The Bourne Legacy

[Shawn Robbins]

Enjoy.

Edited August 12, 2012 by ShawnMR

[ecstasy]

C

[wileECoyote]

B/B+A tale of two movies. The first 30 minutes was pretty boring. I guess they had to have a way to introduce this into the whole Bourne Universe, but I think they tried too hard in the first part. Too much mythology in such a short time. It should have been spread out in the movie.The remaining part was a good action movie. Different from the previous Bourne movies. Less frenetic and energetic, but more slick and just as fun. The good:1. Renner, Weisz were great and thought they showed some real chemistry as the movie progressed.2. Edward Norton is a solid sin-eater type enemy.3. When there was action, it was exciting. Again, different from the previous trilogy but good.The bad:1. The first part of the movie was definitely too slow.2. A lot of talk for an action movie. And the setup to the action sequences got too long. The whole psychiatrist/assassin talking scene just dragged. Why?3. Super enemies weren't too super.

[Jim Shorts]

At least we know how The Grey could have ended.

[Webslinger]

In retooling the franchise without its title character, The Bourne Legacy is an enjoyable action-thriller despite the fact that it falls short of its predecessors. Jason Bourne is nowhere to be found in the film (save for a photograph), but his replacement, Aaron Cross, is more than adequate. As played by Jeremy Renner, Cross is a badass who flashes more charisma and personality than Bourne, and the decision to let him remember much of his backstory is a key step in keeping the film from feeling like a retread of the same territory covered in The Bourne Identity. He's not as compelling as Bourne, but nor is he a pale imitator. As solid as Renner has been in supporting roles in The Avengers and the most recent Mission: Impossible sequel, this role could be the one that establishes him as an action star, as Hollywood has seemed to want ever since his work in The Hurt Locker. Rachel Weisz is also very solid as the scientist-cum-love interest, and she has solid chemistry with Renner. The film is at its best when it focuses on Renner and/or Weisz, as their involvement stands separate enough from the events in the previous films that the long shadows of those films don't loom over them. On the other hand, writer-director Tony Gilroy is only somewhat successful in tying this film back to The Bourne Ultimatum. While it's somewhat interesting to see how the CIA deals with the fallout of that film's third act, the recall of characters and events from it slows the first act down to the point where viewers may become antsy for the film to get going rather than reviewing previously-covered ground. At 135 minutes (16 minutes longer than the longest previous entry), it's too long thanks to a beginning that takes too long to gather steam and a third-act chase scene that takes too much time to arrive at a climax that is disappointing relative to the setup and the length of the chase. But the middle portion of the film is very involving, and critics of the shakycam technique in the previous film will be glad to know that Robert Elswit keeps the camera still when action scenes aren't happening. It doesn't match up with the previous movies, which were some of the best action movies of the 2000s; but as a half-sequel, half-reboot, it's entertaining enough that it will do.

B

[ecstasy]

In retooling the franchise without its title character, The Bourne Legacy is an enjoyable action-thriller despite the fact that it falls short of its predecessors. Jason Bourne is nowhere to be found in the film (save for a photograph), but his replacement, Aaron Cross, is more than adequate. As played by Jeremy Renner, Cross is a badass who flashes more charisma and personality than Bourne, and the decision to let him remember much of his backstory is a key step in keeping the film from feeling like a retread of the same territory covered in The Bourne Identity. He's not as compelling as Bourne, but nor is he a pale imitator. As solid as Renner has been in supporting roles in The Avengers and the most recent Mission: Impossible sequel, this role could be the one that establishes him as an action star, as Hollywood has seemed to want ever since his work in The Hurt Locker. Rachel Weisz is also very solid as the scientist-cum-love interest, and she has solid chemistry with Renner. The film is at its best when it focuses on Renner and/or Weisz, as their involvement stands separate enough from the events in the previous films that the long shadows of those films don't loom over them. On the other hand, writer-director Tony Gilroy is only somewhat successful in tying this film back to The Bourne Ultimatum. While it's somewhat interesting to see how the CIA deals with the fallout of that film's third act, the recall of characters and events from it slows the first act down to the point where viewers may become antsy for the film to get going rather than reviewing previously-covered ground. At 135 minutes (16 minutes longer than the longest previous entry), it's too long thanks to a beginning that takes too long to gather steam and a third-act chase scene that takes too much time to arrive at a climax that is disappointing relative to the setup and the length of the chase. But the middle portion of the film is very involving, and critics of the shakycam technique in the previous film will be glad to know that Robert Elswit keeps the camera still when action scenes aren't happening. It doesn't match up with the previous movies, which were some of the best action movies of the 2000s; but as a half-sequel, half-reboot, it's entertaining enough that it will do.

