The Bourne Legacy (2012) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
531 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Expectations seem too high
rbrt_gilchrist29 August 2012
I have never written a review here, but I felt compelled to actually step up and defend this movie.

The Bourne Legacy was everything I expected it to be. It couldn't be too close to the previous Bourne films, but had to be close enough to let us know a storm is coming.

Bourne's presence throughout the film is what spins this story into action and I felt it was balanced perfectly. We all want Bourne, but this is Aaron Cross's story. Renner and Weisz were great, but I think the scripting has been derided by many as terrible. I had no issues with anything and even felt compelled by Renner's character motivation. This was someone yearning to be more, not someone who was already better than everyone else, but just couldn't remember.

Let's cross our fingers and hope we all get what we want and pair Bourne and Cross in the next film.

There is so much more going on than just Jason Bourne and if we don't get to explore that then the franchise will be poorer for it!
137 out of 167 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Much better than it had any right to be thanks in part to its two lead actors (Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weisz), who work acting miracles with a poor script.
midnighttheater6 August 2012
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.
346 out of 450 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
'Jason Bourne was just the tip of the iceberg.'
gradyharp12 December 2012
It is understandable that there is a difference of opinion about THE BOURNE LEGACY, but comparing it to the original three Jason Bourne movies is unfair. This is a 'legacy' left by the environment in which Jas Bourne was hatched an as such, for this reviewer, it works very well. The film is beautifully shot in superb cinematography, has a series of tight incidents that demand explanation but which get little due to the fact that this is a spy film about the various intelligence agency and occult secret scientific projects that are always in progress in every country. It is an expansion of the universe from Robert Ludlum's novels, centered on a new hero whose stakes have been triggered by the events of the previous three films.

As someone distilled the plot, '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.'

Suffice it to say that the new cast handles this very obtuse plot with a high degree of fine acting. Jeremy Renner is excellent, always reminding us of his humanity while he flies around in incredibly impossible flight situations. The extraordinary Rachel Weisz brings a complex role into the realm of credibility. The solid support cast includes the always excellent Edward Norton, Scott Glenn, Stacy Keach, Albert Finney, Oscar Isaac, David Strathairn, and Joan Allen just to keep the balance form the previous Bourne films in place.

The speed of the action, the poundingly purposeful musical score and the non-stop fascinating twists and turns make this a top-notch film. It does carry on the 'legacy' of Ludlum's ideas, but manages to hold its own without too much replay of the originals.

Grady Harp
55 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Doesn't Deserve the Hate; a dialogue-driven spy movie that does entertain
jackmatlock1530 September 2012
"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-
32 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Wonderful performance by Renner and Weisz, despite the lack of a coherent storyline and a poorly written script.
andreasschultz28 August 2012
The Bourne Legacy is the fourth installment of the Bourne franchise and evolves around a new main protagonist, Aaron Cross. The story runs parallel with the end of the third Bourne movie, and concerns itself with the result of Jason Bourne's exposure of the Blackbriar program.

"Outcome", another government program, is trying to cover up themselves by eliminating their agents in order to not get pulled down by the coming scandal set in motion by Jason Bourne's actions. Outcome is an affiliate of Blackbriar and Treadstone, with one significant difference however. Their agents are chemically enhanced to be quicker, stronger and smarter, by ingesting a set of pills. This is where we meet Aaron Cross. Being hunted by his own agency, while trying to get the pills he so desperately need.

What makes this movie watchable is NOTHING but the performance of the lead actors, Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weisz. Both talented actors with great depth and experience. It is obvious that they are struggling to tap into the emotional vein of their characters, and the script taken into consideration, it is not strange. Despite this, Renner and Weisz manage to pull it off beautifully. This is no doubt due to the undeniable chemistry between the two. Weisz's sensitive and innocent character fits together beautifully with Renner's stoic, cold, and very charming character. Weisz in particular brings some much needed sensitivity to the movie, which otherwise would have been pretty boring to watch. She becomes Cross's object of protection, and it is because of her we even care about his attempt to find safety from his assailants. Without her, this would have been a movie about a man trying to find medicine. In short I have nothing but respect for these two people, and they do a wonderful job despite what would have otherwise been an insult to the series and the genre in general.

