The hugely popular Bourne series returns to UK cinemas this week, with high expectations after the critical and commercial success of the previous three films. The new film moves the story away from Jason Bourne and on to Aaron Cross, played by Jeremy Renner, who takes the reigns as the new star of the franchise. Does it continue the consistently level of smart action film-making set by the previous trilogy, or does it falter under the weight of expectation?
After a long and happy history with the Bourne series – for myself at least – it was with a certain level of cautiousness that I approached the newest incarnation of the franchise, with one or two key elements missing: one, the indications of no Matt Damon, whose journey from uncertain amnesiac to righteous secret soldier over the course of three films has been one of the best in action movie history. Two: the source material changed – having completed Jason Bourne’s story arc, Robert Ludlum’s novels are now an ‘inspiration’ for this and possible future films as opposed to direct on-screen adaptations of his work. Even so, with Tony Gilroy directing – he wrote the Bourne Ultimatum – as well as the double team of Jeremy Renner/Rachel Weisz, and the exciting trailer shown before every blockbuster this year, I had to believe there was still life in the old dog yet.
As previously mentioned, the story now focuses upon Aaron Cross, presented as a chemically enhanced super-soldier recruited under the same secret military project that created Jason Bourne and others. After a public investigation into the assassination of a journalist investigating Jason Bourne, secretive forces within the U.S. government begin to silence the subjects and scientists involved in Operation: Treadstone, taking matters into their own hands; pursued across the globe by Col. Eric Byers (Edward Norton) and others, the film begins to follow Aaron Cross’s attempts to break free of their clutches and free himself from Treadstone forever.
Somewhat vindicating my original misgivings, there are but a few positives to The Bourne Legacy; for one, Jeremy Renner gives a solid performance as Aaron Cross, a much different character to that of Matt Damon’s Bourne, instantly confident in his own abilities and with good reason; through flashback sequences we eventually find out more about the man and how he came to be involved with Treadstone in the first place. His character, sort of an anti-Bourne in many ways, is as a result hard to root for, with no apparent weaknesses and an almost superhero-like physique, intelligence, perception. These superhuman abilities – crucially – are focused upon from the outset, perhaps in order to logically and silently explain the larger-scale feel of the action sequences that take place throughout, giving Cross a competitive edge that Bourne never seemed to have – in the process, foolishly revising the context of Bourne’s exploits in the previous three films. Edward Norton gives his usual great performance as Byers, unusually establishment which provides refreshing contrast to much of his previous work. From a visual point of view, fans will be happy to learn that very little has changed – it’s still relatively stripped-down, with only hints of CGI creeping in as Cross and enemies leap from building to building without a harness in sight. And – yes – Moby’s tacked on to the credits for another remix of Extreme Ways.
But, sadly, there are also a few negatives to be found: Rachel Weisz tries her best as the damsel in distress role but is burdened by some confusingly sudden shifts in her mental state, a world-class scientist one moment, generic dumb blonde (brunette?) in an action movie the next. That same sense of confusion pervades throughout, with a slow, uninspired opening sequence, followed by flashes of the intriguingly obscured backstory that made the previous trilogy so addictive, mixed haphazardly with heavy-handed character development, rounded off by a sad, simple lack of movie magic; by the end credits, there was the lasting feeling of dissatisfaction, hard to shake. Not a terrible film by any means, but underwhelming, missing the humanizing touches – and only occasionally providing a glimpse of the inventive spirit – that made its predecessors so likeable.
Deryn O’Sullivan (@silverscene_)
Deryn Paul O'Sullivan 