Not in the same league as Bourne. And works even less as a stand alone movie.

Rating: 4/10 (7 September 2012)

I wouldn't call it awful... It had a few moments here and there - I especially went 'wow' over a 10 second clip where the hero climbs up to the second floor window to take out an assassin, shot seamlessly and in one shot - and Renner's performance is pretty solid.... but overall, it's kinda ironic that they named the movie 'The Bourne Legacy', cos it kinda disgraces the Legacy of the Bourne trilogy.
The Bourne trilogy was one of the greatest trilogies of all time, in my opinion, and only recently lost out the spot to Nolan's Batman franchise on that count recently. Some people say - don't compare it with the first three movies. But there are two problems with that. First, they ASKED for the comparison when they took on the Bourne name. Secondly, the plot is intricately linked to some events in The Bourne Ultimatum. And by 'intricately linked to', I mean 'casually destroys in a nonchalant manner'.
The action sequences feel different from the rest of the series, and I guess some people would like the departure of the shaky cam effect that become closely linked to the last two installments, but I'm not very impressed by most of the shots.
The plot seems to be a bit lazy, for the most part. The hero, Aaron Cross, is an operative for a black ops program that uses performance enhancing drugs for its operations. The events in The Bourne Ultimatum has forced Edward Norton's character, who is overseeing all clandestine operations, to pull the plug on all agents. Aaron Cross survives, but the rest of the agents across the world are killed off by changing their medication/ missiles or other means. Aaron is the lone survivor (until Hollywood decides to spin off another side story, I suppose). The people after him (FBI? CIA? I lost track somewhere) are also killing off support staff - scientists who are administering/ researching the drugs - called chem in the movie. Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz) is the lone survivor from the scientists group. A good part of the movie is on Aaron getting Dr. Shearing to a top secret facility that manufactures the drugs so that he can get a permanent solution to enhancing his skill-set.
To counter Cross, they launch an agent/ super-soldier (I know, I know... I know they killed off all agents so as to not take any risks, but this guy is from another program, a deeper, more secretive program that apparently specialize in covert operations where creating a public spectacle is not an issue at all)
There is a conversation in the movie where Cross is asked why he is so desperate to get the performance enhancing drugs. I really really hope I misunderstood that conversation. Cos the way I understood that bit, his poor intellect cost him back when he was in the army, and basically admitted that without the chems, they were both toast. Like I said, I really hope I got that bit wrong.
And I also felt weird about some of the flashback scenes - where Edward Norton's character and Rachel Weisz' character suddenly have a short flashback of their earlier interaction with Cross - at a point in the movie where neither of them had ANY reason or cause to link to Cross at all. These flashbacks happen when neither are aware of Cross's involvement in the events at the time. Also, at another point, we see Cross hallucinating about his initiation into the program - at the same time that Edward Norton is reviewing the tape of this initiation. It's lazy/ incompetent editing at best.
I don't want to give spoilers, but in the end, they unravel some stuff from the Bourne Ultimatum in order to create open threads they can close in the next installment.
When the movie ended, I was thinking 'What? That's it?' There is not even a semblance of closure, no confrontation with the villain of the piece... or even his subordinates. If it were not for the duration, I would have thought this was an intermission, after which they would somehow wrap up the mess into a more tangible form. But no. It's just left there hanging, waiting for the green light to the sequels.
I give it a 4 out of 10. It has it's moments, but a Bourne movie, it is not.