Regrettably Edward Norton's character as Eric Byer, the "bad guy" hunting for Aaron Cross seems spineless and unnecessary compared to the other two. This makes him annoying and superficial when he's on, and you can't help but get the feeling that he shouldn't be there. Compared to Chris Cooper's mysterious and secretive character as Conklin, the head of Treadstone from The Bourne Identity, Norton seems even more spineless and unnecessary.This is once again more of a critique of the script than of Edward Norton as an actor, since we know (from for example American History X and Fight Club) that Edward Norton can really act.

This is the kind of movie, where they show every single action sequence in the trailer. As you start watching the movie, you're wondering when it's ACTUALLY gonna start, and when it does start you're wondering what it's actually about. It's very hard to keep track of, and it seems to want to be two things at the same time. It is impossible to watch it without forgetting what you saw in the last three films, because it is so far from the original ones. It is like you are in a completely different universe, and it lacks the charm, mystique and wit that makes a "real" Bourne movie. Paul Greengrass managed to be innovative without compromising the dark, mysterious, kind-of-charming feel of the first movie. For whatever reason, Tony Gilroy has not. The Bourne Legacy is so far from the other three movies that it is hard to believe it's in the same "universe". At the same time it is impossible to understand the plot without keeping track of what happened in the original ones. That way it's trying to be two very different things, and ends up worming itself into a strange borderland between "Knight And Day" and "Quantum Of Solace" which leaves you puzzled to its existence, and unconvinced to its plot.

The movie does have some pretty decent action sequences with great effects, but lacks the storyline, motivation, drive and intimacy to justify them. They're redundant.

Towards the end of the two and a half hour ordeal that this movie really is, you find yourself not really caring anymore and just want it to end decently. And then the air goes out of the balloon with a poof. Out of nowhere the movie ends, with no conclusion, no explanation and no reason whatsoever for it to exist. You're left with a lot more questions than answers, and feel unsatisfied with what you've just seen.

Perhaps it was due to my high expectations that I couldn't enjoy this movie as much as I wanted, but I feel like i've seen enough to know what makes a great movie and distinguish between a good and a bad scripts. It's a real shame, because Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz and Edward Norton are three of my favorite actors and I think they could have worked miracles with the right script.

In short, I have nothing but respect for the actors but don't feel like this is worthy of being called a Bourne movie.
204 out of 305 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A Solid Continuation That Nevertheless Goes Through the Rhythms
Simon_Says_Movies23 August 2012
There is never just one. We've reached our fourth globe-trotting adventure based on the novels of the late Robert Ludlum, and the first without former series lead Matt Damon as the enigmatic superspy Jason Bourne. With its name taken from a 2004 installment not actually penned by Ludlum, The Bourne Legacy explores the ripple effect of the events that played out in The Bourne Ultimatum. While little could be done to cushion the drop in quality that was bound to come with well, anything, that followed that near-masterpiece of action, Jeremy Renner makes an apt substitute and the thrills, wit and set pieces are all top notch, even if it won't quite have audiences asking, "Jason who?"

In the mischievous and highly top secret world of clandestine CIA superspy programs, the program previously known as Treadstone has once again morphed – from Treadstone to Blackbriar and now to Outcome (officially known as Alcom), a bio-weapons division in New York State that operates under the ruse of a pharmaceutical research firm. It is through this project that Rachel Weisz's Dr. Marta Shearing crosses path with Outcome agent Aaron Cross, as her employer's cloak-and-dagger endeavors supply its agent with viral treatments that boost both physical and mental efficiency.

While on a training procedure in Alaska, Cross is nearly assassinated by his own people after it's been decided by the powers that be that Jason Bourne's actions in "Ultimatum" have metastasized beyond repair and all outlying assets must be eliminated (including Dr. Shearing and her peers). Going on the run is one thing for Cross, but now without the pills he has been taking to keep himself stimulated, he faces the threat of crashing like a lifetime heroine addict gone cold turkey – a dire situation which would indefinitely lead to his — and the doctor's — death.

