquired when he navigated Monument Valley in the Classic Westerns of the 1950s. 

Jason Bourne: scrappy, bruised, damaged. But what's on the inside?

Jason Bourne: scrappy, bruised, damaged. But what’s on the inside?

What separates Bourne from other action heroes, though, is his constant search for identity. While many action films put their leading man through an identity crisis (virtually every Christopher Nolan movie), Jason Bourne’s existential struggle has been the impetus of the entire commercially successful franchise, which is based on Robert Ludlum’s books.

In Jason Bourne, the fifth movie of the series (and fourth to star Matt Damon), Bourne’s hunt for self is, on the surface, an apt analogy for the identity crisis of today’s men pursuing masculine ideals against the politically correct wagging finger of “toxic masculinity.”

Following this analogy, the Central Intelligence Agency is that authoritarian force that tries to dominate, control, and neutralize Bourne’s said quest. Within the agency, counterinsurgency expert Heather Lee (Alicia Vikander) asserts herself in a male-dominated division by showing initiative to her male bosses in handling the mission to take out Bourne.

Heather is in search of an identity as well, only it is career-based: she wants to leapfrog from an already-plum position to become the eyes and ears of the CIA Director (a sour, mean-faced Tommy Lee Jones).

Bourne and Heather are complementary characters separated by their allegiances. A man on the run, Bourne serves his own cause, whereas Heather serves the Establishment (but, really, for her own benefit). Further, Bourne has no pretensions about his principles, whereas Heather feigns nobility and honor.

In one scene, she defends to a tech giant (Nightcrawler’s Riz Ahmed) that her principles are “still there” after joining the unconstitutional intelligence agency. But in reality, she is selfish and out to career climb, which is confirmed in the film’s final confrontation (see below). 

Heather (Vikander) and Bourne (Damon) are each other's foils in "Jason Bourne".

Heather (Vikander) and Bourne (Damon) are each other’s foils in “Jason Bourne”.

Unfortunately though, Jason Bourne plays more for plot than story, meaning that these themes are undermined instead of underlined by the action. Narrative exposition and tricky twists are privileged over character building and catharsis. But that is Paul Greengrass for you; he is a director (Captain Phillips most recently) who specializes in shaky-cam action that strictly attempts to create the illusion of real time. Greengrass favours fluidity of plot, which helps the pace of his films but not their ideas.

His scrappy style resembles Michael Mann’s–Jason Bourne’s cyber warfare premise mirrors last year’s excellent Blackhat– only Mann’s movies are also about character. As critic Matt Zoller Seitz wrote, “Mann is an action filmmaker even when his characters are standing still”. In addition, Mann interestingly casted Hollywood beau Chris Hemsworth against type as a brainy computer hacker, which added shades of contrast to the hero’s personality.

The boyish Damon is better when his “heroic” roles are tongue-in-cheek (The Martian, True Grit) or laced with cowardice (The Departed, Interstellar). While Damon has physical chutzpah, his heroism needs some irony or masculine flaw. 

The Bourne movies give Damon a serious-looking leading character, but that male archetype is starting to exhaust itself and requires deconstruction, which this new film fails to offer.

This is likely why the curly-haired, sneaky-like-a-rat Asset (Vincent Cassel) is a fresher character. Bourne’s arch-enemy, the Asset is a fresh addition to the series and is dependably slick and deadly. He packs punch. Bourne, meanwhile, needs a flaw, some sort of imperfection to test his will and give weight to his identity hunt (Damon’s arguably hypocritical gun control stance would serve as a useful implementation, couldn’t it?).

Lacking depth, Jason Bourne has little to say about its titular hero. While the film implies a socio-political allegory, it is not worked out in the plot. There is an opportunity in the film to highlight Bourne’s connection to his father, but this is obfuscated by flashy flashbacks that merely function as jolts of “information”. Greengrass repeats these flashbacks, not to identify with Bourne’s fractured state of mind but to continuously prompt the poor memory of the average action movie goer.

007 - a masculine hero. And yes that's a gun in his hand, Lena Dunham.

007 – a masculine hero. And yes that’s a gun in his hand, Lena Dunham.

Further, the plot is predictable. It follows the formula of the previous entries, so by the film’s close it is easy to predict Bourne’s next duck, step, leap, punch, and all of his other basic forms of tactical combat as he maneuvers through Athens, London, and Las Vegas. Bourne lacks his reliable elusiveness; it is interesting when that is because the CIA can track him easier due to advancements in modern technology, but his predictability is primarily borne out of familiar plot mechanics.

In Jason Bourne, the question “How Masculine Is Jason Bourne” is really, unfortunately moot. An informed viewer can project their knowledge of gender identity and past masculine heroes onto the film and surmise their own conclusions; from this writer’s perspective, however, masculine identity is not examined or even reflected in Greengrass’s direction or script (cowritten by Christopher Rouse).

Thus, Bourne has devolved into a hollow hero (and yet “we need to evolve,” Damon ironically stated in a July interview promoting gun control); he’s become an object of plot, meant to bait his audience along to the franchise’s (inevitable) next film. Ultimately, Damon plays a hero that needs to discover “who he really is” simply so we will continue to buy tickets. A shill for Hollywood–not so masculine, you could say.

Read More: 8 Films With Masculine Virtue

207 thoughts on “How Masculine Is Jason Bourne?”

  1. Meh, I know it’s acting and that I should divorce the actors and their political beliefs from the characters they’re playing and the stories they’re telling, but I just can’t do it anymore.
    I can’t bring myself to spend money (and more importantly time) watching a Boston liberal retard like Matt Damon pretend to shoot guns. Same thing for Suicide Squad. I love comics, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to watch something with Will my-son-wears-dresses Smith in it after he continually conflates Trump supporters with racism.
    Fuck all these guys, basically.

    1. Yeah or that blowhard Samuel Jackson who thinks he’s badass because he has played some roles that talk loudly, yet said he’s going to emigrate if Trump is elected lol

      1. As if I needed another reason to vote Trump. 😉
        SLJ’s ridiculousness made his character in Kingsman: The Secret Service that much better.

        1. That character was poking fun at russell simmons, so I didnt mind it that much.

    2. It really is hard to unplug and enjoy movies, especially when you see this radicalized pussy looking for any and every soap box he can stand on to cry about gun control. One of the reasons why I believe he did a good job in the Departed is because it seems like a much more natural role for him. No idea how he gets by playing Bourne.

      1. Exactly. His roles in The Departed and Interstellar worked well because he likely is portraying the type of character which comes natural to him.
        The sniveling, despicable and impotent rat.

