The Bourne Legacy

Questionable follow up to the Bourne trilogy that has the right pieces in place but lacks the conviction to justify its existence. Taking place almost at the same time of the climax of the third Bourne film (Ultimatum), this film deals with the fall out of the exposure of "Operation Blackbriar" and how an another agency with in the government is trying to cover up their program in order not to be caught up with the coming scandal create by Jason Bourne. "Outcome", the program in question is an offshoot of both "Treadstone" and "Blackbriar" but with a huge difference, they are tabbing into science to create super agents that are faster and stronger than any other agent before them.

In order for me to tell you what is good about this movie, I have to explain what is wrong with it and that is the fact that you get the feeling fifteen minutes into the film that there is no reason for it to exist. The last film (Bourne Ultimatum) pretty much closed the book on the series, with little to no wiggle room for an encore. This movie feels like a studio trying to milk dried what was good from the original trilogy in order to make more sequels. The bad part is that they did it in the most unbelievable way, so much so that you really need to forget what you saw in the last three films in order to believe what was going on in this movie. Tony Gilroy (Who wrote the first three movies) directs and writes this one but falls flat on his face with halfhearted explanations that try to justify this movie's existence. Not to mention the fact that the villain of the movie is a lightweight compared to what came before him plus the glaring fact that Edward Norton's performance as the heavy is pretty much phoned in. He does not have the confidant arrogant swagger that Chris Cooper's character had in the first film nor the desperate menace of that Brain Cox's character brought to the second. Norton's character is more in line with the villain of the third, who was played by David Strathaim (who has a cameo in this film). However, Strathaim's character had a sense of justifiable menace that drove him, while Norton's character just seems like a man trying to justify his actions for the greater good, making him more of a government shill than a villain. The science fiction angle that comes up is insulting to what the last three films were, not to mention the fact that the direction here lacks the kinetic energy that Paul Greengrass brought to the last two movies of the series. Say what you may about the shaky camera work but he knew how to stage a thrilling action piece of pop art. Gilroy's motorcycle chase towards the climax is decent but lacks kinetic spark. He is however very good in staging small intimate moments within this movie but that is more a compliment to the A + cast (Mainly his two lead actors) than the terrible script that they are forced to working with.

Jeremy Renner is a talented actor with serious range and complexity. However, the character he plays is not much of a character and the script that he has to work with is riddled with cliché after cliché. He can do anything a secret agent can do but better but the character is not very compelling or interesting to say the least. Jason Bourne was a compelling character that needed to find himself and through that journey in the original trilogy, we saw complexities that were compelling and thoughtful. He was a conflicted man whose drive was dictated by an inner sense of redemption. The character of Aaron Cross is a cartoon character compared to Jason and that is the main problem of the script for this movie. It is though Renner's efforts as an actor that we care about the character of Aaron Cross and that is one of the few bright spots this film has. Renner injects likability and vulnerability to this character and because of it, we want him to succeed in beating the bad guy and save the girl but Renner is working with a script that goes against itself and we are left with a half fast story that deals with supermen than a human story about survival. It is through Renner's efforts as an actor that we see humanity and conflict in this character while the script itself does not give that sort of detail and Renner is working overtime to accomplish that. Renner would have done wonders with a compelling character like Jason Bourne, unfortunately that is not found with the character of Aaron Cross.

Rachel Weisz is one of the most versatile, gifted and complex actors working today. An actor's actor in every sense of word but like Renner, she does not have much of a character thanks to the cliché script they both have to work with. Her character is on the run with Cross through out the film and acts as his doctor and object of protection. It is through Weisz's amazing strength and range as an actor that we are able to witness levels of complexity and humanity in the character of Dr Marta Shearing that we really do not get from the script. Because of that, we are not only able to care and identify with her but Weisz actually makes her character more complex and interesting than Aaron Cross himself. You can tell that Weisz was working overtime in achieving that and her efforts pay off ten fold, which is a blessing considering that most of the characters outside of her and Renner come across as cardboard cutouts.

It is a shame because Renner and Weisz try their best and for the most part succeed despite all odds but they like the fans deserved better.

Now that the dust has settled and the fifth Bourne film (and Damon's return to the role) has come and gone, and after having re-watched this after seeing Jason Bourne (2016), I can safely say that this is still the fourth best Bourne flick, and a very solid action movie in its own right.

The main reason this is stronger than the fifth one: Tony Gilroy.

He wrote the original film trilogy. He understands the universe of the films, he understands this type of character. He did NOT write Jason Bourne (2016), which was the first and only one in the franchise that wasn't penned by him, and it showed. That movie was much less intelligent and gripping than Bourne 1-3, and this one.

