377 replies to this topic

[Dustin]

No connection any more. The first film entirely turned the story inside out and left the main villain out even. Since then there has been no effort made to try and marry the two worlds. Moreover, the continuations of Lustbader developed their own stories not really in line with Ludlum's original. If you pick them up better don't expect anything like the films.

[S K Y F A L L]

I had know idea they are so disconnected from the novels.

[SecretAgentFan]

A superagent, doing outrageous stunts? Sounds like Bond, to me.

But that is hardly all Bond is about, is it?

If BOURNE wanted to be in the CONDOR or MARATHON MAN mould I would love it. Those guys actually suffered when they got hurt, they tried to avoid any physical violence and certainly weren´t capable of afflicting it. But Jason Bourne is like a videogame character. Punching and kicking and jumping without ever getting seriously hurt (okay, save from the beginning when he gets shot).

Furthermore, Bourne is more a weapons-system than a super agent. There is next to no personality revealed that Bourne/Webb has or hasn't. We do not know the reasons that made him join, neither does he himself. There must have been reasons, strong ones even. But we aren't told about them. He is of course highly trained, so it's hardly surprising he should display higher abilities than the armchair patriots the CIA are sending after him. The people giving him really hard time are the other "Bournes" (code-named after the respective cities they reside in; going back I believe to another of Ludlum's books). And he does get injured in Moscow, and one suposes back in the USA, too.

And, sorry, but Costa-Gavras really had a political angle in his films. BOURNE is only about action. The political angle here is pseudo-fluff-comic-book-stuff.

Isn't every political angle nowadays?

What´s your point, Dustin? Mine was: Bond and Bourne are seperate entities but share traits that make the distinction difficult for a huge part of the audience.

And Bourne will NEVER resemble anything Costa Gavras did so superbly.

[Dustin]

My point was, film Bond and Bourne do not really work the same turf. Bourne is a guy who wants out, who was used and abused by a corrupt and criminal, despicable even, organisation manned with bureaucratic armchair monsters masking as patriots but really only filling their pockets and networking their careers (and as such taking a similar critical position to Gavras' STATE OF SIEGE or MISSING, albeit of course from the angle of a Hollywood action adventure, i.e. a fluffy one). Bourne wants just to be left alone and get his memory back.

Bond is a guy who never wants out, there is no question he'd go on and on even if SIS sacks him. He may be beaten up, tortured, burned, shot - he always gets back up and heads right back to the game. The fight is worth it all and that does extend to the audience, viewers envy Bond and like to change places with him.

The two series are like night and day, in Bourne's world even high life luxury looks shabby, in Bond's even the shabby parts hold a certain glamour. And that goes deeper, right down to the basic philosophy of both. In Bond's a basically desirable - if faulted in detail - system is threatened by currupted individuals for their own dubious ends and saved by Bond's heroic mission. In Bourne's an inhumane and fundamentally out-of-control system, used by corrupt bureaucrats for their own agenda, is threatened by the unexpected return of an individual's conscience.

Really, the only element the two share are a couple of action scenes in my view. Neither is the other's match.

[marktmurphy]

Something about it feels like a knock-off of the proper Bourne films to me. I'm not convinced just yet.

Is Paddy Considine actually in it, or are those just clips from Ultimatum?

[Simon]

Guessing they could be outtakes from Bourne Ultimatum - there must have been reels of footage from that shoot so plenty to choose from.

But I don't know and mine is purely speculation.

[The Dove]

http://www.filmmusic...d=7856&lang=en Track listing revealed for James Newton Howard's soundtrack to The Bourne Legacy!! Also looks like Moby has done yet another version of "Extreme Ways", titled "Bourne's Legacy"...The CD will be out July 31st!!

[S K Y F A L L]

I seen there is also another trailer out for it. Doesn't look all that bad.

[DR76]

Who cares whether Bond is a wannabe Bourne or if Bourne is a wannabe Bond? I don't. I'm a fan of both franchises. I'm a fan of both Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weisz, so I'm looking forward to the movie.

[tdalton]

Who cares whether Bond is a wannabe Bourne or if Bourne is a wannabe Bond? I don't. I'm a fan of both franchises. I'm a fan of both Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weisz, so I'm looking forward to the movie.