        1. He was. He was a stranded astronaut. He freaked out and got himself killed.

        2. Yeah you beat me to it. He’s a backstabbing little pussy in both of those roles so he is credible in them. Jason Bourne, though, no fucking way.

      2. With super fast quick cuts every 10th of a fucking second, you can make any twat look like a super efficient and deadly killing machine… even a complete and utter fanny like Matt Damon.

        1. Which is necessary with Damon. On one of the DVDs, there’s an extra where Damon is remarkably open about his failing at fight choreography.
          Though I’m not sure how to explain the quick cuts in Green Zone (yes, I saw it) as there wasn’t really any action to disguise and most shots were so dark you couldn’t tell what was going on anyhow.

        2. Thank you for posting this.
          I found all of the sequels I saw hard to sit through for this reason, as well as the fact that I couldn’t force myself to care.
          Most of Hollywood it seems uses this choppy, shaky cam nonsense, or its like they get b-roll Hong Kong action clips and re-do it with western people, poorly. Its so normalized and played out, with no personal style.
          The one highlight of this franchise was the shotgun fight with Clive Owen’s character. That was the one time I didn’t think this franchise was shit in terms of action.

      3. Funny how that twat is for gun control, considering hes shooting up the whole world in his movies. Smells funny hypocritical? It foes indeed.
        But maybe he just thinks that guns and violence are okay if used by the good guys – the gov. And police. Your backstabbin friend and useless helper.
        Like in the movies!

    3. But remember, if any of them are socialists, it’s perfectly acceptable– in fact, kind and good— if you download or otherwise share their movies without involving any capitalism or free market taint.
      Helping these people live up to their own standards and get to their own version of heaven is something we should all be doing. Be kind to leftists, file-share!

      1. Thats the irony. They chase down ‘pirates’ with more vigor than rapists and murderers. Not that I condemn either, but hey, if you wanna be rational, whos doing more damage, eh?
        Fucken scary ‘movie pirace is a criminal offense’ fearmongery guiltrippin motherfucker spots. See where belief in morals gets ya? To where you accrpt movie downloads as some kind of inhumane crime comparable to the Cruciatus curse in Harry fucking Potter.

        1. Everything you say is true, but immaterial!
          As kind people, we simply should help a socialist’s ambition. We certainly should not feel guilt or ethical dilemmas over helping them accomplish an ideal that a material world makes difficult. Life is hard, offer a helping hand.
          Helping our brethren attain nirvana– whichever nirvana they desire– should be everyone’s job.
          Pay for capitalist, share for a socialist.

        2. I was saying that I agree with your synopsis on the “legal weight” of specific crimes, but it’s a different discussion from the fact that you should ethically always help yourself to a socialist’s goods or labor, in the interests of helping them attain their life goals.

        3. Yeah but didn’t you know if you watch pirated movies you are supporting terrorism/drug lords/ gun running/ people trafficking?
          Yes all of this has been claimed.

        4. A few? So she was a thousand years old when Joseph met her? And still a virgin? Wow!

        5. No. Generally a “couple” is two and a “few” is around three or more depending. Probably doesn’t translate well to German.

      2. I know we’re being sarcastic here, but I’ve seen this line of reasoning taken seriously elsewhere and thought I’d just throw my two cents in:
        If I’m not going to watch someone’s film/listen to someone’s music/play someone’s video game based on moral principle, I’m not going to illegally obtain it either. There are countless articles on RoK about a woman’s lack of integrity, and yet some guys will go through the same mental gymnastics to have their cake and eat it too.
        Being an alpha also includes being a man of good principle, and in order to be a man of good principle you need to stick to your guns.

        1. Should you value a man’s life, labor, and production more than he values them himself? Or more than he values yours?

        2. <<e:u. ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::::!!bx891a:….,.

        3. There are important battles to fight and then there are mere trifles. Some kid downloading a Hollywood movie that he probably wouldn’t watch if he had to pay for it is a mere trifle. Most of us here have bigger fish to fry.
          Not only that, these movies are police state propaganda. I am sure that those responsible really don’t have a issue with people watching this stuff, whether for free or otherwise.

    4. Impressive: the top ranking comment here, with a post that begins, Meh. Solid points though

    5. There is nothing wrong with doing this at all …. The real hypocrites are those on the right that have the same opinions but can’t even be bothered to boycott those institutions and products which they disagree with.

    6. I never was big into comics. I read novels (on paper). I enjoy some of the new superhero movies, but I enjoy them privately, after I torrented them, at home. I haven’t been in a theater other than one date in a few years.

    7. I understand this sentiment. For some reason I can totally divorce the characters from the actors. Probably because I care about character and the actor is just some douche bag. I don’t go to movies. Too much breath in one closed room. But I’ll torrent and watch. I don’t particularly like the Bourne movies because I feel they boarder on an absurdity because of the contrast of the real world everyone else seems to be in with the super powers he seems to have.
      That said….Connery Bond is still number uno in the spy racket. That’s like Nolan Ryan’s strike out record. It just isn’t getting beat

      1. I believe the Jason Bourne character is actually a MK Ultra programmed assassin. Hollywood loves to make movies about people who are part of the MK Ultra program but they never tell the viewer. It’s like some sick inside joke in Hollywood.

        1. I read the wiki. This is exactly what I had assumed the CIA was up to. I’m not phased.

        2. They (the people above the people who crank out the content) actually have a philosophy that as long as they publicly tell us what they are doing to us, it absolves them of moral accountability. I’m serious.

        3. Yeah, “deltas”. but the concept is that this guy broke out of it. In the third film, there’s a scene where some nerdy doctor shoots up a research room, that was the example of the mind controlled assassin.

      2. When’s the most recent occasion of bond slapping a woman ? I wonder… That used to be a staple.

        1. The last time was In Goldeneye when he chops Xenia to sleep before meeting Janus/Trevelyan.

        2. I appreciate that fact, thanks. What I mean though isn’t a “chop” for her own good or whatever, I mean a Sean Connery to put a handle on her.

      3. I thought Bourne had been put through a special training program to make him an “ubermensch”.
        The spinoff Bourne Legacy did more to explain why its agents were supermen as it mentioned that they underwent genetic engineering to enhance their abilities.
        Oddly enough, the genetically-enhanced agents weren’t even close to being as physically or mentally capable as Jason Bourne, who was only trained instead of trained and engineered.

