This is much better than sour critics say it is.

Rating: 9/10 (25 January 2013)

A lot has been said about this film not really being part of the Ludlum legacy, not fitting in with the Damon movies and that is was actually made 'just to make money'. It's like 60s fans reactions to Rolling Stones records beyond 1969. And because of all that, and more, people did not like it even without actually watching it. But I did and I'm glad for doing so. "The Bourne Legacy" is actually a very good, tight thriller that only loses momentum towards the end. The first gripping and superbly filmed hour rushes by in great action style. Adding touches of previous films is precisely what I would have expected Tony Gilroy to do. I mean, he has never delivered a bad scenario and takes viewers seriously. Leaving the glamor locations from previous outings to instead add Alaska, Maryland and Manila is a nice touch. But it is on that last location that the plot leaves something interesting, something intelligent to be desired. As if Gilroy did not finish the script but just wanted to end with some action scenes. Or the studio did.
All in all, studios always make movies to make money and anybody who has even in this day and age not got a grip on that fact should move to unknown planets. Whether or not a sequel becomes part of a legacy is impossible to say right now. James Bond did a good job at it Jeremy Renner is excellent as our action hero and Edward Norton fits in pretty good even though he hasn't got much to go with. That the film looks much calmer (and maybe therefore somewhat more boring to audiences that can't sit still for two seconds) also has to do with the fact that this Bourne did not get the Greengrass treatment. For pace and editing it would be much more useful to compare this number 4 to the original Damon film. And even then these parts may differ as much as any director likes.
9/10 And if there comes a number 5, I'll watch that one as well.