The Bourne Legacy (2012) User Reviews (658)

Expectations seem too high

[rbrt_gilchrist · 8/10 · 29 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!

Doesn't Deserve the Hate; a dialogue-driven spy movie that does entertain

[jackmatlock15 · 8/10 · 30 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-

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.

[midnighttheater · 6/10 · 6 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.

A Deeper Look At The Bourne Universe And That's A Good Thing!

[DUKEJBM · 10 August 2012]

As a fan of the Bourne franchise, I enjoyed this deeper look in to that universe. The movie really does feel like one giant glorified DVD extra for that trilogy and I mean that in a good way. Deeper layers are revealed and the intrigue is as good as what we've seen before even though the character motivation isn't as strong across the board. Renner is fabulous as the second generation super spy. My only real complaint about this installment (because it does feel like they are blatantly building for three more films) is that the resolution has no real teeth. Still, it's a very good effort from a very good cast with hints and touches to the Bourne films of the past.

Overall, a thumbs up and a very enjoyable time at the cinema.

It was no legacy...

[tasev1 · 6/10 · 10 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.

Bourne to do this

[kosmasp · 7/10 · 3 January 2013]

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.

Underwhelming

[am3000 · 6/10 · 11 August 2012]

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.

Worth seeing

[JohnRayPeterson · 7/10 · 30 November 2012]

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.

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

[gradyharp · 10/10 · 12 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

A stepping stone to the future of the 'Bourne' franchise

[Movie_Muse_Reviews · 7/10 · 10 August 2012]

After "The Bourne Ultimatum" became the most successful and critically praised film of a trilogy considered the consummate modern spy series, it was only a matter of time before the saga continued. With that film's director, Paul Greengrass, interested in pursuing other projects, and star Matt Damon uninterested in returning without Greengrass, Universal has been forced to expand the "Bourne" universe, and the result is "The Bourne Legacy."

For those up in arms over the continuing of the franchise without Damon front and center, fast-rising action star Jeremy Renner assumes the new face of of the series without skipping a beat as Aaron Cross, the product of another CIA program offshoot of Treadstone called Outcome. Backed by the talents of Rachel Weisz and Edward Norton — and co-written and directed by longtime series scribe Tony Gilroy — "The Bourne Legacy" keeps tonally with the original trilogy and generates the same degree of respect.

In terms of the "Bourne" consistency, "Legacy" maintains the back-and-forth structure of the skilled spy on the loose vs. the CIA division trying to track him down. The film takes place at the same time as "Ultimatum." When Jason Bourne becomes a media story as seen in that film, the CIA senses a public relations nightmare is about to unfold, and Norton's Eric Byer — the man behind most of the agency's black ops programs — has to clean up the mess.

Byer finds damning evidence connecting Blackbriar to Outcome, a program involving nine agents who have received physical and mental genetic enhancements and assist in top-secret military reconnaissance. Given the Bourne fiasco, he determines the best way to save the body is amputate the limb, and Cross and all "participants" in the Outcome program are targeted.

Given the advanced science involved in Outcome, the CIA employed a top-flight science facility to regularly check in with those agents and test new genetic drugs. Weisz's Dr. Marta Shearing soon finds her life in jeopardy and her name in the headlines, and after Cross survives an attempt to wipe him off the map, he connects with her and the two go on the run.

This story really opens the door up to the potential of the series going forward. At one point we learn just how many secret black ops programs the CIA has commissioned, which will surely capture the imagination of series fans who have steeped themselves in the world of "Bourne."

As its own film, however, "Legacy" is missing some key pieces. Especially at the beginning, Gilroy focuses extensively on connecting the original trilogy to this new part of the "Bourne" universe. One of his and Universal's primary concerns appears to be providing just cause for continuing the franchise rather than delivering a complete spy action/thriller. Even the opening shot of "Legacy" directly mirrors the closing shot of "Ultimatum."

