Circumstances meant that I was able to watch the Bourne Legacy – the latest in the franchise – today. If you’re reading this when I write this, chances are it still hasn’t been released so I hope this gives you a bit of an insight! I’m going to review it from two points of view: as the next chapter of the Bourne series, and as a stand-alone film…no labels attached. And both of these POVs come from me; a very big fan of the original trilogy.
Obviously,
then, the bar was already set very high by Matt Damon & co and there will
undoubtedly be constant comparisons. Everyone thought it was all over, but the
series has been rebooted/continued (you decide which) with the addition of new antagonists
and protagonists. But has it outstayed its welcome?
Earlier,
I used the term “original” to describe the Matt Damon films – I say this
because there is a whole new feel it all (yet strangely it’s still familiar…more
on this later) – new uncharted waters. New characters: Aaron Cross (Jeremy
Renner), Dr Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz), and Eric Byer (Edward Norton). In a
nutshell, the film is trying to tell you that Treadstone and Operation
Blackbriar were not isolated. There are more, and more agents like Jason Bourne
too – Enter Aaron Cross. “Operation Outcome” is the latest one, and as you may
have seen in the trailers, the bad guys are going to “burn this programme to
the ground”. It also links with what previously happens to Jason Bourne (also
more on this later). So Cross and Shearing are essentially trying to avoid
being killed. It’s not that straightforward, clearly, but you get the idea.
Now let’s
talk Jeremy Renner. Is it just me or does he really strike a resemblance to
Daniel Craig? (Incidentally Rachel Weisz’s real-life husband.) I’d seen him in
Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol (aka 4) and his action scenes there kept my
expectations high for this one – I wasn’t disappointed. Renner is a believable
assassin, but injects a level of emotion perhaps rarer in the previous films.
And to
answer the question on everybody’s lips: how does he compare to Matt Damon? (And
how does Cross compare to Bourne?) Because I really can’t flaw Damon one bit.
He made the trilogy what it was. But now with a “new guy” on the scene, all I
want to say – and emphasise – is they’re different.
Bourne is mysterious; Cross’s memory is fine. He knows his identity and
knows who he is, and the path he comes across is different. Bourne’s quest to find out who he is serves a stronger
purpose than Cross’s, and maybe that’s why I prefer Bourne. That, and the fact
that I’ve had 3 films to go “Jason Bourne is so cool” – assassin-killing aside.
But like
I said, Cross is different. He is more emotional – he always curious. He is
more affectionate. He just wants to live. It was going to be hard for any actor
or character to live in Bourne/Damon’s shadow so Cross/Renner does an applaudable
job at proving “there was never just one” (that’s the film’s tagline, FYI)- and
the character is very likeable. Like, him and I could be friends. Yet somehow,
somehow, I just felt Bourne was smarter, he always knew what to do and there
were moments of the films that really impressed me. I would probably feel safer
in the company of Jason Bourne! Which is ironic, because they are both trained
assassins…
Continuing
with the focus on differences, the
character Marta is very present and prominent in the film unlike Bourne’s
partner Marie. As a scientist dealing with the assassins, she is there for
reason, not a coincidence. I should probably also warn you now that there’s a
lot of science involved in the film. Returning characters make their cameos,
and Ed Norton is introduced as “the main bad guy”. Maybe it’s because I’ve seen
it all before, but I just wasn’t as crazy about him and the CIA-office scenes.
I’d
strongly recommend seeing the first three Bourne films first; not only are they
excellent, excellent films but they also provide a lot of background information which I reckon is essential in this
case. The thing is, there’s been a lot going on before the start of Legacy and if you’re not familiar with
it all, a lot of the film may not make complete sense. Who is Pam Landy?
Blackbriar? Simon Ross (Guardian journalist) being shot in Waterloo Waterloo
On the
film as a whole, it’s a fantastic action film. Fight scenes, intelligence, emotion,
and a story to give the action a backbone. In introducing new characters, I
quickly warmed to them and was not constantly comparing them. There are new
locations, like Manilla (Phillipines) and some place with lots of snow which
are the perfect backdrop. However, I did think it got off to a slow start and
you may be confused if you’re not familiar with the previous films. I said I’d review
The Bourne Legacy from two
perspectives, and if you were to view it as “one of the Bournes”, there are
lots of Bourne-esque things to appreciate, like the flashing from action to
CIA-HQ, the rooftop chases, the other assassins out to catch you, the super-good-hold-your-breath
car/motorcycle chase scenes and more. There are still questions to be answered,
however. The door is always open for more, and I can’t help wondering about the
future of the Bourne series. Does this mean there will now be more Aaron Cross?
Have people had enough? Will there be a prequel? Will the two ever meet? Have
they met before?
But wait
– trained and deadly (but likeable) assassin plus female accomplice running
from the CIA who are trying to kill them..? Haven’t we heard that one before?
Uh – yep. And if you’ve been reading the reviews out there, that’s probably one
thing they’re using to pick apart the film. Put it this way: it’s not a bad
film. In fact, it’s a very very good film. But if you’re going to compare it to
the rest of the Bourne films (which naturally we will do), it’s not quite the
same. Good, but different. Maybe there were a few things which felt too
familiar (but equally you can view it as paying homage). Which is why I reckon you shouldn’t label it
as either a standalone action or the next Bourne film. It’s both.
- Thursday, August 09, 2012
- 0 Comments
