#1  
Old 08-02-2012, 03:31 PM
The Bourne Legacy



Directed by Tony Gilroy

Written by Tony Gilroy and Dan Gilroy

Genre: Action

Plot Outline: An expansion of the universe from Robert Ludlum's novels, centered on a new hero whose stakes have been triggered by the events of the previous three films.

Starring: Jeremy Renner, Edward Norton, Rachel Weisz, Scott Glenn

Rated PG-13 for violence and action sequences

Runtime: 135 minutes


Looks pretty good. I do worry that it might be a bit exposition-heavy though.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-02-2012, 03:44 PM
I'll definitely be seeing it, just waiting on reviews to decide to check out a matinee or wait for the Blu Ray release.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-02-2012, 05:12 PM

I'm all over this shit. Looks awesome.

Renner is becoming one of my favorite actors and Norton is already one of my all time favorites.

And I''m hoping we get a cameo from you know who
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-02-2012, 10:31 PM
Looks fantastic! And I love how this fits in with Bourne Ultimatum. Heck, Ultimatum did something similarly with Supremacy. A couple of the Saw movies did this too. It's always cool when this happens (even though I'm not really a fan of the Saw franchise).

Anyway, Jeremy Renner does appear to be a more than acceptable substitute for Matt Damon. And the supporting cast is topnotch.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-02-2012, 11:10 PM
I cannot wait to see this. I love the Bourne films, and Jeremy Renner is terrific. I think it may end up as one of my favorite films of the summer, if not the year so far. Gilroy is becoming a very strong filmmaker.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-03-2012, 10:26 AM
I think they've marketed this extremely well in terms of it being very much a realistic part of the Bourne world they've created. I think this looks awesome.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-03-2012, 11:24 PM
I was a little skeptical when I heard there was going to be a Bourne movie without Bourne. But the trailers, the cast, and the story are making my anticipation for this movie grow. Gotta start watching the trilogy in preparation for this thing.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-04-2012, 12:17 PM
....can't believe its been 5 years since Ultimatum already.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-08-2012, 12:32 AM
Just got back from seeing this, and I must admit, it was pretty mediocre.

It didnt come near the awesomeness of the first 3.

The story was pretty cool, but I feel the execution was fairly weak.

and then
Spoiler:
The ending.. what the fuck was that? I feel like the movie was fairly boring, but then you get to the ending and it seems like there is still another 30 minutes of movie left, but then the Moby song kicks in and i'm sitting there going "huh, wha"?!?!


Overall, pretty disappointed with this flick.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-08-2012, 12:34 AM
The reviews so far and the word on Twitter is much worse than I was expecting. I still plan to see it, but my expectations are seriously diminished.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-08-2012, 12:05 PM
Review - http://afterthecut.com/2012/08/08/re...bourne-legacy/
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-08-2012, 03:51 PM
ATTENTION:

You can get $8 towards your ticket in Fandango cash if you preorder the Blu right now on Amazon.com.

I ordered on 3 different accounts.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-09-2012, 12:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by echo_bravo View Post
I'm all over this shit. Looks awesome.

Renner is becoming one of my favorite actors and Norton is already one of my all time favorites.

And I''m hoping we get a cameo from you know who
Oh yeah, I'm so there Friday opening day. Screw the cranky reviews and those reviewing with an agenda.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-10-2012, 01:53 AM
Well, it was fine. Aaron Cross is a compelling character and not at all like Bourne, which I think is a very good thing. Renner is magnetic and exciting to watch, more enigmatic and dark than Matt Damon, and a great anchor for the film and he has good chemistry with the lovely Rachel Weisz. There's less action than the previous two installments, but each set piece is well composed and shot and exciting. The intrigue/political portion of the film is another issue. The way it connects to the previous Bournes is interesting at first but becomes increasingly sloppy and misguided as the film goes on. It stretches out one really thin idea and supplants it with a story involving something that I thought was interesting in conception but handled in kind of a silly fashion. At 135 minutes the film turns its gears a lot and doesn't really feature the suspense or excitement that a film like this would have needed to justify that running time. On the whole it's a handsome product, but I think it's only real success is the Aaron Cross character. I would be interested in seeing him again if the film was tighter and had a better overall arc. This film kind of fizzles out and ends on a very abrupt note. It doesn't really feel like a whole lot is accomplished.