Mostly, it's the conclusion that doesn't do the build-up justice. The script appropriately takes its time with the construction of Cross and Marta and clearly sets up their motivations, except that they are motivations out of necessity rather than desire, which ultimately takes a toll on the emotional payoff. "Legacy" just doesn't arrive anywhere, content instead to be the start of something new.

Sticking to the series formula gives "Legacy" a certain level of comfort. There's no lack of "Bourne"-patented clever solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems, exotic locales or impressive enemy takedowns. If anything, it's a little too reliant on what worked in the past, unwilling to take big risks and consequently unable to strike any new notes.

More exposition also means less time for action. The trailer spoils most of the best action moments in the film, and in general "Legacy" doesn't aspire to reach the bar set by previous entries. Gilroy proves an adequate director in this regard, possessing Greengrass' eye for frenetic action but without the same degree of editing prowess.

"The Bourne Legacy" amounts to a stepping stone to what can be for this franchise rather than exploding out of the gate as the start of something special. As has been the case with the filmmaking choices in key reboots this year, namely "The Amazing Spider-Man," there has been a willingness to make sacrifices in the first "new" entry so that future installments can run off the leash. In theory, Aaron Cross isn't tied to anything. He could even team up with Jason Bourne in the future and take it once more to Langley's doorstep.

There's legitimate promise in the future of all things "Bourne," so at the worst, "Legacy" comes out as one of the lesser entries of an otherwise exceptional series. There are much, much uglier blemishes on the records of Hollywood's biggest and best franchises. If anything, "Legacy" should end up a tiny, even glamorous scar in the service of something great.

~Steven C

Thanks for reading! Visit moviemusereviews.com

Wonderful performance by Renner and Weisz, despite the lack of a coherent storyline and a poorly written script.

[andreasschultz · 4/10 · 28 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.

A Solid Continuation That Nevertheless Goes Through the Rhythms

[Simon_Says_Movies · 8/10 · 23 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.

Pill-popping Bourne

[petra_ste · 6/10 · 26 August 2015]

Doe-eyed Rachel Weisz has the rare talent of playing potentially annoying characters - here "damsel in distress" meets "naive scientist who ignores what her works are used for" - and yet making them sensible and sympathetic. And yeah, I like Jeremy Renner too, although obviously in a more platonic way, with his quiet intensity which never turns into obnoxious macho posturing. Add to them Ed Norton as the antagonist coldly barking orders to a room full of technicians and you have a solid cast.

Unfortunately, both direction and writing fall short compared to the Matt Damon trilogy - and before someone says they don't need to be compared, let me remind this was titled The BOURNE Legacy.

Set-pieces are competent, nothing more. There is a rooftop chase, inferior to the one in Ultimatum, and a high-speed chase, inferior to the one in Supremacy. The movie clocks in at an acceptable 135 minutes, but feels longer - and *is* in fact longer than the three Jason Bourne movies, which were tight and breezy.

The script has issues, which is surprising as Gilroy is one of the finest writers of action/thrillers working today. Again, comparisons with the original trilogy are problematic. A mystery man who is found floating in the sea with a bullet wound and displays unexpected combat skills is more compelling than a super soldier popping pills to get stronger and smarter. An amnesiac spy struggling to unravel his past and achieve revenge against the agency which trained him is more interesting than a rogue agent infiltrating a factory... with the help of a scientist who does have access to that factory.

In the first trilogy scale and scope were larger, stakes higher. Norton's antagonist gets no closure, which is just weak (and his previous connection with protagonist Aaron Cross feels pointless); the other bad guy is the series' typical unshaven hit-man who gets killed in a flurry of blows before he can utter a single line.

Still, this is per se an entirely watchable spy flick. Maybe they should just have titled it Crossing Aaron.

6/10

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.

[godspeeder · 3/10 · 11 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.

better than i thought it would be

[sammyb · 13 September 2012]

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

As a Bourne Film, It's No Good. But as an Action Film? Solid.

