The Bourne Legacy--Any Thoughts?

I'm just baffled by the current cinematic trend where directors go out of their way to NOT let you see what's happening during a scene. It's like trying to watch an adult film where all of the sex is out of focus, or buying an album where all of the vocals were covered up with feedback.

Sad to hear that the "style" of the previous films is unfortunately maintained in this one. Hoping for the best though, as I have to watch it for a review show this weekend.

 

The "jerky-cam" technique has been going on for a long time. At least with the previous director, Paul Greengrass, he was pretty sophisticated in how he covered and edited the scenes, and generally stuff like the fight scenes were not too confusing.

 

Got to see it yesterday afternoon and I enjoyed it myself as well. Kinda slow from the beginning but eventually picked up later on. Seems the focus was a bit different in this movie compared to the trilogy. Either way you look at it, I have a feeling the ending has opened the door to possibly another movie in the series down the line.

Seems like a winner to me!

 

Franka was pretty much an innocent bystander when she got involved with Damon and his situation so she didn't have that big of a role that affected him directly. Weisz OTOH had a very major role that affected the main character from the start so it did seem more natural with them working together in the movie.

 

Just got back from seeing it and it was entertaining but really doesn't add anything new. Just another competent action film.

 

It won the box office this weekend, while the new Will Ferell and Zach G. comedy, The Campaign, finished 2nd and The Dark Knight Rises dropped to 3rd.

 

Thought it was better than the Greengrass films during the non-action scenes (I laughed out loud in the theater during one of the earlier films, when a scene of two people having a calm conversation across a conference room table was shot as badly as a high-octane car chase later in the film), but the action is once again an unwatchable mess. There are only really three or so action scenes in the film, but when they kick in visual comprehensibility gets thrown into the wood chipper. You get the IDEA that people are fighting, or someone's running through a shantytown, or there's a car chase, but if you were to quickly stop the film and ask an audience member exactly what just happened, they'd be hard pressed to tell you anything other than "there's a car chase" or "he just killed that guy". I mean, when Renner dispatches an opponent in 3 seconds with some fast hand-to-hand combat, why not just pull back and let it play out so we can be impressed, rather than shake the camera that's a foot away from the action a lot and break up that moment into a hundred edits? What a waste. This "style" is treating the audience like a bunch of suckers, and I'm totally sick of it. It's like a magician who tells you he's going to make a woman standing next to him onstage disappear, then turns off the lights for 30 seconds, and when they come back on, she's gone. We really shouldn't be impressed by or content with that.

As for the film overall, performances were good, but it felt kind of "off". Like the last two post-Peter Sellers PINK PANTHER movies. They take place in the same world, and the series' star character is never seen but paid a bit of lip service, but we're stuck with someone else who's similar, but not quite as cool as the person we've come to identify with the series. Kind of like when a TV series or film has exclusive "webisodes" that are devoted to minor (or previously unseen) characters that tell a side story that has little to no relation to the main feature. They can be amusing, but in the end are kind of pointless. LEGACY does act as somewhat of a BOURNE backstory, in that it details the process Treadstone recruits went through to become superagents, so you can apply what you see in Renner's backstory to Bourne.

My understanding is that this film was done to keep the franchise alive in case Damon decided to return; if successful, it could carry on with Renner's character, until Damon stepped back in to resume his branch of the series. This one to me kind of felt like the aforementioned placekeeper filler, decent enough to pass the time, but not terribly memorable.

 

Mark, I agree with your comments above. Thinking about it the next day I also find that the government characters are too numerous and their roles aren't clearly defined, leaving lots of actors in small parts that don't do very much. Edward Norton seems to be here simply to say things like "if this thing goes sideways on us" or "we're burning the program to the ground" -- dialogue that may or may not matter, but it sure sounds smart and cool.

 

For those who know/remember the previous BOURNE film better than I, and have seen LEGACY, is this supposed to take place partly during the events of the last BOURNE film? There's talk of Bourne being in NYC and wreaking havoc during this film, and, not remember the last one very well, I wondered if this new story was supposed to overlap the last one time-wise.

 

That's not at all what happens.

 

I was kind of turned off by the mention of "he's genetically modified..." in the trailer.

Oh really?

So you can genetically modify "impossible to kill" into a human?

Smells of 5 weeks of work for a cash grab by all concerned.

 

LOVED the house that sequence takes place again. Really photogenic stairway.

