A Bourne Legacy minus Bourne

Rating: 7/10 (11 August 2012)

Can a Sequel/Spin off stand up to the original series without it's protagonist ??
This is the million dollar question I asked myself when I first heard about this movie being made. Watching the film it seems everyone involved with this project at Universal also had the same question in mind because although the movie is not half bad it is stuck between trying to be a departure from the original trilogy while also trying to retain the structural similarities with it.
It took everyone by surprise when both Matt Damon and director Paul Greengrass decided not to come back and do a fourth one which was being planned as the final chapter before the inevitable reboot. While Damon brought a very sympathetic and human side to this spy character, it was Paul Greengrass who infused Bourne 2 and Bourne 3 with a non stop sense of kinetic energy that worked very well for the franchise .
Tony Gilroy, writer/director knows this universe very well having written all the previous films and it shows. There is a lot of filling the gaps in the plot in the first half of the movie where Gilroy resorts to lengthy dialog and slow paced editing to expand on the idea of why and how is CIA going to kill it's rogue agents referencing events from Bourne Supremacy and Ultimatum to give us a sense that the narrative is set running parallel to those two movies. It comes of as a smart writing move to let us know more shady details and background about the whole CIA recruitment and training program and why do they want to run down their own super spy program.
Edward Norton plays Eric Bryer, an ex military recruiter for the agency now brought back to "clean up the mess". It's a welcome departure for Norton who revels in playing grey characters and he does justice to what is given to him. Watching him perform I was asking myself why did they not cast him as the lead in this one, he does not look too old for the part and would have made a solid upgrade from Matt Damon.But keeping my nerdy wishes aside I realized how good Jeremy Renner was in this role as Aaron Cross, from the opening sequence in Alaska to the hyper kinetic climax in Manila he seemed right for the part and elevated a few sequences with his unpredictability. The memory loss of a super spy is done away with a sci-fi element that does seem a little too convenient at times. Helping him on his journey for survival is Rachel Weisz as Dr.Marta Shearing who is indirectly contributing to the cause of creating these super spies via administering what is referred to as "chems" (enhancing drugs) into their bodies. This is where the movie somewhat has it's biggest failure, there is absolutely no chemistry between Renner and Weisz even though the director included a few scenes to build on it.
The movie boasts of more strengths than weaknesses in editing, cinematography and excellent background score by James Newton Howard. While it may not have many crowd pleasing moments which will leave many average action movie goers somewhat disappointed, I was more than happy to enjoy the more logically constructed plot . It is clear from the beginning that Gilroy is going for a more cerebral and toned down approach compared to the previous films. There is radical shift in the second half of the narrative and the movie never lets up after that. The last 20 to 30 minutes really crank it up on the action quotient that leave you wanting more.
So here it is, while not as great as it's predecessors the movie is a solid entry into the franchise if you can sit through the talky and expository first half. Matt Damon is surely missed for his presence and charisma but Renner fits right into his role and ensures that the Bourne's legacy is not tarnished after all
7 stars out of 10.