The Bourne Legacy Reviews

What a waist of time to watch this thing. The movies with matt damon were much better. The plot is completly not understood and what a bad ending!!

The Bourne Legacy, fourth movie in the series of Bourne is infact without Matt Damon rather without character named Bourne. However the theme, pace, action and grip of the movie remained the same and I hope Jeremy Renner, who is perfectly cast in the lead, didn't let down the Bourne club fans.

With Jason Bourne very much still in everyone's thoughts, although his whereabouts remain unknown, after he took down a massive CIA operation. the Bourne Legacy intuit about Bourne but its legacy and one finds that, Bourne isn't the only operative out there that the folks in Washington, DC need to worry about.

After a link between top secret operations is uncovered, Eric Byer, the man in charge of the project, orders it shutdown for face saving and of course all the links to be cleaned and erased, including the agents on secret engineered drugs, who now become a huge risk to CIA.

Aaron Cross (one such agent) is forced into seeking out the lone remaining scientist responsible for the drugs in order to keep his strength up as well as his increased mental capacity.

My first thought, on hearing that there was yet another Jason Bourne movie that had been released, was - why does the world need yet another adventure in the chronicles of Jason Bourne? Also, after 'The Bourne Supremacy', I was really sure that nothing else could top that - I mean, when one talks about something being supreme - there is surely nothing else that can top it?
Please see my comments at this link - [Link removed - login to see]

Watching this movie was definitely not a high priority but since there was not much else to see in the movie theater, I thought I should give it a try. Eventually, it was a nice attempt to create a spin-off around the Bourne franchise but the end result was still rather disappointing. Indeed, they made several mistakes but the most obvious one was that the story was just way too weak. I mean, basically, the whole thing was just about some spy looking for his meds, that's it. It was pretty obvious that they wanted to create the same structure (top spy on the run while his agency tries to terminate him) without exactly copying the plot of the previous movies and that's why they added those meds but I thought it was a terrible plot device. Still, it was far from being a bad movie. Indeed, it was actuallty fairly entertaining and I really liked the way they tried to tie in both stories. However, during the 2nd half, they never mentioned Jason Bourne anymore so that was another wasted opportunity. Still, I thought that Edward Norton was pretty badass, at least, in the beginning, but then, basically, he spent the whole movie looking serious and giving orders. Can you believe that 10 years ago, after 'American History X' and 'Fight Club', he was hailed as the best actor of his generation? There is not much left of these promises, I'm afraid. Concerning Rachel Weisz, she tried very hard to give her character some substance but her part was rather thankless since she was there only to make sure that Aaron Cross didn't wander all alone during the whole thing. What is left is Jeremy Renner and I must admit that he gave a terrific performance. Not only was he charismatic but he managed to replace Matt Damon without being a copycat and he succeeded in creating his own genuine character. Without him, the whole thing would have been pretty terrible. To conclude, even though it was not really succesfull, it was still an interesting attempt to develop this franchise and I still think it is worth a look, especially if you enjoyed the previous trilogy.

The original Jason Bourne trilogy starring Matt Damon had become a re-interpretation of action-spy films, perhaps even giving the James Bond series a run for their money, and after how well The Bourne Ultimatum was received, the icing had become the icing on the cake as it could not have gone much higher. Well, it would be pretty difficult to do so, at least. However, the fourth instalment The Bourne Legacy had other plans due to Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass’s absences and a new hero, similar to Jason Bourne, was going to be introduced. The film had a lot to show for it if it was to even come close to its predecessors. Nevertheless, The Bourne Legacy is what one would describe as “trapped” purely because it is does not grasp a firm link to the Bourne series but at the same time, it isn’t too far apart from it either.


Although Paul Greengrass not returning to director had become a real let-off on behalf of the latest fourth instalment in the Bourne franchise, Tony Gilroy, who had previously worked on the screenplays of the predecessors, returned to that role but also became the replacement to direct. Gilroy’s directorial work on The Bourne Legacy was almost everything that it should not have been. For starters, it had an agonizing painful slow beginning and, therefore, took a very long time to get going. This caused a great deal of confusion as you become lost with these new characters and questions if they even relate to the previous ones. Furthermore, considering that some of the action scenes were intense and well-filmed (but not quite on the same level as Greengrass), The Bourne Legacy gradually ran out of steam all-round.


