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)

Bourne without Bourne could be fine if Cross had any charisma. As a character, though, I generally like Renner. Gilroy’s new film is surprisingly boring and talkative and refuses to get going. Then it gets going for a bit, and the end. Very pointless. (14.12.2012)

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 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)

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)

Tony Gilroy complained for so long that his scripts under Greengrass's direction didn't sound as they deserved, until he took the camera into his own hands - and stole everything that the previous trilogy offered. And when the first half-hour reminds me of nothing more than a really long cut scene from Bourne Ultimatum, I knew something was wrong. However, it is really regrettable when you see surprisingly talkative and appropriately sharp Renner. His hand-to-hand combat with the enemy is breathtaking, and the chemistry with Rachel Weisz is spot-on. Unfortunately, when the pace of the second half reaches its maximum, an extra stupid twist (Larx) comes along and with it, sobriety that buzzes in the head until the end. With a standalone story, I would probably have much less of a problem, but attaching it to the worn-out brand of Legacy kills it. (01.12.2012)

Bourne without Bourne and a bit different. Less action and a more robust story are certainly assets. Jerry Renner is excellent, a much more talkative agent. His motivation (not to be dumb again) is a welcome change after the quest for the past. Rachel Weisz is really likeable, not the usual dumb girl part, and the much more believable “intro" to the love-story is also welcome. Ed Norton does a good job again. It’s obvious that this is just the beginning. The big punch-up is yet to come and I’ll be there. :) (10.08.2012)

The new Bourne is much more restrained and much less action-packed than I expected. The plus is that they managed to quite sophisticatedly integrate the plot of the new film into the older trilogy, so this "standalone" installment doesn't feel intrusive or contrived, especially considering that the story of Bourne and Cross is essentially unfolding in the same time period. The action is good, although there are far fewer hand-to-hand combat scenes, and overall the direction is much more subdued and minimalistic. The subplot about experiments on people (pills, etc.) is solid. The main character's motivation is good and Rachel Weisz’s performance is excellent. It's clear that Gilroy went smartly around it, he didn't want to pump the audience with even more sophisticated action, more pumped-up music, and faster pace. But to wrap the viewer around his finger with unexpected plot twists that sometimes shock with their force (the interrogation at Weisz's house) and sometimes pleasantly and reliably stick to the established tracks (chases, stunts). What bothered me the most was the complete absence of an ending and a clear indication that if Legacy is at least somewhat commercially successful, there will be a reset of the series. (20.08.2012)

It's not a bad film, but comparisons to previous installments are inevitable. The best thing about The Bourne Legacy is Rachel Weisz, an actress the franchise needed earlier (especially in the first episode), and the chilling scene in the lab. Otherwise, there's almost nothing here that we haven't seen before (jumping on rooftops, escapades on a motorcycle, faking one’s own death, hiding and escaping), and when we do, it's rather laughable (the wolf). Plus, whenever the name "Bourne" came up, I felt like I was watching Cimrman's Hamlet without Hamlet. (14.02.2015)

When I was watching the movie "The Bourne Legacy", I was taken by surprise by something. It was boredom. I was bored for roughly the first half of the film. It's true that on one hand, it could have been due to tiredness, but on the other hand, I believe that the film itself is partly to blame. Lately, I have been tired, but the movie is partially about events happening at the same time as the events in the movies "The Bourne Identity" and "The Bourne Ultimatum". It's nice, they fit it quite well and they wanted to assure us that this is not a completely different film, but that there is a connection. So, it's not just using the good name for commercial purposes, but the continuity is immediately apparent. (19.11.2013)

In the end, it wasn’t such a disappointment. I was skeptical about the Bourne sequel from the beginning, but after it was announced that it would be a different agent with his own storyline, it looked promising after all. The result is only good and a bit drawn out, but the action scenes with their inventiveness still haven't lost their sparkle, including the location shooting (beautiful Alaska at the beginning). The problems begin when the film starts to connect to the events of the previous trilogy with a well-rounded story. It's quite disruptive, because it's pretty obvious that the writers could drag the series out indefinitely with this kind of dissection. The ending, which I have the impression was naively set up for a sequel, is related to this. Even the new version of "Extreme Ways" at the end seemed a bit stale this time. (18.12.2012)

Gilroy did a terrible job. You can clearly tell he had no idea what he wanted to achieve with this movie. The first hour is incredibly boring, full of unnecessary drivel and practically about nothing. Then there are hints of some sort of action, the finale and an abrupt ending. It was clearly supposed to end with the third part with Damon and everyone would be happy. The only thing I'll remember about this movie is that it was dead boring. (17.12.2012)