The Bourne Legacy

The new Bourne is much more restrained and much less action-packed than I expected. The plus is that they managed to quite sophisticatedly integrate the plot of the new film into the older trilogy, so this "standalone" installment doesn't feel intrusive or contrived, especially considering that the story of Bourne and Cross is essentially unfolding in the same time period. The action is good, although there are far fewer hand-to-hand combat scenes, and overall the direction is much more subdued and minimalistic. The subplot about experiments on people (pills, etc.) is solid. The main character's motivation is good and Rachel Weisz’s performance is excellent. It's clear that Gilroy went smartly around it, he didn't want to pump the audience with even more sophisticated action, more pumped-up music, and faster pace. But to wrap the viewer around his finger with unexpected plot twists that sometimes shock with their force (the interrogation at Weisz's house) and sometimes pleasantly and reliably stick to the established tracks (chases, stunts). What bothered me the most was the complete absence of an ending and a clear indication that if Legacy is at least somewhat commercially successful, there will be a reset of the series. (08/20/2012)

When I was watching the movie "The Bourne Legacy", I was taken by surprise by something. It was boredom. I was bored for roughly the first half of the film. It's true that on one hand, it could have been due to tiredness, but on the other hand, I believe that the film itself is partly to blame. Lately, I have been tired, but the movie is partially about events happening at the same time as the events in the movies "The Bourne Identity" and "The Bourne Ultimatum". It's nice, they fit it quite well and they wanted to assure us that this is not a completely different film, but that there is a connection. So, it's not just using the good name for commercial purposes, but the continuity is immediately apparent. (11/19/2013)

Tony Gilroy complained for so long that his scripts under Paul Greengrass's direction didn't sound like they deserved, until he finally took the camera into his own hands – and ripped off everything the previous trilogy offered. And when the first half-hour reminds me of nothing more than a really long scene cut from The Bourne Ultimatum, I know something ain't right. And yet it is truly a pity when you watch the surprisingly talkative and appropriately sharp Jeremy Renner. His hand-to-hand combat with the enemy takes your breath away, and the chemistry with Rachel Weisz is spot-on. Unfortunately, when the pace of the second half reaches its maximum, an extra stupid twist (LARX) comes along, and with it a sobering up that leaves your head ringing until the end. I probably would have had much less of a problem with a standalone story, but merely sewing it onto a worn-out brand kills The Bourne Legacy. (12/01/2012)

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. (08/21/2012)

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. (09/03/2012)