Making a Jason Bourne film without Jason Bourne is like a James Bond film without James Bond, a Harry Potter film without Harry Potter and an Indiana Jones film without Indiana Jones. Matt Damon, who had portrayed Bourne absolutely marvellously in a rather mixed bag of acting, unfortunately did not reprise the role in The Bourne Legacy seeing as Paul Greengrass did not return as director. Instead, we have been given a new protagonist that became Bourne’s replacement. Jeremy Renner portrayed leading hero Aaron Cross/Kenneth James Kitsom in a role that does not in any way come close to Damon’s performance as Bourne and is more or less a trapped figure between a mindless action hero and a mysterious, dark, highly-developed character with a past. With what was granted to him following the poor development of the character, Renner did not perform too badly in the role. He may have looked good in action but it was Cross’s background story and lack of connection to Bourne that became the most crucial weak spot within the entire film. In fact, there is not even a valid explanation of why Cross is running from CIA in the first place and why he ended up in Alaska.


Rachel Weisz betrays her husband - current James Bond actor Daniel Craig, as she stars in the female leading role within a Bourne film. Previously, Matt Damon and Franke Potente had created a firm romantic connection and witnessing Weisz and Renner together on the big screen was quite literally remaking it all again. In fact, regarding this, The Bourne Legacy was a remake to The Bourne Identity. Anyway, Rachel Weisz has proved herself to be one of the most gifted but underrated actresses of this generation and due to the poor script, she miraculously gave an impressive performance as Dr. Marta Shearing. With this character, unlike Aaron Cross, we are given an insight to different levels of humanity and complexity, which at times, adds certain concepts of psychology due to the emotional damage caused. Her performance was easily the best in the film. Edward Norton took on the role of the supposed antagonist Byer, a retired Air Force colonel working for the CIA, and Albert Finney, David Strathairn and Joan Allen reprised their roles from previous Bourne films in what are closer to cameos as opposed to supporting roles.


Overall, The Bourne Legacy is truly a mixed bag that had initially become a bad idea due to the absences of what made the series great (Damon and Greengrass) and, thus, proved that it is just does not connect. The acting was acceptable considering the large differences with the characters and story, Gilroy wrote a very disappointing script but did a satisfactory job in the director’s seat. The Bourne Legacy is not the third sequel that we were hoping for and it does not in any way reboot the series but it is roughly a spin-off of the previous trilogy. If there is anything that we have learned from The Bourne Legacy, it is that films within a franchise, or are supposedly part of one, cannot work properly without the most crucial pieces that hold it all together: primary characters and on-going stories.

"Jason Bourne was just the tip of the iceberg."

A Bourne adventure without Matt Damon or the title character, 2012's The Bourne Legacy has always been a questionable project since its inception. 2007's The Bourne Ultimatum provided a wholly satisfying conclusion to Jason Bourne's character arc, leaving little reason to continue the series, especially since Damon and director Paul Greengrass showed no interest in returning. But The Bourne Legacy entered production nevertheless, with the always-reliable Tony Gilroy serving as co-writer and director. Fortunately, while it's not up the original trilogy's standard of brilliance, the film is no bust either. It's an unnecessarily talky and at times meandering thriller, yet it's also a periodically exciting and engaging continuation of the formidable series.

With Bourne having exposed Operation Blackbriar and the Treadstone Project, the CIA falls under FBI scrutiny. Called in for help, military advisor Eric Byer (Norton) convinces his superiors to shut down their assorted clandestine programs and terminate all of their supersoldiers. One such operative is Aaron Cross (Renner), who's toiling away in the Alaskan wilderness but is running low on the special medication which gives him enhanced physical and mental abilities. Byer and his associates are led to believe that Cross has been terminated, allowing him to live off the grid as he travels back to Maryland in search of meds. He finds an ally in Dr. Marta Shearling (Weisz), a biochemist who narrowly survives a mysterious murder-suicide in her lab. Dropping in before Marta can be finished off, Cross teams up with the anxious woman.

