Bourne 4 - The Bourne Legacy - Page 3

New trailer up. Must admit it looks pretty good. Looks like Jeremy Renner might actually pull it off. What do you guys think?

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/u...ebournelegacy/

I really liked it. Renner always does great work in all his roles. Not sure where this film fits in the Bourne universe. I must admit that I had read the first two Bourne novels more than a decade ago, and saw all three movies, but I don't seem to remember the finer details of the story arc. I'd love to get back into the universe in time for this movie.

I rolled my eyes at the typical (and annoying) structure of the trailer, but I have no doubt that the film will turn out decent enough.

Looks great to me, I'm sold!

Nah, it's seems another Bourne movie without Bourne himself since they couldn't get Damon and Greengrass. That doesn't mean it's bad, but certainly I'm not too excited about this.
I also wonder that with the Prometheus's idea of using known and new characters in a "known" universe, if that "idea" will catches on like "prequels" seemingly did in the last decade or so?

Uhh,.too much of been there, done that type of film rehashing formula intended just for milking more money from the Bourne series. Renner is a good actor but something is missing. I'm not sure he's right for this, IMO he doesn't have that star quality or cool factor yet needed for this role....YMMV. I think he would be great as a side kick or buddy team up with someone more star power.

To be fair, it's not as if Matt Damon was the epitome of 'cool' when he took on the Bourne role a decade ago. My thinking at the time was 'Cool, the Bourne series is being adapted to the big screen! Hold on, what? Matt Damon is playing Bourne??'' What the...??' I mean, Damon's a fine actor, but he certainly didn't scream 'action star' to me back then.

While it just looks like it's adhering to the Bourne formula and nothing terribly imaginitave, I'm intrigued to see how 'deep the rabbit hole goes' with this whole Blackbriar/Treadstone thing. To me, Jason Bourne's story wrapped up perfectly in Ultimatum, to have bled another movie out of that particular storyline was just screaming 'cash-in' to me. I like that this film is focusing on a new character.

Norton, Renner, Some original cast?? IM sold

I saw this film yesterday and it was intense. Rachel Weisz is a sweetheart and I loved her in this. I read one criticism of the movie was that it lacked humanity, well that's a crock because Weisz brings humanity in spades.

This is not to say that Jeremy Renner did not provide the requisite action hero scenes but the eventual interaction between these two leads created a story where you cared about the characters which to me is always point number one.

I usually wince when I see that the director is also the screenwriter but this case it worked. I know the film opened to mixed reviews but if you're a fan on the Bourne series this is a must-see. I was pleased with how they dove-tailed the story into the previous movies. I had heard the James Newton Howard soundtrack before the movie and wasn't sure whether it was a good fit or not - but after seeing the film I thought he did an excellent job and there were also a few tip-of-the-hat moments.

I also see it did decently at the box office this past weekend so I'm certain we'll see the sequel to this sooner rather than later. I'll be there.

That looked really good.

After reading this I will have a look when it hits blu ray. I was going to pass but now I will watch it.

Saw this movie last night and enjoyed it but at the same time I'm a little disappointed. Not that I expected it to be, but it just wasn't as good as any of the original three. In addition, it was more of the same in that it offered nothing original. This would be fine if you cared about Renner's character as much as you did Damon's but the script and possibly directing just didn't allow for it. Now that I think about it, I felt more about what the "bad guys" were up against and trying to do than the good guys. I don't feel the opening scene served any purpose other than to offer how it concluded (with the other guy) and it took too long for the story to get moving at the pace of the original three. Part of the reason for this IMO is that they spent too much time on the technical jargon from the "bad guys". It got to be overbearing and was just unnecessary to that degree. Once it did get going the pace was there and remained there and so was the action in typical Bourne fashion. That's both good and bad IMO because just like the first Bourne's the action is good and well done but it's bad because it offers nothing new. Just to start the ball rolling, I say Jason Bourne could whip Renner's character....see, I don't even remember his name. And I was actually caught off guard when it was over. I heard the music and thought "that's a weird place for that music....wait, is it over?....credits" This one just didn't draw you in like the others and didn't wrap it up (either as a continuing story or an ending story) as well as the others.

Having said all of that, I feel the biggest flaw with this is the script. The actors did a great job, whoever made the comment about Weisz' humanity was way off the mark IMO and Renner can definitely carry the role as a continuing story but he really needed a much tighter script. Again, the action was good but it offered nothing new. I really wanted to like this one more both for the Bourne story and for Renner as I felt he was really an up an comer in SWAT. But I would say this is one that you don't necessarily go out of your way to see at the theater. Definitely worth a rental or HBO broadcast.

I'm going to politely totally disagree with that. IMO the Bourne Identity was "all" matt damon and yes he wasn't cool or suave like Cruise or Brosnan but he has natural charisma and star quality. Renner to me is just trying to hard which is not really a bad thing but he's not a leading man action material "yet" which he could mature with time and I'll repeat that he's great in an ensemble or buddy situation like The town, Fast five, Hurt locker, MI 4, etc.

I watched my BD of The Bourne Identity last night. It was the first Bourne movie and Damon's performance was impressive. I believe that Damon's Jason Bourne had a huge advantage over Renner's Aaron Cross. Bourne was suffering from memory loss, which not only exponentially increased the level of danger he was in but gave him a level of frustration almost beyond measure. In stark contrast, Renner's Cross knew who he was, understood most of what he had to do from the jump, and soon learned the rest of it from his scientist lady friend. He was in a tight spot but Bourne was in a worse one. In short, I think Renner did a great job with a character who is less compelling than Damon was given with Bourne.

