User Score
6.1

Generally favorable reviews- based on 317 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 37 out of 317

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Mar 31, 2014
    6
    Good action. Unnecessary extended. At least he gets the girl at the end. Useless scenes. Norton reduced to that role? Not good. Easy ending and resolving. Its not the same without Damon
  2. Feb 17, 2014
    5
    "There was never just one." Hah. The biggest mystery and suspense around "The Bourne Legacy" comes from good advertisement. The film itself is a lackluster; a mediocre action flick at best and hilariously horrible Hollywood money-maker wannabe sequel at worst. The actors are good though, especially the leading performers Rachel Weisz and Jeremy Renner. But it's well known that good actors don't replace good screenplay. Expand
  3. Dec 22, 2013
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The first 3 sequels of the bourne franchise was very strong in all it's element, and then this movie.
    at first i thought that they replaced matt damon with Jeremy Renner which is a joke if they did, not because i have anything against renner but the entire franchise is based on the main character, change it and you have nothing left.
    anyway it turned out that they add new character to the movie that happen in the same time when they were chasing bourne and that was good because they didn't try to take anything away from bourne.
    but they stretched some scenes too much that the action parts are separated by a long period of time,
    and there was a few plot mistakes like project larx who did absolutely NOTHING, you keep anticipating him and thinking about what's he's gonna do, and he got shot the first time he introduced,
    so after all the movie is not that good and doesn't feels like it belongs to the franchise.
    Expand
  4. Dec 14, 2013
    5
    The Bourne Legacy works only through Jeremy Renner's work as Aaron Cross. Otherwise, it is a failed attempt at imitating it's much better predecessors.
  5. Nov 20, 2013
    5
    The Bourne Legacy tries really hard. Jeremy Renner is a likable hero, Rachel Weisz is unbelievably hot and the movie contains the requisite action scenes and foreign locations to make it work. Yet it doesn't. Something is missing in this installment. It could be linked to the fact that the movie takes FOREVER to get going and by the time it does, you've already slipped into tedium.
  6. Oct 6, 2013
    5
    With some solid action sequences, the latest instalment in the Bourne series clearly suffers in quality compared to the previous films. Its plot is quite simply and at times, very stale.
  7. Sep 17, 2013
    4
    The Bourne Legacy really is a disappointment compared to the trilogy it followed. The story didn't make sense, it jumped from one plot to another, and was a sorry excuse for a Bourne movie. No wonder Matt didn't sign on for this one.
  8. Sep 7, 2013
    0
    One of the worst films I have ever seen. As a huge Bourne fan (even loved the game), I can't believe how much they've managed to ruin one of the greatest movie franchises. First of all, it starts of extremely slowly, with no explanation. It jumps from one scene to another for about 45 minutes but doesn't link them together. The backstory doesn't exist at all, and there is no connection to Treadstone or Bourne AT ALL. What's more, the new characters and their motives and the entire story is not only dull, shallow and without any explanation, but even the action scenes are laughably pathetic. Far too much Hollywood cliché rubbish. At the end I had no idea what the film was about and still didn't get how anything linked together. Honestly, there is no reason why anybody should watch this film. Expand
  9. Sep 3, 2013
    5
    I went into this movie with high expectations and I left very disappointed. The acting was good but few of the action scene were very exciting, especially if you compare them to the first three. The characters had no depth which can be blamed on the lack of depth in the story.
  10. Sep 1, 2013
    6
    NOTE: There are grammatical errors and some duplicated words in this review that aren't my fault there must be a problem with the software.

    There are a lot of good things about “The Bourne Legacy”, with Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weizs being the top two. They’re both good; Renner as a spy targeted for disappearance by his own government, and Weizs as a laboratory doctor, assisting in a
    secret program to develop genetically enhanced spies. Unbeknownst to her, she, too, has just been added to the dispatch list.
    The film opens in the snowy and spectacular wilds of Alaska, where Renner has been sent to meet another ’participant’ in the program, who will give him the medications he needs. The cautious, distrustful conversations they have set the tone for the film; a calculating, ruthless world even for the most cynical among us. As Dr. Sheering, Weisz is wonderful; a sympathetic and credible soul, capturing the bewilderment of a physician caught up in machinations far over her head. “Who’s… who’s ‘they?’”, she pleads. “I don’t know anything!”. It's just one of her many excellent scenes.