[ThomasDrufke · 7/10 · 29 July 2016]

As the 4th Bourne film in the series, 'Legacy' isn't all that inventive or revealing. But as a spy-action-thriller, it's pretty solid. And Aaron Cross is hardly as interesting as Bourne, but Renner's charismatic presence is more than enough to get by.

In the age of shared universes, Universal decided it was a good idea to make another Bourne film in 2012, after years of trying to get a 4th Damon film off the ground. While the script and direction from Tony Gilroy relies heavily on the same tropes of the series, I can't say it's a film that shouldn't have been made. It should have just deviated from the source material even more than it did.

With that said, I like the fact that the film takes place at and around the same time that 'Ultimatum' did. The approach to have Jason Bourne's actions impact Cross' and the rest of the Black Ops agents was a smart one. It's a far better decision than having Renner be the re-casted Bourne. But as Cross, Renner is quite good. I'm not sure he got cast in all of these franchises, but he doesn't seem to disappoint.

Renner is complemented by a powerful performance from Rachel Weisz, who plays Cross' former doctor. Much like Bourne and Marie in 'Identity', they have great chemistry together and Weisz thankfully more with her character than what's written on the page. Edward Norton plays the new suspicious C.I.A figure, which has become a classic Bourne trope at this point. Although I think Norton is a good actor, he didn't do anything as Eric Byer that impressed me all that much. With minimal screen time together, it was tough to grapple onto Byer's perusal of Bourne.

The action and cinematography are much easier to watch without Greengrass' infamous shaky cam. With that said, there is far less action mixed with a slower pace. The film doesn't really become interesting until 30 or 40 minutes in.

In all, The Bourne Legacy largely handcuffs itself and falls into the series tropes too often to be considered on the level that the previous 3 films are. But good performances from its leads and some interesting action makes it a nice cable watch.

+Renner & Weisz

+Solid action

-Handcuffs itself

-Falls into the same tropes

7.4/10

The Legacy Continues.

[anaconda-40658 · 7/10 · 19 August 2015]

The Bourne Legacy (2012): Dir: Tony Gilroy / Cast: Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz, Edward Norton, Joan Allen, Stacy Keach: While the reputation of Jason Bourne is threatening corrupt agencies, what audiences may be reluctant to accept is Jeremy Renner playing a character who isn't Bourne. This all occurs while references and images of Matt Damon are made. Why not make Renner Bourne? It worked for the multiple actors who played James Bond. Renner emerges from the Atlantic wilderness where he was fighting off wolves. He needs a particular medicine made at an outlet where a sudden act of violence occurs that leaves several dead. Renner is part of the same agency as Bourne and is a type of super soldier whom the agency attempts to terminate. Renner holds strong under the illusion of marketing suggesting a Bourne identity while clearly not so. Rachel Weisz holds her own as someone who worked at the lab where the medicine is manufactured. A price is on her head as well and she becomes resourceful particularly during a motorcycle chase where she becomes instrumental in offing a pursuer. Edward Norton has a somewhat limited role as someone at the agency who struggles to keep this chaos under wraps while being fed the same Bourne subplot that viewers never get to see. This is a well made action thriller by director Tony Gilroy who made the excellent Michael Clayton. This does not measure up with that film due to themes that are traded for action stimulation. This is a pointless exercise without the actual Bourne character but at least the legacy is worthy entertainment. Score: 7 / 10

A good one!

[davyd-02237 · 7/10 · 13 December 2020]

To some the name Jeremy Renner may not have been known/well known when he appeared in this particular film. From the start he looks every inch of what his character is supposed to be. This is very fast paced as he continually avoids his own demise at the hands of the 5 Security Chiefs who want him dead. Ms Weisz is a bit of a disappointment. The language isnt actually that bad and we have a story from beginning to end, so its a pity he didnt do any of the other films. Edward Norton is quite a menacing head of security, albeit a bit young looking for the role. Plus you have a wonderful ending worthy of any film in a chase sequence. Enjoy! Although, the puzzle when the 5th epistle came out is that the 5 Security Chiefs that wanted Bourne and Cross dead have ALL gone and without explanation!

