The Bourne Legacy

September 1, 2012

The Bourne Legacy
"There was never just one."

The narrative architect behind the "Bourne" film series, Tony Gilroy, takes the helm in the next chapter of the hugely popular espionage franchise that has earned almost $1 billion at the global box office: "The Bourne Legacy." The writer/director expands the "Bourne" universe created by Robert Ludlum with an original story that introduces us to a new hero (Jeremy Renner) whose life-or-death stakes have been triggered by the events of the first three films.

Hollywood has been making tons of reboot movies; some of them come better, but more of them come worse. That's the stake screenwriter of the past Bourne's trilogy, Tony Gilroy, trying to take by making a reboot of Bourne without Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass. The question is : what does it take to make a Bourne movie without Jason Bourne himself?

The formula is pretty much the same : hand-to-hand combat, breaking bones, shooting gun, impossibly well-done mission and of course running from whatever-or-whoever-behind. But the thing is, it'll never be a Bourne movie though the story is pretty much related to the all three Bourne installments and a lot of 'Bourne' mentioned in the movie.

I honestly have no idea what is it in the beginning; I don't give a single fuck about the confusing-long-totally boring conversations. There're plot holes everywhere; I am rather confused in the beginning, then gain my Bourne-thrill in the middle (especially the lab-shooting scene, Aaron encountered with wolf, the icy cold Alaska, and of course the epic fight in Marta's wreckage house), then I lose interest when Aaron and Marta goes to Manila and things start to get messy and confusing that lead to a big question mark at the end. Aaron's final confrontation is easy; it's like "WTF, that was it?!" I'm losing the main purpose here. Was it all just about Norton's will to kill Renner (which came out as an epic failure; who knows Norton will be that damn stupid and powerless over Renner's slippery smooth moves?), or was it just the urgency of Renner in terms of I-need-those-green-and-blue-pills-or-else. Or was it all just about parkour and saving the girl, playing a little spy-thing? WHAT WAS IT, really?

I personally think that Jeremy Renner represents a better-looking special agent than Damon did as Bourne; Renner somehow has the grizzled looking charm, convincing moves, tough-as-nail mind, minus the pretty face and indeed is more talkative. But again people, he isn't Jason Bourne, Damon is. I still am not used by the Bourne-Aaron thing nor judge on who-overcomes-who. Jason Bourne is Jason Bourne, Aaron Cross is Aaron Cross, that's just it. But if you're asking who deals better; I think Jason Bourne is, he's far more memorable. I'm not saying that Renner is no good; in fact he's quite unforgettable. He does a great job portraying Aaron. So does Rachel Weisz; she nails the role of the smartass PhD Marta Shearing. And have I told you about how itchy my mind goes over Edward Norton; I mean, seriously Byer, catch the damn guy!

Bottom line, I'm not that into this movie. I still can't get over the first three installments and I don't think Gilroy really pulls it better than Greengrass, as well as Renner over Damon. It's not a Bourne movie, though the words "Bourne" itself still on the poster. It's a fun to watch; a long-fun. Do I recommend you to watch this? It's all on you. It really is not that bad, but then again, it's not a Bourne movie, it's the legacy.

Terrence Ward: "You think that Jason Bourne was the whole story? Sorry, there's a lot more going on here."


Lisensi Creative Commons
JUNEBUG by Aleena Deandra is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 International License.
Based on a work at
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at
Copyright Ⓒ Junebug. All rights reserved. Design by Fearne.