Not really a Bourne film...

Rating: 6/10 (28 September 2012)

If you're looking for a prime example of an unnecessary sequel, look no further. Though Edward Norton's Byer states that "Bourne was just the tip of the iceberg", The Bourne Legacy, instead of going beneath the surface and exploring more of the story, chips away at a completely different iceberg, and in the end has very little to do with the original trilogy of Bourne films.
Brief clips and flashes from The Bourne Ultimatum incorporated in here reveal that due to Jason Bourne's actions, shady government organisations must terminate all evidence of Treadstone and Outcome operations, including test subjects, in order to escape exposure. One such target is Aaron Cross, played by Jeremy Renner, who is now meant to be Matt Damon's successor in the franchise. Here most of the similarities between the original films and Legacy cease, and the film starts to go off in its own direction. Cross must now evade assassination and find specific "chems", pills that allow him to retain his physical and mental superiority.
Though Renner in recent years has proved himself as a formidable action star through the likes of Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol and The Avengers, he is by no means Jason Bourne, and the film consequently is left with an evident Matt Damon-shaped empty space. Likewise, Rachel Weisz's love interest, as opposed to Franka Potente and Julia Stiles, doesn't do much but stand there and scream for the majority of her screen time. This is a shame, as both actors have proved themselves over the years as being quite skilled in their craft, but unfortunately they have been thrown into unsuitable roles. Likewise, whilst Joan Allen and Albert Finney (veterans of the previous films) make appearances, they could have had a much more significant screen presence. Edward Norton, as well, feels significantly underused.
The gritty, 'shaky-cam' cinematography utilised by Paul Greengrass is sorely missed in this film, thereby depriving The Bourne Legacy of its sense of realism, effectively giving it the appearance of just another action movie. Whilst the set-pieces in the previous film's were at least moderately plausible, action scenes in Legacy seem just plain silly. For example, Cross forces a large, vicious wolf to swallow a tracking device before it is annihilated by a military drone. It is also has a hideously anti-climatic ending, especially seeing the amount of plot points and twists that it sets up.
Don't get me wrong, The Bourne Legacy is not a bad film. The story itself is quite riveting and exhilarating, and some of the action scenes, such as an intense motorbike chase through the streets of Manila, are amongst some of the best I've seen in recent years. The problem is that the Bourne Legacy, though standing by itself as a component action film, doesn't have a significant role or position in the Bourne series. Whilst Identity, Supremacy and Ultimatum are a succinct, well-structured and written series of films that are a unique addition to the spy sub-genre, Legacy feels out of place, and in many ways inferior in comparison, not to mention having little to do with the other films. It would have been much better if they retitled the film completely, for instance calling it The Cross Conspiracy, and severed it from The Bourne franchise.
The Bourne Legacy, despite being a decent action/thriller film in its own right, lives in the shadow of its predecessors, and suffers from the absence of Matt Damon. It is a prime example of a studio trying to milk a successful franchise, and though it should be viewed for its interesting storyline and its substantial action, should not be considered a serious addition to the Bourne series.
6/10