a very mixed bag

[peter-moss17 · 6/10 · 8 August 2012]

I had real doubts about the making of a Bourne film without Matt Damon , & worried seriously that the trilogy that I loved so much (miles better than Bond) would be tarnished. Then I saw the cast the trailers & read some early reviews so thought hang on this might not be as bad as I thought. My wife who hasn't seen any of the previous three went with me to a free screening & obviously didn't understand many of the references to Jason Bourne or the links to previous films , but stuck with it anyway. The cast gave it a reasonable go on what was at best an average script that was like a recycled version of the previous films. It was very muddled at the beginning hoping around trying to establish a plot. The action felt rehashed for example the big chase in Manila at the end of the film has been done before & much better as in the Moscow chase in the Bourne supremacy. The same applies for the assassin sent to kill Cross , done better in all the previous films. It is hopefully time to close the Bourne franchise unless Matt can be talked out for one last go. Jeremy Renner & Rachel Weisz gave it their best but this ain't no legacy , & whilst not a bad movie its not in the same league as the previous three.

Terrific. Great Action. Intense

[bob-rutzel-1 · 9/10 · 12 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.

Decent piece of action / thrillers - but where's Bourne??

[gwilson1982 · 7/10 · 27 September 2012]

What's this film got to do with Bourne? Not much, that's for sure. There are some flashbacks to the previous films, some hints of a relationship, but those are more confusing than helpful. The fourth part of the trilogy is almost like trying to attach a second tail to a dog. Or fifth wheel to a car. Or a... You get the point. Without the Bourne name, it would have been yet another action thriller, the same as everything else. The plot is straightforward, get item A, go to point B, fight bad guy C.

But does this make it a bad film then? Not really. It's still enjoyable entertainment for a night out in cinemas. The main actors are great, things are happening, the pace is solid and entertainment wise you have no been short-changed. There is enough action and tension in the film, not the least in how the secret government agency goes forth in its information gathering activities. The chase scene towards the end is a bit uninspired though - except for the very final part. Go watch it, but don't expect it to be as good as the first Bourne film.

Should be held up as an example of how dedicatedly good actors can almost redeem a pointless, badly written film.

[sweetiesy · 3/10 · 13 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.

Mr Renner burns the screen!

[ccdubuc · 8/10 · 16 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...)

Great addition to Bourne franchise

[poyrazbaklan · 7/10 · 6 December 2012]

I actually had not much hope for this film. The Bourne trilogy is over, the case is closed and there sjould be no more movies, right? Wrong. Expectedly, after Treadstone is compromised due to Jason Bourne's actions, other super agents are left to fend for themselves. I actually don't understand the clandestine government organizations that spend millions on these superhuman agents and then pull the plug in the slightest danger and try to kill them all. I mean, relocating them or even giving them other assignments would be enough but noo they have to send men after them in order to keep it all a secret. I first thought Jeremy Renner(who I doubted would be a good addition to the action genre, and now he kind of makes me take my word back)would be replacing Matt Damon. But then I found out that this is more of a side story and actually liked the plot. The movie starts out slow but then after the first half exponentially picks up the pace and ends with a great chase sequence in Manila. Rachel weisz is impressive as the lab geek, and Edward Norton is well cast as the ruthless investigator. I also hoped Stacy Keach would have more screen time but it was apparently cut down due to the films long running time.(a little more than 2 hrs)The duo of Renner and Weisz does not have the same electricity between them but they still act well and the action shots, most of them looks like they were done in one take, are very good. And the final, rather mysterious super agent antagonist was very well cast. The only thing I did not like was the action takes soo long to pick up but I guess it was necessary to see what has become after Bourne raised a sh.t storm among the government organizations. Give this one a chance, you won't regret

Not even close to a Bourne movie

[parallel_projection · 4/10 · 16 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.