Jason Bourne

Hello dear reader. I’m going to start here with a statement that some of you may find controversial. A statement that some of you may not believe and possibly, a statement that you could just find plain odd. So here it is and please note that I was not under the influence of any mind altering substances, nor did I have a gun point at my head whilst typing.
‘I consider the first three Bourne films, Identity, Supremacy and Ultimatum, to be the best movie trilogy ever made.’ That’s right, I said it. As far as I’m concerned you can keep your Star Wars, Godfathers and Lord of the Rings away from the gold medal plinth, as they have no business being there. I would also like to state for the record that I am also including the Christopher Nolan’s Batman films in that statement and for those of you who know me personally; you’ll understand what a big deal that is.

Now, I do also acknowledge that I doubt there will be many people out there in internet land who agree with me. Not only that but many of you will probably be now thinking about contacting your local social services and demanding to know why this man is allowed out into the community and why he’s been given unsupervised access to a computer. The reason why I think it’s the best is quite simply down to the story arc, characters and its action set pieces. Doug Liman (Mr. & Mrs. Smith, Swingers and Edge of Tomorrow) directed The Bourne Identity and then Paul Greengrass (United 93, Green Zone & Captain Phillips) took over and stepped into the director’s chair for Supremacy and Ultimatum. Between the two of them they managed to create a trilogy that didn’t pull its punches. It made the central character completely believable and stopped short of making him look like a superhero and then there’s the action. In Identity it showed us how to take out an American Embassy, Supremacy included a master class in driving and then, my personal favourite, the shootout in Ultimatum that was filmed in the middle of Waterloo station during a real rush hour with the general public none the wiser. What is also obvious from these three films is that a lot of energy and effort went into making them look and feel believable. Now at the end of Supremacy Mr. Bourne (spoilers ahead) swims away, up the Hudson River to live happily ever after. All loose ends having been neatly taken care of and all bad guys either taken into custody or swiftly dispatched. It’s the perfect three film story arc and yet those horrible little bean counters over at Universal decided that there was still money to be made from the Bourne name and unleashed The Bourne Legacy into the world, back in 2012. Which was a full five years after Supremacy had set sale. Legacy is an odd film. Despite the Bourne prefix, Matt Damon doesn’t appear in it. It goes back into the early mythology to try and justify its plot and it messes around with established facts from the films that came before it. However, it does have a good ensemble cast, which includes Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz and Edward Norton but as far as I can tell it was just a money making exercise that didn’t have the story or commitment to back it up.

So this brings us back to 2016. Now, to cut down on any confusion, from now on, I’m going to refer to the character Jason Bourne as ‘JB’ and the film as Jason Bourne, otherwise and to quote Dr Peter Venkman we could end up with ‘Human sacrifice dogs and cats living together and mass hysteria’, before this blog is finished. Why they couldn’t have just carried on utilising Robert Ludlum book titles is beyond me. The Bourne Betrayal was available and would have fitted the premise of the film very nicely but oh no. Let’s keep the character name and the film name exactly the same just so no one gets confused about what’s going on, that’ll work…

Matt Damon had on several previous occasions said that he would be more than happy to come back and play JB again but only if Paul Greengrass was director and the story made sense. Well in the summer 2015 he got his wish and cameras started rolling on what was to be the forth film with JB in it. Now, when I first heard about this film I wasn’t entirely sure that it was a good idea but over the last ten to twelve months or so my resolve weakened and I actually found myself thinking that, as the release date drew closer, I was getting more and more enthusiastic about it. This enthusiasm was reinforced with positive reports from various filming locations and early good word of mouth from film critics, whose opinions I value. So, with a happy disposition and a bounce in my step, I found myself heading off to my local multiplex, very much looking forward to seeing Matt Damon once again playing JB in Jason Bourne. My good mood lasted about thirty minutes.

