Runtime: 2 hours, 15 minutes
Rating: PG-13
Director: Tony Gilroy
Quick Impressions:
Here’s the burning question the movie left me asking. What color pill did Dr. Shearing take? I mean, she looks like Rachel Weisz. She’s a brilliant research scientist. And she can keep up with a genetically enhanced super spy while wearing fashionable clothes (and most likely uncomfortable shoes). Forget the blue pill and the green pill! I want the Rachel Weisz pill!
Anyway, heading into the theater, I couldn’t seem to get excited about The Bourne Legacy. I’m always suspicious of sequels to Matt Damon movies that don’t have Matt Damon in them. (Please don’t ask me for other examples.) Also Robert Ludlum didn’t write a fourth Bourne novel. On the other hand, I loved Michael Clayton so much that I was willing to give any effort by Tony Gilroy a shot. I’m also a big fan of Edward Norton.
I’m happy to report that The Bourne Legacy far exceeded my expectations. It’s not quite as good as the Jason Bourne focused trilogy. (For one thing, it has some serious pacing problems. The first thirty minutes of the movie seem a lot like what your impressions of The Bourne Ultimatim might be if you watch it inattentively while flipping through a National Geographic featuring a stunning photo essay on Alaskan wilderness. So you’re thinking, Ooh Alaska, flip, London, glance up, Oh yeah, Jason Bourne, flip, Ooh another world capital!) But eventually, the film hits its stride. Ultimately, it’s a perfectly worthy entry into the Bourne series. Parts of it also captivated me much more than I expected. Certain moments and themes resonated way more than I thought they would.
Another exciting bonus is that Donna Murphy’s in the movie. (She voices Mother Gothel in Tangled, a movie my daughter watched approximately nine thousand times when she was two.) I mention that only because she’s wonderfully talented and not in that many movies, though she did (all-too-briefly) play Rosalie Octavius in Spiderman 2.
The Good:
I’ve always thought that Rachel Weisz is gorgeous, and of course, she’s a very good actress. But I don’t always like her movies. (I don’t mean that she makes bad movies, just that she has a tendency to make films I don’t enjoy watching for whatever reason. I particularly loathe The Shape of Things.) But Weisz gives a phenomenal performance here. She’s by far the best thing about The Bourne Legacy.
It’s not just that Weisz gives a superlative performance. It’s not just that she projects tremendous energy, presence, and passion. Honestly, I think early on Weisz’s scenes are best because her character is given the best scenes. As a screenwriter and director, Gilroy seems very comfortable with the character of Dr. Marta Shearing, and he gives Rachel Weisz’s character all the best parts of the story.
Early on, we’re really not sure what’s going on with Aaron Cross. We appreciate that 1) He’s not Jason Bourne, and 2) He is Jeremy Renner, so we’re supposed to pay attention to him. But we don’t have enough information about his motivations and intentions. And even though we quickly realize everyone is trying to kill him, we really don’t know what makes him worth saving. (Of course, all human life is valuable. But I mean, initially, we have no idea what Aaron Cross is really like. We know we’re supposed to be in his corner. But do we want to be there?)
Shearing’s story comes into focus faster. We’re not given much backstory on her. But cinematically, we’re set up to empathize with her. I think the scenes that focus on the doctor and her trauma seem much more focused and better handled than the introduction to Cross.
For me, the highlight of the movie was realizing when and how Cross and Shearing come together. (It’s no surprise to anyone who’s ever watched a movie that their paths cross, of course. But you’re so happy when your expectations are fulfilled because a formerly scattered presentation suddenly turns to a tight focus that continues from then on, allowing dramatic tension to build.)
In previous Bourne movies, there’s always been a girl involved—Franka Potente, Julia Stiles—but here the girl seems more important. Dr. Shearing isn’t just connected to Cross. She also plays a vital role in what’s happening. She’s almost as much of a potential liability as he is. Instead of being star and love interest, Renner and Shearing are more like co-protagonists. And as a pair, they’re quite interesting. I hope the pairing lasts through two more movies. (How uncanny, too, that Rachel Weisz plays a major role in the Bourne franchise and is married to James Bond!)
