द बॉर्न लिगेसी

"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-

Now that the dust has settled and the fifth Bourne film (and Damon's return to the role) has come and gone, and after having re-watched this after seeing Jason Bourne (2016), I can safely say that this is still the fourth best Bourne flick, and a very solid action movie in its own right.

The main reason this is stronger than the fifth one: Tony Gilroy.

He wrote the original film trilogy. He understands the universe of the films, he understands this type of character. He did NOT write Jason Bourne (2016), which was the first and only one in the franchise that wasn't penned by him, and it showed. That movie was much less intelligent and gripping than Bourne 1-3, and this one.

This isn't perfect or as great as the first three. The main problem is that the plot for this installment feels slight. This is literally a throwaway concept (Renner's character and the organization he is a part of are basically being cast under the rug here by the evil US government, and that's the angle). Renner is essentially just reacting to the events in the previous films. It's not quite a sequel because it's actually happening concurrently with the trilogy. Which is a unique touch, I guess, but it destroys any true sense of importance into the proceedings, especially since you hear nothing about the events of Legacy in Jason Bourne (2016). So while this is a fun, well-made film, it inevitably feels inconsequential when you take the entire series into account.

I thought the lack of Damon would be a weakness but it's actually not; Renner is a solid actor, even quite excellent in some roles, and even if he doesn't have the sheer charisma/star power of Damon, he brings his own sense of tough smarts and cool wit to the film, and he does a really good job of communicating the same sense of constantly-three-steps-ahead that Bourne himself did. Renner has that same natural air of intelligence as Damon, but in a grittier fashion, and Tony Gilroy knows how to utilize it.

Rachel Weisz doesn't have a whole lot to do but she has her plucky moments and at least plays a heroine with some intelligence, and who isn't simply a love interest for the protagonist. I actually think Gilroy handled that part well.

Here's hoping that if they make another Bourne installment, Tony Gilroy comes back as the writer. And I would gladly see Renner continue this role, but it probably will never happen.

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.

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!

First film without Matt Damon and the Jason Bourne character. The movie turned out well and this is thanks to co-writer and director Tony Gilroy (who worked on all three previous films in the series) and Jeremy Renner, perfectly cast in the lead. The results are not flawless but good enough to provide the sort of action and storytelling that Bourne fans expect. Jeremy Renner has earned his way to this high-profile part, doing a great job since his performance in The Hurt Locker. He has the required physicality to make his character — a highly-trained, genetically enhanced undercover agent — totally believable. Furthermore he's perfectly matched with leading lady Rachel Weisz, also credible as a research doctor becoming a pawn and bail at the same time. On balance and on the whole the movie works, though a bit to long. To sum up I was entertained and I'm more than grateful for that.