    8. Same
      The amount of films I watch has more than halved because I won’t spend money on people who; now openly despise my views
      I was half looking forward to Suicide Squad, then Smith pops his twat head up, opens the stupid cavern below his nose & insults half the potential viewers – to which I said; fuck this movie and this mongol
      It amazes me how retarded actors sound when they don’t have a script – It’s like autism & faggotry are the main requirements for Hollywood at the minute

    9. I think one should ask a simple question before considering any hollywood dandy as a potential source for a masculine character.
      How many cocks have they sucked and rump roastings have they endured to reach their position?
      As has been noted by Roosh here and many many others across the past 30-50 yrs.
      To go anywhere in the industry means you will have done deplorable acts and had them done to you as well. This is very well known among inside circles. The price of admission is total degradation.
      These “stars” are nothing if not plastic fuck dolls for the perverted elite. That anyone look up to them, praise and comment on them or otherwise fail to hold them as the lowest and most disgusting form of life is…..just a further example of how far we have gone down the abyss.
      Long ago actors did not even receive graves. They were looked down upon. Those instincts were correct.

      1. Not surprised at this. Daniel Craig is such a shit-tier Bond, an overcompensating, ugly midget.
        On a more positive note, not all Bond’s are snivelling virtue-signalling faggots in real life.

        1. Daniel Craig, his wimpiness aside, looks to me like he should be playing a KGB agent, not an MI6 agent.

        2. As much as a liberal Craig is, IMHO he’s the Best Bond — the Bond of, or closest to, Fleming’s books. Connery is a great actor and a man’s man, but his characterization isn’t what Fleming had in mind fro the character. Read Casino Royale.

      2. Craig seemed more at home in the ultra-feminist movie Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, where he played the damsel in distress and male panty model, than as Bond 🙁

    10. Well they leverage their celebrity to promote their agendas including but not limited to influencing local politics, sometimes not even in their own country. Yours is a more than reasonable position. Fuck ’em all.

      1. Celebrity status is per se something perverse. I get more and more annoyed by seeing the same faces in movies all over again. And all that narcissistic fandom. Come on, dude. You are an actor, not a Greek god. Playing the hero on the screen doesnt mean your opinions matter any more than Average McMean Joes.

        1. The actual circle of power is incredibly small. I’d say less than 100 people run Hollywood, and you can see how short the list is of ‘approved’ actors.

        2. Well, I agree in spirit but… It does unfortunately. Their opinions may not “matter” to you or I but they objectively do in the world. I think it’s ridiculous, this cult of personality. It’s sad, that people kind of operate as institutional placeholders with their blinkers on and their heads down but, they do. I can’t stand this cult of personality either, it’s fucking pathetic.

        3. Well, what I meant is perhaps not that they matter not, but that celebrity status does not make your opinions objectively more relevant.

    11. “Meh, I know it’s acting and that I should divorce the actors and their political beliefs from the characters they’re playing and the stories they’re telling, but I just can’t do it anymore”
      Same here – it’s the sign of the times right now.

    12. Yes, fuck Matt Damon. I haven’t seen any of the Bourne movies. It is simply not credible for an effeminate little lefty POS to play a tough guy. They need to re-boot those movies and get a non-faggot to play the lead role.

    13. Matt Damon isn’t “Boston Strong”?
      These movies are beginning to imitate themselves. I remember when I used to be excited about a new Bourne movie. Now I see this one and know that I’ve already seen it.
      So now I focus on books (the last medium that you can find real men – even computer games are now feminized and homofied). Check out Legends. They made a TV show based on it (but heavily diluted and feminised) but clearly the Bourne movies are based on the concepts within the book.

      1. You can always rely on the classics for masculine dialectic.
        Hemmingway, Twain, Orwell just to name a few.
        For the average millenial these aren’t even read in the school system.
        Was lucky to be introduced to them in the public system.
        Can’t see that happening now as they’d “promote patriarchy, be “racyst” and simply hit the nail on the head and convert the blue pill beta to reader to Red Pill on the spot.

  2. “For example, with today’s craze of third-wave feminism, is it any coincidence that James Bond is being criticized for his “misogyny”?”
    Let me guess…Trigglypuff?

      1. Terrence Popp has a nice effect on his videos where he puts in the video clip of Triggly running out of steam, and it cues the Mario Brothers death jingle (the little music line you hear when your character dies) and a “game over” screen.

        1. Hopefully the same way that others feel about it. I sincerely doubt that she really has any objectivity or shame though. She’s probably doubled down in it.

  3. Damon has been screaming about gun control for awhile. He’s a tool of the elites. I won’t pay to see the new Bourne.

    1. That’s why I pirate everything. Most movies suck, and even if they don’t, I’m not going to volunteer my money to people that despise me

    2. Sometime I’ll have to start ponder reading and digesting Ragnar Benson’s book on gunsmithing under totalitarian regimes. Can’t remember its title.

    3. I stopped going to the movies altogether when I got red-pilled. Why would I pay my money to the degenerate Hollywood that works tirelessly against me?

    1. He was excellent in La Haine. I can’t deny the French leftist leanings of that movie but his character was a badass.

    1. That reminded me how psyched i am that the actor for Trevor is going to be in next seasons walking dead. He was way more intimidating than Negan

  4. Damon is womanish. The guy wears make up for a living. Other men tell him what to say, where to stand, how to emote.
    Guys who obsess over movies can’t be much in the way of men.
    There will be at least one effeminate guy who will come along to defend his womanish obsession with fantasy that comes from movies. Such an effeminate guy will get triggered.

    1. So discussing a movie or a facet of a movie or series is obsessing then, is it?

        1. In the end, it’s discussing a cultural artifact that has traditionally had a large impact in helping shape our society’s opinions and outlooks (while simultaneously mirroring many of society’s opinions and outlooks). What precisely is not masculine about discussing cultural artifacts through the lens of a particular philosophical outlook is rather confusing.

        2. That’s the problem I see with American culture. The movies and TV shows have got too much of an impact, way too much.

        3. Movies, television, games, and books are to our culture as the myths and legends were to the ancients. Essentially, they are rhetorical devices that serve to pass cultural values to the masses.
          When a generation is raised on the values of “Chosen Hero Born to Greatness” stories like Harry Potter, they turn out pretty much like the millennials we see.

        4. “…a large impact in helping shape our society’s opinions…” ~ @ghostofjefferson:disqus

          Society is abstraction. Society does not have opinions. Only individuals have opinions.
          Where you find two or more in friendly association, there is society among them.
          Most fail to understand reality because they do not know what words mean. Instead, they parrot words in succession because they learned such patterns when growing up.
          You would have been right had you claimed, movies as works of propaganda indoctrinate many.
          Good luck.