Last edited by SpikeDurden; 08-10-2012 at 09:00 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-10-2012, 08:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeChar4321 View Post
Oh yeah, I'm so there Friday opening day. Screw the cranky reviews and those reviewing with an agenda.
How do you tell the ones that review "with an agenda"? Because they are the ones that you disagree with?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-10-2012, 12:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeChar4321 View Post
Oh yeah, I'm so there Friday opening day. Screw the cranky reviews and those reviewing with an agenda.
I wasn't cranky nor did I have an agenda when I threw my thoughts in here! I was just severely let down by this movie. I don't get how a movie can manage to be both fairly boring during the movie, but then end exactly at a point where you are going "There is pry another 30 minutes in this movie"!

And I do like Rachel Weisz, but her voice was just annoying in this movie.

Spoiler:
And how many fucking govt people are involved with Treadstone and Blackbriar?!?! Every movie we need to introduce a new set of Govt Characters that are the Top of Treadstone and BlackBriar... the CIA would tie off those programs, limiting the number of operatives that actually knew of the program.. yet in every movie, just because we need to add new characters, there are a new group of people who seem to be the ones in charge of this top secret project.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-10-2012, 03:08 PM
Biggest letdown in the film: No confrontation between Norton and Renner.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-10-2012, 03:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kobe8byrant View Post
Biggest letdown in the film: No confrontation between Norton and Renner.
Seriously? I will probably be waiting until DVD now.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-10-2012, 04:01 PM
Just got back from it.

It was decent. Could of been better and could of had more action in it but overall I dug it.

Spoiler:
the part where Cross fights the wolf was dumb imo but the "questioning" of Weisz's character at her house more than made up for it. I thought that was well done and intense.


7.5/10

Oh and SKYNET
Spoiler:
completely agree with ya in regards to the ending. Itt wa pretty abrupt and unfufilling
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-10-2012, 08:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kobe8byrant View Post
Biggest letdown in the film: No confrontation between Norton and Renner.
Thanks for the spoiler, jerk. Is it really too much to ask that you take the 2 seconds to click on the spoiler tags?
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-10-2012, 11:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyNet View Post
I wasn't cranky nor did I have an agenda when I threw my thoughts in here! I was just severely let down by this movie. I don't get how a movie can manage to be both fairly boring during the movie, but then end exactly at a point where you are going "There is pry another 30 minutes in this movie"!

And I do like Rachel Weisz, but her voice was just annoying in this movie.

Spoiler:
And how many fucking govt people are involved with Treadstone and Blackbriar?!?! Every movie we need to introduce a new set of Govt Characters that are the Top of Treadstone and BlackBriar... the CIA would tie off those programs, limiting the number of operatives that actually knew of the program.. yet in every movie, just because we need to add new characters, there are a new group of people who seem to be the ones in charge of this top secret project.
Sorry, I didn't mean you I meant the few "pro" reviews I read on RT.

And, I didn't mind Norton's character being the final "big cheese" so to speak. His motivation seemed extra harsh but I bought in to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by echo_bravo View Post
Just got back from it.

It was decent. Could of been better and could of had more action in it but overall I dug it.

Spoiler:
the part where Cross fights the wolf was dumb imo but the "questioning" of Weisz's character at her house more than made up for it. I thought that was well done and intense.
Spoiler:
All I could think of during that scene was that the wolf stuff was dumb but that 5 minutes was better than the entire movie "The Grey".

Quote:
Originally Posted by echo_bravo View Post
7.5/10

Oh and SKYNET
Spoiler:
completely agree with ya in regards to the ending. Itt wa pretty abrupt and unfufilling
I agree as well.

7.5/10

As a fan of the Bourne franchise, I enjoyed this deeper look in to that universe. The movie really does feel like one giant glorified DVD extra for that trilogy and I mean that in a good way. Deeper layers are revealed and the intrigue is as good as what we’ve seen before even though the character motivation isn’t as strong across the board. Renner is fabulous as the second generation super spy. My only real complaint about this installment (because it does feel like they are blatantly building for three more films) is that the resolution has no real teeth. (Like everyone is saying) Still, it’s a very good effort from a very good cast with hints and touches to the Bourne films of the past.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-11-2012, 12:18 AM
Worst movie of the year, and it's not close. I'm very angry and disappointed. Full review in the morning. Gonna try and sleep it off.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-11-2012, 02:17 AM
I have been thinking about it some more since I saw it, and I think my problem with this is simply that, the IDEA of the movie, the basic plot, which I will put in spoilers, but it is the basic plot.. but I know some people want to go in blind:

Spoiler:
There is a new program, Over something, and this is the program put into to place to answer for Blackbriar, which was itself the answer for Treadstone, and now the people in charge of this project want to completely kill it off, and by doing that they need to kill off all active members in the field, they do this by switching out the pills these agents take, essentially cyanide pills! But for whatever reason, Aaron Cross didnt get the new pills (actually can someone explain that to me... im sure it was explained but I am drawing a blank.. why was Aaron in the mountains? and why did he not get the replacement pills??)... so then dude goes and finds the chick that gave him the original pills he was taking, that gave him super strength and super brain power (i think!) and they go on the run!