Well said.

I'm actually looking forward to this one as well. I thoroughly enjoyed The Bourne Identity, but didn't care for either The Bourne Supremacy or The Bourne Ultimatum. I doubt I would have even bothered seeing another Bourne film from the creative team behind the last two, but the changes they've made this time around have me interested in the franchise again. Renner and Weisz are both excellent actors and I look forward to seeing their contributions to the franchise.

[S K Y F A L L]

I must say I really like the website. http://www.thebournelegacy.net/ I think they have done a good job marketing the film anyway.

[The Dove]

DAMN!! *jaw drops on the floor* I wasn't imagining it would be possible for Moby to top his Bourne Ultimatum mix of "Extreme Ways"...Uh...I was WRONG!! Check out this new "Bourne's Legacy" recording for the new flick!!

[marktmurphy]

Quite a fun little interview with Tony Gilroy on Front Row tonight:
http://www.bbc.co.uk...Jackpot_review/

The interviewer notes the physical similarity between Renner and Daniel Craig, and Gilroy mentions that they met up on set and reveals his reactions to it!

[Matt_13]

Ah. So that's what Daniel was doing in Manila.

[S K Y F A L L]

Interesting listen most of that was news to me or confirmation of what I heard. I would agree, Renner is kind of an American version of Craig it seems.

[SecretAgentFan]

I prefer the British one.

[marktmurphy]

I prefer the British one.

Yeah; the couple of reviews I've seen do seem to point to this film not doing very well without Damon.

[Skudor]

Who cares whether Bond is a wannabe Bourne or if Bourne is a wannabe Bond? I don't. I'm a fan of both franchises. I'm a fan of both Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weisz, so I'm looking forward to the movie.

A mature and commendable stance.

I overheard, presumably the director of Bourne 4 (didn't hear the introductions or the end - this was on BBC radio 4 in the late afternoon) being asked about the Bond connection. And his view was that the Craig era Bond was blatantly taking a page or two from Bourne (more than a page or two). I personally wouldn't dispute that (CR and QOS have a lot of the Bourne type fisticuffs etc. - Bond has clearly moved closer to the rawness and personal angles of the Bourne movies). What irritated me with this guy was his glee at this ("Bond is blatantly copying us" sort of stuff) but not acknowledgement that Bourne is a Bond derivative in the first place (Jason Bourne; look at FRWL the movie and YOLT/TMWTGG books to see the inspiration if you like). It's swings and roundabouts.

[Dustin]

Who cares whether Bond is a wannabe Bourne or if Bourne is a wannabe Bond? I don't. I'm a fan of both franchises. I'm a fan of both Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weisz, so I'm looking forward to the movie.

A mature and commendable stance.

I overheard, presumably the director of Bourne 4 (didn't hear the introductions or the end - this was on BBC radio 4 in the late afternoon) being asked about the Bond connection. And his view was that the Craig era Bond was blatantly taking a page or two from Bourne (more than a page or two). I personally wouldn't dispute that (CR and QOS have a lot of the Bourne type fisticuffs etc. - Bond has clearly moved closer to the rawness and personal angles of the Bourne movies). What irritated me with this guy was his glee at this ("Bond is blatantly copying us" sort of stuff) but not acknowledgement that Bourne is a Bond derivative in the first place (Jason Bourne; look at FRWL the movie and YOLT/TMWTGG books to see the inspiration if you like). It's swings and roundabouts.

Indeed, it's hard to imagine the Bourne books would even exist without the Bonds. And had the spy film genre not got its big initial bang from Bond no Bourne (or Ludlum for that matter) would likely have been filmed at all. So Bourne owes Bond twice - while Bond only nods slightly in Bourne's direction with a bit of editing. Hardly a big deal.

[bill007]

The Bourne Legacy

Legacy? Not even a chance. I'm just back watching this in the cinema, and am I ever displeased. I can't help feeling director Tony Gilroy was merely using the previous trilogy as a launching pad for his own version, thinking it would carry on equally as well. Rubbish. He took the perfect wrap-up of Ultimatum and spat all over it.

No disrespect to the acting Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz, and Edward Norton. They each performed their craft superbly with what they were given. But, rising above that to and consider plot, motivation, and continuity, this was a dud.