        5. Dude, don’t try and out atomize me, ok? I know that society is an abstraction. But that doesn’t mean that it isn’t a useful abstraction. Math is also an abstraction, but that doesn’t blunt it’s obvious utility. Logic is also an abstraction. Even language is an abstraction insofar is it is a tool we all agree to use which has no real basis in life outside of our utilization of it as a species. What you said then is no more useful than when a feminist screeches “Patriarchy is a social construct!” As if everything in society isn’t in some way shape or form, a social construct. Well duh.
          So yeah, don’t go there.
          My point stands. Discussing cultural artifacts and their impact (or lack thereof) on a given society, through a specific philosophical lens, is something men have been doing since long before Socrates was out corrupting the youth of Greece.

        6. “Dude, don’t try and out atomize me, ok? “ ~ @ghostofjefferson:disqus

          What is that nerd-speak?
          Facts remain. Society does not have an opinion as you stupidly claimed precisely because society does not exist. Only individuals have opinions.
          Individuals can be in society with each other and nothing more.
          Better luck next time, dummy.

        7. You’re one post away from being blocked. Whether “society does not have an opinion” does not detract in the least from what I said.

        8. Exactly. I thought this was common knowledge, hence the sarcastic wise crack.

        9. Sadly, they don’t teach the classics anymore. I took a Philosophy course in college (because, hey, how bad could it be?), and the professor glossed over all the ancients.

        10. Sure, but before television it was radio, before radio it was plays and literature, before that it was story telling. Something always has to communicate a cultural message, I guess.

        11. But the question is: are these people comparable to Achilles or Hector??? No. I agree with Better Dead Than Red, in the States these idiots have to much power.

        12. “My point stands. Discussing cultural artifacts and their impact (or lack thereof) on a given society…” ~ @ghostofjefferson:disqus

          Your claiming so fails to make it so.
          Facts remain. Stories affect individuals. Society can not be affected, ever. It is an abstraction.
          Until you clear your muddled mind, you will continue to live by superstition. When you express your opinion, you will be farting in the wind.
          Better luck next time.

        13. No. But I suspect that if you went back to Ancient Greece, you’d find more than stories about Achilles and Hector being discussed. You’d also find stories of Dumbassacles and other mundane bullshit, that did not survive the ages due to lack of weight and merit. Meanwhile, 1,000 years from now, some future men will be discussing the “Golden Age of the West” and upholding Braveheart (or whatever) without having any knowledge that the Bourne dreck was ever produced. Only the best survives the test of time.

        14. Bad cultural values are still cultural values. The heroes taught the virtues in ancient days, and you can still find traces of that legacy in some places (90’s Batman, in particular), but overall such ideas are largely lost.
          That’s why I was drafting a fantasy book about a kid who spends years acquiring useful skills, battles no giants and saves no damsels (thus, is not a “hero”), but gains fame through his masterworks. It’s imperative that we disseminate real values.
          EDIT: It turns out I’m garbage at writing fiction, so this project is on the back burner for a while.

        15. While I know that superhero stories are basically evolved stories of the Indo-European ancient pantheon of gods, I am rather disappointed how you can NOT be a hero now in entertainment without having some kind of “magic” or “super powers”. It does basically communicate the message that normal people are useless and helpless and that those who make it big do so due to some kind of unfair advantage that they were gifted with (unearned).
          Maybe I’m reading too much into that though, but I don’t see many good heroes without magic or super powers (except perhaps Batman). Used to be, you could go to a Western (or watch one on television) and the hero was some normal man with a level head and a quick gun who stood up to the bad guys. Now he needs to have some kind of telekinesis and, ideally, fly to have real stature as a “hero”.

        16. I noticed that Batman: The Animated Series was set in a vaguely 50’s time period. That was part of what made it great, because he didn’t need gadgets so much as he needed his wits and skills.

        17. Heck, the television show from the 1960’s demonstrated that he didn’t even need a good physique or a decent tailor. It was like “Bob Businessman straps on a plastic belt and puts a weird paint job on an old Buick”.

        18. It’s worrisome that this has to be explained to a person with the handle “Philosopher”.

        19. “Except perhaps Batman.” Please remember, Bruce Wayne is the orphaned child of Billionaire parents, which allows him the luxury to be Batman and fund the development of his gadgets. His “magic power” is that he was born with “uber 1% privilege.” So, even Batman is not an exception to the trend you note. The only real exception I am aware of (and I confess I am not hardcore into comics so may be missing some) is the Watchmen, who, with the exception of Dr. Manhattan, were a bunch of ordinary people who dressed up and played superhero. “Kick Ass” also portrayed the normal guy as super hero, but in a completely unrealistic way so that he may as well have been a superhero.

        20. Fuck! I should have read further down. Just said the same thing. You beat me to it.

        21. Probably why the feminists & their ilk find the current mainstream idea of heroes appealing.
          I exist therefore I am. Always some fucking magic Macguffin.
          Utterly lacking in even some pretense of the Hero’s Journey. This just leads to drivel like the recent Star Wars film or Game Of Thrones with their magic females.
          Part of the reason why I can find the Ripley character from Alien appealing as a female hero is because she wasn’t written as a caricature. She starts off terrified but competent & resilient & even a bit lucky in the first film.
          She is still traumatized in the outstanding sequel but has her motherly instincts kick in with the loss of her biological daughter & her need to protect the young girl colonist. Easy to root for her because her motivations come from a place of truth.

        22. Like having to explain the concept of nutrition & exercise to a land whale with the handle Beautiful Fit Chick.

        23. He was more of a detective than in recent depictions. Something Ra’as al Ghul hammered home ad nauseum

        24. Troy is an interesting showcase.
          Menelaus was essentially pure alpha, he led the greatest host in history to the most defensible city in history simply to validate his honor.
          Achilles was alpha all the way up until the very end, when he lost frame, sent his woman to a city he knew he’d wreck in 12 days, and wasted his life being a saveahoe and trying to get her back.
          I might’ve called Hector an alpha as well, but he had countless opportunities to end the situation, and lost frame each time.
          Paris was pure beta-bucks. Fitting the only thing he did involved a bow.

        25. It’s a sad reflection of most people’s daily lives. Personally, I don’t watch tv or allow son to watch anything beyond some old school cartoons. The power of the media is evident when you take a mixed bag of people somewhere out having a good time. Introduce politics and the training to attack “others” reveals itself. Once a dog is trained you don’t even have to point, they anticipate having that bird in their mouth when they see you walk to your truck with your gun.

