The Bourne Legacy

Bourne without Bourne and a bit different. Less action and a more robust story are certainly assets. Jerry Renner is excellent, a much more talkative agent. His motivation (not to be dumb again) is a welcome change after the quest for the past. Rachel Weisz is really likeable, not the usual dumb girl part, and the much more believable “intro" to the love-story is also welcome. Ed Norton does a good job again. It’s obvious that this is just the beginning. The big punch-up is yet to come and I’ll be there. :) (2012-08-10)

The third best/worst of the five Bournes to date. It’s greatest stumbling block is the heavy-handed start which is not solved until the main duo paired up; or rather until a little room was given to the excellent Rachel Weisz who steals the show from the disturbing scene in the laboratory onward. The non-existent conclusion doesn’t make things any better, but even so it lures you rather than driving you away in disgust. (2012-08-09)

The Bourne series needed this about as much as the Hannibal Lecter saga needed Red Dragon. It’s a technically wellcrafted American thriller with a stellar cast. But without the unique combination of an intriguing protagonist, original directorial approach and engaging plot, it doesn’t stand a chance against its predecessors. It’s too ordinary, failing to stand out from secret-agent genre movies with, for example, Harrison Ford, which over time become just a way to pass some time in front of the TV. Paul Greengrass’s movies, on the other hand, enriched the genre, pushing it forward. (2012-09-03)

I was probably the only one in my wide circle of friends who went to the movie theater not to see the new Bourne, but to see the new Gilroy film. Unfortunately, I got it exactly backward. I'm beginning to worry that Michael Clayton was a successful fluke because this is a poorly directed spectacle that doesn't know whether it wants to be a personal drama about two individuals facing the all-powerful tentacles of the government octopus or an action-packed sprint for freedom. It doesn't step into either for even a minute and thus from the moment of "Forrest Gump on drugs," it definitely breaks down into grey tedium. This hurts all the more when the viewer realizes that although Gilroy has sketched out a world of almost limitless possibilities, he takes the path of least resistance, i.e., he goes in the direction of a copied scheme that compresses the previous three films into one two-hour film. I understand that Frank Marshall knows what kind of money can be made from the brand, but next time he should at least put an impactful dramaturgist on the set. It's not just Moby who failed here. 2 and a ½. (2012-08-21)

It's not a bad film, but comparisons to previous installments are inevitable. The best thing about The Bourne Legacy is Rachel Weisz, an actress the franchise needed earlier (especially in the first episode), and the chilling scene in the lab. Otherwise, there's almost nothing here that we haven't seen before (jumping on rooftops, escapades on a motorcycle, faking one’s own death, hiding and escaping), and when we do, it's rather laughable (the wolf). Plus, whenever the name "Bourne" came up, I felt like I was watching Cimrman's Hamlet without Hamlet. (2015-02-14)