    The original books were by Robert Ludlum, written many years ago. This film was written and directed by Tony Gilroy, and it's hard to imagine much of the story came from Ludlum, other than the main character.
    The story is better in its first half; the pace slows, later on, and ends weakly with a retread of the rooftop chases that were the dramatic highlights of the first three films. In “Legacy” this final chase is anti-climactic; Gilroy seems to have turned the script over to the stunt department, with orders to dream up something new and it feels contrived.

    There are several shots that deserve note. A close-up of Renner at a remote, icy river’s edge, that pulls back till he’s a mere speck in the distance. And later, as government agents close in on Weisz, Renner quickly scales the outside of her three story house, surging through an upstairs window to surprise an agent a split second before she can fire. The athleticism is remarkable enough, but even more impressive is the technological feat; the camera swoops up after Renner in one fluid motion, then passes effortlessly through a small window, and without a pause, it pivots sharply as he shoots the agent just as she looks up. It’s the kind of cinematography we take for granted, but is just one example of the superb filmmaking being done in the Bourne films, and many others. I looked up the credits on “Legacy”, and there were well over 500 names attached to this film. Some talented people.

    The editing is excellent alternately staccato or placid, shaking you out of your seat, or giving you a moment to catch your breath. The sound design is unobtrusive but vita to the filml. Casting is first rate up and down. If we’re going to quibble, Doc Sheering (Weisz) never really does much can’t the female lead at least throw a punch, or ride her own cycle? Gilroy treats this woman like a figurine. Smart, but helpless.

    Finally, Republicans will doubtless find this story unfulfilling. While it’s a slam-dunk portrayal of a rogue US government, silently subverting the Constitution, and killing off Americans left and right, the filmmakers don’t even hint that Obama is behind it all an unforgivable omission. Unless....wait! what if...Obama prevented them from revealing the truth?!! There you go!
    Expand
  11. Aug 12, 2013
    5
    What a waste of money. Seriously. There was clearly a lot of talent in the casting with this movie, but apparently not behind the camera. Tony Gilroy did an average job directing, but what really just hurts this movie is the screenplay. This movie has no sense of direction whatsoever. Also, there's really no tension making the action boring and pointless. Renner does a good job, but i think that people see his past work and think he makes any movie he's in good. With Legacy, that's not the case. They waste him really, since Aaron Cross isn't an interesting character. He's hard to cheer for because the only thing that motivates him is getting his next pill fix. Norton's character was wasted too, as was a lot of characters. Bourne was mentioned frequently throughout the film, rendering Cross's point in the story useless. Seriously why did this even have to happen? Its clearly an obvious cash grab with an ending that contradicts Ultimatiums near perfect conclusion. I hope this is the last one. C Expand
  12. Jul 21, 2013
    7
    It was good and had it`s moments, but nothing to make it stand out from other movies. I can also tell how great a movie from how much I have to talk about after, and I really didn`t have much to say. The ending felt incomplete.
  13. Jul 10, 2013
    6
    Giving the writer of the franchise the directorial role was a mistake. The Bourne Legacy isn't awful, but it is very far away from the heights of previous installments.
  14. Jul 7, 2013
    1
    A travesty, pure and simple.