With Tony Gilroy, some will be relieved to be done with the shaky cam approach of Paul Greengrass but what does remain intact is Gilroy's dense, jargon-filled dialogue that even if being dumb, always sounds so incredibly smart. There is certainly no mistaking that this is a film from this universe.

The Bourne Legacy is easily the goriest of the bunch and at times really pushes the envelope when it comes to a PG-13 rating. As evidenced in the trailers, there is an early-set shooting involving Weisz's character and it is quite disturbing and effective in its robotic ruthlessness. Forget the controversial scene in Gangster Squad that is being reshot due to the Aurora, Colo. shootings, this sequence is bound to give anyone close to that event vivid flashbacks. And speaking of Weisz, even in her quiet moments (and she has plenty of loud and quiet) she steals her show coming off as both devastated and strong and nimbly sidesteps the oft- seen trope of the shrieking helpless female victim.

Gilroy's foray has a number of inspired instances, and though "Legacy" could have used about 15 minutes of trimming, it never bores. There are a number of intense and well-choreographed sequences that aptly showcase Cross' lethality and they're presented with enough frequency amidst the bureaucracy. An electric and immensely entertaining sequence takes place back when Cross is back in Alaska and attempting to avoid a quick death both by a military drone and a pack of wolves. I won't spoil anything, but it puts a whole new spin on the "slip your GPS tracker so your pursuers think you're somewhere else" cliché.

At other times, however, it seems like Gilroy is just going down the "Bourne" checklist even down to playing Moby's "Extreme Ways" at the end credits (I was really glad about that, actually). Bourne beats up some unsuspecting guards — check. Bourne engages in an extended car chase in an exotic location — check. Bourne evades capture by running along rooftops — check. Another agent is sent to eliminate Bourne — check. The only "check" missing is the inclusion of the man himself. However, in lieu of giving us an utter deconstruction of the series (or nothing at all), why should we be disappointed that The Bourne Legacy gives us everything we could expect (and at times quite a bit more)?

It also becomes clear pretty early on that Damon's Bourne is not the only one who has been given a redux. David Strathairn's Noah Vosen (who is under investigation following his attempted cover-up) has been given the form of Edward Norton's Eric Byer and Joan Allen's Pamela Landy (who is also having problems with her "treason" as it were) effectively with Donna Murphy's Dita Mandy (only changed one letter in the last name there). It's safe to say, despite strong performances, they feel like a downgrade when recalling the fiery antagonism shared with Vosen and Landy in The Bourne Ultimatum.

One thing The Bourne Legacy makes utterly clear is that at the distinguished age of 41, Jeremy Renner has proved himself to be a formidable action hero, both bringing a classic look to Cross but also matching Damon in displays of physicality and athleticism. He has now proved his leading man potential and I look forward to Renner headlining further action adventures (be it in this series or others).

But after all the conspiracies have been unmasked and the last bullet drained, I still couldn't help but miss Damon in the lead role. We all knew how great he was as Jason Bourne, but it would seem that I at least took his work for granted, perhaps failing to truly appreciate how magnetic he was in his ass-kickery. Let's hope Damon comes to miss his involvement and teams up with Renner in future missions, because that would be an on-screen duo worthy of all kinds of legacies.
88 out of 127 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Weisz and Renner act their assess off but not even their raw talent can save this film from Director Tony Gilroy's ego trip of a script and his lackluster directing.
godspeeder11 August 2012
This is truly a case of great actors who are left out there in the cold by a director, who essentially does not even try to respect them and the audience's intelligence by giving them something original or interesting. Tony Gilroy had written not only the first three Bourne films but the great Michael Clayton as well but here, it is obvious that he is on a destructive ego trip. Gilroy is more interested in making people see on how smart he is as a scriptwriter and filmmaker than actually try to entertain and stay true to what made the other Bourne films special. With that destructive mind set, Gilroy forgets that you need faith in your actors and the material they are working with in order to drive the movie forward. Gilroy also commits the biggest sin of all, which is to never underestimate the intelligence of your audience.