        26. Myths (myth doesn’t mean that it is false, a myth can be true) and stories have always been a part of human society and culture. We have become cynical of all myths, and it has had an effect on the way we live. No one believes anything anymore unless they have witnessed it themselves.

        27. I have to say, I agree with the man. Call it atomizing, but I think its helpful to sometimes point it out. Maybe you think clearly enough to see the abstraction for what it is, but from my impression, many are not, chasing phantoms.

        28. If we can’t trust Israeli Marxist professors to teach us real history, who can we trust?

        1. So basically all you have is sneering and character attacking.
          Get back to me with how womanly all of history’s authors (fantasy! How womanly!) and philosophers were when discussing abstract concepts and the state of their culture.
          If you have nothing to offer except a variant of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy, then you have nothing to offer whatsoever.
          Slainte mhor.

        2. One Jason Bourne movie is a story. Following an arc of Jason Bourne movies is a soap opera.
          Soap operas are for women. Soaps are sappy vehicles of gossip and sympathetic feelings.
          You have let me know where you stand, girly.
          Good luck.

        3. I could give a shit about this movie. I’m talking about your obsession with attacking the author, whose bio clearly states that he’s a writer and a filmmaker, which would make his observations hold some merit in the context of examining a movie or series of movies.
          You have nothing but snarky bitchy little quips. You’ve proven your lack of worth for further discussion.

        4. You: “You have nothing but snarky bitchy little quips. “
          And then you write: “And…blocked”.
          If that is not the bitchiest little quip, what is? LOLZ
          You are pissy because someone exposed an error in your belief. That has tossed you into a spin of cognitive dissonance.
          Better luck next time.

        5. Jesus, I didn’t know faggots had periods too.
          So yeah, you are total right. Mythos has no power.
          Christ, what fucking turnip truck did you fall from?

        6. “Jesus, I didn’t know …Christ, what “ ~ @lolknee:disqus

          Why are you calling me Jesus? What are you stupid?
          You: So yeah, you are total [sic] right.
          Better: Yes. You are right, totally.
          You: Christ, what fucking turnip truck did you fall from?
          Better: Christ, from what fucking turnip truck have you fallen?
          Your weak language skills reflect the lame state of your intellect. Alas, you should not be angry with me. You should be angry with your mommy and daddy who have saddled you with their DNA, which has given rise to your low-grade intellect.
          You are another who has been triggered and triggered so easily. In so many words, you have told everyone reading these comments that you like soap operas and thus that you are effeminate.
          Oh and this bit of yours is called a non-sequitur: “So yeah, you are total right. Mythos has no power.”
          No one with proper reading comprehension could conclude that I claimed stories can’t indoctrinate from my claim that following an arc of Jason Bourne movies is a soap opera.
          Good luck, dummy.

        7. Grow up. Find a brain, a dick and a heart and then come back and play with the big boys.
          I don’t know if you can call it triggered. But I dislike when very, very dumb people talk…especially if they are not saying something funny.
          We usually get a much higher quality of troll on this site.
          Maybe you can find a brain damaged chimpanzee to help you formulate a more cogent opinion and then see if you can’t type it up.
          Other than that, go back to from whence you came faghot.

        8. “…come back and play with the big boys.” ~ @lolknee:disqus

          Perhaps you make it a habit to play, like a child, and play with boys, but I do not.
          You: “I don’t know if you can call it triggered. But I dislike when very, very dumb people talk..”
          You must not like yourself. “Very, very is redundant.”
          You: “… to help you formulate a more cogent opinion…”
          One can have a cogent argument, but not a cogent opinion. An opinion is a belief, a fancy, what one esteems. An argument consists of statements that express reasoning in support of a proposition. A cogent argument is a persuasive one.
          You have been schooled, oh so schooled.
          Better luck next time, my little triggered dummy.

        9. My words are like your strings, and you, you are my little marionette. When I pull your strings, you dance.
          Look at you go! You are dancing!
          Keep dancing my little marionette!

        10. Yeah your words are like strings alright. Tampon strings dangling out of the cunt you call a mouth

        11. Oh, my little marionette continues to dance. It is easy to predict what you will do because your strings are being pulled by me.
          Look at you dance! You will be back to dance again my little dummy marionette!

        12. “You seem triggered. You are forced to defend your womanly obsession with fantasy, a truly womanly trait”
          Ah yes, the smug snarkiness of a beta male who spends too much time around female friends and never gets laid, who in turn, projects his own womanly traits on others.

        13. “… never gets laid …” ~ @disqus_xtRlAFKLYt:disqus

          That is quite the fantasy on your part. Effeminates fantasize about others. It is a most effeminate trait.
          It is the trait of Zeta males.
          Better luck next time, my triggered little Zeta.

        14. Pray tell what is a Zeta male? Sticking a dildo up your butt while watching Lena Dunham on Girls must really have some effect on your typing. I won’t hold being a ladyboy against you though….

  5. I like the fact it presents the CIA as murderous, corrupt and inclined towards totalitarian surveillance. The film is Ok, but the least of the franchise. It’s themes are indeed pretty un(der)-developed including the idea of patriotism: will Bourne come in? Can he conscientiously serve the US government on the basis of a patriotism? Well, it’s not giving much away, to say no he can’t. But while Greengrass’ cynicism is not misplaced, and Bourne doesn’t come in, he doesn’t really he do much else either. He doesn’t come in (or on) Alicia Vikander either, which does beg the question: what is her point, or Bourne’s. The fact is Bourne’s identity is that once more he doesn’t really have one any more. For some reason the CIA are still interested in him, but its not entirely apparent why. This lack of a real purpose, or dynamic is pretty much emblematic of his masculinity as well. The spoiler here (look away if you must but you don’t really have to) is that Vikander looks momentarily as though she might tame Bourne, bring him in, clip his wings and neuter him. She represents and describes herself as the new generation, better able than the old dinosaurs she is intent on replacing. Tommy Lee (Jones, that is, Tommy Lee would have come in and on her, filmed and uploaded the whole thing onto youporn) represents the old guard, but so does Bourne – who though he’s still a functional hero – is looking slightly older). In a film with three male protagonists – Tommy Lee Jones, Vincent Kassell and Jason Bourne – in many ways it is Alicia Vikander – the subtle cyber expert and social manipulator – who is actualy the real predator (and the real villain?): she’s the one waiting in the wings to pounce, and ultimately we get a glimplse of the amoral and functionally psychopathic moral vacuum at her centre.
    Bourne preserves his identity in this, against this attempt to take him down by stealth, through artifice, but it really is a question of just surviving against a new more subtle and perfumed kind of enemy within. Maybe in the next film he should take down a literally feminist psy-ops operation or assassination bureau.