    I think we could all accept the mediocre movie on display if it had kept to itself, and not interfered with the works beforehand. But not only does the film breach into territory the original trilogy worked so hard to set up, it ruins all the meaning from it, just so they can selfishly continue the franchise without Damon and Greengrass.
  15. Jun 26, 2013
    7
    Jeremy Renner plays the role really well but the movie does fall down without Jason Bourne who is referred to repeatedly and is just a more interesting character, but overall a great action movie with some impressive chase scenes.
  16. May 14, 2013
    4
    This film is just simply boring. It takes an hour just for Bourne to start kicking somebodies ass. What do we get for the first hour? A storyline about some scientists, treadstone, and Jason travelling in some mountain for ages... The action is weak and just doesn't have the thrill like the first two films did. (I haven't seen the third one yet)
  17. Mar 31, 2013
    7
    Having never seen any of the previous "Bourne" films, I have a feeling there's a lot of background I'm missing out on here, especially in the first several minutes. However, on its own, it still stands as a very watchable action thriller. There are some true standout performances here, particularly from Rachel Weisz (damn, I need to check out more of her movies now), and I've become a quick fan of Jeremy Renner. The first and third acts were definitely the stronger points the second felt like they dragged just a tad at moments, and as a rule I would have liked the action to be slightly less frenetic in its editing (though from what I understand, that's something of a Bourne staple). But I enjoyed it. Certainly not among the more impressive action flicks I've seen, but definitely not bad either. Expand
  18. Mar 22, 2013
    4
    I was really looking forward to a new Bourne movie, even if Matt Damon wouldn't be in it. Lets just say.. I was disappointed. The story wasn't interesting, the direction was horrible and probably the main reason why the acting was terrible. Rachael Weisz is quite capable of acting, although in this movie it seemed she was asked to improvise too much, leaving, in some cases, an annoying display of fumbles for 5 minutes. The pacing wasn't great, and Jeremy Renner was playing a different character to the one he was meant to be playing. He was goofy and stuck up, when I believe his character description probably said "confident" Jeremy Renner can't do "confident" he can only do "Jeremy Renner" So coming from Matt Damon perfect representation of what a spy on the run would be like, it was a shock to see such a horrible performance from the leads. There are too many points in this movie where you don't care what's happening, but you can see that you are meant too. This is not good. There is a point where Rachael Weisz is distraught about seeing her colleagues murdered. Which is fine, although we hardly know this character, we don't care about her enough yet to then sit through a scene which goes for about 15 minutes where she is sobbing while talking to people who we don't know either until after that scene. If you loved the Bourne trilogy, and you haven't seen this one yet, I recommend you don't. 4/10 Expand
  19. Mar 13, 2013
    6
    The worst of the franchise, but with a franchise this good the movie is well worth the watch. I think the introducing of Jeremy Renner's character could lead to some interesting films in the future.
  20. Feb 21, 2013
    6
    Bourne is back. Well sort of, his picture is anyway, and his 'legacy' is also there.
    Through studio and talent communication breakdown, Matt Damon did not return to this fourth instalment as Jason Bourne, he has been replaced by Jeremy Renner who plays a different lead in the film. Director Paul Greengrass also didn't return. Tony Gilroy, who was screenwriter for the first three
    instalments, has taken directorial duties, and well, he has muddled things a little bit.
    Let me say that for the first half hour I was completely oblivious as to what was going on, there was a lot of coded talk, but the gist is that Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner) is an Operation Outcome member, something similar to Treadstone from the previous films. There is, however, much more detail in this film has to what makes these people able to do what they are doing, and Cross is training in Alaska when the brains at Outcome decide to shutdown, due to the events surrounding Jason Bourne and the revelations of Treadstone to the media, because this film takes place during and after the events of Ultimatum. They have to take pills, or chems, in order to enhance their abilities, and after Cross escapes his own assassination, he meets Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz) who has escaped from her lab, which tested the participants for Outcome, after a colleague was chemically forced to murder all the lab doctors, as Eric Byer (Edward Norton) and his associates are attempting to erase any clues to Outcomes existence, again due to the media report into Treadstone.
    The film falters in many aspects due to it being its own worst enemy, the dialogue is often constricted to the point where the audience themselves shouldn't be a part of whats going on, the camera work in the climatic chase scene was very Quantum of Solace, there was just too many cuts to make out a full picture. For its winning formula, there is a different sense of realism to this, they have taken the original films and gave them a full explanation, albeit a very confusing one.
    Renner is excellent as Cross, you can still see his skills of Hawkeye from the Avengers but his confident speech from the Hurt Locker. Rachel Weisz plays the damsel in distress who finds her stride in the last half hour, but the last half hour is taken up by a chase scene in the Philippines which simply far too long, it went on and on, and this was the part where there was just far too many cuts and tight corners to enjoy watching.
    I hope there is a sequel, it was enjoyable to the point of it continuing the 'legacy' but it just wasn't as clean and forthright as its predecessors, some work is definitely needed.
    Expand
  21. Feb 7, 2013
    2
    I watched about an hour before skipping to the end. The main problem for me was the long exposition scenes where in characters sit or stand around yelling or insulting each other. All the exposition could have been edited down to a few minutes and still told the audience everything it needed to know.
  22. BKM
    Jan 29, 2013
    6
    The Bourne Legacy picks up in the aftermath of the CIA's failed attempt to take down Jason Bourne in 2007's The Bourne Ultimatum. With Bourne on the run and the agency facing the threat of having their entire operation exposed, a new unit headed up by Edward Norton's no nonsense agent begins covering their tracks. Jeremy Renner has the lead role of agent Aaron Cross who must outwit the forces working to take him down. It's pretty standard stuff, especially when compared to the last two Bourne films, but it's well made and delivers plenty of action. Still, it's hard not to miss the enthralling direction of Paul Greengrass who helped elevate the series to where it is today. Expand