It is my sad duty to inform you all that in my opinion Jason Bourne is an even bigger let down than Batman v Superman was. It’s just a really dull and lifeless movie. The plot, such that it is, centres on JB’s dad and how JB ends up being in the ‘super-soldier’ program which then also ties into the CIA’s plans to utilise and control a social media to monitor anyone and everyone.  It just seems painting by numbers when it comes to the action as well. There’s nothing new on offer here. We get the obligatory car chase. Been there, done that. Fisty cuffs with several, poorly trained CIA goons and the now almost necessary ‘which passport shall I use today’ shot. Mr. Damon has to contend with only twenty five lines of dialogue throughout the entire two hour film, which unfortunately doesn’t translate into a strong and silent type. It’s more along the lines of mute and moody. Don’t get me wrong; sometimes ‘less is more’ does work really well. Arnold Schwarzenegger only had seventeen words to say in the first Terminator film and that worked perfectly. I can honestly say that for hype versus end result, I don’t think I’ve been this disappointed in a film since Ridley Scott’s Prometheus. As I said before, there’s nothing new on offer here. The end of the film is set in Las Vegas, during which we see JB take on and defeat ‘The Asset’ (another well trained assassin, to those not in the know) and he’s played by Vincent Cassel. 

IF I WANTED TO WATCH MATT DAMON AND VINCENT CASSEL PLAY GOOD GUY VS BAD GUY IN VEGAS, I’D WATCH THE SODING OCEANS 11 FILMS!!!

Jason Bourne also has this year’s best supporting actress Oscar winner, Alica Vikander in it but she is doesn’t really get anything substantial to do. Apart from driving a van around the outskirts of Paddington Station and occasionally winding up CIA Director Robert Dewy, played by Tommy Lee Jones her sole purpose of the entire film seems to be to try and occasionally point the plot back in the right direction. And as for the aforementioned Mr. Jones. He seems to be doing a very passable impression of someone who has a face made out of liquid granite and that really didn’t have anything better to do.

Jason Bourne is a film that I really wanted to like but it’s a mess, pure and simple. I’ve read several reviews over the last week that have all hovered around the four out of five stars mark but honestly I think they must have been watching a completely different film to the one I saw. It’s boring and can apparently induce people into yawning at the drop of a hat. If you liked the first three films and let’s face it, they are like awesome and stuff, then just re-watch one of those instead of spending your hard earned money on something that will only tarnish the memory of a once great franchise.

Twitter Review:
Jason Bourne is about as exciting as switching energy providers & should be avoided if possible.
#JasonBored

Useful Links:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4196776/?ref_=nv_sr_1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v71ce1Dqqns
http://www.empireonline.com/movies/jason-bourne/review/

Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation

Hello dear reader. Just under twenty years ago Brian De Palma thought it would be a great idea to turn a TV series from the 1960’s into a film. Now back then this wasn’t as common as occurrence as it is now. These days you can’t go more than a couple of weeks, at most, without reading about someone in Hollywood wanting to relaunch, reboot and refranchise a show from the telly box. Recently we’ve had The Smurfs, 21 Jump Street and even the Man From U.N.C.L.E., grace our Multiplexes. However, back in the good old and glorious days of 1996 it wasn’t that commonplace. Movie goers were being offered everything from Independence Day to Fargo, Twister to Mars Attacks and Trainspotting to Scream without even a hint of cathode ray tube being the birthplace of inspiration. 

To say the first Mission Impossible film was a gamble by Paramount is a bit of an understatement. Sure De Palma had a great track record at that point, Scarface, The Untouchables and Carlito’s Way are impressive films but when thinking about directors with a proven record for bringing action to the screen, he’s not the first name that would spring to mind. Then of course there are budget concerns. Throw too much money at it and you’ll never make a profit. Not enough and you’ll look like the company that didn’t want to take it seriously. Thankfully someone in Paramount liked the screenplay, written David Koepp and Steven Zaillian, enough to let De Palma go away and play with eighty million dollars. And that’s going back to a time when eighty million dollars was considered a lot of money. Three sequels later, that have been directed by the likes of John Woo, JJ Abrams and Brad Bird, we find ourselves looking down the barrel of film five in the series, Rogue Nation, and things seem to be showing no signs of slowing down anytime soon.