    1. It’s awful….. the hand cam shots of the motorcycle chase were particularly terrible….. couldn’t see any of the action…. that and the plot was bullshit….Tommy Lee Jones plays…… you guessed it…… Tome Lee Jones….bunch of wank……

      1. I enjoyed most of it, but was periodically having pretty much the same thoughts

      2. Bourne Legacy wasn’t a very great movie.
        But it might be the best Bourne movie simply because you can actually almost see what happens in the action sequences.
        It’s truly sad that you could pick any episode of an 80s “action show” and hands-down better action sequences than in most of today’s movies, eg: any car chase from The A-Team > any Bourne car chase.

    2. Ya know, I was yhinking if perhaps they allow movies to be made about the evil CIA so that people think: Well, if Hollywood is allowed to show that, it is obviously fiction.
      But it aint.

      1. Well, the whole “asset” / super-assassin thing probably is fiction, whatever ‘black ops’, deep state programs they may or may not run. If you’re more inclined to be ‘trusting’ or ‘patriotic’ you could choose Kevin Hart & Dwayne Johnson’s Central Intelligence Agency, or even Denzil Washington’s the Equaliser – where the CIA is all good and it’s the Ruskies who are completely evil. It’s a big organisation though, and some parts may be darker than others. The CIA do subvert countries / start wars etc if the rumours are correct? On average I’d say the portrayal in Sicario is probably the most believable, but even that is a bit of a whitewash

    3. Isnt the really funny thing about thr movies that Bourne needs the government to allow him to have an identity? Pretty symptomatic.

  6. I think Jason Bourne is about as masculine as Daniel Craig’s Bond, at least from Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace.
    That’s not so much praising Bourne as denigrating Craig Bond. Sign of the times, I guess…

        1. Id give a thumbs up because it was an important thing to inform us about, but I just cant do it for that vile filth.

      1. In the two movies listed, his driving motivation is pretty much 100% oneitis. Contrasted with Connery Bond’s “damn, I really liked her, but life goes on” attitude, it’s striking.

        1. I suppose the only way one can reconcile that is by noting how those films predate the Comnery ones in terms of the character chronology, in fact, the book Casino Royale was the first of the series and thereafter Fleming’s Bond starts to display the traits that we know albeit the literary version had an aversion to killing and was burned out on his job.

        2. Very true and sickening. Its sad when you compare it to the novels. He also had crushes in there, but he never would have made such a drama about it. Ridiculous.

        3. When they released Casino Royale after several decades of various Bonds, they tacitly admitted they wanted to reboot and rebrand. I’m okay with that, but it means nothing that they make anymore is tied to Connery or the others.
          There are books, there are each previous Bond’s run of films, and there’s the reboot line. I think I’ve finally reached the emotional maturity to separate them without angst.
          (Thank you, Disney, for teaching me that I don’t actually care about the official canon when you nixed the Star Wars novels.)

  7. Something worth pointing out is that Robert Ludlum is dead. Who is Robert Ludlum? He was the masterful novelist that wrote the 3, and only 3, original Jason Bourne novels, as well as a pantheon of others, all modern day espionage thrillers. All are very good, with some variation. However, his name is being pimped out by inferior writers, and the new books say “Robert Ludlum’s “Bourne Apocalypse” by Jenny S. Ghostwriter.” and the Ludlum part is in huge font, even though he is dead.
    Point being, if one wants to analyze the character, one should look at the original books by the original author. If one wants to look at the hypocrisy of Matt Damon, then the movies are the appropriate target of your critiques.

    1. Ludlum’s books suck as much dong as the ones after his death, and they have absolutely zilch in common with any of the movies.

      1. I do agree that they share little with the movies, but I can tell a big difference between his works and the works of his “brand.” You have to like his style though, it’s drier than Frederick Forsyth.

  8. The second and third Bourne movie has the feminist narrative built into it. They brought that female character Pamela to the top CIA position in charge of the entire operation, calling all the shots.

    1. I’m pretty sure a high ranking female wouldn’t be rare in any modern intelligence service. The feminism in the bourne supremacy was more subtle than that I think. It was the fact that she represented morality and goodness (in the CIA of all places) whereas the men were all murdering conniving bastards. In a sense the vikander character in the present film repairs that a little – as at first she appears to be good / morally superior to the men, but then turns out to be just as corrupt

      1. Yes, the 3rd movie showed female is moral and good while the men were evil. Typical feminism propaganda.

  9. I’ve noticed that Alicia Vikander has shown up now a bit on Return of Kings. I thought she was great in “Ex Machina” as the manipulative robot girl. RoK did a great article about that flick as well. She’s schedule to play a young Lara Croft in a Tomb Raider movie reboot next.

    1. No way a “human hanger” such as Vikander could be believable as Croft.
      Not only is Croft not a waif but she ain’t Swedish…and Vikander is very robotic as an actress.
      It’s not a good sign when I’m thinking that Angelina Jolie is going to have done a role better than another actress…

      1. I didn’t realize she was slated for the LC reboot. I don’t particularity mind the coat hanger hook, but it really wont suit the Lara Croft role as you said. I’m sure the studio execs will have a personal trainer & dietitian/personal chef lined up for her in the lead up to shooting and she will do a transformation and there will be a bunch of subsequent articles in the media highlighting her dedication to the LC transformation.

  10. Went to see it last weekend…. hadn’t seen any of the others… this one I can attest is fucking shit….there I’ve just saved you $10…..

  11. An aside but Vincent Cassel is a pretty excellent actor. Orders of magnitude better than Damon [who i like too but mostly for the martian, and the departed].
    Definitely recommend La haine and the Mesrine movies.
    If you watch La Haine, the first half of the Intouchables and Roman Gavras’s music video for “stress” by Justice, you’ll understand race relations in france pretty thoroughly.

  12. The Talented Mr. Ripley is a movie where Matt Damon plays himself as a predatory, manipulative, homosexual.

  13. There is no way anyone can convince me that that fag Craig is masculine since he did that pro-feminazi campaign:

    1. I’m starting to suspect that being in Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, where he basically played a transgender woman, royally screwed with his head.

    2. This man disgusts me. The feminists simply pulls a number from the air and claims it as fact. And this ball-less guy played along, cross-dressing. How does that even begin to address the invented problem of the feminists?

