The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part
Green Book
Widows
The Walking Dead
Log in with Facebook
OR
By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies, and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
We want to hear what you have to say but need to verify your account. Just leave us a message here and we will work on getting you verified.
Please reference “Error Code 2121” when contacting customer service.
Critics Consensus: It isn't quite as compelling as the earlier trilogy, but The Bourne Legacy proves the franchise has stories left to tell -- and benefits from Jeremy Renner's magnetic work in the starring role.
Critic Consensus: It isn't quite as compelling as the earlier trilogy, but The Bourne Legacy proves the franchise has stories left to tell -- and benefits from Jeremy Renner's magnetic work in the starring role.
All Critics (226) | Top Critics (45) | Fresh (126) | Rotten (100) | DVD (3)
(Renner) has the required intensity and physicality to make his character-a highly-trained, genetically enhanced undercover agent-completely believable.
The Bourne Legacy is quieter, slower, more sobering. The conspiracy is bigger and darker than we thought.
Shares crucial DNA with the earlier films but is drawn from the shallower end of the gene pool.
Perhaps the most interesting question arising from The Bourne Legacy is just how long the filmmakers hope to trade on the Bourne name without any, you know, Bourne.
Renner and Weisz work well together as two hunted souls who initially need each other for utilitarian reasons.
Gilroy's a fine writer - he also penned Michael Clayton - but without the discipline of an action veteran like Greengrass to rein him in, he indulges his weakness to over-explain things.
It just isn't gripping and the story mechanics don't hold up to close scrutiny.
While it may not be satisfactory, both protagonists seem to be in a good place - at least for now.
The film may get a little cloak-and-dagger extreme at points, but you know what, who cares?
Gilroy's Bourne has no sense of space or connection, and takes for granted that we remember far too many details from the previous films.
Gilroy has succeeded in creating a proficient Bond/Bourne mash-up, that whilst losing some of the grit of the previous three creates a lighter, still intelligent and altogether enjoyable action film.
Bourne Legacy is an object lesson in how to screw up a reboot.
A pathetic and useless follow-up to an excellent trilogy, making us follow another fugitive guy while Jason Bourne is only mentioned but never appears. Besides, apart from a few efficient scenes, it is mostly confusing and tedious, especially in its uninspired chase scenes.
Super Reviewer
An interesting addition to the series which runs concurrent with the last film time wise. The plot is starting to get stretched a bit thin now though, I liked the original films gritty realistic feel. Overall I think it was a bit hyped up and the ending was a bit sudden, not what I was hoping for but still a good action film.
The Bourne Legacy looks and feels like another entry in the well liked series, but is missing the interesting characters and revelations that made the trilogy a massive hit in the last decade. Jeremy Renner is a fine actor and does well in the role of Aaron Cross, but the character itself is not as interesting as Jason Bourne and Matt Damon's magnetic portrayal which pushed it over the top. It was all about uncovering past mysteries before and it was genuinely compelling and well-crafted storytelling, but this entry is perfectly content to recycle material and deliver a mediocre story that doesn't have the push of past entries. Honestly, not much happens in this film in terms of the overall plot arc and the future is up in the air on whether or not we will ever get a sequel, which makes the non-ending of this film even more anti-climactic. The supporting characters also are not as compelling as the series past. Edward Norton plays a bland "villain" in this, despite also being an excellent actor, and Rachel Weisz is mostly wasted in the damsel in distress role. David Strathairn is certainly missed. The one criticism levied towards the original trilogy was the camerawork, which was mostly shaky-cam to add intensity, but some people complained they couldn't tell what was going on. I disagreed with this and thought it added a level of visceral satisfaction to the films. Legacy pretty much does away with them. It's a much more straightforward approach, adding to the blandness. There are some good things, mostly some excellent scenery and cinematography towards the beginning and some good action sequences. It is still Bourne, after all. The film itself is decently paced and can be entertaining, but it's a second rate version of the original films.
Bourne series scripter Tony Gilroy steps into the director's chair for this sidequel that takes the ideas from the previous films, and runs with it, giving us a deeper look into the world created in the other films, but through the eyes of some new (and a few old) characters. While not physically present, Jason Bourne, and what he was a part of, play a big role here, making the film's title of 'legacy' really appropriate. Set around (and during) some of the events of The Bourne Ultimatum, this is the story of a new agent whose fate has been sealed by the events of the first three films. His name is Aaron Cross, and, because of what Bourne did, he now founds himself on the run with a fellow person also deeply involved in all of the shadowy government business. The film has all the globe-trotting thrills you'd expect from this sort of thing, but it doesn't have the same impact as the other films, and this one is easily the weakest/least interesting. That doesn't mean that it is a bad film, but it just isn't as captivating. The ideas behind it are interesting, and I liked how the film shows the fallout and consequences of the events from previous films, but these new characters in general just aren't as compelling. Renner is solid as the leading man here, but I can't say the same for Weisz, who is rather underwhelming most of the time. I think Norton did decent too, though this seems more like a sleepwalk for him than anything else. As far as the cinematography goes, Robert Elswit delivers the goods, and we get some gorgeous stuff here. The editing, especially in the action moments is also far less choppy than before, but the action scenes themselves aren't as thrilling as the earlier ones. I did like the end chase, but it went on a tad too long. The hands down best part of the film though, has to be the utterly gripping and suspenseful laboratory shooting scene. That was some intense and chilling stuff. And that's probably Gilroy's best strength here- the ability to really deliver tension and suspense. The rest feels kinda routine, though still decent. Aside from not being as compelling, the essentially non-existent ending is really frustrating, even though I would like to see more of the Cross character, oddly enough. The film is also too long, and definitely feels that way. The script is also probably a tad too convoluted for its own good. In the end, as flawed as this might be (and it sure is), I did enjoy this, even if it fails to be as strong as its predecessors. This is one of my rare times where I'll give it the slightest recommendation possible, so give it a watch.
View All Quotes
View All