One can like Superman and Batman, and Bond and Bourne. It is a big universe on the big screen. Unfortunately, Bourne Legacy will end up being a distant nebulae on the outter reaches of that universe.

Spoiler(s):

Spoiler

Dr. Albert Hirsch (Albert Finney) is smeared as boy-loving perv.
Pam Landy's (Joan Allen) whistle-blowing is reduced to mere fodder.
Ezra Kramer (Scott Glenn) is reduced to a snivelling wimp.
Noah Vosen (David Strathairn) is but a shadow of his former self.

[Ernst Stavro Blofeld Jr.]

Here's my take on the film. SPOILERS AHEAD

I really don't understand where all the hate from this film is coming from. I think it is a great continuation of the series and doesn't do anything to hurt Ultimatum. Only Finney and Glenn appear in new scenes, and each are just there to connect to the new characters we are presented in the film. It was very clear that Bourne wasn't the last one in Ultimatum and to not believe there to be more groups like Treadstone or Blackbriar would be ridiculous.

Personally, my biggest gripe with the film is that it tries too hard to connect itself to the previous film. The first 45 minutes or so are interweaved with Waterloo Station and Bourne coming to NYC and that all could have been substantially reduced without little lost. To me, the beginning really is slow and meandering, but once Cross and Marta get together the film picks up quite nicely and elevates itself quite nicely. Cross is not just a Bourne clone, as he has much more personality and faults than Damon showed Bourne to have. I don't really see how this film isn't on par with the others, and its my second favorite after Identity. I thought Supremacy and Ultimatum were too "in your face" while Legacy gave time to the story to breathe and evolve. Clearly there's more to tell and I hope Gilroy comes back and now that he's doesn't need to intercut with Greengrass' frantic talking scenes anymore, perhaps a really good movie will come about.

I can totally see Bourne and Cross getting together at the end of 5 or in 6 and working together to expose everything for good. Anyone who argues that the franchise ended with Ultimatum forgets that Bourne survived that. If they wanted that to be the end they would have killed Bourne. Him being alive always left possibilities open and I'm glad they explored them. Here's just hoping John Powell comes back for the next one, as Howard just wasn't able to give that same intensity that Powell did with the music.

[The Dove]

Totally agree with you Ernst!! I liked The Bourne Legacy a lot..yes it's not quite on par with the other films, but still it's very well done and a lot better than I was expecting it to be..I give it a solid B+.

[Miles Miservy]

Anyone read the book? If so, how is it?

Multi-layered, convolluted & downright confusing. I tried to read it twice and like true Robert Ludlum fashion, it is VERY easy for a reader to get lost within the pages. A lot of people have speculation that the Jason Bourne franchise might one day grow to the popularity of the James Bond series (initials not withstanding) & they might be right. There's certainly enough material to be had.

[Loomis]

Quite a fun little interview with Tony Gilroy on Front Row tonight:
http://www.bbc.co.uk...Jackpot_review/

The interviewer notes the physical similarity between Renner and Daniel Craig, and Gilroy mentions that they met up on set and reveals his reactions to it!

Interesting interview. Thanks.

THE BOURNE LEGACY certainly has its share of problems (the pacing is off, the story becomes too silly in places and also meanders quite a bit), but on the whole I enjoyed it. Bluntly, it's the worst film of the series, although that says more about how good the other three films are than it does about how bad LEGACY is. Kudos to Gilroy for not attempting to mimic the Greengrass outings - he definitely has his own approach, and while his approach is not always successful there's some decent entertainment to be had here. Also, the film is much less action-driven than expected - a pleasant surprise given that most summer blockbusters of this genre seem to trade exclusively and exhaustingly in wall-to-wall mayhem.

I didn't miss Damon or Greengrass, although I did miss John Powell's music. A lot.

[Ernst Stavro Blofeld Jr.]

I didn't miss Damon or Greengrass, although I did miss John Powell's music. A lot.

Completely agree. The music was a factor for me.

[DamnCoffee]

I’d normally write a brief synopsis as to what this film is about, and I’ve sat blankly for 10 minutes just staring at my screen not knowing where to start. Whether this is because the film has a very confusing plot, or just has a plot that’s naturally un-engaging and isn’t really worthy of your attention is hard to determine.