  14. Rewatched the first one last weekend; didn’t realize how much of a p*ssy amnesiac Jason Bourne is until then.

  15. Waiting to see what sort of contrast Blood Father will be to the rather unoriginal Jason Bourne.

  16. This actor wrecklessy wields and glorifies guns and profits from it but wants to take away yours. Vote with your lifestyle the best you can and don’t pay money to see Matt Damon.

  17. I hate. Fucking hate. The fucking shaky cam.
    It is the one fat reason why I am not even considering to watch any Bourne movue anymore.
    Must be the worst fucking cinematic ‘design’ choice of the darn millenium.

  18. Matt Damon is a commu-nazi faggot bastard. He is not masculine at all. Therefore, none of the characters he portrays can be masculine at all.

    1. One Can’t be commu Nazi.
      National socialism is diametrically opposed to Jewish Marxism, you idiot.

      1. Is it? Because it shares a great many commonalities with Marxism:
        Nazism was inspired by Italian Fascism, an invention of hardline Communist Benito Mussolini. During World War I, Mussolini recognized that conventional socialism wasn’t working. He saw that nationalism exerted a stronger pull on the working class than proletarian brotherhood. He also saw that the ferocious opposition of large corporations made socialist revolution difficult. So in 1919, Mussolini came up with an alternative strategy. He called it Fascism. Mussolini described his new movement as a “Third Way” between capitalism and communism. As under communism, the state would exercise dictatorial control over the economy. But as under capitalism, the corporations would be left in private hands.
        Hitler followed the same game plan. He openly acknowledged that the Nazi party was “socialist” and that its enemies were the “bourgeoisie” and the “plutocrats” (the rich). Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler eliminated trade unions, and replaced them with his own state-run labor organizations. Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler hunted down and exterminated rival leftist factions (such as the Communists). Like Lenin and Stalin, Hitler waged unrelenting war against small business.
        Hitler regarded capitalism as an evil scheme of the Jews and said so in speech after speech. Karl Marx believed likewise. In his essay, “On the Jewish Question,” Marx theorized that eliminating Judaism would strike a crippling blow to capitalist exploitation. Hitler put Marx’s theory to work in the death camps.
        The Nazis are widely known as nationalists, but that label is often used to obscure the fact that they were also socialists. Some question whether Hitler himself actually believed in socialism, but that is no more relevant than whether Stalin was a true believer. The fact is that neither could have come to power without at least posing as a socialist. And the constant emphasis on the fact that the Nazis were nationalists, with barely an acknowledgment that they were socialists, is as absurd as labeling the Soviets “internationalists” and ignoring the fact that they were socialists (they called themselves the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). Yet many who regard “national” socialism as the scourge of humanity consider “international” socialism a benign or even superior form of government.
        That being said, according to popular misconception, the Nazis must have been on the political right because they persecuted communists and fought a war with the communists in Russia. This specious logic has gone largely unchallenged because it serves as useful propaganda for the left, which needs “right-wing” atrocities to divert attention from the horrific communist atrocities of the past century. Hence, communist atrocities have received much less publicity than Nazi war crimes, even though they were greater in magnitude by any objective measure.
        What that means is : Communists (or “Marxist Socialists”) have killed far more people during the last century than the Nazis (“National Socialists”) ever did.

        1. National socialism does not allow banking via debt notes controlled by a private class, it opposed it. And abortion, immigration, Joos, Govt owning all industry. Germany did not redistribute wealth and heavily tax but lowered them. Guns were not confiscated as in ussr but the age TO own guns was lowered to 28. Atheism is not revered and espoused, as in the ussr but despised and made illegal as in Nazi Germany. In short, you’re an idiot if you don’t know the differences. The two are diametrically opposed and why they warred.