So, I dig the story line, I dig how it fits in with the world Bourne has created.. it is just the execution that was really lacking! This is a movie where if they said they were remaking it for release next year and they had a better director attached, I'd be ecstatic!

I enjoyed Michael Clayton and Duplicity for what they were, but Tony Gilroy is not an action director... a brilliant and skilled writer, as is evident in the first 3 Bourne movies, with genius lines (Personal favorite is from Bourne Legacy when Bourne is in Straithairns office, and Straithairn is lying and saying he is in his office, and Bourne replies "I doubt that, because if you were in your office right now, we'd be having this conversation face to face"!

Such a great line, written by a great writer, and a good director of Drama, but not there yet when it comes to action!

But perhaps I am being too tough here, because the action scenes that were in the movie, were pretty good... maybe the writer of the movie (Gilroy) got in the way of the director (Gilroy), here he was head honcho, so his scenes of dialog and no action got more attention than they may have in the past when Greengrass, an action director who loves going hand held, was the boss and made decisions that the dialog was great, but can it be said while Bourne is beating the shit out of someone?!

Edit: I just looked at Gilroys IMDB, and he also wrote 2009's State of Play, one of my favorite movies from the past few years... the guy is such a great writer, and like I said, his directing efforts have not been bad, Clayton and Duplicity were enjoyable.. but I think he needs more experience in action!

Last edited by SkyNet; 08-11-2012 at 02:21 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-11-2012, 03:44 AM
I actually think the writing was a much bigger issue here than the directing. It was messy and silly, and overly expository, three things the first 3 Bournes were not.

I will agree that Gilroy is not (yet) a great action director, but I think a stronger and more importantly tighter script would have been a good starting place.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-11-2012, 03:51 AM
I agree.. in that, I think that in the first 3 movies were written and possibly the scripts were adjusted by Doug Liman on the 1st movie and Greengrass on the 2nd and 3rd. These 2 directors are more action oriented directors, and i'm sure before filming they had their ways with the script to make them more action oriented.

But this movie, Gilroy wrote the script (with his brother Dan) and because he was the director, there were no last minute changes to make the script more action based.

But like I said.. dude is good... and perhaps if he comes back for the next Bourne movie, having this under his belt, he will feel more comfortable with action, cuz like I said, the scenes he did shoot were not bad at all, I just didnt think there were enough of them!
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-11-2012, 05:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyNet View Post
I agree.. in that, I think that in the first 3 movies were written and possibly the scripts were adjusted by Doug Liman on the 1st movie and Greengrass on the 2nd and 3rd. These 2 directors are more action oriented directors, and i'm sure before filming they had their ways with the script to make them more action oriented.

But this movie, Gilroy wrote the script (with his brother Dan) and because he was the director, there were no last minute changes to make the script more action based.

But like I said.. dude is good... and perhaps if he comes back for the next Bourne movie, having this under his belt, he will feel more comfortable with action, cuz like I said, the scenes he did shoot were not bad at all, I just didnt think there were enough of them!
Yeah, if I'm not mistaken Damon and Greengrass did not like Gilroy's Ultimatum script at all and they practically made it up as they went along, which is amazing considering how tight that film is.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-11-2012, 09:54 AM
Disappointing, horrible, frustrating.

What garbage.

How is it possible that Gilroy, the man who was behind the first three films could make this film so bad?

The script was awful, the first 40 minutes are excruciatingly boring. Meaningless dialogue, major lack of action, lack of backstory to Cross, over acting by Weisz, and not enough Norton.

That is only the tip of the iceberg of the problems in this film. Very very unfortunate.

Full review - http://afterthecut.com/2012/08/11/re...urne-legacy-2/
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-11-2012, 12:02 PM
For me this was a thrilling entry to the franchise and a great expansion of the Bourne universe.

Full review here:

http://www.moviesonthebrain.com/bourne-legacy
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-11-2012, 12:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by P1NSTR1PEZ View Post

How is it possible that Gilroy, the man who was behind the first three films could make this film so bad?