Now I went into watching this Rogue Nation with high expectations. Its director, Christopher McQuarrie, is responsible for what is, in my humble opinion, the greatest screenplay ever written. Now I know that is a bold statement. Especially when you currently have the likes of Aaron Sorkin, Jane Goldman, Joss Whedon and Tina Fey wondering around, seemingly able to produce Oscar quality material faster than it takes most people to get up, shower and have breakfast. The screenplay I am referring to is of course ‘The Usual Suspects’ and if you haven’t seen the film may I suggest you do so this instant. May I also recommend (Warning: self-indulgent promotional plug ahead) you read my gloriously brilliant blog about the film too. Click here for awesomeness!

Rogue Nation is McQuarrie’s third stint sitting in the director’s chair. Following on from ‘Way of the Gun’ in 2000 and ‘Jack Reacher’ in 2012 and in many ways he’s still finding his feet. A lot of reviews I’ve read for this film have called it the best in the franchise, a masterclass in action etc etc but I came away from the film ever so slightly disappointed with what I’d just seen. Sure it does have great action, it has witty dialogue and most of the core cast returning but it doesn’t seem to be the great movie it’s trying so hard to be. It fails at being the sum of its parts. The stunts are visually entertaining but even having Mr Cruise stuck on the side of a nice and shiny green aeroplane as it takes off (and it really did have Mr Cruise stuck on the side of a nice and shiny green aeroplane as it takes off) just didn’t work for me. There are motorbike chases. A gun and knife battle that takes place in, around and on top of the Vienna Opera House and there’s also an underwater set piece that anyone who even remotely has a fear of drowning will find hard to watch. But overall I kept thinking ‘been there, done that’ as I watched it. 

Where the film really works though is with the introduction of new characters. Alec Baldwin pops up as Alan Hunley. A CIA head honcho with more than a passing dislike for Ethan Hunt and all things IMF. However, the real gem in Rogue Nation is Rebecca Ferguson. She plays Ilsa Faust, an undercover agent that used to work for British Intelligence. Without going in to spoiler territory it’s quite hard to say much more about this character but I will say that she is every bit Hunt’s equal, both intellectually and physically. She can not only run with the big boys, she can get them to dance to her tune as well. But for every good side of the coin there’s normally a bad side too and Rogue Nations bad side comes along in the form of Sean Harris playing the chief big bad guy, Solomon Lane. Through no real fault of Mr Harris, you can only act with what you are given after all, Solomon comes across as a badly written James Bond villain or a comic character that’s never really made it to the ‘A League’. Solomon is also ex-British Intelligence but has an accent that could best be described as wandering. Solomon never really delivers on the whole aura of menace thing that is almost a contractual obligation these days when it comes to bad guys. This is partly down to a haircut that looks like it was done at home in front of a mirror and a wardrobe selection that looks like he got dressed in the dark. I got the feeling that Mr Lane would have looked and felt more at home in an episode of ‘The Great British Bake Off’ than running an international crime consortium. Which leads me to another big problem I have with the film. 

The organisation that Solomon runs is called ‘The Syndicate’ and again without giving to much away is basically a branch of the Civil Service with muscle.  This muscle also has access to money, which it uses to help fund terrorists, wrong doers and anyone else who has a vested interest in sponsored violence (Scouts, Salvation Army, Mothercare, etc). But as a premise it just doesn’t work. The plot of the film revolves around the Syndicate needing to get its hands on a computer thingy that will give them access to virtually unlimited funds. However, the British PM is the only one who can activate the computer to release these funds. This requires a voice print and about nineteen other levels of security that have to be cleared. But of course that’s why these films are called Mission Impossible. 