B

Well good write up. But I have a couple of questions.

What exactly did Cross do that was so badass?

He fought a bunch of nobodies and didn't even kill the last assassin.

I thought his character was severely underwritten for an action hero.

[Webslinger]

That's a very fair criticism. I thought he mostly exuded a badass attitude, which went a long way for me. Renner remains a promising action star.I do agree with the disappointment about the much-hyped assassin in the third act. I was hoping for the chase to ultimately lead to a hand-to-hand fight along the lines of Bourne vs. Desh in Ultimatum, but it never materialized.

[ecstasy]

That's a very fair criticism. I thought he mostly exuded a badass attitude, which went a long way for me. Renner remains a promising action star.I do agree with the disappointment about the much-hyped assassin in the third act. I was hoping for the chase to ultimately lead to a hand-to-hand fight along the lines of Bourne vs. Desh in Ultimatum, but it never materialized.

Well that's fair as well. But I wasn't paying money to see attitude. I guess I was just looking for something else all together. Renner is very talented but I think he got short changed here. Even the trailer that said he's treadstone without the inconsistencies

it wasn't even talking about him. It was talking about the assassin that got kicked off the motorcycle. And Cross didn't even do the kicking, lol

Just weak.

[tommycruise]

That's a very fair criticism. I thought he mostly exuded a badass attitude, which went a long way for me. Renner remains a promising action star.I do agree with the disappointment about the much-hyped assassin in the third act. I was hoping for the chase to ultimately lead to a hand-to-hand fight along the lines of Bourne vs. Desh in Ultimatum, but it never materialized.

Yes i hoping that there would be an epic hand to hand fight in this as well. That asian guy looked so boss.

[jb007]

Decent movie hurt by extremely slow pacing. While the MO is the same, the movie fails to come close to The Bourne Trilogy in terms ofaction, script and excitement.

B-

[tommycruise]

I really enjoyed Jeremy Renner in this as well as Edward Norton. But the film starts out far to slow and they spend to much time focusing on Weisz's character. But after Renner saves her it picks up a bit, but makes me ask the question of how did he knew where she lived? The philipines chase scene is pretty well done but i wished that there had been a fight scene at the end with Cross and Larx the asian agent. I really think Tony gilroy was the wrong man for the job, i could tell that he tried to think everything out, but the execution was off, George Nolfi(another former co-writer of the bourne franchise might have done a better job).I think the best example to compare this movie to is to the Dark Knight Rises, TDKR lacked the Joker and while he was not essential to make it a good movie he certainly played a pivotal part. Kind of like Damon and although you don't really need him either it certainly does help. The difference between TDKR and TBL is that the TDKR had a better story and a lot more action.B-Heres my idea for how it should have beenThe CIA realize they've been exposed and try to burn their programs to the ground, in the process they kill most of the people involved but are unable to kill Aaron Cross. But finally they track him down but instead of killing him they offer him a proposition, if he can track down Bourne and kill him they'll let him go(they're lying of course, but Aaron has no other choice but to except). The CIA figures that since Aaron has been genetically engineered to be stronger he should be able to kill Bourne where all the other agents have failed. Aaron is able to track down Bourne while he's still in the US(cause he was just in New york) but despite his physical upgrades he still gets outsmarted by Bourne but proposes that instead of just killing each other they might as well just team up.A storyline like that would still allow us to see what happened after the Treadstone incident, still get to see Bourne and introduce another character.

[ecstasy]

I really enjoyed Jeremy Renner in this as well as Edward Norton. But the film starts out far to slow and they spend to much time focusing on Weisz's character. But after Renner saves her it picks up a bit, but makes me ask the question of how did he knew where she lived? The philipines chase scene is pretty well done but i wished that there had been a fight scene at the end with Cross and Larx the asian agent. I really think Tony gilroy was the wrong man for the job, i could tell that he tried to think everything out, but the execution was off, George Nolfi(another former co-writer of the bourne franchise might have done a better job).