To begin with, the film is far too long, and follows a non-linear narrative that doesn’t really do itself justice. Maybe this is down to the film not trying very hard to ground itself. Overall, it’s very uneven and genuinely feels like you’re watching two separate films at the same time. One being hardcore politics, and the other being an extremely mediocre action film. The former not even being remotely interesting, and the latter trying too hard to capture the action style of the first 3 (Which it does too an extent with brilliant cinematography), but not really being a worthy contender in terms of breathtaking action.

The storyline is rather hard to make sense of. Sadly enough, within the first half hour, it’s a struggle to understand what’s happening and is rather difficult to pick yourself back up again, and stay on topic in terms of plot. In light of this, you often end up asking yourself questions such as…

• “Why is Edward Norton jogging at 4 in the morning in the rain?”
• “Why are all of these people in foreign countries speaking perfectly good English to each other?”
• “What is this virus stuff, and why don’t I care?”
• “Who are these people?”

… which wouldn’t be happening if you were totally engrossed in the film you were watching, but down to the under baked plot, you can’t really fathom what’s happening. Another problem about this film, is that it just feels too convenient especially in terms character motivation. Characters appear where you’d expect them to, totally taking away any kind of urgency that could’ve been played upon and in turn giving the audience a completely predictable 2 hours.
Jeremy Renner stars as Aaron Cross, a new character to the Bourne Franchise, who unfortunately lacks any type of charisma, and comes across as a stereotypical action hero, with very little stand out moments. Renners performance is far from terrible, but it’s just not that good. There’s nothing in this film allowing him to even attempt to dominate the screen, but his unfortunate lack of screen presence doesn’t do him or the film any justice.

One of the most interesting aspects of the film, deals with Jason Bournes movements from another point of view. Of course Matt Damon isn’t in this film, but just knowing that this film is set at the same time as Ultimatum, almost provokes some sense of interest. This is sadly lost however, as the film tends to focus on very boring storytelling, and generic action sequences. As it stands now, the film just looks like a very cheap cash in of the Bourne series, which wasn’t really surprising as the thought of a fourth outing seemed very money grabbing anyway. However, credit must be given to Tony Gilroy for creating his own vision for this movie, and not following on from the approach of Paul Greengrass.

Of course, the film isn’t without it’s merits. Rachel Weisz gives a brilliant performance as Marta Shearing, a Doctor who seems to be caught up in an assassination attempt and rather predictably teams up with Aaron Cross, to hunt down the cause. The cinematography tries it’s best to capture the excitement of the original trilogy (Sometimes coming very close indeed), but doesn’t really manage it. James Newton Howard provides an exhilarating soundtrack, which gives a sense of excitement that isn’t present in the visuals.

Overall, a very disappointing film, the plot is ill contrived, and it was a chore to sit through.

★★

Edited by DamnCoffee, 22 August 2012 - 02:06 AM.

[The Dove]

Fair review, Mhark...err..DamnCoffee (what the hell is up with the new username?? LOL ) Sure the film is not going to meet with a lot of people's approval but I liked it and am planning on seeing it again..hopefully it will clarify some plot points which were fuzzy to me.. I did like that they left the ending open for a future installment..hopefully they'll get Matt Damon's Bourne to cross paths and team up with Jeremy Renner's Aaron Cross..

[Mr Teddy Bear]

I enjoyed this one. Aaron Cross is much more charaismatic than Jason Bourne and I appreciate that the film has tempo changes rather than the constant chase scenes the others tended to rely on.

[Chief of SIS]

• “Why are all of these people in foreign countries speaking perfectly good English to each other?”

Harkers, You've seen Bond movies right? Watched 'Octopussy' last night and when the Soviet higher-ups are having their meeting, all I could think was "why aren't you speaking in RUSSIAN?!" While I think the 80's may have been a little more forgiving and action films of the 80's were a far lighter fare, I totally agree that little things like this in intense action movies undermine the viewer experience.

[DamnCoffee]

Good point, I completely agree. I found the movie so UNBELIEVABLY DULL, that it made me just get constantly irritated by things I wouldn't be irritated at if I was 'in the film'.

Edited by DamnCoffee, 22 August 2012 - 07:12 PM.