        2. What Is Fascism?
          Political radicals often shout, “Fascist!”, “Fascist!” at anyone who doesn’t agree with their views. The term is especially popular among college students. But do such people actually know what Fascism is? Have they studied it?
          Unfortunately, Fascism has an undeserved bad reputation. Regardless of this reputation, Fascism is a very sensible economic and social ideology. There are a few different “flavors” of Fascism, but basically they all come down to the following.
          First and foremost, Fascism is an economic system in which a nation’s government plays a central role in monitoring all banking, trade, production, and labor activity which takes place within the nation. Such monitoring is done for the sole purpose of safeguarding & advancing the nation and its people. Under Fascism, the government will not approve of any business activity unless that business has a positive impact on the nation as a whole and the people of the nation – this is the axiom which determines everything within the economic aspect of Fascism.
          In other words, the government asks, “Is XYZ Enterprises good for our nation and our people?” If yes, it’s approved. If no, it’s not approved. When they ask, “Is it good?”, they mean, “Is XYZ Enterprises good for the workers, do they pay a fair wage, do they produce a product or provide a service which advances our nation & our people technologically, morally, spiritually, health-wise, etc???” For example, a pornography company would not be allowed because pornography corrupts people generally and exploits & degrades women particularly. Also, “free” trade agreements (such as what the U.S. has with China) would never be allowed because such trade agreements result in companies sending jobs overseas (where labor is dirt cheap). Such an activity, of course, would undermine a nation’s labor class. This is entirely unacceptable and thus not allowed under a Fascist economic model.
          Fascism is based on free enterprise – but with constraints (the primary constraint being, “Is the particular economic activity in question good for our nation/people?”). Also, a businessman can become wealthy in a Fascist country, and the government has no objection to this (this is in stark contrast to Communism). Fascism also encourages private ownership of property (again, in stark contrast to Communism where private property is not allowed).
          In a nutshell, Fascism basically tells entrepreneurs, “Go ahead and start a business, earn a lot of money, be successful, but don’t produce any products or services which damage our nation and our nation’s people… and make sure you treat your workers fair and pay them a living wage. If you don’t follow these rules, we’ll shut you down.”
          With regard to banking, usury is not allowed under Fascism. The government tightly controls all aspects of monetary policy, including terms of lending. The government issues/prints money and lends it interest free, as needed, to grow the economy and ultimately serve the citizens.
          The above is the economic aspect of Fascism. There is also a cultural/social aspect to Fascism as well. Under Fascism, government plays a key role in monitoring: film, theatre, art, literature, music, education, etc in order to maintain a high moral standard, keep things clean and respectable, promote a strong sense of patriotism and honor, and prevent the dissemination of depraved filth which corrupts society.
          With regard to political legislation introduced by a Fascist government, the same criteria is applied – “Will this proposed law benefit the nation as a whole and the people of our nation?”
          A few other things to mention. Fascism encourages respect for the environment as Fascists understand that nature is the giver of life and thus must be preserved. Contrast this environmental philosophy with that of Capitalism which too often takes the short term view with regard to natural resources and foolishly believes that pollution is a necessary byproduct of profit. Also, and somewhat related to environmental issues, Fascism holds very progressive views with regard to animal rights.
          Also, under Fascism, if a person doesn’t like things, he/she can leave the country. Contrast this with Communism where if you don’t like things, you better keep your mouth shut. And, of course, there is no option to leave the country. You will submit or else be sent to a re-education camp where you’ll be brainwashed to accept the Communist system. And if you still resist, you’ll probably be killed. Again, there is no leaving. Submit or suffer the consequences.
          Further, Fascism holds women in very high regard. Women are the carriers of new life. They are expected to be educated, worldly, and well read. Women are encouraged to pursue their interests and have a career but only if a career won’t interfere with their family’s needs; family comes first, always. Women are encouraged to be strong yet feminine. Consistent with these ideas, Fascist art often portrays women as heroic and even goddess-like.
          In short, Fascism is a form of government & social system which authentically serves the interests of the people and nation as a whole. The word “Fascism” comes from the Italian word “fascio” meaning “the group” or more specifically, “in consideration of the group.” Fascism is rooted in the notion that people must stay true to two mental concepts throughout their lives: 1) the individual’s needs (themselves) and, 2) the group’s needs (their nation)… always evaluating how their individual actions affect the group. Thus Fascism rejects the self-centered “me me me” mentality so common under Capitalism. For example, in a Fascist nation each person is expected to maintain a healthy diet & lifestyle. For if not, they may become seriously ill and thus require expensive health care; this would negatively impact the group (i.e., they’d become a financial burden on the nation).
          Continuing this line of thought, under Fascism all people of one’s ethnicity are considered the greater family of that person. Hence, a Fascist nation is thought of as one giant family of several million people. Therefore, just as one mustn’t do anything to hurt their brother or sister in their immediate family, under Fascism one mustn’t do anything which would hurt the nation/group (i.e., the greater family). This is the essence of Fascism – a strong consideration of the group balanced with individualism.
          During the German Third Reich, the NSDAP (i.e., “Nazis”) followed all aspects of the above described Fascist system.
          ASIDE: Although the economic aspect of Fascism is free-market based, Fascism is NOT Capitalism. Many on the political left wrongly equate Fascism with Capitalism. Again, Fascism is NOT Capitalism. Allow me to briefly explain: the primary goal of Capitalism is profit. On the other hand, the primary goal of Fascism is the well being of a nation’s citizens and well being of the nation as a whole. In a purist-type Capitalist country (i.e., Super-Capitalism) almost nothing can interfere with maximizing profits – not workers, not the environment… almost nothing. Even when a Capitalist country starts out with tight government regulations, it invariably moves towards Laissez-faire economics (i.e., Super-Capitalism) by way of less and less government regulation. Human greed drives this transformation and ultimately the working class suffer via lower wages or loss of employment altogether if their job is, say, transferred overseas (e.g., to China) where labor is dirt cheap. Capitalists believe that immense wealth at the top will “trickle down” to the masses i.e., that everything will magically work itself out. A certain amount of wealth does “trickle down” but, too often, the worker and environment suffer. As just one example, tens of millions of American manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas during the past two decades (Capitalist so-called “free” trade policies have allowed for such outsourcing of jobs). Of course then, just as Fascists reject Communism, they also reject Capitalism.”
          – Dr James Miller

  19. Jason Bourne is a BETA with Alpha skills once I realized that the series lost all of its charm for me.

  20. While it is true that Bond…des not suffer fools–male or female–…

    Sadly this is no longer true. Ever since Skyfall, Bond has been suffering a colossal fool-the modern Moneypenny.
    …That “human hanger” Vikander is supposed to be the next Lara Croft? How does a stick figure of a woman wind up getting cast as a character known for being voluptuous and fit?
    President Nixon might’ve been right after all about the gays conspiring to ugly up women. 🙁

  21. Remember that the true votes in 2016 are made with bank notes, do not fund SJW nor degenerates.

  22. Matt Damon is not an actor. His face literally does not move. His facial expression doesn’t change, ever. His characters have no personality. His movies are carbon copies of each other. Everything he does bores me to tears.

  23. I don’t see movies with hard Lefty actors…fuck these faggots!
    Fuck Hollywood altogether. Jew cesspool.

    1. He’s pretty bad but Will Smith is worse. I will not watch a Will Smith film ever! I hate the guy. I think he’s overrated as well.

      1. Tragically, in the end, there aren’t any movies that aren’t starring someone who is actively working to destroy what freedom stands for.

  24. After the hundredth car demolished in the interminable chase scenes and the thousandth bullet fired by professionals that never even graze Bourne, I fell asleep in the theater. Thanks for the synopsis.

  25. Bourne’s not much of a “hero.” Heroism is about fighting for God, country and family, and Bourne does none of these things (although he did fight for his borderline unattractive squeeze in the 1st movie). Since heroism is the ultimate masculinity, I’d say Bourne is not very masculine. He does too much navel gazing and that’s a female thing.
    Hollywood is in a quandry. Hollywood hates God, country and family, particularly as the same relate to White people. So they won’t depict true heroism. As a result, even though their movies are camouflaged with glitzy action and high production their heroes are not compelling.
    It’s interesting to watch their hatred of all things White play out against their need to sell movie tickets to White people – I think this is why they have to “whitewash” their movies. An anti-White message delivered by non-White actors is still a money-loser. Commie Hollywood still cares about its own profits!

  26. I’ve never viewed Matt Damon or Jason Bourne as mascline. Wanna see masculine? Watch a Rambo movie. Or, turn on an old Eastwood film. Those guys were (and still are) masculine. What comes across as masculine today was considered gay several decades ago. Even Tom Cruise is masculine compared to what we got today.

  27. Matt Damon believes in gun control. That’s funny.
    And that’s Hollywood for ya!
    Sean Penn sneaks in and interviews El Chapo, a drug lord who’s responsible for a minimum of a hundred murders. And Hollywood stars don’t want you to be able to defend your life and family with a gun.
    They make films like Jason Bourne, James Bond, Heat, etc., all featuring gunfights and shoot outs, yet they tell you (they ain’t talking to me) that you ought not own a gun.
    And we can find people who STILL pay their hard-earned money and waste their valuable time watching the hypocritical bullshit that comes out of Hollywood.
    So, Matt Damon believes in gun control. Is anybody fuckin’ surprised?

Comments are closed.