This isn't perfect or as great as the first three. The main problem is that the plot for this installment feels slight. This is literally a throwaway concept (Renner's character and the organization he is a part of are basically being cast under the rug here by the evil US government, and that's the angle). Renner is essentially just reacting to the events in the previous films. It's not quite a sequel because it's actually happening concurrently with the trilogy. Which is a unique touch, I guess, but it destroys any true sense of importance into the proceedings, especially since you hear nothing about the events of Legacy in Jason Bourne (2016). So while this is a fun, well-made film, it inevitably feels inconsequential when you take the entire series into account.

I thought the lack of Damon would be a weakness but it's actually not; Renner is a solid actor, even quite excellent in some roles, and even if he doesn't have the sheer charisma/star power of Damon, he brings his own sense of tough smarts and cool wit to the film, and he does a really good job of communicating the same sense of constantly-three-steps-ahead that Bourne himself did. Renner has that same natural air of intelligence as Damon, but in a grittier fashion, and Tony Gilroy knows how to utilize it.

Rachel Weisz doesn't have a whole lot to do but she has her plucky moments and at least plays a heroine with some intelligence, and who isn't simply a love interest for the protagonist. I actually think Gilroy handled that part well.

Here's hoping that if they make another Bourne installment, Tony Gilroy comes back as the writer. And I would gladly see Renner continue this role, but it probably will never happen.

Thanks to the 2 heroes, I give a good mark though the script was a labyrinth of complications between different US National Security Services and their different projects more or less secret, some of them more secret within secrets because untellable, unacceptable. And when one of those has to disappear, lots of dead people it means. Here is the story of another run-for-his-life hero, Jeremy Renner! He surprised me this actor. He blows the screen from his very first appearance until the last. And Mrs Weisz, the co-runner-for-her-life does well too as an evolving character, a woman scientist who goes from naive close to stupid terrified victim to a full grown resilient survivor, doing very well with Mr Renner. Wow they are good! They SAVE the movie Let's hope there will be a sequel with these two but with a MUCH IMPROVED script, please. I declare myself a fan for Mr Renner (Please forgive my probably curious use of English, my second language...)

If a franchise is as successful as the Bourne franchise is/was, it is inevitable that there will be a follow up. Even if everyone was saying that the series was always meant to be trilogy. If you can overcome that fact and are able not to hold a grudge against the producers or anyone else involved in the making of this, you might be able to enjoy a fairly decent action thriller.

Jeremy Renner is the man when it comes to casting action roles of late. After his performance in "Hurt Locker" he did rise pretty fast. If the Avengers were incomplete, he might have gotten a bigger role in that one too. You can see why he is such a wanted man (no pun intended) in this movie too. Rachel Weisz has not that much to do, but her performance does give the movie another gravitas. The action scenes are superb, but we expected that (especially if we watched the trailer). Nice hints to the original movies too. Before you cry out, watch it is what I'm trying to say.

"The Bourne Legacy" is prequel/sequel/spin-off/reboot of the Bourne Series. Yes, I know; there aren't many pre-se-reboot-spinoffs out there.

In "Legacy", Jason Bourne is sidelined for Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner), another spy in the Bourne universe. Though, Cross is a product of "Outcome", a program that gave the agent pills called "chems" that improved their intelligence and physique. Yet, in Langley, Eric Byer (Edward Norton), an operations director, decides to "cut the program", which is spy language for "kill everyone involved". Cross teams up with scientist Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz) as they head to the Phillipines to get the chems, while every operative with a finger and a gun is on their trail.

"The Bourne Legacy" has garnered very mixed reviews; some really like it, some really hate it, some are in-betweeners. I am one who really liked it. Comparing "Legacy" to the originals, more specifically "Ultimatum", is like comparing "Batman Returns" to "The Dark Knight". A good movie to a fantastic one.

If "Legacy" was a regular spy movie with no connection to Bourne, it would definitely be in higher regard. But, as it has the "Bourne" name associated with it, certain things were expected: 1. Insane non-stop action. 2. Insane non-stop action. 3. More action.

"Legacy" is extremely dialogue driven. About 3/4 of this movie is dialogue. And the dialogue is very technical, and very scientific, and it flies way over some people's heads. The previous Bourne films were not filled with this technical jargon.

The performances, though, are very good. Renner and Weisz are absolutely perfect in their roles. Renner perfectly captures the manhunting super agent with ease. He's a natural action hero, and one of my favorite actors. Though Edward Norton is devilishly underused. His character merely sits behind a screen and barks orders.

The Verdict: When you go into "Legacy", don't expect insane non-stop action. Yes, when the action happens, it is really awesome. But this is a dialogue-driven spy movie with lots of high-vocabulary dialogue. I really enjoy dialogue-driven films, and this film does entertain. A-