Dziedzictwo Bourne'a

The Bourne series needed this about as much as the Hannibal Lecter saga needed Red Dragon. It’s a technically wellcrafted American thriller with a stellar cast. But without the unique combination of an intriguing protagonist, original directorial approach and engaging plot, it doesn’t stand a chance against its predecessors. It’s too ordinary, failing to stand out from secret-agent genre movies with, for example, Harrison Ford, which over time become just a way to pass some time in front of the TV. Paul Greengrass’s movies, on the other hand, enriched the genre, pushing it forward. (03.09.2012)

Very decent. Bourne's Legacy blends tastefully with the third part of the Bourne trilogy without parasitizing it. It suffers from a very lukewarm start, but from about the 30th minute onwards, action follows action and everything culminates in a half-hour continuous set-piece in the Philippines. Jeremy Renner stood with honour up to a possible comparison with Matt Damon. That said, I won't be looking forward to the next piece of this spy puzzle, the Bourne universe has been gnawed to the bone by this film. (10.08.2012)

I was probably the only one in my wide circle of friends who went to the movie theater not to see the new Bourne, but to see the new Gilroy film. Unfortunately, I got it exactly backward. I'm beginning to worry that Michael Clayton was a successful fluke because this is a poorly directed spectacle that doesn't know whether it wants to be a personal drama about two individuals facing the all-powerful tentacles of the government octopus or an action-packed sprint for freedom. It doesn't step into either for even a minute and thus from the moment of "Forrest Gump on drugs," it definitely breaks down into grey tedium. This hurts all the more when the viewer realizes that although Gilroy has sketched out a world of almost limitless possibilities, he takes the path of least resistance, i.e., he goes in the direction of a copied scheme that compresses the previous three films into one two-hour film. I understand that Frank Marshall knows what kind of money can be made from the brand, but next time he should at least put an impactful dramaturgist on the set. It's not just Moby who failed here. 2 and a ½. (22.08.2012)

The third best/worst of the five Bournes to date. It’s greatest stumbling block is the heavy-handed start which is not solved until the main duo paired up; or rather until a little room was given to the excellent Rachel Weisz who steals the show from the disturbing scene in the laboratory onward. The non-existent conclusion doesn’t make things any better, but even so it lures you rather than driving you away in disgust. (09.08.2012)

The problem with the reference is not that it is badly filmed or coordinated, the problem is that the real Bourne reference does not go anywhere - Cross has only a loose relationship to the main storyline of the trilogy, and he himself does not bring any major themes and twists and the most interesting (i.e., the other destinies of Pamela Landy and her duel with the system) goes from "something bad will probably happen" to "something bad really has happened". In the meantime, we are watching a not-so-dazzling pilgrimage of an excellently coordinated character without the secret of pills. The final question, "are we lost?", which the heroine asks the hero, is quite relevant. It's hard to say what will happen to the characters and whether the whole reference is just a spite project to show naughty renegades that it will work without them. Trodding around the main storyline proves it. Otherwise, it’s OK. Some scenes are great (the entire fight in the house, the episode in Alaska), others reveal that Gilroy should not push into a Greengrass kinetic ride, for which he has no skill or level (the whole final chase with the oblique-eyed Terminator). Just a useless movie in a pretty bearable way. (13.08.2012)