The script by Gilroy and his brother Dan tries to be cutting edge in scientific jargon and smart dialog but ends up with so many inconsistencies and flimsy characterization that you have to double back twice to see if Gilroy actually had a hand in the original "Bourne Trilogy". The characters in this film are only there to get from A to B and none of them with the exception of Rachel Weisz and Jeremy Renner (Who you can clearly see are both working beyond the call of duty to make something out of their paper-thin roles) has any real purpose at all. Poor Edward Norton is only there to bark orders and you can clearly see how frustrated he is with his role in certain scenes. The direction is not even very good, with pacing problems and a running time that excessively too long for its own good. The action scenes (The few of them in the film) do not jar well and are boring to say the least.

My advice to Universal, if there has to be a sequel, bring back Rachel Weisz and Jeremy Renner (Who both deserve medals for their efforts in making this lazy, self indulgent script work) and get rid of Tony Gilroy, who clearly does not respect anybody other than himself. You might have a better movie if you do.
370 out of 587 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
better than i thought it would be
sammyb13 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I wasn't sure about this film when I saw the trailer. I'd only see Renner in MI4 so I didn't know what to expect. I hadn't been a huge Bourne fan but I'd caught them all on DVD. This was the first film in the series I'd seen on the big screen.

Its not perfect, but then neither were the Matt Damon ones. It was pretty good though. Things really improved with Rachel's involvement. The scene where Renner and Rachel meet, after Renner kills 4 or 5 assassins in a stunning sequence)is fantastic and its high octane all the way after that. There are some reflective moments which give the talented leads a chance to shine and the two have fantastic screen chemistry together- ironically better presence than Weisz has with her real life husband in the disappointing Dream House. The big action scene in Manila is jaw dropping. The tag scene sets things up for another film that I really want to happen. So what's not perfect?

The problem is that all the flashbacks to Ultimatum are not needed and slow down the opening of the film. Bourne is gone and the film should concentrate 100% on the new characters.

STILL WANT THAT SEQUEL THOUGH
17 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Well done!
darklits28 September 2012
I was really skeptical going in, but having seen it, I have to say it was frigging AWESOME! Loved every second of it! SO worth the money! Finally something taking Bourne back in business! Bourne Ultimatum was just OK because of the constant stupid camera shaking that just made me mad so I did not enjoy that movie. The camera shaking was just too much. It made it very hard to follow the movie. This one tho was just smooth and cool! Well done Tony! Having said that I would have liked that Matt would have made at least a cameo Its sad and unprofessional for Matt do take a stance like that. "I will only do Bourne with Paul" What are you twelve?". Matt you are the coolest guy on earth, but Tony made a better Bourne then Paul did with the last two.

I really hope Renner and Damon will be in the next Bourne and Tony Gilroy directing!
37 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
One of the best movies I have seen all year.
nathan-f7715 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I absolutely loved every minute of this movie, but let me start out by saying that I'm not a fan of any of the first three Bourne movies. I will also say that because this story is so different to the previous movies, it would have probably been better to give it a different title. There didn't need to be any reference to Bourne at all.

One of the highlights for me was the level of accuracy in the CIA search team. It was surprisingly refreshing to see satellite feeds from across the world portrayed with their accurate limitations. This made me engage with that part of the story on a much deeper level, and I really felt the tension as the search team grew closer and closer to their target.

The chase sequence is one of the best I have seen. Manila was an amazing choice of location. It had it's one cheesy moment, but I was holding onto my seat the entire time. I enjoyed the lull after the first part of the chase, and I especially liked the very sharp and conclusive ending.

The acting was absolutely spot on.

I loved the details that helped to set the tone for certain scenes. For example, the Australian character at the Manila laboratory really helped to create a general overtone of semi-incompetence, which was crucial to the belief that their break-in and escape was actually plausible.

I loved the storyline, and found it very refreshing after seeing too many movies that deal with revenge or uncovering conspiracies. Perhaps it says something about my personality, but I really enjoyed the premise that all they wanted to do was get away, and live in peace. I thought the suspense was really well managed, during the scene where the border guards were checking their passports. The final scene of the movie released all of this built-up tension, and I think it was a perfect, happy ending. The ending reminded me of the movie 'Limitless', how the character's world can collapse at any moment, but they make it to the end, and are well-prepared to deal with any threats in the future.