On the whole it Rogue Nation isn’t a bad film but it’s certainly not the best of the franchise either. I enjoyed watching the fourth instalment ‘Ghost Protocol’ a lot more than this offering but it’s still head and shoulders above John Woo’s Mission Impossible II. That is not an easy watch and even forgiving the obligatory doves (why are there always doves in John Woo films?) It has Tom Cruise with long hair, a convoluted love story with Thandie Newton and more continuity errors than you can shake a stick at.  

As I touched on before the majority of the core cast have returned here, Including Jeremy Renner as William Brandt and Simon Pegg as Benji Dunn. Both of whom carry the films lighter and comedic touches very well. Renner isn’t given a lot to do here apart from wear a suit and keep Hunley from capturing Hunt. Benji on the other hand is far more hands on in this film than he has been in his previous two outings. Honourable mentions should also go out to Tom Hollander and to Simon McBurney who help move the plot along as and when required and in closing I’ll say this. Rogue Nation almost certainly won’t be the last we ever see of Ethan Hunt and his crew. As long as the franchise continues to make money Paramount will always have a vested interest in green lighting sequels.  My concern is that in order to keep the public interested that they’ll insist on going for bigger stunts and more incredible plots, so don’t be too surprised if you read in the not too distant future that Tom Cruise has been killed falling off the moon. He’s just crazy enough to try it…

Twitter Review:

Rogue Nation, Rogue plot, Rogue common sense. Great to look at but smoke and mirrors will only get you so far...

#GetMaskWearMaskFly

Useful links:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2381249/?ref_=nv_sr_1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmC6rZyByzk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afS5ks54tms

http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/review.asp?FID=138768

A Good Day to Die Hard

In 1988 the silver screen was introduced to the world’s most reluctant hero, John McClane. A New York police officer who finds himself stuck in a Los Angles skyscraper on Christmas Eve, fending off a dozen or so German terrorists and generally saving the day with the help a desk sergeant, a limo driver and a substandard Rolex watch.
Bruce Willis, hot off the success of Moonlighting, the television series that launched his career was given the role of McClane. The rest as they say is history. However things could have been entirely different if the role hadn’t first been turned down by the likes of Nick Nolte, Richard Gere and Robert De Niro.
The original is not only the best of the Die Hard films but is also regarded as one of the best action films ever made. It has become a legend and was for a long time the yard stick that all other action films were measured against. John McTiernan the director was in the form of his life, having just helmed Predator and went on to make The Hunt for Red October after Die Hard. The film also marked the big screen debut for Alan “shoot the glass” Rickman. A role that put him on the Hollywood map and played a large part in him being cast as the Sheriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood. However Die Hard has always been more than the sum of its parts. Based on a Novel by Roderick Thorp, it was at the time a unique story that didn’t open to much hype or fanfare. By today’s standards didn’t set the box office on fire. Its worldwide gross was less than one hundred million. Where it really started to gain traction via word of mouth was when it hit the video rental and retail stores…..

Twenty five years later and we find ourselves on the fifth film in the franchise. Twentieth Century Fox, knowing when they’re on to a good thing seem to keep throwing money at screenwriters and directors until they either relent and realise that “everybody has a price”. This also seems to be true of Mr Willis. After the third film Bruce went on the record as saying that he didn’t feel he could do anything else with the character. I wish he had stick to his principles as the forth and now fifth film are basically shadows of what came before.
You do get the feeling that Mr Willis is acting on autopilot in this film and is it’s being treated as an exercise in how to earn as much as possible with as little effort as possible.