Full review - http://afterthecut.com/2012/08/11/re...urne-legacy-2/
Gilroy did write the first three but did not direct them. Just wanted to help you out with that info!
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-11-2012, 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyNet View Post
I have been thinking about it some more since I saw it, and I think my problem with this is simply that, the IDEA of the movie, the basic plot, which I will put in spoilers, but it is the basic plot.. but I know some people want to go in blind:

Spoiler:
There is a new program, Over something, and this is the program put into to place to answer for Blackbriar, which was itself the answer for Treadstone, and now the people in charge of this project want to completely kill it off, and by doing that they need to kill off all active members in the field, they do this by switching out the pills these agents take, essentially cyanide pills! But for whatever reason, Aaron Cross didnt get the new pills (actually can someone explain that to me... im sure it was explained but I am drawing a blank.. why was Aaron in the mountains? and why did he not get the replacement pills??)... so then dude goes and finds the chick that gave him the original pills he was taking, that gave him super strength and super brain power (i think!) and they go on the run!


So, I dig the story line, I dig how it fits in with the world Bourne has created.. it is just the execution that was really lacking! This is a movie where if they said they were remaking it for release next year and they had a better director attached, I'd be ecstatic!
I think the set up and the first two acts were executed splendidly. It may have been spelled out too much but I'd rather a film miss with more exposition than less. The third act was the let down but not enough to ruin the film IMO.

Spoiler:
I liked the fact that they separated the programs. It was the fact that the two program founders were buddying around that linked them and thus facilitated the need for the actions in this film. I even liked that there's another program (LAX?) that's supposedly learned from the mistakes of the previous two. That's also why I had problems with the ending. They set up the showdown with a "next generation" super spy and the guy never gets off his bike. No brawl or showdown at all.

As for the pill thing, I assume Renner's Cross was placed in to that survival training as punishment for acting out before the hits were ordered. He finished two days early and forced his handlers to make a bad decision. His fellow chastised agent (he fell in love) that had to be killed was sent to cloud the waters and put both targets in one remote spot. The only reason I can think of for them not to just wait and give them the tainted meds is that the rest of the program agents were already killed and if they found that out they would not comply and they'd have two rogue and angry agents on their hands. That's thin but the only thing I can think of as to way they just didn't wait it out and give them the bad pills.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-11-2012, 04:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moviefreek View Post
Gilroy did write the first three but did not direct them. Just wanted to help you out with that info!
thanks, I fixed, my mistake.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-11-2012, 07:37 PM
Spoiler:
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY CHEMS? WHERE CAN I FIND SOME CHEMS?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-12-2012, 12:20 AM
I've always thought Tony Gilroy was a mediocre writer and very weak structurally. I've generally enjoyed the Bourne series but the story in the second and third Bourne movies is largely a mess with little to nothing actually going on (even though I think the third is still largely a great movie, elevated by Greengrass and Damon). Ditto with Michael Clayton which almost put me to sleep with its vague outlines of a vague conspiracy - I liked the vibe of the movie but it was like a Bourne movie in that sense minus all the action sequences to distract me from it.

Well, after seeing this movie, I still mostly have the same opinion of Gilroy although I'll concede he's got a lot of smart ideas in places. While I really don't like his attempts to fuck around and splice things into timelines in the Bourne series (let each movie stand on its own dammit), it was as well done as it probably could have been on that level. But this is the third Bourne movie where I feel like we learned nothing new and where there were pretty much zero twists or turns in the overall story. And Gilroy tends to overwrite some of the dialogue too much. Essentially, the movie boils down to Cross needing pills, getting them, and getting away. Which takes 135 minutes to tell - really?

However, I think Gilroy is a pretty decent director. And while there were few new elements in the story yet again, I actually enjoyed this overall even though it definitely felt its length and the pacing was bumpy (especially in the first act). I guess I'm a sucker for a decent chase and physical stunts, and this was basically one long chase movie. I thought all the action sequences were generally great and the scene with Weisz's colleague was intense. Renner makes a great action hero and I would love to see him in more Bourne movies.

Last edited by JCPhoenix; 08-12-2012 at 12:22 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-13-2012, 07:44 AM
When The Bourne Ultimatum ended i had high hopes that the next film would be based on The Bourne Betrayal or The Bourne Sanction,but
Matt Damon bowed out of the series and decided to move on to other projects.So what's a studio with a succesful franchise to do
when its main star moves on?
Focus on another on the run agent of the Department of Defense's black ops programs named Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner).
Renner does a fine job as the chemically enhanced Cross.One of the great factors in these films is that we can connect
with the main character.They are not just mindless super agents.I was able to connect with Cross because he has a
is this all there is factor to him.I witnessed this twice when he is very inquisitive with another operative, Number Three (Oscar Isaac)
and when he attempts to make a connection with Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz).
Weisz is good too even though i didnt really buy into her being so naive about the ops program,as she screams: I was in it for the science!!
Edward Norton displays the right amount of coldness as a retired USAF Colonel overseeing and ensuring that any ops or anyone
connected to the ops is eliminated.
I just wish there had been more intense and tension filled scenes in the film.There are a few great action sequences,but when you couple
to many slow moments WITH an abrupt ending it just felt like something was missing.
Good but not great.
Scale of 1-10 a 7
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-13-2012, 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anakinsrise View Post
I just wish there had been more intense and tension filled scenes in the film.There are a few great action sequences,but when you couple to many slow moments WITH an abrupt ending it just felt like something was missing.