Tony Gilroy had a hand in scripting The Bourne Identity, The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum, making him an obvious choice to direct this continuation. Having all but nothing to do with the novel by Robert Ludlum, Legacy (written by Gilroy and his brother Dan) is not so much a reboot but a spin-off; a parallel track to Bourne's story. It takes place somewhere during the events of Ultimatum, and is built on a simple premise: Bourne caused a ripple effect throughout the intelligence community, and he was not the only Treadstone agent. Unfortunately, sizeable portions of the picture are precariously verbose, fruitlessly devoting an inordinate amount of time observing flustered CIA officials in dimly-lit rooms. While it may seem important to get a glimpse of the machinations within CIA headquarters and thus comprehend why they choose to shut down Treadstone, there's too much filler here and the material is ultimately less interesting than Aaron's more engaging story. One must wonder how effective the film might've been if the material was brisker. As it is, Legacy is often lethargic, and you'll be left glancing at your watch whenever Gilroy returns to CIA HQ.

Rather than retaining Greengrass' proverbial shaky-cam approach, Gilroy put his on aesthetic stamp on the franchise, opting for a more classical, sturdier filming style somewhat in the vein of Doug Liman's Bourne Identity. Gilroy's cinematographer was none other than Robert Elswit (The Town, Michael Clayton, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol), so the movie looks predictably handsome. And when it comes to the action scenes, Gilroy never treads a foot wrong; each action beat is sharp and muscular. Especially impressive is a set-piece in an old house during which Cross dispatches bad guys with exhilarating finesse, and there's a chase through Manila which is as exciting as anything from the prior Bourne movies. Plus, there's a tense and chilling lab shooting that's destined to leave you speechless (especially in the wake of the infamous Aurora shootings). Gilroy gets massive plaudits for his skilful grasp of mise-en-scène.

Renner is a top-flight substitute for Matt Damon, as he's a charismatic star who can handle physical action scenes and command attention. Renner has bounced around the cinematic sidelines for years (most recently in Ghost Protocol and The Avengers), so it's satisfying to see the actor getting a lead role. Meanwhile, Weisz (who, impossibly, is even hotter here than she was in The Mummy thirteen years ago) is believable and watchable as Marta. Most of the movie called for her to just be confused and harried, but Weisz handled these requirements with aplomb, remaining eminently charming in the process. The rest of the actors, however, are completely forgettable. The likes of Norton and the returning Albert Finney had very little to work with, and as a result come across as empty, interchangeable cardboard cut-outs.

Perhaps The Bourne Legacy might have worked better with a revised structure. The tedious CIA material could have been entirely excised from the picture, allowing us to stay focused on Aaron at all times and therefore experience everything from his perspective. The "hook" of the Bourne trilogy was Jason's search for answers, and the films left us as clueless as the protagonist. As a result, viewers can feel personally involved in Bourne's adventures. But there are no mysteries in Legacy, and thus no hook. Instead, it's just a very routine action-thriller without many twists or turns. This is easily the weakest entry in the Bourne franchise, as it lacks the jittery momentum of its predecessors. Nevertheless, it's not a bad way to spend a few hours.

6.1/10

The original Bourne franchise re-invented the genre of spy movies, even prompting 007 to step it up a notch. It was announced a couple of years ago that the franchise would live on, even though Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass would not be involved, leaving Universal to fill the void. After a lot of discussion and manuvering, a.k.a money, they persuaded the trilogy's writer Tony Gilroy to both write and direct a new Bourne film that would focus on a new character to be played by Jeremy Renner. The main concern to most of the fans of the franchise was whether or not it would be good enough to fit in with, excuse the pun, the "Bourne Legacy." So, does it?

No, not really. Not to say this is a bad film, because it isn't, I'm simply saying that it doesn't live up to any of the original's films. While many complain it starts up too slow, I actually enjoyed the build up. I thought that it was the perfect way to set up the new characters while tying them to the situations of "The Bourne Ultimatum." The second heats up, and the scene in Shearing's house is very thrilling and that leads to the big chase in Minila, and then it just ends. That's when Gilroy and Co. drop the ball, a great beginning and middle, and no real ending. Nothing is wrapped up, no character resolution, and no point. I remember sitting in my seat, and when the Moby came, I looked at the person sitting next to me and said, "Really, is that it?" The cast is great, even though Edward Norton's villian is essentially missing for the better part of the last hour.

The worst part here is that feeling you get that tells you that this film was simply made to have a sequel, one that I would be willing to see if simply to see a proper resolution to the plot. Jeremy Renney makes for a good lead, but Aaron Cross really doesn't stack up to Jason Bourne, and Gilroy's direction doesn't have the pulsating grittiness that elevated Greengrass's films. Maybe we'll get lucky and Damon & Greengrass will come back, because if this film's ending is any indication, they are desperately needed.

GRADE: B-