I finally got the chance to see this yesterday and unfortunately I find myself agreeing with most people. It's an enjoyable action flick with a solid cast (but I'll watch anything with Rachel Weisz, hence why I never bothered with Mummy 3) but it's got a lot of rethreads to the trilogy and it's not nearly engaging as any of those films.
The film crossed the $100m mark domestically this weekend. It now sits at $103m domestic and $165m worldwide. It still hasn't gotten to it's budget of $125m but it's the "little film that could". It placed #5 for the weekend in it's fourth week of release. While it may never be called a blockbuster it's not a flop for sure or disappointment either really. It'll likely turn a profit and if they can secure Damon for a Bourne 5 I expect that entry to move forward with both leads.
I needed someone to explain the fight scenes in the very first Bourne film (which didn't stop me being thrilled by it). So I was ready for the next ones as they came along although I had actually read the books many years beforehand so was nonplussed when they bore no resemblance to them. I thought the 'parallel' Bourne film would break all moulds and do something completely different, so you can imagine my disappointment when not ony did they not break the mould but didn't even do it as well as the previous films. The franchise should have been allowed to die a natural death.
Yeah, I think the most disappointing thing about the film is that they had a chance to go in a new direction and do something different with this one, but instead they just opted to imitate the style of the two Paul Greengrass films. Which is not a bad thing to imitate if you're going to do that (and they do a good job of it), and I certainly understand the desire to retain the fans by keeping some familiarity, but I had hoped it would be more of a breakaway film and something new in style.
I thought the film was fairly disappointing. Which is a shock for me to admit because I'm actually a fairly big fan of Tony Gilroy. When he was first announced (as this thread suggests), I was very supportive of Gilroy writing and directing this installment. If they had to get someone to replace Paul Greengrass and continue the franchise, Gilroy would have been my top pick. However, The Bourne Legacy just ultimately felt very unnecessary, similar to how I felt for most of the blockbuster movies that came out this summer (i.e. Prometheus and The Amazing Spider-Man). I think my biggest complaint lies within the actual story itself, which isn't nearly as thrilling or captivating as the stories for the previous three films. What kept the first three films so engaging was Jason Bourne's personal journey. He was trying to uncover who he was, and that was a very thrilling and emotional character arc. When his story was resolved and wrapped up in The Bourne Ultimatum, it felt like there really wasn't anywhere the story could go. The Bourne Legacy tries to argue the opposite, but unfortunately it loses that argument. Even though Jeremy Renner is very charismatic as Aaron Cross, his character journey just isn't as interesting or as involving as Jason Bourne's. He needs to find some pills and that's it. Now that he's done that, where does his character go? Quite frankly, I couldn't care less. Legacy also has one of the most anti-climatic and weakest endings I've seen in a mainstream film in a very long time, BTW. Anyway, that's not to say that Legacy isn't a complete disappointment. The cinematography is the strongest of the franchise, and Gilroy achieves some really sweeping shots that are lush and gorgeous. The film has some solid performances, even though most of the supporting characters feel useless. The film's most successful and tense moment lies in the lab sequence, which had me on the edge of my seat the entire time (which is kind of cool for a series that depends on getting its thrills from foot and car chases), but other than that, the action felt very perfunctory on a whole. I have no idea what went wrong with The Bourne Legacy. It had a lot going for it. Tony Gilroy proved he was a masterful filmmaker with Michael Clayton, and he cast some excellent actors all around, but overall I just couldn't get invested in the story. It actually sort of soured my appreciation for the series a little bit. I really have no desire to see another Bourne movie, at least not involving Gilroy or the Aaron Cross character. However, I'd like to see another movie if anything to resolve what happens with Pam Landy, Joan Allen's character. I thought it was kind of crappy how it appeared Landy's character was going to end up, even though I'm sure that was the set-up for another movie. It just felt cheap, and ultimately, unnecessary. Much like the movie itself.
I think the series may have lost its viability after a CIA outfit straight-up assassinated a decent British journalist in broad London daylight. Even by the previous movies' standards, that was a new low for the agency. Question is, though, where does one go from there? That event would probably have had far-reaching political implications in both countries, but not of the sort particularly conducive to spycraft thriller plots. Seems to me that Zero Dark Thirty will be the best non-Bondian spy flick of the year.
Despite tepid reviews and box office, a sequel to The Bourne Legacy is being planned. No word on whether or not Tony Gilroy will return, but allegedly Jeremy Renner is contractually obligated to appear. I'm kind of lukewarm over a sequel to Legacy, which I honestly thought was probably the weakest of the films. I only want to see a sequel to see them tie up Pamela Landy's storyline. Other than that, my interest is relatively non-existent.
It wasn't anything to do with the first three so calling it the 'weakest' is a non-sequitur. It just jumped on a bandwagon and rolled in a few familiar faces.
I saw the news of the sequel yesterday and was following the discussion at another site. The thought seems to be that while this entry was modest at best a stronger story has to happen for Bourne to exist as a series beyond this. Preferbly Damon returns as well cause while this entry could exist with Bourne as a silent background character with events partially overlapping the prior film the next film can't do that. So if no Bourne is it worth even keeping that name in an all Cross film? Even from a marketing standpoint that gets to be a headache. It'd be like calling a movie Batman but follows the actions of Nightwing. I'm curious for now where a sequel heads pending further details.
4 Bourne 2 Legacy The Uncanny Bourne Legacy Cross: The Bourne Legacy, Part II The Bourne Legacy Supreme Quantum of Bourne