Good but not great.
Hard to argue with that, there was tension and intensity but it could have used more I guess.

Any word on Matt Damon popping back for the next film? That match up now would be amazing.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-14-2012, 05:34 PM
Disappointed the shit out of me... Saw it last friday and wanted to give the movie some time to see if it grew on me but i actually like it less now. Renner was one dimensional, Weisz couldn't handle the action and looked goofy when running. No climax, no real plot, no good usage of Norton. Just left a bad taste in my mouth.

4/10
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-20-2012, 11:12 PM
Matt Damon was missing. As was Paul Greengrass. Their absence was plainly obvious and the movie suffered as a result of it. The movie certainly feels like a Bourne movie and Tony Gilroy's writing definitely contributed to that feeling, his direction paled to that of Greengrass's, even Liman's too. Jeremy Renner is good in the movie; probably the best thing about the movie. He handled the "taking over the franchise" (for now) very well and leads the movie admirably. But he's no Matt Damon, and Aaron Cross is no Jason Bourne. Renner and Weisz had good chemistry and that helped the movie along as well. I did enjoy seeing Edward Norton play the villain; he wasn't evil or menacing, but his tenacity and drive were fun to watch as he tried to track down Cross. There were a few things about the movie that I didn't like about the movie and I thought they really stood out: the storyline about why the agents needed the pills was under-explained; there was a rival agent who appeared at the end - the explanation for his character's necessity and appearance was weak and he wasn't even close to being as badass as Clive Owen, Karl Urban, or Edgar Ramirez in the previous installments. The character's demise was poorly done as well. The movie lags in a few places and the chase during the finale is nowhere near as exciting as those in the first three movies. I'll say the movie's biggest problem is Tony Gilroy's direction; it simply isn't as good as Greengrass's, which was part of the success of Supremacy and Ultimatum.

I wouldn't mind seeing an Aaron Cross-Jason Bourne team-up in a future Bourne movie. I think it would be interesting to see how storylines for previous characters in the franchise - which were brought up - pan out. This is a Bourne movie, but it's the weakest of the four.

6/10

Last edited by bigred760; 08-20-2012 at 11:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-30-2012, 08:27 PM
Feel obligated to comment that this movie was a bit of a disappointment...

I was bored to tears during the first 40 minutes or so; the pacing was slow, and Gilroy was so busy tying this to the other Bourne films (including all the cameos) that Aaron Cross was pretty much a cypher going in. Why was he in the mountains? Who was the dude that showed up at the cabin? Maybe I missed something but I was so bored I couldn't be bothered to make sense of it.

After that horrible setup, the film really only kicks into gear (and finally remembers to have a plot of its own) with the bit at Marta's house. After that it's entertaining, but nothing great.

Renner was good as Cross, and I can watch Weisz in anything just because of how gorgeous she is. But Edward Norton was criminally wasted here; his part is pretty much giving orders in a control room. Not to mention that compared to the government agents in the previous films, these guys were a bunch of incompetent morons. The audience is always one step ahead of them, so these scenes feel like a waste of time.

Overall, it was a passable sequel that didn't really need to be made.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-03-2012, 06:06 AM
Who would pick a Toyota Camry if you wanna chase someone? No wonder killer/assassin got pwned.
Weakest villain assassin in the whole series thus far. All the other villains in all the previous 3 movies were all some hard to kill tough bastards.
This one is just lame.......
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 09-03-2012, 06:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by misbehave View Post
Who would pick a Toyota Camry if you wanna chase someone? No wonder killer/assassin got pwned.
Weakest villain assassin in the whole series thus far. All the other villains in all the previous 3 movies were all some hard to kill tough bastards.
This one is just lame.......
Not only the weakest, but the most unnecessary. He came out of nowhere. The character's introduction was just so weak, as was the entire character - especially from a writing standpoint. The other assassins had stronger purposes, lines of dialogue, interaction, and not to mention better death scenes. This one in Bourne Legacy was brought in for no other purpose than to match the previous three movies. The character was very disappointing.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump