The sequel to three classics nobody needed that was worse than the spin-off nobody asked for takes aim at redemption

Way too many franchises have extended their lifespans by at least one sequel too many, but based entirely on the quality of the first three mainline installments, nobody was expecting 2016’s Jason Bourne to score the worst reviews of the spy saga.

In the hands of Doug Liman and then Paul Greengrass, Matt Damon’s amnesiac operative became one of the most iconic movie characters of the 21st Century, with three impeccable individual outings combing to form what’s comfortable one of the finest trilogies of the modern era.

Once Greengrass and Damon opted to bow out after the threequel, it was decided that Jeremy Renner should step in to headline spin-off The Bourne Legacy, which was greeted about as tepidly as you’d expect from a cynical cash-in missing its two most important creative minds.

And yet, Jason Bourne somehow conspired to fare even worse among critics, with a Rotten Tomatoes score of only 54 percent putting it behind not just the 83, 82, and 92 percent approving ratings of the initial trio, but even the middling 56 of Legacy. It was the highest-grossing of the five, though, but a $415 million tally at the box office was reflective of the IP’s enduring popularity more than anything else.

Seven years on, however, and a hardy band of Redditors are stating the case for Jason Bourne being better than its reputation would suggest. That’s very much open to interpretation, but one inarguable fact is that it doesn’t hold a candle to either Identity, Supremacy, or Ultimatum, so “better than Legacy” isn’t exactly something it’d want engraved on its cinematic tombstone.