The Bourne Legacy

It's not a bad film, but comparisons to previous installments are inevitable. The best thing about The Bourne Legacy is Rachel Weisz, an actress the franchise needed earlier (especially in the first episode), and the chilling scene in the lab. Otherwise, there's almost nothing here that we haven't seen before (jumping on rooftops, escapades on a motorcycle, faking one’s own death, hiding and escaping), and when we do, it's rather laughable (the wolf). Plus, whenever the name "Bourne" came up, I felt like I was watching Cimrman's Hamlet without Hamlet. (14/02/2015)

The new Bourne is much more restrained and much less action-packed than I expected. The plus is that they managed to quite sophisticatedly integrate the plot of the new film into the older trilogy, so this "standalone" installment doesn't feel intrusive or contrived, especially considering that the story of Bourne and Cross is essentially unfolding in the same time period. The action is good, although there are far fewer hand-to-hand combat scenes, and overall the direction is much more subdued and minimalistic. The subplot about experiments on people (pills, etc.) is solid. The main character's motivation is good and Rachel Weisz’s performance is excellent. It's clear that Gilroy went smartly around it, he didn't want to pump the audience with even more sophisticated action, more pumped-up music, and faster pace. But to wrap the viewer around his finger with unexpected plot twists that sometimes shock with their force (the interrogation at Weisz's house) and sometimes pleasantly and reliably stick to the established tracks (chases, stunts). What bothered me the most was the complete absence of an ending and a clear indication that if Legacy is at least somewhat commercially successful, there will be a reset of the series. (21/08/2012)

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. :) (11/08/2012)

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)

The third best/worst of the five Bournes to date. It’s greatest stumbling block is the heavy-handed start which is not solved until the main duo paired up; or rather until a little room was given to the excellent Rachel Weisz who steals the show from the disturbing scene in the laboratory onward. The non-existent conclusion doesn’t make things any better, but even so it lures you rather than driving you away in disgust. (10/08/2012)