The majority of this most recent Die Hard film, which, in my humble opinion should have been called “Five Hard” takes places in Russia. McClane travels there to try and reconnect with his rebellious son, played by the Australian actor Jai Courtney, who as it turns out happens to work for the CIA and is trying to stop a nuclear weapons heist. And as plots go that’s about it. There are a few twists and turns along the way, including some signposted double crosses but this really does fall into the “leave your brain at the door” film category.
The Irish born director John Moore has been let loose with Hollywood films before with such grand and majestic titles like Behind Enemy Lines, Flight of the Phoenix and Max Payne but they’ve never really set the critical or box office world alight.
I think because of this and the fact Fox came along and said “would you like a crack at the fifth Die Hard film?” Mr Moore decided that he’d just take the script Skip Woods had provided (another Hollywood devotee that probably had could do better written on his high school report card) and use the Spinal Tap methodology and just turn up everything up to 11.
There are two major action set pieces in the film. The first is a car chase through the streets of Moscow that takes place in the first act of the film. The second is in the film’s third act climax and looks like it could have been storyboarded by a five year, who’d just been given a toy helicopter and truck for Christmas. Both set pieces seem to want to try and distract you from the fact the story is weak and the screenplay is so frail it could best be described as suffering from an asthma attack.

The other problem with the film is the McClane character. In the first three films at least, he was very much doing what he’s doing because he has to. In the last two films you really get the feeling that he’s doing this because he wants to. The reluctant hero has either started to believe his own press or he has taken out a life insurance policy that only pays out if he happens to be shot by an Ak47 or taken he’s taken out by an explosion involving Semtex.  The problem is I keep having to come back to is the plot and the fact that there isn’t one in his movie. The forth film was about digital terrorism and trying to reconnect with his daughter. The fifth and current film centres on nuclear terrorists and trying to reconnect with his son. Not much of a leap when it comes to being creative as you can see.
I’m certain that there will, in the not too distant future, be a sixth Die Hard film and I can only hope that instead of just asking anyone to come up with a screenplay the executives at fox actually realise that you can’t just throw money at a problem to fix it. It doesn’t matter how big your bangs are or how many rounds of ammunition the production gets through, you have to have a story that works. However I do feel that the next film will take the path of least resistance and the plot will be written with the mantra “if it aint broke, don’t try to fix it” in mind. If I were a betting man I’d take myself off to my nearest bookmakers and have a five pound bet that John McClane has a twin brother that will turn out to be the villain of the piece and Bruce will end up playing both parts.

Sometimes the old adage of less is more can actually work. As I said at the start the First Die Hard film is regarded as an action classic and it doesn’t have that many big set pieces in it. In my opinion films will only work if you can hold the audiences interest and A Good Day To Die Hard didn’t hold mine at all. There was just too much going on without anything happening at all.

Twitter Review:
Trilogies are much better when they don’t have five parts. Overblown with a plot and script that are MIA.
#SayNoToSix

Useful Links:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1606378/?ref_=sr_1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVkzZD92cMQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61UqRmDjwgc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qxBXm7ZUTM   (How it should be done!)

The Expendables 2

Let me set the scene. Its 2009 and its dawning on Sylvester Stallone that his days of making money from Rambo and Rocky franchises that he has spearheaded for the last thirty years maybe behind him. So what to do next? The answer to that question was a simple one. Put together a cast of action film icons and go make the best “leave your brain at the door” film possible.
So with that as its premise and starting point Stallone went away and put together a film that he also ended up directing, which included Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lungren, Randy Couture, Steve Austin, Terry Crews, Bruce Willis, Mickey Rourke and the terminator himself Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The film became The Expendables and basically it did exactly what it said on the tin. Lots of bang for your buck, an extremely high body count and enough blood on screen to fill about three Olympic size swimming pools.

The film, although never regarded as a classic in the grand scheme of things, made enough money for the studio behind it to start asking questions that went along the lines of “do you fancy making another one?” and “oh go on, pretty please”. Stallone, having recently checked his new and plumped up bank balance, didn’t have any issues putting the band back together and with the exception of Rourke everyone agreed to come back.
Having broken his neck in the first film Stallone and by his own admission, had taken too much on. So he decided to hand the megaphone duties over to the more than capable Simon West.
This freed Stallone up to come up with a screenplay that needed to be bigger and louder than the first. To say that he didn’t disappoint would be something of an understatement but more of that later.

