The film is still very good, especially the first half. The whole structure is exactly the same as in "The Bourne Shadows": being framed by the government, then fleeing, and finally counterattack, with small fights and big fights, and victory with the most primitive means. The first half is very exciting, the rhythm is also fast, and the embryonic form of a good film is basically born. However, I have to say that the rescue is basically a big failure. Although the ending of the protagonist kills all the "bad guys" is set, it still feels inexplicable, as if the plot is brewing to a culmination, and the audience is looking forward to the climax. At that time, the orgasm is like a bubble, which bursts at the touch of it. Although the film itself does not have any rationality, the excessive irrationality does make the audience feel incredible: how could the protagonist rush to the congressman's house and kill them all by himself, then what is the use of the front bedding?
In short, it's a good movie. If you don't care about the ending, it's not worse than the Bourne, but the failure of the ending can definitely deduct 1/3 of the film. Is it because of the length of the film that the director had to cut the film like this?
View more about Shooter reviews