 

At first I thought this would be a lame cash grab when details leaked. Especially since Ultimatum had set up an obvious sequel path. Then I became more interested with the casting and thought I'd give it a go. I still will go at some point, but I'm not expecting anything really interesting, and at least the shaky-cam will be watered down. (I think.)

Revisiting the first three has backed up my original opinion: The first a surprisingly engaging, somewhat quirky ride that takes the basic premise and spins it into a modern context that jaw droppingly for a spy film made post 70's ACTUALLY HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH ESPIONAGE! I love going back to Identity because it actually feels like drama.
Supremacy feels as if you're being jerked back and forth around a map, all so that you can't realize how simple and nonsensical the plot is. It's an A to B to C zigzagging mess that works best when it gives you a little time to breathe.
Ultimatum is little more than a rehash of Supremacy and IMO sloppily done.

Despite all of the script and production problems on Identity (and I still find out about more and more all the time) to me Doug Liman should have made the other two.

And none of these compare to the books at all. God, the books are freaking incredible. Okay, I'll admit I never really liked Ultimatum the novel, but Identity is one of my all time favorites with Supremacy going for broke in the Orient. If your only Bourne experience is with the films, then get these immediately. Nothing in the films matches the intensity of the sheer overload of development. The character backstory of Bourne alone is worth the list price.

The TV Movie version isn't bad either. Aside from a few alterations, this three hour edition goes by pretty quickly.

Question: How does getting shot in the back give one amnesia? This has always bugged me, as in the book Bourne is shot in the head twice as well and has significant brain damage-thus causing the amnesia.

 

This film version of The Bourne Legacy is "a side-story with a new character "in the mold of Bourne" dealing with the ramifications of the Treadstone conspiracy."

Link describing the book and also talks about why the film is different:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bourne_Legacy

Link just about the film:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bourne_Legacy_(film)

 

There's a little bit of overlap with Ultimatum in the first third (primarily to get the plot moving), and one more callback towards the end but that's all Legacy concerns itself with.

I'm a fan. I must admit, I was expecting:

Spoiler

the "asset" to have a weaksauce death, and yeah, he pretty much does,

but I'm okay with that.

Also, two words: [NOT A MAJOR SPOILER AND IN FACT YOU WON'T BE SURPRISED BY IT AT ALL]

Spoiler

Sequel hook.

Elaboration:

Spoiler

In the way that the end of Identity was a sequel hook but would stand alone as a satisfying ending. Very similarly, actually...

 

Saw it last night. As just a movie I thought it was entertaining but not wow, great! Kinda slow until they got to Manila and then it picked up for me. Thought the editing was less then good. The pill stuff was making me crazy. As a Bourne movie I thought the movie as far as the pace and so on was a lot like the first Bourne movie. All in all, it was ok and better then I thought it would be going in. As far as a sequel, I already saw how they will start to find him.

 

I could have lived with it if the last 1/4 of the movie had kept up with the first 3/4's, but the chase stuff was pathetic at best. What, these guys have enhanced future vision esp as well, give me a break. Once they got on the bikes it got even worse, which I found hard to believe. They constantly show a mass of unpassable cars, and then suddenly there is the ***** bad guy right behind them still. Probably the all time worst chase scene I have ever had the unfortunate misery of sitting through. I wanted to get up and walk out halfway through the rooftop chase, and now realize that I could have and not missed anything worthwhile. I would still watch the first 3/4's of it on dvd, but I won't the last part, not ever again.

 

One thing you learn in LA: chase scenes won't work in this town at rush hour. I laugh at the idea of Keifer Sutherland in 24 being able to drive from one part of the city to the other in 20 minutes to stop a nuclear device from going off. At several times a day, it's gonna take an hour to make that trip -- even longer if there's an accident. That never seems to happen on TV.

 

Liked the previous Bourne movies - this was a giant was of time.

He just turns up at just the right moment at the Scientists house in the middle of nowhere??

Crazy chase scene - i ride a bike - and that was beyond credibility.
On and on it goes.
Rubbish.

 

But you have watched all four.

 

Yes and the others where just a bit more credible and the story line was way better.
This meandered all over the place.

 

Yet all were a a giant was of time.

 

I have no clue what Hawkeye is doing starring as Jason Bourne. Bourne is Matt Damon not Hawkeye.

 

Good thing Renner's not playing Jason Bourne, isn't it?

Not sure if this is a joke or you really thought Renner took over the same character...

 

I knew this would come in handy here again one day.