First of all, let me say this: "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" is a to-the-point phrase, but also a long one. So for all future references I’ll be abbreviating to "WANEGBT", and "WANEEEEEEEGBT" if necessary (never ever ever ever ever… that’s even more to-the-point). Taylor Swift is currently trending on Twitter, thanks to the news of her new album “Red”, and new single “WANEGBT”. If the album/single covers are anything to go by, she’s departing from the happy, bright, smiley bubblegum images of the past few records. So how does the single compare?

It’s different. It’s no longer “Taylor Swift, country star” but she does continue her now-signature theme of boys, break-ups and no-longer-love letters to the mystery ex. As evident from the title. I applaud her autobiographic lyrics and have done since the early tracks (Tim McGraw, Picture to Burn etc), so hearing “Then you come around and say ‘Baby, I miss you and I swear I’m gonna change, trust me’. Remember how that lasted for a day?” is refreshingly “Taylor”. There’s elements of shouty anger, heartbreak and then getting over it, and surprising empowerment. Like, the guy can beg/plead/call as much as he likes, but she’s not having any of it (ever, ever, ever, ever). 

From a first listen it sounds remarkably like an Avril Lavigne song, so I was half expecting Taylor to launch into a “hey hey you you I don’t like ya girlfriend”. The chorus has the ability to be an anthem for girls in similar situations, and the general Twitter reception seems to be just that; girls going “Ohhhh that is basically my life in a song!”. Which is what makes Taylor Swift so popular, now and for a long long time to come. Having said that, I have been a huge Taylor Swift fan for years – way before her music was released in the UK – and I’m therefore a huge fan of her country sound. I liked the way she made country music more accessible, especially to the younger market, and it made her stand out in a good way. The last album, “Speak Now” began her crossover to the country-pop market, but if the rest of “Red” follows the lead of “WANEGBT”, she may have sadly said goodbye to her unique country sound. 

I really hope she doesn’t get trapped into the autotune, mass-produced sound market (which alarmingly, most songs in the charts seem to be following these days!), but in the chorus of “WANEGBT”, her voice is almost lost in the whole production of it. 

H-o-w-ever, despite all that, I just can’t help replaying the song over and over again! If I had to describe the song in one word…catchy. Catchy catchy catchy.  The high-pitched “eeee” of “we” is catchy (but hard to sing; I’ve tried), the “never ever” is surprisingly catchy, the whole chorus is just catchy. Taylor Swift even manages to do include a bit of talking (“like, ever”) which I can just see people copying when it’s played on the radio. 

So… all in all, “WANEGBT” is perhaps different to the country sound I was expecting, but its sheer catchiness seems to cushion my slight disappointment. Its clear Taylor is heading in a new direction, yet it’s still surprisingly girly and retains much of the makings of a Taylor Swift song (country roots aside), and deserves the success and good reception it will undoubtedly receive. 

Whenever you see a spiky black hairdo or red and black jumper, you think of Dennis (the menace). Whenever you see a little pink hat and buck teeth, you think of Timmy Turner. Whenever you see a sponge in clothing, you think of Spongebob. And whenever you see a guy in a red and white jumper, paired with round spectacles, a little bobble hat and a goofy smug smile, you think of Wally (or Santa Claus gone wrong). That’s “Waldo” for the Americans out there. 

Wally, besides being a hilarious name – and now tame insult (“Gosh you’re such a wally”), is a very hard man to find. He spends his days and nights and days and nights…hiding. We’ve all been there with a book of many people, searching the four corners of the page for this mysterious man. And when you find him, there is satisfaction like you’ve never felt satisfaction before. Heaps and heaps of it…until you turn the page and the frustrating search begins all over again. I have to admit that in my childhood days, Wally and I were not the best of friends. I rarely saw him and we didn’t spend much time together. He also always gave me headaches, and I blame him for my short-sightedness. And probably that of every child who’s spent hours with their faces one centimetre from a piece of paper. Or computer screen. The temptation’s there, I know; don’t do it.

Anyway, you’re probably wondering where this is all coming from. Some of you have been asking where I get ideas from for posts, and the answer is this: everywhere. Take this one for example; as you may have gathered, I’ve been on holiday recently. One fine day, I spotted a t-shirt in a small shop which made me laugh out loud quite loudly. But after an indecisive hopping dance between the till and the clothing rack I decided against it, and instantly regretted it. Several days later, I went back to visit the shop and after a Where’s Wally-esque search (1 white t-shirt in a pile of hundreds), left disappointed. There had only been one on display/in stock the first time, and this time it just wasn’t anywhere to be seen. 

Finally, on the last day of my holiday, I just happened to be passing the area and on a hunch, decided to look one last time. But the special t-shirt display had been replaced by new stock, and there wasn’t really much hope of finding Wally. In true epic movie style, however, I checked through a nearby other display of “Eddie Van Halen” tees (I didn’t know he did clothing either) and in slow-motion, on the last rack, at the very back… was The One; not Neo, not Jose Mourinho, not my someday-soulmate. I found Wally. 

And, you ask, “what is all this fuss over a t-shirt?”. Why am I so suddenly fixated with Wally? Well… here it is:

Bev x

Ps. So folks, the moral of the story is that if you’re looking for something or searching for something, keep looking and searching. After all, Wally can’t hide forever!

Pps. The t-shirt is funny because, in the time you've been searching for Wally, he's sporting a beard and 'tache. Note: Internet research seems to tell me the design is related to Bin Laden, which is not why I'm wearing it. I am wearing a Wally tee, not a Bin Laden one, so no association there!

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? Who is Jason Bourne? Those are all questions which may be buzzing in your head throughout the film – but if you even bother asking the last question you probably shouldn’t even bother with the film! For those who have already seen them, you will see how everything links together. The events at the end of Ultimatum have a sort-of domino effect on everything that happens in Legacy. There are overlaps (like the Waterloo scene) and continuations (like Pam Landy giving evidence at the trial) which put the overall picture into a bigger perspective. It’s like changing the lens of your sniper rifle gun.

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.

Bev x

Ps.Oh, and the trailer is kinda misleading. All is not as it seems.