1. OneManCrowd

   6

   The Bourne Legacy does two things wonderfully. One; it fills the shoes of the killing machine Jason Bourne with Jeremy Renner’s equally awesome Aaron Cross. Two; it succeeds in creating a new name for itself while still administering that “Bourne Trilogy” feel. The Bourne Legacy expands on the Bourne universe, cleverly writing in events that took place during the original Bourne trilogy, thus adding the similar atmosphere of cat-and-mouse action that the Bourne trilogy was known for. The film is for the most part solid; however, it is not without its downfalls. The Bourne Legacy suffers from a horrific case of “explain-it-all,” as there are many scenes in the movie that require a long, drawn out explanation that often occurs in a cramped, dark special operations room. This is forgivable; however, as it helps set up a sense of understanding for the audience. The trick here is just to stick with the dialogue and not fall asleep before the action, so you can understand why there is action in the first place. The most major pitfall of The Bourne Legacy is the conclusion: there is none. As the credit music played I really asked myself, as well as those around me, if the movie had ended. I was in total disbelief at where the film left itself, as I felt that nothing major had been resolved. The movie went by quite fast in my opinion (save the occasional droning explanation scene), and even though it was a bit over two hours, I felt as if nothing significant had happened. It would have made an excellent ending for a TV episode, but definitely not for a feature film. There was no sense of closure, as I felt myself looking for much, much more. Now, the positives: Jeremy Renner. Renner’s performance was an incredibly driving force in the movie’s pacing, as he played his character perfectly. Cross is the ultimate soldier/ spy: quick, confident, and above all, tactically brilliant (we can see this right from the start in the tundra scene), and Renner’s mannerisms and comfort during combat really highlighted these qualities. Rachel Weisz, who plays Renner’s female accomplice, was initially quite unlikable. Her character was too whinny for my taste, and reminded me of the unpleasant girls Indiana Jones used to drag around. Weisz; however, stepped up her game in the second half of the movie, become much less pitiful and, as a result, much cooler. Unfortunately for Edward Norton and the rest of the CIA cast, however, their characters brought to mind only two adjectives: frustrated and upset. It’s a shame that Norton was given such a cookie-cutter role, as I feel his potential as an antagonist was severely underused. Most of his character’s time spent on screen was filed with him being outsmarted by Cross. All in all, Bourne Legacy was a solid, enjoyable film. The cast was great and the storyline has much potential for the new series. Unfortunately, the anticipation for the sequel was not due to a yearning to find out the next chapter of the Aaron Cross saga, but to conclude the two hour film I sat through today; however, I would see the sequel, regardless.… Expand

   • Helpful? 5 of 7 users said Yes.
2. Pyramids

   5

   "The Bourne Legacy" is a typical summer blockbuster that uses a cool trailer and lots of advertisements to build some kind of imaginative conception that the film is good. Well guess what - it's not.… Expand

   • Helpful? 15 of 15 users said Yes.
3. Mazmorrero47

   2

   If you make a Bourne movie without everything that makes a Bourne movie awesome you get The Bourne Legacy. While I watched it, I perfectly understood why Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass didn't want to get involved in this piece of junk. While in the original films you get exciting action sequences that kept your attention and very good editing, The Bourne Legacy has tons of dialogues that go nowhere and a terribly awkward pacing. Not to mention it's 30 minutes too long. As a matter of fact, there's barely any action. The few there is would be ok if it was a Jason Statham movie, but for Bourne standards is cheesy and absurd. The only good thing about The Bourne Legacy is the solid acting from Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weisz, who make a very sexy couple and are both very likeable. Yes, the talented Edward Norton is in the movie, but unfortunately for him, he can't do much of a thing with a very poorly developed character that only has the function of throwing exposition at computer screens. I'd be surprised if anyone cared for the pills conflict which wasn't any intresting. Tony Gilroy should stick to writing, because he isn't a good director. He should be ashamed of making such a terrible film for a great franchise he helped to build. Specially in the ending, which was a cheap way to leave everything open for a sequel unlike The Bourne Ultimatum, which tied everything in its place. The only thing this movie has of Bourne is the title and it's not worthy of it. The Bourne Legacy is the perfect example of Hollywood beating a dead horse.… Expand

   • Helpful? 1 of 1 users said Yes.

See all 49 User Reviews