With Rouke bailing on the sequel Stallone needed some new blood to join the party. Firstly he got Liam Hemsworth, who’s the younger brother of Thor for those of you not in the know. Just don’t expect to see him in the third film as and when that gets made (and it will). Then he persuaded the muscles from Brussels to sign on the dotted line. Jean-Claude Van Dam plays against type as the villain of the piece and what a job he does. Happily sending himself up at every available opportunity. The real trump card for this sequel though has to be the inclusion of Chuck Norris, who seemingly never looks like he ages at all. Norris has for a long time had a “legend” tag that he seems to follow him around and is something he appears more than happy to live up too. If you have five minutes to spare I urge you to head over to chucknorrisfacts.com . It’ll keep you amused for hours!

So let’s get back to that to that screenplay that Mr Stallone put together. The premise of the film is that JCVD is about to get his hands on six tonnes of old Russian cold war Plutonium and the CIA can't let that happen! Put simply this screenplay is appalling! It’s so far past bad it’s ridiculous. It doesn’t hold together in any way shape or form and I think the plot may have been asked to go away politely for a while whilst filming was under way. As for the filming itself, it’s preposterous. So full of continuity errors that I stopped counting after twenty minutes and it makes about as much sense as cheese socks.
That said, I LOVED IT!!! Every gloriously ham acted scene, every absurd and over the top death and illogical decision being made. I sat in the cinema for the entire duration of the film with the largest smile on my face. This may well be the first fan fiction film that has ever been green light and could also be the world’s first one star “must see” action film and although they do get far more screen time for this film it seems the only reason Bruce and Arnold were asked to come back was to commit each other’s trade mark catchphrases to celluloid with their tongue’s both fully inserted into their respective cheeks.

Given the fact that this film seems to have come up trumps and at the box office I can only imagine it’s a matter of time before Stallone receives another phone call begging for him to sit down and write another screenplay that pushes the boundaries of thought, perception and human understanding. But the problem he’ll have is this. How do you trump what’s already come before it? How do you make it bigger and better without actually turning up to the White House and saying “would you mind if we actually invaded Canada”?
And then of course there’s the other issue of who can you ask you be in it that hasn’t already been included. Other than Jackie Chan and Steven Segal there’s no other way to top the action cast list that’s already been put together. I would however suggest that if they do have a meeting where they try to come up with which actors to include, they should think outside the box a little just to keep the ideas fresh and original. An action flick that included the likes of Woody Allen, Ronnie Corbett or even Pingu is a film I’d pay to see!

Twitter Review:
Expendables 2 is a crime against film. No plot, no continuity, no point & for those exact reasons you have to go & see it!
#AMustSeeFilm

Useful Links:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1764651/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQf3YP8p85I

The Bourne Legacy

“One pill makes you larger, one pill makes you small and the ones that mother gives you don’t do anything at all”. That, ladies and gentlemen, pretty much encapsulates the entire plot of the Bourne Legacy. However dear reader, as usual, I suspect that you may want more from your film blogs and analysis so I’ll “flesh it out” a bit.
Can’t have you going elsewhere for your film reviews now can I?

After the first three Bourne Films, “Identity, Supremacy and Ultimatum” Universal must have had quite a few meetings that went along the lines of “wow, didn’t we do well” and “I wonder what other dead authors books we can bring to the big screen”. The reason for this glad handing and self-congratulatory patting of backs basically came down to the fact that through either dumb luck or intelligent design they’d come up with an intelligent story arc that not only held up for three films but reinvented the entire genre as well. The other piece of fate that seemed to be smiling on them was that they’d taken an actor in Matt Damon who’d won an Oscar for his screenwriting talents and turned him into not only an action star but a totally believable action star.
The spanner in the works turned up when both Damon and the director of Supremacy and Ultimatum, Paul Greengrass, said they were happy with their lot and didn’t want to make any more. Cue mildly concerned faces at Universal HQ.