As in previous Bourne installments, once the action starts happening, it’s fast and electrifying. You certainly see the allure of the blue pill. Catching one of these enhanced spies is like hunting a velociraptor. Instead of mindless violence, the film gives us extremely calculated and thoughtfully (though rapidly) executed violence.
Also as usual in these movies, the actors playing the team tracking Cross and Shearing are a seasoned bunch. You expect people like Edward Norton and Stacy Keach to give good performances, and they deliver. (Given how often you see his face in previews, though, Norton has relatively little screentime. I mean, he’s in the whole thing, and he’s always jumping in, but he doesn’t seem like a dominating force in the same way that Brian Cox, David Strathairn, or, particularly, Joan Allen did.) I actually thought Corey Stoll gave a conspicuously strong performance. He was both charismatic and memorable. (I kept racking my brains, too, trying to figure out where I’d seen him before. Now I know. He played Hemingway in Midnight in Paris.)
Another plus for me was all the stuff about viruses. I’ve long been fascinated by viruses and how they function (and potentially could function).
Best Scene Visually:
The first twenty to thirty minutes had me wanting to scream, “Okay! You win! You’ve sold me! I’ll go to Alaska!” As Legacy opens, our focus is pulled in a thousand different directions, and we’re only given brief glimpses of Aaron Cross who is very, very, very slowly moving faster than anybody else ever has. It’s hard not to be painfully aware that the movie needs to pick up the pace. Still who can deny the pristine beauty of wild Alaska? It’s hard not to be charmed by the setting (which dominates the screen more than either the new protagonist or the ghost of The Bourne Ultimatim). The scenes of Aaron on the mountain are breathtaking.
So I have to conclude that the best actor in the early part of the movie is Fortress Mountain, near Calgary, Canada (where they filmed, apparently). Fortress Mountain played a peak in Alaska so convincingly that I was ready to call my travel agent and book my next vacation.
Another visually stunning moment comes when Aaron stares down the wolf in the snow. What a gorgeous wolf! What big eyes he has!
Best Scene:
Two scenes tie here as far as I’m concerned. Tension is so high when Weisz’s Dr. Shearing tries to escape from her lab. The scene is riveting. Who can look away from a situation like that? Outstanding performances by Weisz, Zeljko Ivanek, and other supporting cast members make the scene quite memorable. The scene is also something special because it takes place in a locked room and gives us something tight and defined to focus on for the first time in the movie.
Another fantastic scene follows as Dr. Shearing retreats to her house in the country and takes an impromptu meeting. Weisz gives a magnificent performance here, but she’s not the only reason this scene stands out. The writing of the scene seems more focused. The world of the doctor and her laboratory experiments feels more real and relatable than anything we’ve seen from Aaron Cross or the government agency pursuing him. The movie seems more comfortable with Dr. Shearing. It makes better use of her than it does of Cross. The way the scene in Shearing’s house ends really
kicks the movie into high gear. Suddenly, we get sucked into the action. The plot clicks. The pacing picks up. The movie finds its footing and becomes consistently entertaining and engrossing.
Best Action Sequence:
The final chase sequence is when the movie really shines. Finally the pace has picked up. We know where our focus belongs. We’re invested in the characters and understand what they’re trying to achieve. We’re also offered a force of real menace that poses a serious and immediate threat, so the immediate stakes are incredibly high.
Normally I zone out during long action sequences, though I have a soft spot for well-orchestrated chase scenes. The on-foot action at the beginning of the chase echoes similar action scenes in the earlier Bourne movies and really has a signature series feel. But once the key participants get wheels, the visceral thrills really start and rapidly intensify.
To be honest, initially I thought the car was a bad choice for the other guy since he loses his terrifying edge that way. Wow, I thought, the automobile: the great equalizer. Then I saw what he could do with a car and amended my opinion a bit. Still, any panicked driver could have achieved the same road chaos that he instigated deliberately. He should have grabbed a bike in the beginning or found a way to force another pedestrian chase.
