Review of The Bourne Legacy (2012) by F B — 07 Oct 2014

Since the original Bourne trilogy did not really impress me that much, all I really hoped for out of The Bourne Legacy was some good action and decent performances from Jeremy Renner and Edward Norton.

One thing that annoyed me about The Bourne Legacy was the fact that much of the film was obsessive about the character Jason Bourne. The problem is that Jason Bourne never actually makes an appearance in the film and in fact the plot it a completely new concept. Frankly, the film could have gone far without the word Bourne in the title or the arbitrary references to the character Jason Bourne, but the fact that they remained present just proves to be irritating and gradually fades away from having any relevance to the plot aside from making it seem familiar.

The actual concept in The Bourne Legacy is a fairly familiar one, but the screenplay attempts to disguise that by filling it with a surplus of characters and complicated politics. But all this does is make it harder to be interested in the film. The Bourne Legacy cannot escape the fact that it is largely a generic thriller which has politics that would be more interesting on paper than on screen. On screen all they do is make the premise more and more convoluted in a plot which runs parallel to the action concept involving protagonist Aaron Cross and does nothing but distract from it. Although the original Bourne trilogy didn't amaze me, at least it was consistent. With The Bourne Legacy only half the plot is consistent while the premise describing the politics around everything are nothing but befuddle and bore. Pretty soon it becomes clear that The Bourne Legacy is largely just a rehash of many of the series earlier concepts, in particular betrayal at the hands of Government officials on secret training missions. All in all, the derivative nature of The Bourne Legacy combined with its convoluted quantity of story politics really drags The Bourne Legacy down when it could have stood strong as a standalone action thiller without the title.

And lastly, The Bourne Legacy is short on action. I'll admit that it was a mildly entertaining thriller film, but I was hoping to get more action out of it considering how much was in the original Bourne trilogy. The thriller has some interesting concepts to it, but there was little action to drive it which is a problem considering the fact that The Bourne Legacy runs at a slow pace for its running time of a total 135 minutes. So the film is long, slow and short on action which means that it definetely defied my expectations in a sense I was not all that pleased with. I'll admit that what little action scnes it had were executed with well choreographed stunts as well as strong cinematography and editing, but there should have been more of them because they stood out as the most interesting moments in the film. So it is likely that the pace and the length of the film will faze some viewers.

From a technical perspective, The Bourne Legacy passes as a legitimate thriller. The scenery and production design of the film is all top notch and feels really genuine with all the appropriate technology to give off the intended feel of the story. The cinematography is also a lot better than in the original Bourne trilogy due to being a lot more stable. The preceding Bourne films had cinematography which was really shaky and some quick editing, while in The Bourne Legacy it slows down and the shots last longer which proves to benefit it. So everything passes in terms of technical qualities in The Bourne Legacy,.

The atmosphere of the film was also pretty good. Admittedly, things in the film were intense most of the time thanks to swift dedication from director Tony Gilroy. His screenplay does not precisely make the most engaging story, but it does have a lot of strong dialogue and he is able to craft it into a fairly atmospheric film out of the experience by giving it a tense visual style and harnessing a touch of James Newton Howard's music to give it extra edge.

And the performances of the cast prove to be pretty good.

Jeremy Renner's leading performance in The Bourne Legacy is one of the best things that it has to offer. He is easily likable because of his determination in the role combined with his natural skills as an action hero. He grasps his weapons with confidence and deals with the material in the film with full physical involvement as well as line delivery which is appropriately tense. His character isn't the most deep, but Jeremy Renner brings natural charisma to the part in both a physical and emotional sense which makes him worthy of following in Matt Damon's footsteps as the leading hero of Bourne films.

Rachel Weisz is inconsistent in The Bourne Legacy. She is decent most of the time, but she has quite a few moments where she is either unable to keep up with the atmosphere or acts somewhat melodramatic at times. Her chemistry with Jeremy Renner is good and she does have some fairly powerful moments, but as a whole her character varies between being weak and strong in areas. As a whole, both the character Dr. Marta Shearing and the person playing her seem scattered in focus, so all in all the quality of her part in the film evokes a mixed response.

Edward Norton didn't get as much screen time as I was hoping for, but he was pretty good. He said all his lines with easily consistent sophistication and smarts which made him seem genuine in the role.

Stacy Keach's supporting role was a nice touch due to the level of sophistication and wisdom that he naturally brings to archetype. And as arbitrary as it is, I enjoyed the fact that Shane Jacobson landed a small role in the film simply because of his legacy in Australia.

But despite being atmospheric and having good acting, The Bourne Legacy has little to do with the Bourne series of films and serves as a slow, long film which is bereft of a sufficient amount of action or that much originality.