I absolutely hate the Bourne movies

Jarvio, I'm pretty much there with you. I don't mind the plot that much, having read the Original and some of the later Bourne thrillers, the style is quite similar in it's confusion.
What I absolutely hate of the Bourne movies, is the closed up shots and fast editing, it's just lazy way of making Wonderful Mr. Ripley into something he isn't. Compare Bourne movies with John Wick movies, which have wide shots and long single shot scenes, and you see startling difference in actors physical ability! Also the action sequences are more entertaining when you're not left wondering what was it that you just saw.

Paul Greengrass took over directing duties for parts 2 and 3 (he also returned for 5).  He has a very distinct style of using his camera and editing his footage that you either like or hate with a passion.  While I personally liked it for #2 (SUPREMACY) and #3 (ULTIMATUM), I got tired of all of the other films coming out aping the shaky cam style without any sort of finesse.  Indeed I grew tired of Greengrass doing it in his subsequent films, and I now kinda regard the man as a one trick pony.  The awfulness of 5 (JASON BOURNE) only solidifies this opinion.

4 (LEGACY) was done by Tony Gilroy.  I thought it was fine but a tad flat.  The problem is that it's not really Bourne related and really feels shoehorned into the mythology when it really should have been its own thing.  It's kinda like HALLOWEEN III: SEASON OF THE WITCH, where everyone was confused by the lack of Michael Myers.  The film stands on its own just fine but is done a great disservice by its title.

Personally, I still think that the first film (IDENTITY) is the best.  It has the best plotting of the lot and maybe the best overall flow.  I happen to really like the director of it, Doug Liman.  The man made EDGE OF TOMORROW, one of the best science fiction films of the past 15 or so years.  I think he has a really good eye for storytelling and overall flow.

I think the series will redeem itself in the upcoming The Bourne Redundancy 

I binge on films quite a lot I guess. Having said that, I watched 1 and 2 the day before I watched the other 3, so they were split across 2 days. But even so, I've done days before where I've watched 5 films in a row. I could definitely watch 5 bonds in a row, and probably have lol.

Honestly, I really wanted to like these Bourne movies. But I just couldn't. If they weren't compared to bond so often, adding to my confusion, then I'd let it slide, but the fact that they are compared to bond, and I love bond and hate bourne.... just bothers me, confuses the mind.

I only watched the first three. I did not like them at all. They are some of the blandest action films I've ever seen.

I don't hate the Bourne movies. I never hate movies, if I don't like a movie I simply don't spend time on them.
The Bourne Identity was very good and in some ways groundbreaking. After that it goes downhill.

I always see a movie through to the end, sometimes I can be hating a movie but then it gets better and redeems itself near the end. Sometimes the opposite happens. With Bourne, the only remote enjoyment I got was from the 1st movie, but I had bought the box set so gave them the benefit of the doubt.

Really?  Here's a few of your heroic Bond villains to give some thought to: Bambi, Thumper, Wint, Kidd, Quist, Dent, Nick Nack, Franks, Saxby and Vargas just to name a few of whom none would be out of place in a cartoon show.

Each to their own re: the Bourne films.  Personally I thought they were brilliant with a great cast and intelligent writing.  If you can't follow them, maybe give them another go.  The only thing I dislike about the Bourne films are the car chases that are way over the top and go on for twice as long as they need to.

I meant main villains, but even so, the majority of villains you listed I prefer to the bourne ones, but the majority of those are very different kind of villains anyway, like you said, cartoony - but I don't mind that, I'd have it over a boring corrupt CIA worker any day. (I had to think twice about who Quist even was though I admit lol).

Regarding not following them, I got bits and pieces, but I then went back and re-watched the bits I didn't get, so I can follow them now, but the problem is, I couldn't follow them at the time I first viewed them. As I said, I do sometimes have trouble following films, I have aspergers too, but even so, I follow them mostly, but bourne was different for some reason. Except for the first film which I followed fine.

I thought the first one was great, very original concept, stylish execution.

A spy isn't who he says he is anyway, that's innate in the spy concept.
What happens when the spy can't remember who he really is?
Some of those scenes are already iconic images, like when he opens his safety deposit box and finds all those passports.

Unfortunately for us, the success of the first film means EON can never properly film the opening chapter of Fleming's tMwtGG without general audiences thinking Bond is now ripping off Bourne.

The sequels were more of the same, without the big amnesia hook. A distinct action style but very generic plots, so much as plots are discernible. And the various corrupt CIA chiefs are all interchangeable, no way do they compare to a Bond villain. And yes Wint and Kidd were better than any Bourne villain. 

I think the Bond/Bourne comparison actually goes the other way: people compare the two franchises because the Craig films stole so much from the Bourne action style. I really wish the modern Bond films were less desperate to mimick some other franchises' successful formula, and took confidence in their own time honoured style.

Tried to copy Bourne, you mean.