The Bourne Legacy

Very decent. Bourne's Legacy blends tastefully with the third part of the Bourne trilogy without parasitizing it. It suffers from a very lukewarm start, but from about the 30th minute onwards, action follows action and everything culminates in a half-hour continuous set-piece in the Philippines. Jeremy Renner stood with honour up to a possible comparison with Matt Damon. That said, I won't be looking forward to the next piece of this spy puzzle, the Bourne universe has been gnawed to the bone by this film. (10/08/2012)

Tony Gilroy complained for so long that his scripts under Paul Greengrass's direction didn't sound like they deserved, until he finally took the camera into his own hands – and ripped off everything the previous trilogy offered. And when the first half-hour reminds me of nothing more than a really long scene cut from The Bourne Ultimatum, I know something ain't right. And yet it is truly a pity when you watch the surprisingly talkative and appropriately sharp Jeremy Renner. His hand-to-hand combat with the enemy takes your breath away, and the chemistry with Rachel Weisz is spot-on. Unfortunately, when the pace of the second half reaches its maximum, an extra stupid twist (LARX) comes along, and with it a sobering up that leaves your head ringing until the end. I probably would have had much less of a problem with a standalone story, but merely sewing it onto a worn-out brand kills The Bourne Legacy. (01/12/2012)

Bourne without Bourne and a bit different. Less action and a more robust story are certainly assets. Jerry Renner is excellent, a much more talkative agent. His motivation (not to be dumb again) is a welcome change after the quest for the past. Rachel Weisz is really likeable, not the usual dumb girl part, and the much more believable “intro" to the love-story is also welcome. Ed Norton does a good job again. It’s obvious that this is just the beginning. The big punch-up is yet to come and I’ll be there. :) (10/08/2012)

The problem with the reference is not that it is badly filmed or coordinated, the problem is that the real Bourne reference does not go anywhere - Cross has only a loose relationship to the main storyline of the trilogy, and he himself does not bring any major themes and twists and the most interesting (i.e., the other destinies of Pamela Landy and her duel with the system) goes from "something bad will probably happen" to "something bad really has happened". In the meantime, we are watching a not-so-dazzling pilgrimage of an excellently coordinated character without the secret of pills. The final question, "are we lost?", which the heroine asks the hero, is quite relevant. It's hard to say what will happen to the characters and whether the whole reference is just a spite project to show naughty renegades that it will work without them. Trodding around the main storyline proves it. Otherwise, it’s OK. Some scenes are great (the entire fight in the house, the episode in Alaska), others reveal that Gilroy should not push into a Greengrass kinetic ride, for which he has no skill or level (the whole final chase with the oblique-eyed Terminator). Just a useless movie in a pretty bearable way. (13/08/2012)

The Bourne series needed this about as much as the Hannibal Lecter saga needed Red Dragon. It’s a technically wellcrafted American thriller with a stellar cast. But without the unique combination of an intriguing protagonist, original directorial approach and engaging plot, it doesn’t stand a chance against its predecessors. It’s too ordinary, failing to stand out from secret-agent genre movies with, for example, Harrison Ford, which over time become just a way to pass some time in front of the TV. Paul Greengrass’s movies, on the other hand, enriched the genre, pushing it forward. (03/09/2012)