It was the thrilling fight sequences in the first 3 Bourne films that set them apart from all the similar action movies, IMO. The only other fight scene I've ever seen where I felt the combatants were physically in danger, when I actually felt their fear and how close they were to literally fighting for their very lives and could see it in their eyes, was in the fifth episode of the vastly underrated 'Charlie Jade' TV series. The show's star Jeffrey "stunt men are for wussies" Pierce actually broke his arm during the filming of that scene and they had to suspend production for awhile.

I agree. It takes a lot of work, planning and rehearsal to stage a good fight scene, and the Bourne movies set a standard. If you want to see a counter example of really bad fight scenes, watch an old Matt Helm movie with Dean Martin (rolls eyes). They sure ruined those novels.

Well, I guess for everyone who couldn't picture Matt Damon as an action star, he sure proved them wrong. Too bad he didn't want to do another one, but what can you do? The world has too many other problems to spend time worrying about that.

Damon wasn't/isn't a Cruise-like actor by any stretch but IMO that's exactly what made the Bourne films work from a character standpoint. To further my opinion, Cruise and Brosnan are so big and/or so image forward that I tend to just like their appeal and their stories. Damon is a guy in many ways I can better relate to so I tend to feel more involved in his films; although, I enjoy all three actors. However, I'm not sure I agree with the comment about Renner trying too hard. He just has a different intensity IMO. The Bourne franchise is so well established and associated with Damon that it would be hard for any actor to come in carry it on. I think they would have had a greater impact with the film and Renner's contribution if they had found a way to bring Damon in to it even if only a brief moment. Think of it like a hand off in the movie if you will. That way the expectation of the old would be there and the transition to the new to carry it forward.

Beginning over the weekend and ending last night I rewatched the Matt Damon Bourne films. They were all wonderful but Bourne 3 blew me away. What a great film! Although I agree that the action sequences were great, I continue to believe that what most sets apart the Matt Damon Bourne films was Jason Bourne's anguish over his memory loss and, later, the murder of his lover Marie. Unfortunately for Jeremy Renner, his Aaron Cross, while facing incredible danger, doesn't find himself confused and depressed. Jason Bourne's loss placed Renner at a significant disadvantage in his portrayal of Aaron Cross.

If Matt Damon had starred in this fourth film, box office would have been twice bigger. I wouldn't want to be in Renner's shoes (well, maybe I wouldn't mind his salary but that's another story! ) because no matter how good he is in the film, people still prefer a Bourne film with Jason Bourne in it, which is understandable and not his fault. I have yet to see it by the way, I'm just "guessing"

Could you please clarify your comment? Jason Bourne and Aaron Cross are two separate individuals with two separate stories so I'm not following how there is a disadvantage.

I think for the most part you hit the mark, but I will repeat that a bit of a stronger script could have overcome this. Frankly, I like the idea of these separate "operative" stories from under the same agency initiative. It's not very different thank pulling individual stories from under the X-men umbrella for example.

I already explained it but for some reason you elided my explanation from your post. For your convenience, here it is again: In short, Matt Damon's absence from Bourne 4, meant that the writers had to write with one hand tied behind their backs because Aaron Cross, the character, is neither as interesting nor as sympathetic as Ludlum and Damon's Jason Bourne. That wasn't Renner's fault but there it is. Anyway, I thought that Renner did a fine job portraying the comparatively one dimensional character he was given by the writers.

Oh, okay, what lost me wasn't in your original post. You were speaking from the standpoint of the script. Got'cha.

Thanks for your response. I'm glad that we are back on the same page. Our exchange just goes to show the limitations of written communications.

Caught it tonight. It was getting trite but the acting from both leads was great. Unfortunately the script was not up there like the others.

Somehow the last 10 minutes sort of reminds me of the 2nd one except the setting.

Just caught it and was very surprised how much I liked it more and more as the film pulled me in the story. I had very little hope for this. I hated the 3rd one, just chase after chase in diff city, wash, rinse and repeat. I didn't like Renner from Hurt Locker or Ghost protocol.

But he really made me a fan tonight. I mean right from the opening scene when he came out of that frozen lake somewhere in the arctic shirtless I knew ok this might be pretty good and it was. And there was some real purpose and more importantly I really cared for the 2 main characters which was Renner and Weisz. And all the support players on the GOV or CIA were very cunning and believable IMO. Ed Norton is one mean SOB and has amazing focus. The stunts were very well executed and showed me things I haven't seen before.

I also liked the 2.15 running time which gave time to reveal the character layers and their involvement. I liked this one I think even more than the 1st and 2nd one. There was more action, and I thought they gave me a really good/gripping back story to this. My only complaint is the PQ had a lot of noise and grain that's it. The AR is my fav 2.40:1 so it was almost perfect. Good job and hope there's more where this came from.

Oh, ok the ending was rather abrupt BUT the movie gave me so much entertainment and quality for 2 hrs that it was forgivable.

I really enjoyed this movie I thought they did a great job the way they integrated the story with the 3rd
Edited by Franin - 12/19/12 at 5:38am

I watched my BD of The Bourne Legacy night before last and was surprised at how much better I liked it than when I first saw it in the theater. The science stuff with the pills and, later, the inoculations, was fascinating. I now rate The Bourne Legacy at 8 Stars our of 10. Both Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weisz were terrific. Highly recommended!

Thanks for sharing! I've read some spotty reviews on this compared to the other three but was set to blind buy. Do you feel that they've added enough meat to the plot to compensate for the absence of "unknown identity" factor "who is Treadstone" that partially drove the other films?