  23. Jan 21, 2013
    4
    The Bourne Legacy was completely unnecessary. Not only was the plot weak, but it didn't follow what happened in the other movies at all. The one good thing was that there were some awesome action sequences.
  24. Jan 12, 2013
    7
    Here they try to flesh out the backstory of 'the program' and the agents a bit more, but it's all very thin and it doesn't matter much in a film which like most Bourne films is mostly action orientated. Where the previous Bourne films mimiced James Bond by being very international in their locations, this one plays out mostly in the US. It's not to say it's bad, the cast is A-level with Renner, Norton and Weisz who make the film allot more enjoyable than B-actors would have made it, but it's certainly not the best in the Bourne series. Expand
  25. Jan 11, 2013
    6
    Nowhere near as good or as visceral as the Bourne trilogy, but how could it be? Those films have set the standard for action and it's a hard one to live up to. Still enjoyable and gives an idea of the life that Bourne led before he lost his memory. I think that's the main problem here. With Jason Bourne we have an essentially sympathetic character who feels disgust at his previous self and wants to exorcise his past. With Aaron Cross we have a man motivated by smart drugs. Bourne is now a franchise. Expand
  26. Jan 2, 2013
    5
    Not a close follower of this Bourne series, but caught this on a flight and was not impressed. Seemed as though there was not a lot of action and alot of unnessessary dialog. Hard to picture/watch the film without Damon (although not a fan of him either) in it. Glad I didn't pay $ to watch this in the theater or on DVD.
  27. Jan 1, 2013
    4
    The Bourne Legacy was a let down. I'm not going to repeat what alot of the other critics have already noted but it clearly did not measure up to the trilogy. Long story short, it doesn't click because the casting is off as is the direction, too bad.
  28. Dec 28, 2012
    5
    As expected, Renner does fantastically in the lead role here in "The Bourne Legacy". The movie won't appeal to everybody and the mixed reviews are no surprise. Personally, I really enjoyed the film, but that's because I like movies that are largely centered on the action and not so much the plot, which is the case here. Thus, if you're more into movie plots, odds are this one won't be for you.
  29. Dec 16, 2012
    7
    Though The Bourne Legacy doesn't quite live up to the original Bourne Trilogy it is still an outstanding movie in its own right. For one, Jeremy Renner does an absolutely phenomenal job. While I don't think the character development or acting is necessarily up to par with Matt Damon, I think he more than legitimizes the film. I also thought that Rachel Weisz did a solid job and Edward Norton provided a decent villain for the movie. In addition to the acting and character development, the plot developed superbly. I thought making this film coincide with the Bourne trilogy was genius. Honestly, the only elements of the movie I didn't enjoy were the general lack of action and the outlandish aspects of some of the action sequences. These two poor aspects coupled together to really hurt the movie because it would start to drag but then when action would finally happen it would sometimes be silly. Still, this movie is definitely worth watching... just don't expect it to be as good as the first three. Expand
  30. Dec 16, 2012
    5
    The Bourne Legacy, the first Bourneless movie, does not do real justice to the franchise. Jeremy Renner, as Aaron Cross, does breathe new and intense life into a completely different character, with Rachel Weisz as the love interest he never makes love to, although Weisz is definitely the Bourne "girl." It's refreshing to see an actress over 40 playing any kind of girl, and Weisz is the appropriate age for an experienced research scientist with a PhD, playing the role of Dr. Marta Shearing. Nevertheless, Weisz's role is a classic damsel-in-distress, perhaps of a more subdued nature, because she doesn't have to scream even once. If the director intended to develop her as a female kick-boxer, that never happened. She trembles when she holds a gun, emotionally she's capable of falling apart, and only at the end, she finally kicks the bad guy off his motorcycle. At one point Aaron tells Marta, "You're a warrior." The viewers would say, "I don't think so." Weisz has to run a lot, and she has mastered a strong gait, almost like an Olympic sprinter which, again, seems to imply her character was in development for being a female soldier who can really kick derriere, but that plot thread never materialized. She's following Aaron Cross around, always needing to be rescued at the eleventh hour, and only peripherally makes a contribution with her scientific knowledge regarding his medication and his condition. Weisz is still effective, but if the director really wanted her to be the geeky scientist who does not consider the moral implications of her work, they should have downplayed her beauty. The United States government is, once again, an evil institution that cannot be trusted because they set up illegal, embarrassing spy rings that have to be disbanded, which means every undercover agent has to be killed. Since Watergate, Hollywood continually depicts the American government as political leaders who would betray and murder their own people, rather than being the good guys who are the policemen and the protectors for the entire world. The theme of an evil American government that cannot be trusted is tiresome, and it's getting old. The mastermind who betrays his own spy ring is played by Ed Norton, who depicts the character to perfection, even though the script does not give him much to work with. The entire film is one big hunt-and-chase scene, first starting in Alaska, where it almost piques your interest, and ending in Manila, where it's a boring roof-jumping motorcycle chase that goes on for too long. At one point, Weisz almost falls off the speeding motorcycle, and she seems to be holding on to a speeding bus until Renner pulls her back. Unless both vehicles were traveling at the exact same speed, that was physically impossible and she should have been yanked right out of her seat. The worst sin--the director and scriptwriters did not know how to end the film. The main concern was to keep the plot open-ended for the next installment, so at the end the script is, quite literally, lost at sea. Expand
  31. Dec 15, 2012
    5
    I really enjoyed the first two-thirds of this movie. It was filled with intrigue, complexity and character development. They also did a masterful job of weaving the timeline into the end of the previous movie in the series. But like so many of these spy thrillers, it degenerated into one long chase scene at the end. And when the movie ended, I was thinking, "That's it?"