I think the best example to compare this movie to is to the Dark Knight Rises, TDKR lacked the Joker and while he was not essential to make it a good movie he certainly played a pivotal part. Kind of like Damon and although you don't really need him either it certainly does help. The difference between TDKR and TBL is that the TDKR had a better story and a lot more action.

B-

Heres my idea for how it should have been

The CIA realize they've been exposed and try to burn their programs to the ground, in the process they kill most of the people involved but are unable to kill Aaron Cross. But finally they track him down but instead of killing him they offer him a proposition, if he

can track down Bourne and kill him they'll let him go(they're lying of course, but Aaron has no other choice but to except). The CIA figures that since Aaron has been genetically engineered to be stronger he should be able to kill Bourne where all the other agents have failed. Aaron is able to track down Bourne while he's still in the US(cause he was just in New york) but despite his physical upgrades he still gets outsmarted by Bourne but proposes that instead of just killing each other they might as well just team up.

A storyline like that would still allow us to see what happened after the Treadstone incident, still get to see Bourne and introduce another character.

LMAO I thought the same thing. At least in the other bourne movies you see jason bourne calling information and or looking up people on a public computer. You were able to follow his every movie and they seemed as logical as if it was something you would do yourself.

[Gopher]

Jeremy Renner was actually quite good. Charismatic and always interesting to watch. Kudos to Gilroy for not having him play Bourne Redux.He belongs in a much better, more coherent, more consistent movie than this.5/10

Edited August 13, 2012 by Gopher

[bballman24]

I would've felt a lot better if I knew the sequel was already greenlit with Bourne/Damon in it in some capacity. Because Gilroy pretty much unwrapped the story that neatly concluded at the end of the trilogy. The ending wasn't the only thing that was left wide open, but the whole mythology as well. It was cheap and abrupt.

[baumer]

While I see why some of the complaints are there, for me, it worked almost perfectly. I enjoyed the story even though it was very story heavy. For me it worked. I enjoyed seeing the tie ins with Ultimatum and seeing Bourne's name pop up here and there was kind of nice. I was kind of expecting more action but I became very involved in the story and part of that is due to Norton, who really nailed his character. The one complaint I do have with the film is that it needed one, just one good fight scene with Cross and the Super agent chasing him. I was left unsatisfied in that aspect but other than that, it really did a nice job in all aspects.8.5/10

[Gopher]

Strip this movie down and it's just really, really silly, IMO. Cross is after pills (that's the plot macguffin) that make him smarter and stronger, when apparently there was an option of 'viraling him out' so he's permanently a supersoldier. They introduce the 'villain' of the movie- 'Treadstone without the inconsistency', or whatever program he was- 20 minutes before the movie is over. Without even considering the question of why Treadstone would exist in the first place with this other, better program out there. It's like they threw up their arms and just didn't care anymore.

I could forgive most of this if there was an emotional throughline to connect to, or if it added anything new to Bourne's legacy. But in fact, this movie retroactively turns Jason Bourne, who for the trilogy was a conflicted anti-hero, into a shadowy figure whose presence caused only death and misery. It honestly felt like Gilroy was taking his beef with Damon and Greengrass and trying to ruin Bourne's legacy, or maybe he was just paying lip service to the first three films, albeit incompetently. Renner and Weitz aren't the good pair the film requires them to be, there's no climax, and there's no arc for any of the characters.

I thought this was dumber than The Campaign, and The Campaign was a really freaking dumb movie.

[Kvikk Lunsj]

I liked some parts but it is a movie that you only need to see once. I thought the whole medicine thing was goofy. Renner was great in the film it is the only reason why I would suggest watching it.5.5/10

[lab276]

Boring as shit. And the chase in Manilla was blatantly copied over from Tomorrow Never Dies, not to mention the Casino Royale tower jumping scene before they have the bike chase. The lab shooting scene was excellent though, genuinely chilling.C

Edited August 16, 2012 by lab276

[Jessie]

I went in with low expectations and thoroughly enjoyed it. No it wasn't as good as the others but was we expecting to be? The films main problem was its run-time but I still think critics have gone a bit harsh on this. How can it only get 54% on RT yet Haywire (which was a pile of shit) managed 80% B

[ecstasy]

I went in with low expectations and thoroughly enjoyed it. No it wasn't as good as the others but was we expecting to be? The films main problem was its run-time but I still think critics have gone a bit harsh on this. How can it only get 54% on RT yet Haywire (which was a pile of shit) managed 80%B

LMAO I haven't seen haywire. It looks like shit.