So there you go. One 10 star review in a sea of disappointed critics.
60 out of 90 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Mr Renner burns the screen!
ccdubuc16 August 2012
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...)
33 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Terrific. Great Action. Intense
bob-rutzel-112 December 2012
Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner), a genetically engineered warrior, needs more meds to keep going. The people who ran illegal black ops fear they will be exposed to the government and decide to kill off all these warriors and the scientists who make the meds so they cannot talk.

Basically, this is one big chase movie and it is very exciting. The editing during the foot race, car and motorcycle chases later on are fantastic. I am not sure how much CGI was used as everything looked too real. Great stunts. Kudos.

The supporting cast of Edward Norton, Stacy Keach, David Strathaim, Scott Glen, and Albert Finney do a credible job just as a supporting cast (hey, it's not their movie) trying to kill off Cross and Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachael Weisz) the doctor who knows how to make the meds Cross needs. The way Cross and Dr. Shearing are tracked by Col Byer (Edward Norton) and crew is really incredible as they have access to cameras and satellites worldwide. Quite smooth the way it was done.

I had my doubts about Rachael Weisz in this but she proved more than capable and quite sexy beautiful. She couldn't have been any better. Okay, yes, I fell in love with her.

Now, why Jeremy Renner as a new action hero? Did you forget his role in Tom Cruise's movie Mission Impossible, Ghost Protocol? He did a bang-up job in that one looking out for Cruise's Ethan Hunt and had some moves that opened important casting eyes. So it made sense. See?

I almost expected a meeting with Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) and Aaron Cross because in this movie Jason Bourne is alive and doing his thing. They did show Jason Bourne's picture early in the movie and that got me to thinking about a meeting. Didn't happen. But, may in the next movie as you know these sequels will never end. And, that is a good thing. (9/10)

Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: No.
18 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Aaron Marks His cross In Bourne Legacy
alucard_castlevania8618 September 2012
I really love theses kind of films where you have the agent running around like he's a fugitive wanted by the government so I was really excited going into this movie

When I saw Bourne Legacy last month, I have to say a great film. Aaron Cross is much better than Jason Bourne in my opinion. The casting were also good. Jeremy Renner fitted the main role verywell and Rachel Weisz was also great as a female supporting role. I hope that they both will star again in the next sequel and the franchise in my opinion has finally found their right replacement for Matt Damon

Lets hope that in the future, both Renner and Damon agree to team up and put a stop to the program once and for all
22 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
It was no legacy...
tasev110 August 2012
Ouch. I wish Greengrass directed this film, because to me it felt like a mess. Had a good idea with a solid backing, but it failed to take advantage of it. I like that they intertwined the story within the Ultimatum storyline like you see in the preview as well as playing homage to the original series, but the execution sucked not to mention that the Bourne events had no influence on Cross' character - something that "Legacy" would suggest. The storytelling felt disjointed, and the action sequences had way too much camera shake to enjoy them (the first trilogy wasn't so bad). Other than Manila, and the solitude of Alaska, location is one trademark of the legacy that just wasn't there. In the first three films, the assassins didn't need to speak to have personality and character - this film's assassin was just a ghost in your memory.

Even though not directly stated, I think most people would understand by watching this film what MAY have actually happened to Jason Bourne. The only way this film will have any more meaning is if they continue the new trilogy.
111 out of 187 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Bourne Identity remake with a sci/fi twist; the Bourne franchise deserves better
chaz-2810 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Jason Bourne is one of the more intriguing film characters of the past decade. He methodically and purposefully found out who he was, who was responsible for his condition, and attempted to bring everything back together again. Even better, he was not a superhero; Jason was just a guy who went through a lot of training. He is elite, but deep down he is still one of us. Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner), on the other hand, has been tweaked a little bit. He pops pills to up his physical and mental skills. Yes, he is still human too, but perhaps a bit genetically modified. This splash of sci/fi does not help an audience tuned in to the adventures of Jason Bourne connect with the new guy.