    Clearly, they're
    setting it up to continue the series, but the ending was a real letdown. After building such great tension between all the characters, we're left with zero resolution. Expand
  32. Dec 9, 2012
    5
    I have to admit that the low mark is mostly due to the fact that I didn't watch the 2nd and 3rd installment of Bourne series. This meant that I could not understand roughly 30% of the discussions between the government characters. Otherwise, a solid action movie for Sunday afternoon.
  33. Dec 8, 2012
    5
    This review contains spoilers. Riding on the back of the Bourne trilogy. It could just as easily have "borrowed" a title from Bond, or Batman - the connection is about as tenuous. A picture of Jason Bourne on the wall, and reference to his name, does not make it a Bourne film. The tedious chase sequence towards the end could have been shortened, and made more plausible, I was reminded of the remake of "Total Recall". Watchable, but not up to the Bourne standard. Collapse
  34. Dec 7, 2012
    7
    A surprisingly astute and enjoyable continuation of the Bourne series, which effectively leads away from the Matt Damon/Jason Bourne era into new waters.

    I was sceptical when hearing about The Bourne Legacy, being an avid fan of the Robert Ludlum books and of the Bourne film trilogy (completely different stories but both enjoyable in their own rights). Being honest this film is just
    continuing on the band wagon of the success of the trilogy, which on one hand I detest, however, the story is written effectively enough that you never feel like they are trying to be Jason Bourne they are just taking the story off on another path.

    Renner and Weise are extremely well cast and play their parts excellently and with an excellent supporting cast makes the film a credible watch. My only reservation in terms of the cast is x x who I do not favour as an actor and didn
    Expand
  35. Dec 3, 2012
    6
    Another attempt to extend a so called franchise way after its end. Not a bad effort, mind you, with a lot of talented cast in its disposal. But while its predecessors were known for its efficiency, Legacy is straddled by a lot of back story and exposition. So much so, that it ruined the pacing of the movie. This is its biggest sin: as an action movie is judged by its 'movement', by being propulsive so to speak. By trying to justify the existence of its new protagonist, Legacy became essentially an Anti Bourne movie. The original trilogy became minor classics because of its grittiness, and its great action sequences, shot essentially on handheld. Legacy felt like a typical spy film, increasing its scope, trying so hard for characterization, but failing in comparison to its 'competitors', The Mission Impossible franchise and of course, James Bond. The end result: a talky film, punctuated with bits of action. Expand
  36. Dec 2, 2012
    6
    It had a pretty solid story that tied in well with the original trilogy. Featured great leads in Norton and Weisz and Renner is a great pick for the lead of the next set of films in this series. That being said, I am a little disapointed with the lack of originality. I understand that it's a sort of Reboot/Sequel/Prequel but it really came off as a repackaged version of the first film but with a different cast and imo it definently hurt the overall value of this film. Also, The whole science situation with the pills is just a little too over the top for me. The pills were believeable but the whole super human thing irked me a little bit. That being said, It's a solid movie overall but definently flawed. I give them a ton of credit though, It's hard to reboot a series when you lose the actor that made the role and films so famous but they did a good job in turning the series into another Bond like franchise and for that they should be applauded. Expand
  37. Dec 2, 2012
    3
    Its unfortunate but I was expecting great things for this movie. I am a huge Bourne fan, having read the Ludlum novels and watched the Bourne trilogy at least 5 fives already. Seeing the average reviews for The Bourne Legacy I was determined that this could not suck. It could not. Oh how wrong I was.

