The Bourne Legacy

cinema, The Bourne Legacy (2012) film

What was the Bourne legacy? As a series of films, it gave us a sympathetic, multidimensional action star. It gave us plenty to enjoy. It had its own style, not all of which was for the good - shaky-cam fights and chases meant you couldn't always see what was going on. But with a new Director, a new star, and a new direction away from the character of the title, this fourth film could be just the fresh reinvigoration the series needed if it was to continue the story of government-sanctioned assassin programmes. Not that 'The Bourne Ultimatum' needed much improvement, rather it was the best of the three and to top it would take a whirlwind mix of incredible, never-before-seen action, a story with heart and heart-in-the-mouth twists, and most importantly of all, overcoming the biggest potential stumbling block: creating a worthwhile follow-up to Jason Bourne, a man we cared about and had great sympathy with.

I can see why the Director of the last two films, Paul Greengrass, and star, Matt Damon, didn't want to do another film. I doubt it was because they were holding out for more money. They probably realised that to succeed with a fourth film they'd need to mess with the perfect ending of 'Ultimatum' and come up with something groundbreaking. They probably felt it was a futile effort to try. They were probably right. When I first heard that another Bourne film was to be produced, I was excited. I hadn't seen any of the first three in the cinema, had first cottoned on to the series when I saw a trailer for 'Ultimatum.' The stunt where Bourne leaps from a roof to smash through a window, the camera following all the way, was what piqued my interest. So eventually, and upon recommendation, I bought all three on DVD.

While I prefer the 'Mission: Impossible' films in general, I got a lot of enjoyment from Bourne's trilogy. As time wore on, and it was confirmed that a new actor and character would be at the forefront, I had less excitement at the prospect, but I expected there would still be sufficient thrills generated that it could be good. After seeing 'M:I4' and not really warming to Jeremy Renner, I began to have doubts whether this was a film that would live up to its predecessors, but as the release drew closer I heard that it would be tied into the other film's backstories, particularly 'Ultimatum,' taking place in the same time frame. This really interested me, and with the news that some of the same characters would also be in it, I was ready to see it. Then I read a few preliminary, brief reviews online, mainly with the word 'disappointing' appearing in them, and I began to revert back to my suspicions that this was just going to be a cash-in on the Bourne name.

Nevertheless, I went along to see it, with low expectations, hoping just a little bit that it would at least be better than 'M:I4,' another disappointment to me. I care more about the 'M:I' series so I thought as long as this film gripped me, even if it had a ludicrous plot, I could get over it. From the start I was surprised how slow and talky it was. Very little happened in the first twenty minutes or so, and though I got the reference to 'The Bourne Identity' (and the ending of 'Ultimatum'), I guessed the floating figure was a diver. The old familiar theme, sad and haunting, played over that opening, but there the similarity ended. There was far too much talk about this government organisation and that government organisation. Aaron (can't even remember his surname) had no mystery to him, had no confusion or inner conflict to overcome. Where Bourne had a wildness in his eyes, the fight between his programming and his conscience, Aaron had a jolly glint in his eye a lot of the time, and though he was reacting to an attempt on his life throughout, I never felt he was in danger or being put through the wringer, physically or otherwise. The impression for me was that he was always comfortably in control.

His obligatory female sidekick - this time a doctor, part of the medical facility that patched up and tested the shady assassins, though having no knowledge of who they are, what they do, or why, was so bland compared with the quirkiness of Marie, or Nicki's understated professionalism, and reminded me more of Michelle Monaghan's character from 'M:I3' - there was even a scene reminiscent of that film's ending, when she has to fire a gun, crouching in a corner, trying to do all she can to help her man. The whole scene in her house was one of the better moments (good job she didn't want the place any more!), and actually would have improved the opening if the film had begun with that, then flashed back to explain how they got to that point. It would have greatly sped up the slow start and given us more reason to be interested in the two of them. Another early scene in which I felt some tension was at the hut in the mountains. The guy he meets looks like he could snap and attack him at any moment, and had a bit of mystery to him. What had he done to be sent up to the remote cabin?

Nitpicking quickly began to surface, which shows there was too much time to think: sending drones into that kind of snowstorm wouldn't work. For one thing they wouldn't be able to see to control it, and for another the signal probably wouldn't get through. It also struck me as a bad way to assassinate someone. I know they could track their agents by the metal cylinder implanted under the skin, but if he'd had a cellar or something, he might have survived the missile fired at his hut - it wasn't a clean kill. Although there was little to grasp onto with Aaron, I at least felt Renner fit more in this film than he did 'M:I4,' and he was perfectly likeable, he just didn't have a journey to travel. His 'problem' was needing drugs and the necessity of being weaned off them, which is hardly a compelling reason to care compared to a fractured memory, guided by conscience. But then, that was the writer's problem: how could they follow up such a good trilogy with something equally as good.

Instead, they gave us a fairly generic action film, which emulated the Bourne style, with a point of view that never properly sits still, a cut and slash approach to editing, while also squeezing in occasional environmental beauty shots, but it didn't come across as natural. I wish Doug Liman, Director of the first film, had come back for this one instead of an unknown, but regardless of who was in charge, they were on a hiding to nothing. I can see the pieces in place: man's life on the line, needs drugs, goes to woman's house, rescues her from murderous government types, they go on the run, she helps him get out of his addiction, they run away together, happy ever after. Where could the story go from there? There were loose threads they dropped in right at the end with Pam Landy showing up for all of five seconds, her triumph at the end of 'Ultimatum' turned into defeat, with Noah Vosen, also of that parish, still seemingly able to land her in the dirt.

It was not good to undermine the positive conclusion of 'Ultimatum' just to include Landy. Joan Allen's name was on the poster, a cheat to make you think she was a part of the story, when in reality she only has that fleeting moment at the end. Cheap. It was also disappointing to see a few clips from 'Ultimatum' (such as the journalist being shot), or having Herschel back only to mention he apparently died of a heart attack, though the implication was that he'd been dealt with. There was so little of the story happening in sync with 'Ultimatum,' which is what helped sell the film to me before I saw it, that it may as well have been unconnected, although there was some fun in seeing a film in 2012 taking place in 2007. But it was too long. I don't know how long, taking into account adverts and trailers, but it was definitely longer than the other films, and I felt it. It dragged, and the thrill of seeing a Bourne film in the cinema quickly lost its appeal.

I remember looking at my watch and knowing there was supposed to be an exciting chase sequence still to come, and I couldn't work out how they were going to end it. They copied the first film, but because there had been no journey for the main characters to go on, there was no satisfaction in the end. The agent that chases after them in the bike pursuit came out of nowhere, served his purpose in creating a threat, then drives into a pillar and flips off his bike. He was certainly no Desh. One of the irritants of the film was in the constant revelation that there was another government organisation, or another crooked boss, and oh… we've killed off all our secret agent programmes, but we just happen to have LARX-3, and our man is only two hours away from Aaron's position. Handy, but not believable. The opponent had none of the character of previous Bourne villains, and never even got to fight Aaron, so the worst he had to deal with were security guards. None of this helps to perpetuate the impression of an elite operative.

That sense of the bad guys not really knowing what they were dealing with was another missing piece in the character puzzle. Why take away all the compelling parts of the previous character if you aren't going to replace them with new aspects. Yes, this guy can wrestle wolves, he uses things around him (liked the fire extinguisher 'gun'), and does plenty of running, but he's never on the back foot, he never impressed me with his quick thinking or planning ahead. All these things should have been taken as granted, or replaced with new ideas, but there was nothing that made me sit up and take notice. Even the music didn't have a strong theme - sometimes there was the electric guitar throbbing which worked, but I didn't hear a theme blazing out, and only the rare strains of melancholy, sleepy Bourne music when we see Jason's passport photo, broke through. I don't know if it John Powell was composing again, but I'd be surprised if it was, because it lacked the pulse and vision for its own identity. It felt so wrong for them to use the same 'Extreme Ways' song at the end, even if it may have been remixed, because it's so associated with Bourne. There should have been a similar, but different song, maybe by the same artist, but for this new character.

It shows that they were trying to colour inside the lines, neatly, carefully, just bright enough to be recognisable as a Bourne film without it stepping outside a generic mould, and one that wasn't followed deeply enough. Everything worked together to thoroughly underwhelm, and I wanted to like it, I really did. It wasn't shoddy, or badly put together, it was just bland, like the characters. And when it wasn't bland it was crossing over into something nasty. I felt it in both the scene the doctor is being forced to shoot herself, but mainly in the one in which her colleague calmly locks everyone in the lab and goes round shooting them, before committing suicide. It was too close to reality, we keep hearing about shootings, and it wasn't entertaining to watch, or even full of tension. It was just nasty, and I didn't understand how they'd made him do that.

So it was resolutely average, with no mystery and nowhere for the story to go. It ended abruptly without earning a happy ending, the music was only acceptable, the shaky-cam was worse than ever, and I was allowed to lose interest. The best that can be said is that it didn't go down the cliched romantic route, one expertly avoided in 'Ultimatum,' and it was a relief that there was no hair-cutting scene. But I won't be buying the DVD, and they'll have to do something really special to get me to come back for a fifth one. £9.45 good, it was not. Its true title should have been either 'The Boredom Legacy' or 'The Bourne Betrayal' - I always wished I'd seen a Bourne film at the cinema, and I still wish I had.

**