When I first heard there was another Bourne installment, this time without Matt Damon, I figured someone either wrote a good script to carry on a new story line, or the studio wanted to churn out a guaranteed cash cow under the title of a proved and successful action series. Writer/director Tony Gilroy wrote the scripts for the first three Bourne films, but this is his first time behind the camera in the series. He successfully directed Michael Clayton and the under- appreciated Duplicity, but now the magic is gone. The Bourne Legacy is stale.

Enduring a painfully slow beginning, The Bourne Legacy reveals it is set at the same point in time as The Bourne Ultimatum. In fact, if you have forgotten the plot points and supporting characters of the previous film, take the time to either watch it again or read about it online before heading into the new feature. Jason Bourne's escapades have thrown multiple CIA operations out in the open and the shadowy powers are frantically trying to sweep them under the rug before either Congress or the press start asking questions. Eric Byer (Edward Norton) orders the termination of Project Outcome, the new series of super agent represented by Aaron Cross. Instead of telling the agents to pack up and go home, the CIA chooses to assassinate them instead. Oh, and they try to wipe out all of the scientists who made them so super in the first place.

Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz) is one of those scientists seeking ways to alter chromosomes to make a more perfect human. After surviving annihilation himself, Aaron conveniently scoops the good Dr. out of harms way which sets up an 'us against them' theme quite similar to the one you remember from The Bourne Identity. Unfortunately, The Bourne Legacy noticeably lacks the quality script and thrilling action sequences of that first film. The chase scenes in the new film are edited so atrociously, especially during motorcycle elements, that they are almost impossible to logically follow. You know they are weaving in and out of traffic, there are near misses, and flying bullets; but there are only quick glimpses of that on the screen in the midst of the unsteady camera work and split-second jump cuts.

The Bourne Identity also had a mystery to unravel and wandered around the world trying to find out who was behind the curtain. There is no curtain now, Edward Norton is pulling the strings in plain sight using all of the means in the intelligence community he can lay his hands on. There are armed Predator drones, devious mop-up CIA killing squads, and even a possible super- duper agent; imagine the Schwarzenegger Terminator battling the new T-1000.

Renner and Weisz do their best to remake a film which was already pretty great. Yes, they have new names and faces, but they are running from the same agency, dodging the same bullets, but this time they have a higher chromosomal level on their side. The Bourne Legacy will be known as that film which derailed the very respectable Bourne franchise. Paul Greengrass, the director of The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum, was correct when he said any further film would feel like The Bourne Redundancy.
158 out of 273 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Should be held up as an example of how dedicatedly good actors can almost redeem a pointless, badly written film.
sweetiesy13 August 2012
Pointless entry into the Bourne series finds Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weisz taking over where Matt Damon left off in a sequel that lacks not only a real purpose to exist but lacks a script that can justify the movie as a continuation of the series. Tony Gilroy (who had a hand in screen writing the original three films) writes and directs this entry but forgets the showmanship and grace that Paul Greengrass and Doug Liman brought to the series, not to mention the solid storytelling that came with their efforts. Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weisz tried their best with the weak material Gilroy provides for them and they almost succeed, giving the audience something to care for but they are fighting an uphill battle against cliché one dimensional characters, dismal screen writing, a running time that needed to be edited down and amateurish direction that does no one any favors. The rest of the cast barely registers at all and the action is not even on the same level of the other films in the series.

If any blame should go around, it should go squarely to Tony Gilroy and his brothers, who seem like they had no idea on what the hell they were doing and in the process, wasted the time of two great actors (Renner and Weisz) who are working beyond what is necessary to give the fans the respect they deserve for staying with the series. This was a hard thing to do considering that they are working with nothing in terms of support.
252 out of 446 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Not even close to a Bourne movie
parallel_projection16 August 2012
In a way I think this film disgraces the Bourne series, and here's why: it simply did not have the feel of a Bourne movie. Between awkwardly chosen locations, some sci-fi drug twist, and and incredibly over-simplified and at times dull plot line, this is hardly an action movie, let alone a Bourne movie. Also, and this part really bothered me, I feel like Tony and Dan Gilroy did things with some of the Bourne characters that were not true to Robert Ludlum's vision, even going so far as to change the initiation program and the amount of information leaked at the end of Ultimatum.

