A cheap grab for cash.

Rating: 4/10 (24 August 2012)

In the previous films it is the story of Bourne's quest for identity/redemption that drives the narrative. With the carefully constructed development of the Bourne character you "empathise" for Bourne. He is an "innocent" who doesn't kill unless he has too. As good as Renner is as an actor, this movie didn't gel like the others which Is a director/script problem. Aaron Cross is simply not a compelling character. Gilroy might have written the screen play for the other movies, but previous director Paul Greengrass does a far superior job in directing both the action and plot elements. His work is sorely missed in this movie.
Other problems abound throughout the movie. Where are Pamela Landy and Noah Volson? Tacked on the end as a cheap after thought so that there can be a sequel. The ending feels odd as there's no real resolution.
One of the most powerful elements in the previous films was the music; the clear musical 'themes' in the previous movies for each character/scenario instantly conveyed both plot and gave the audience an emotional connection with narrative. I would have expected to hear echoes of these themes in a movie claiming to be a "legacy" of the previous movies - but not one of these is present which I found really disappointing.
This movie had big shoes to fill ... and didn't. It feels like a studio trying to cash-in on the success of the previous movies.