Metascore
61

Generally favorable reviews - based on 42 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 24 out of 42
  2. Negative: 3 out of 42
  1. Reviewed by: Lisa Schwarzbaum
    Aug 8, 2012
    91
    Renner's Cross is a conflicted hero built to take advantage of the "Hurt Locker" star's best qualities as an actor - his default intensity, the way he conveys that complicated mental calculations are taking place under cover of watchful stillness, even underwater.
  2. Reviewed by: Shawn Levy
    Aug 9, 2012
    83
    The result is a newly revived spy movie franchise -- and the best big-budget action film of the summer.
  3. Reviewed by: Drew Taylor
    Aug 7, 2012
    83
    Viscerally, The Bourne Legacy packs a punch. If you're looking for a traditional sequel though, you'll probably be disappointed, but if it's a whole new ride you're after, you've come to the right place. Bourne has indeed been reborn.
User Score
6.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 344 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 52 out of 106
  2. Negative: 14 out of 106
  1. Aug 18, 2012
    2
    A promising new lead and decent anticipation turns to a considerable let down. The latest Bourne film is Boring. Jeremy Renner is a qualityA promising new lead and decent anticipation turns to a considerable let down. The latest Bourne film is Boring. Jeremy Renner is a quality actor, who this time plays a rougher, more aggressive, more believable bad ass member of Secret Government Operation: Treadstone. The main issue with the film is that it doesn't deliver the action, the villain or build into anything interesting. The final act in Manila features one of the weakest car chase sequences of all time. The film is more missing Paul Greengrass than Matt Damon. The action and tension isn't there. Full Review »
  2. Aug 10, 2012
    6
    The Bourne Legacy does two things wonderfully. One; it fills the shoes of the killing machine Jason Bourne with Jeremy Renner
  3. Aug 24, 2012
    2
    If you make a Bourne movie without everything that makes a Bourne movie awesome you get The Bourne Legacy. While I watched it, I perfectlyIf you make a Bourne movie without everything that makes a Bourne movie awesome you get The Bourne Legacy. While I watched it, I perfectly understood why Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass didn't want to get involved in this piece of junk. While in the original films you get exciting action sequences that kept your attention and very good editing, The Bourne Legacy has tons of dialogues that go nowhere and a terribly awkward pacing. Not to mention it's 30 minutes too long. As a matter of fact, there's barely any action. The few there is would be ok if it was a Jason Statham movie, but for Bourne standards is cheesy and absurd. The only good thing about The Bourne Legacy is the solid acting from Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weisz, who make a very sexy couple and are both very likeable. Yes, the talented Edward Norton is in the movie, but unfortunately for him, he can't do much of a thing with a very poorly developed character that only has the function of throwing exposition at computer screens. I'd be surprised if anyone cared for the pills conflict which wasn't any intresting. Tony Gilroy should stick to writing, because he isn't a good director. He should be ashamed of making such a terrible film for a great franchise he helped to build. Specially in the ending, which was a cheap way to leave everything open for a sequel unlike The Bourne Ultimatum, which tied everything in its place. The only thing this movie has of Bourne is the title and it's not worthy of it. The Bourne Legacy is the perfect example of Hollywood beating a dead horse. Full Review »