Does not live up to the original trilogy

Rating: 6/10 (2 September 2012)

I love and admire the work of Paul Greengrass in the original Bourne films. So when confronted with this "Bourne Legacy", I was disappointed and angry. I did try to find aspects of the film to like, which there were some, but the vast majority, including the plot, was dull and frustrating.
The fundamental platform on which a film is made should be moulded around the plot. After you have this firmly established and perfected this you can go onto looks, action etc...The thing that made the first trilogy so good wasn't the cinematography or the epic car chases just by themselves, but this combined with an intriguing plot. Action scenes on the big screen look great but after you walk out of the cinema you focus on the plot and it was a let down.
From the start, it was flawed, with the original films the audience became invested in Bourne's future and who and what this man really is. Yet with Legacy, Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner) lacks any mystery about him. Character development falls into the category of plot. The science- fiction that was incorporated into this film was childish and "unbourne" like.
Even the action sequences were similar, especially the motorbike chase scene in Manila. This was on par with the motorbike chase in Tangier, Morrocco in Ultimatum. Most of the audience, I presume, would have seen the previous Bourne film, so they don't want to pay more money to see the same thing over again.
To the positives, the Alaskan scenes were memorable and beautiful. The dog fight scene unique. All the Bourne films have looked great because they go to different cities and landscapes. The acting was good as well but their characters were let down by poor writing.
This film was never really engaging but the entire plot was cringeful. I mean seriously, little pills are the driving force behind the plot. Skyfall better be good...