Secondly, the direction was very close up the entire time, and during many of the chase scenes I found myself unable to watch. The entire time it is very shaky, and because of the closeness, it's difficult to get the whole picture of what's going on.

Lastly, some of the acting wasn't very good. I've never liked Jeremy Renner, and this movie didn't change my opinion on him. It's not that he's a bad actor, it's just that I don't like him as an actor. Edward Norton, though, was incredibly stiff and robotic the whole time, as were some of the other government workers. The best performance was probably from Rachel Weisz, who did well as a woman trying to deal with shock and guilt.

If you happen to like almost all action movie, go ahead and watch this, but if you're a Bourne fan, I wouldn't bother wasting your and tarnishing some aspects of the past movies.
166 out of 297 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Underwhelming
am300011 August 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Great cast. Great acting. However, The entire film feels like the beginning to a movie. You keep telling yourself, 'wow, the intro was long now the movies really starting..oh nevermind'. ::Spoilers:: The entire goal of the protagonist is to acquire more of his regimented medicine. The goal of his enemies is to kill him. There is no trying to get back at the CIA, no typical Bourne stuff. The Bourne series was unnecessarily reused and they really should have just started off fresher. Scenes were drawn out, there were only about 2 clever plays made, and the main enemy never meets the prot. It's all very separated and remote. No connections are formed and we are not given the hope that he seeks to solve the issues at hand. They also completely write off Bourne.. wouldn't he know Pamela gets framed and that the overhead is still controlling black ops groups? A lot of things were not well thought out for this movie and it was entertaining but disappointing.
44 out of 72 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Though I remember enjoying the previous Matt Damon-Bourne movies, they weren't fresh enough to keep me from enjoying The Bourne Legacy as well
tavm12 September 2012
While I had previously seen the Matt Damon-Bourne movies and remember enjoying them, I had watched them once when they came out and therefore can't remember specific details. So it was in seeing this new one with Jeremy Renner as the lead but as a different character from Damon's that I approached this one with a fresh perspective in following what was going on and why. So on that note, I enjoyed this one just as much as the others maybe even a little more since this one doesn't have the shaky-cam the others had. And I also liked Rachel Weisz as the doctor who escaped from her lab after an associate of hers was killing the other lab partners. And I loved seeing Renner and her together just running to survive whether through Maryland (which is where I'm currently vacationing right now) or the Philippines which is where my mom and late dad originally came from and my sisters had visited when they were little but I and my brother have yet to go to. It's possible I might have been a little more critical of this movie if I, like many reviewers on this site, had nearly perfect memory of those previous Bourne movies but as it is now, I highly enjoyed The Bourne Legacy.
36 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Acting was acceptable, good action, poor story line
chris-hurt-hurt-chris13 August 2012
I could candy coat this and tell you I loved this film, but I won't because I didn't. I thought it was rather poorly written. However the saving grace was the actors themselves that pulled this out of the crapper in my opinion. Nothing new was added here except another layer to the Treadstone, Black Briar, and other Government absurdities from the other three movies. This sequel deals with genetics and DNA manipulation and since this is mentioned in the trailer, there is no spoiler alert needed. These genetic mutations were supposed to eliminate the inconsistencies that existed with Jason Borne (also in the trailer) and the operatives in his program. The way they dealt with how they supposedly "fixed" the inconsistencies is really what was made this an unbelievable script. However, the action and the acting of the two lead characters Rachel Weisz and Jeremy Renner make this movie tolerable. There was no reason to cast people like Stacey Keach or Edward Norton to this cast as they added no value other than their name to this film. Really, any no name actor could have provided the same quality to this film without having to pay for these actors. The plot wasn't too hard to follow, but be prepared for a few flashbacks to the other three movies, which to me, upsets the flow to the movie. The only reason I think they put them in in the first place was for people who may not have seen the other three Borne movies. Other than that, I don't think they're needed.