I would be lying if I said my thoughts didn’t wander a bit during all those long minutes of no dialogue. (Mainly I found myself wondering, What if they have kids together? How does laboratory-engineered genetic enhancement work with reproduction? Sperm are made fresh, but it takes three months for them to mature, so if they have sex that night, will all of his reproductive materials have caught up to the rest of him? Either way, of course, the kids would look like a cross between Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weisz, so they’d probably be okay even if they didn’t get the Bourne brains.)
Still I followed all the action on the screen and was pretty impressed when they decided to go perpendicular. What a great idea!
The Negatives:
The last half of the movie is exponentially stronger than the first half. Part of the problem, of course, is that we have to be introduced to Aaron Cross, and I don’t think that’s done particularly well. Back in the first movie, Jason Bourne seemed fascinating immediately. But in this movie, the long enigmatic Aaron Cross just hangs out in the wilderness for ages. Then he shows up someplace, meets somebody, and starts talking about stuff that may or may not be true. (We don’t know him. We don’t know what he’s like. We don’t know what he’s capable of. We don’t know what motivates him. We also don’t know the other guy.) Nobody in the entire world (which we see, incidentally, represented on screen by about as many countries as compete in the Olympics) cares what’s going on with Aaron Cross. He’s barely a blip for them. They’re all focused on finding Jason Bourne and denying and destroying everything connected to him.
What happens before the title shouldn’t be there. The opening is weak. You see some guy swimming around. Then, Boom, The Bourne Legacy. That type of opening should be reserved for scenes that really pop. That one doesn’t and fails more conspicuously as an opening scene by announcing itself with such undeserved fanfare.
Now once we finally learn more about Aaron Cross and what motivates him, we retroactively understand these opening moments better. But Jason Bourne was motivated by things that seem higher up on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Everything he did initially was based on a fight or flight response. Cross’s journey is more personal and character-driven. He doesn’t want to find out who he is (or was). He knows who he was. He wants to be someone else.
His motivations for obsessing over his meds seem shockingly shallow when he first reveals them. You’re expecting more for sure. Even Rachel Weisz’s character doesn’t get why he feels as strongly about them as he does. Of course, then we begin to understand. He needs his wits about him to survive—but only because he’s attracted their attention and put himself back on the map. He could have just run away into the wilderness of fake Alaska and settled for being himself.
So this action movie is strangely character driven. What’s at stake for Cross is different than what mattered to Jason Bourne.
Because of the type of movie this is, that type of lead protagonist doesn’t work as well as someone like Jason Bourne did. Bourne felt more high octane. The stakes aren’t initially as high for Cross. But that’s why the movie needs Shearing, too. And I think that’s why it seems to focus on her and improves when she’s onscreen. Shearing’s story is the one with the high stakes. From a narrative point of view, she’s much more like Bourne than Cross is. She’s the character facing high stakes for no reason that she understands. She’s the character whose struggle sets the story in motion.
Until Cross and Shearing get together, the movie can’t decide where it wants us to look and doesn’t really have a steadily progressing series of related events that it wants us to see. Cross may have the training and the genetic alterations, but Shearing brings the focus and the momentum to the story.
When I heard Moby’s Bourne theme shriek onto the screen, I couldn’t believe it. I had just finally gotten totally engrossed by the movie. The story had kicked into high gear. I thought it was the middle of the movie—honestly I did!—and then it was suddenly the end. I was stunned and kind of disappointed. Of course, on the flip side, they’ve perfectly positioned a sequel. I hope they’re making a sequel. That’s the only reason I can think of for including the disappointing stuff we learn about Pamela Landy near the ending of the movie.
Overall:
The Bourne Legacy got off to a slow start, but then it really got good and ended way before I was ready. I’d gladly watch a sequel. (I’m hoping two further installments are planned.) Shearing and Cross make a terrific team, and the introduction of a new antagonist also added an intriguing layer to a franchise that could become Bond-like and unending.