Review of The Bourne Legacy (2012) by Mazmorrero47 — 23 Aug 2012

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.