I wouldn't waste admission price or popcorn on this movie. I only saw it because it was only $5 at the drive in and you got to see another movie after it went off so it didn't cost me that much. Don't worry, it will keep until it comes out on Netflix or Redbox, and then you can watch it without worrying that you are throwing away your money.
127 out of 229 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
loved it
explodingnoema12 September 2012
I can't understand the negativity some people feel for this film. Its a really exiting story, The cast are great, the stuntwork is great and I want to see more films with these characters.

That is pretty much all I wanted to say but I suppose I have to say something else to meet the minimum ten lines.

OK Keremy Renner is a great new lead. I may actually prefer him to Matt Damon already and if he does another one I think that'll be a certainty. He is more expressive than Damon, more convincing physically, more likable.

Rachel Weisz is the only lead female in this films I even care about. She can act! More than can be said about Damon's girlfriend or wife or whatever it was that got killed at the earliest opportunity in the second film of the series. Certainly better than Julia " I look 12" Styles as a tacked on vapid love interest.

Norton was underused that is true,Keach was too. Why Scott Glenn was in this I have no idea. He looks like the living dead and can barely speak.

Motorbike chase was epic. I want a sequel.
55 out of 93 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
best movie of 2012 so far
marketsharetax7 December 2012
I have watched about 20 movies in 2012, this one is the best so far. Many negative comments were posted mostly from the fans of Bourne movies, however I did not watch any Bourne movies because I did not like their movie trailers. So, I can express my opinion without any prior attachment. This movie trailer though was surprisingly right on the money. It has great actors, great ideas and great script, it has action, love and suspense. I can not understand why the score of this movie is less than the score of Prometheus. This movie is a lot better than total recall 2012, expendables 2, avengers, amazing spider man, men in black 3, etc.
14 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Better Than Expected
DoctorMeticulous11 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I had dragged my feet on seeing this film due to lukewarm reviews, but I was pleasantly surprised. The Bourne Legacy is much better than the previous installment in the series, although die-hard fans might be disappointed over the absence of Matt Damon and the relegation of supporting characters played by David Strathairn and Joan Allen (and others) to mere cameo appearances. However, the principal performers in this film (Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz, and Edward Norton) infuse the franchise with a welcome rush of new energy and considerable on-screen charisma. The locations look great, and the action sequences are genuinely exciting and impressive. The film begins somewhat slowly, but this results in a degree of characterization that helps us invest in the well-being of the hero and heroine, and the pace definitely picks up in the second half. The open-ended nature of the conclusion seems designed as a brief pause before a sequel; while the lack of narrative closure will be frustrating for some viewers, I can hardly wait to see more of these characters from these filmmakers.
22 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Worth seeing
JohnRayPeterson30 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I happen to like the Bourne stories written by Eric van Lustbader, just as much as the original ones by Robert Ludlum, so I did not watch this movie with the prejudice some might have. In interviews of Jeremy Renner, he explained what Gilroy got him to do in the frigid environment. It sealed it for me; anyone willing to go that extra mile for a part (probably risking life) deserved to have his performance viewed. Granted, Damon IS Bourne; but Renner does not play Bourne, he plays Aaron Cross.

It's obvious Tony Gilroy knows his favourite character and does superb work with action movies. I suspect there will be yet another sequel, Lustbader wrote several, and if the ratings are still good, I'll go see it. I liked Rachel Weisz in this movie, I can't think of a performance by her I didn't like. I recommend it.
12 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Nothing In the movie?
spiderman45911 August 2012
So I've taken enough theater classes to know that a movie should have a, Plot, Climax, and a ENDING.

This movie has NONE of those. I'm a huge Bourne fan and was anxious to see the Jeremy Renner try to take on the new role of the hero in this movie. The acting in this movie was good, but the writers stunk! There was NO PLOT, no CLIMAX, and NO ENDING. It was a huge disappointment to me and I would not recommend wasting your time or money on it. Although if you like movies that are two hours long with NOTHING going on in them, then this might be the one for you. Another thing that upset me was that Aron Cross seemed to have a small goal or no goal at all in the ENTIRE movie! I'm not sure who directed this movie but they did an EXTREMELY poor job.
169 out of 324 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed