The Bourne Legacy (2012)
The fourth installment of the highly successful Bourne series sidelines main character Jason Bourne in order to focus on a fellow estranged assassin Aaron Cross. The story centers on new CIA operative, Aaron Cross as he experiences life-or-death stakes that have been triggered by the previous actions of Jason Bourne.
Free Trial Channels
Best movie of this year hands down!
As Good As It Gets
The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful
This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.
Due to being snowed in I have been watching all the Bourne films again on blu ray. I like them all but I think the first 2 and this one are the best of the bunch. Nothing much happened in the third film and the last one was the least interesting. I honestly don't understand why people don't like this film and don't consider it part of the series. It is written and directed by the person who wrote all the films,how can it be unofficial or a copy? Of course I give no spoilers but this is a great spy film. Renner is a better actor than Damon and Rachel Weisz is great in this. I realise she might not need the money but she should act more. If you like this sort of film and have been put off seeing this,give it a chance,I think you will be pleasantly surprised.
I suppose it some sort of accomplishment that the film could make so many things boring: the chases, the shoot outs, the performances, the story line (was there one?), the outdoor scenes, the interactions - I found it about as interesting as watching paint dry.
The Bourne Legacy - 2012Directed by Tony GilroyStarring Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz and Edward NortonPlot Overview: When the actions of Jason Bourne spark a fire that threatens to burn down decades of research across a number of secret intelligence agencies, Eric Byer (Edward Norton), the man who built the programs, decides he must sacrifice one of them: Outcome. Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner), one of Outcome's six agents, and research scientist Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz) go on the run when Byer targets them for termination. But Cross proves to be a far deadlier target than Byer realises.It is an insult to Supremacy and Ultimatum(not a fan of Identity) to call this movie a Bourne movie. Supremacy revolutionised the modern political thriller and Ultimatum revolutionised the modern day action film. What does this film revolutionise? How little companies care about the quality of their film, so long as it makes money. Trust me when I say this, I didn't want to hate this movie, and I am not being overly harsh on it. It is atrocious. With the bleak, bleak exception of one minor, minor idea - I hate everything about this movie. And I mean everything.The plot. I don't take shame in admitting that I had to google the plot of this film to make that overview up there. I understand what was happening on a basic level, but the motivations and logic behind all of the film's events in either nonexistent, poorly explained or a bit of both. That 50/50 up there is a mutually exclusive even(only one is feasible at any one time) but I think this film found a way to make both realities coexist simultaneously. As stated previously, I liked the concept of the US government dealing with the aftermath of Ultimatum. Here's the problem with that in the film though. This idea(the thing hinted about in the title for God's sake) is mentioned once or twice(in the form of scenes from Ultimatum by the way) and never mentioned again. They gloss over it in a throwaway flashback to something I like. That is cruel. Screw the writers for this movie. Screw you, Tony(Double to you) and Dan Gilroy.Now the 'performances'. People praise the actors in this movie for doing the best they could with this horrible, horrible script. I don't think they should be praised at all. I disagree that they were competent. Jeremy Renner was pretty mediocre as Aaron Cross and he was basically an invincible Jason Bourne. He was trying too hard to be like Bourne and the writers jacked him up on a mix of steroids and cocaine to do so. I will give Renner credit were credit is due however. I do think Renner would be, with a better director and script, a competent action hero. He clearly has the capability but just was unlucky enough to have Gilroy with him. I see untapped potential for some form of action hero in the future but I can't use the future as credit for something in the past.Rachel Weisz was also pretty mediocre as Dr Marta Sheering and I still don't understand why she was in the movie. Her character was introduced in quite possibly the most stupid way possible and then she just decided to tag along. I don't know what purpose she served to the film and, quite frankly, I don't know if I care.Edward Norton - you are better than this. Don't do this to yourself. You have great abilities and I can tell you were at least trying but you are above this. Please, don't come back for a sequel(God forbid it). As an 'antagonist', Norton was pretty weak. I placed the noun antagonist in quotation marks because I think it is generous to call him a villain. He wasn't imposing, threatening, skilled, interesting, strangely likable/charismatic. He was just a dull guy behind a computer monitor who became our villain because Edward Norton is a name people know. It's a shame as well - the pieces for a great villain are there, we just had Tony Gilroy in charge.The cinematography is really poor in this movie. They utilise shaky cam and quick cuts but don't utilise either effectively. So, if you have a 'thing' for shaky cam or quick cuts, firstly get yourself to a doctor, and then watch this film - you'll probably love it. The action in this movie(all 10 MINUTES of it) was awful. It was poorly handled. Again that is a shame because it is clear Renner is capable of it.The visual effects in this movie are atrocious. They look so, so, so fake - it hurts my eyes.Legacy is a boring, uninteresting, dull, pathetic excuse of an 'action' movie. It doesn't deserve to be credited with the Bourne name and I doubt it will leave a legacy of its own. I'll rate this travesty of a 'BOURNE' film 1 'Bourne Wannabes' out of 10! Don't see it. It isn't even funny bad.
Having recently watched the original Bourne trilogy films, they left me with the sense of how did it take me so long to see them. Really liked 'Identity' and 'Supremacy' and loved 'Ultimatum', even if neither were flawless.Didn't really have high expectations for 'The Bourne Legacy'. From hearing about it, it did seem like it, despite having the name Bourne in the title, would not feel like a Jason Bourne film and that it would not be the same without Matt Damon. It also sounded like it was not much more than a pointless cash-grab. Finally seeing it, giving it the benefit of the doubt as deserved, 'The Bourne Legacy' was nowhere near as bad as feared and there are some good elements. To me, however, it wasn't a particularly good, let alone great, instalment and one really does question the point of it.There are obvious strengths. On a visual level, it is every bit as slick and stylish as the original Bourne trilogy and the locations are stunning. The music pulsates and fits well without being over-bearing. While the action does seem not enough, some of it is executed very well and are pretty exciting, the highlights being the tense shoot-out in Weisz's character's home and the climactic motorbike chase that despite perhaps being on the too long side delivers big on the thrills, so much so one wishes that too much of the rest of the film delivered just as big.Jeremy Renner had big shoes to fill and does so more than capably. Matt Damon and the character of Jason Bourne are very much sorely missed that it feels like a gaping hole has been left, but Renner does bring intense steel and vulnerability. Weisz's character is somewhat underwritten, but she makes much of little and shows an appropriate and necessary sympathetic charm.On the other hand, Edward Norton phones it in in quite easily the weakest villain of all four films put together, injecting very little menace or gravitas at all. The supporting cast do do capably enough, but too many of them have next to nothing to do, some like Stacy Keach are so underused that one questions why they are even there in the first place. Paul Greengrass and Doug Linman Tony Gilroy is not, while showing beforehand he excelled as a writer there was an air of inexperience in his directing. It seemed like Gilroy was trying to hard to imitate Greengrass but without the excitement and intensity.In 'The Bourne Legacy', the thrills don't come consistently with some scenes going on for too long and feeling muddled and underdeveloped. The script is messy, doing very little with the characters and too often it is far too talky but without the intelligence, subtlety or sharpness of 'Identity', 'Supremacy' and particularly 'Ultimatum'. It's very clunky and confused as well.Story also could have been much better executed. It starts interminably slow, and while the connections and overlapping to the previous films (particularly 'Ultimatum') were okay on their own their placement was clumsy, convoluted and upset the flow. Understanding a film is very rarely a problem with me, some of 'The Bourne Legacy' was ridiculously convoluted.Overall, a little better than expected but it wasn't needed. Anything deserves to be judged as standing on its own feet without being compared, but the drop in quality is so significant after the first three films being as good as they were that it was incredibly difficult to ignore. 5/10 Bethany Cox