The answer to the question of whether to leave well enough alone and move on was answered when Tony Gilroy asked if he could have a crack at the director’s chair if they made another film. Gilroy had earned his stripes with the Bourne franchise whilst writing the screenplays for the three previous films but had never had a Hollywood studio let him loose with the megaphone before. So, when the film was given the green light with Gilroy at the helm in the summer of 2011, it did raise a few eyebrows.

First things first, how best to describe The Bourne Legacy? Is it a sequel, a prequel or a candlestick maker? Well after much deliberation I think the tag that best fits this film would be a “Sidequel” (and if that word catches on remember where you heard it first!) The plot centres around a new hero, Aaron Cross played by Jeremy Renner who through no fault of his own, has just been put on the endangered species list due in no small part to the events that have transpired over the previous trilogy.
The Bourne Identity starts and The Bourne Ultimatum finishes with the hero of the piece in the water and that’s where we also start with Legacy. Having been sent to Alaska for what basically turns out to be a slap across the knuckles, Aaron Cross is on what could only be described as an extreme orienteering jaunt with some survival skills practice thrown in for good measure. Having reached his destination at the back end of beyond, Cross finds himself sharing a cabin with another who’s had “could do better” written on his super secret agent report card.
We are then given a rather complicated back story which goes into some detail about how these characters have become the best of the best. Training will only get you so far it seems and every asset out in the field is required to take blue and green pills to keep them at the top of their game. These pills and their taking them become the plot device for the rest of the film, which I think is a shame. In much the same way that George Lucas decided to make the “Force” a quantifiable and measurable item the last three Star Wars films I think having the main character reliant on pills and chemicals somehow removes some of the wow factor from it. You always want to know how the magician does the trick and pulls off the impossible but once you’ve been shown how it’s done it’s never quite the same.

Back at the cabin things then take a turn for the worse when those pesky CIA types, led by Edward Norton’s Eric Byer send an unmanned drone to blow it up. Realising that something is “amiss” Cross then heads off to find more pills and some answers from his employers. Whilst this is happening we, the viewer, are shown other secret agent getting their comeuppance. It seems that Jason Bourne really knows how to spoil a party!
The other main protagonist of the films is played by another Oscar winner Rachel Weisz (the current Mrs James Bond) but her acting talents are largely wasted here. She spends most of the movie playing a generic “Damsel in distress” and even though she’s given brains and intelligence she’s very rarely allowed to let them out of the box. The other issue here is that Renner and Wise don’t share any screen time together until we’re about an hour into the film. I also got the feeling that it was only going to be a matter of time before Cross uttered the immortal Schwarzenegger line “come with me if you want to live”.

Weisz character is Dr Marta Shearing, who just happens to be responsible for creating the blue and green pills but as luck would have it the closest available source for these “Happy Haribo’s” just happens to be a short plane ride away in the Philippines.  Cue some very dodgy disguises and home made passports that wouldn’t look out of place in an amateur dramatics production of Cluedo.
Once they’ve arrived on the other side of the Pacific there are a couple of good action set pieces but they do really leave you wanting more.

I think the main problem with this film is that in order for it to work it needs to be treated on its own merits and values but given the three films that came before it that is never going to happen. The bar was raised to a very high level by its predecessors and no amount of new cast and new direction is ever going to change that. We spend the first fifty minutes of The Bourne Legacy being reminded of Jason Bourne and his films and even though you’ve seen those already you find yourself wanting to watch those instead and not wanting to spend the emotional investment on Legacy. Rachel Weisz’s character has the last line of the film where she says “I was hoping we were lost”. Well I can safely say that I think the viewing audience may well be missing in action.

Twitter Review:
Legacy doesn't raise the bar or offer anything we haven't seen before. Characters come don't develop or snap into focus.
#BourneYourTimeIsUp

Useful Links:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1194173/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSzy9qQ3mDE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdtUdEoE-Q4&feature=relmfu