    Having got this movie on Blu-Ray just recently, I was pumping for this film. First ten
    minutes in, I had a horrible feeling. This feels...wrong. Half an hour in, I was like, hey it seems to be picking up. Now, I am not asking for a lot of action. To be honest, I want a movie to be balance of action and dialogue. A lot of the diehard fanboys of this movie (A few in the metacritic reviews) attack those of us who gave his movie mediocre scores as they accuse us of giving it a bad score due to the fact that 'there's not much/not as much action scenes as the previous Bourne films'. To that I say, bullsht. In fact, the action scenes in this movie are alright and the lack of them isn't key in bringing down the score. What does bring it down is a combination of several elements. Firstly, the plot. The plot has to be one of the worst action film plot Ive seen in recent years. And the bad thing is, they're serious here. Unlike the Expendables 1 and 2 where they know its bad so they dont take the plot seriously, Legacy takes it all way too seriously. The movie is full of rudimentary segments and parts that felt way too long. It felt almost like as if the writer wrote a epic plot with visits to several exotic locations, plot twists and sequences. Instead, in filming, they discovered that the script was too long and it was too late to shorten it down. So they just did what they did. About what can be done in 30~50minutes stretched out into 2 hours. Nice work guys. It almost felt like a chore watching this movie after 40 minutes because it just felt so slow and plot progression movie like a slug up a ramp. Unlike the previous Bourne films which mixed a variety of sequences (chases, gun scenes, escapes etc) with excellent plot dialogue segments, Legacy just fills about 85% of the movie with slow dialogue segments that do little to move the story forward and throws in 2 fight scenes, each only around 2 minutes long and single chase scene at the end. That's it. And the asset send to hunt down our protagonists? He's apparently superior to the assets seen the previous Bourne films as he's in a newer, superior program. But heck, in the movie...he's not that good. Especially when going against Renner, who is in an inferior program to Bourne.
    And why the Philippines? That's right folks, half the movie takes place in Manila. I have nothing against the Philippines and have been there before. Its a great country...just with a lot of uninteresting places and lots of slums. Its not really the ideal locale for a top-notch action film. Had this been set in say, Japan, Korea or China or hell, have it back in Europe like the previous Bourne films, it would've been a lot more appealing. Its like saying, "hey, lets set Lord of the Rings in a swamp and have it there for half the movie!". Or "Hey, lets have The Dark Knight set in Antarctica! That's exotic right?" And I felt sorry for Jeremy Renner. This guy has done a great job in this film and its sad to see the rest of the movie being utter dung. Now Rachel Weiz...yea she's a hot milf. Since The Mummy Returns, Ive always had something for her. She's hot. But her acting? Its alright, not too bad, but there are some scenes where you would just wonder...is this an industry veteran or some new girl on the block. But yea, at least she's a much-needed eyecandy for this horrible film. Bourne Legacy doesn't receive a 3/10 purely due to a lack of good action scenes. In fact, its action scenes are okay and while there is a lack of them, its not the critical factor. The crucial aspect that nails this film in its coffin is the combination of a boring/shallow plot, boring characters (and a complete lack of chemistry, good or bad, between the Weiz and Renner to the point where it feels like they hate each others guts in real life and wanted to avoid doing anything/speaking with one another), a lame premise, bad locale choice and basically, having next to no relations with the Bourne Trilogy. Its like Prometheus to Alien...sure there's the hints and links here and there, but its not the same thing. This is The Bourne Legacy. While I can see Prometheus fit within the Alien universe, Legacy doesn't really feel like its part of the Bourne universe. Sure, it has Jason Bourne it in...on TV, but overall, if you remove the 'Bourne' title in this movie, it really would not making a difference. So shallow, uninspiring and boring, this film dampened the Bourne namesake so bad that I had to rewatch the Bourne Trilogy again just to make myself feel better. A horrible, Grade-B spinoff of the Bourne franchise with no class nor brains.
    Expand
  38. Nov 30, 2012
    8
    While not as action-packed as the trilogy, The Bourne Legacy does not contain a single dull moment. The ending just happens, but hopefully there is a sequel to make up for that.
  39. Nov 15, 2012
    5
    One of few movies during which I fell to sleep :/ The plot seems full of bullet holes, with some reminiscence of previous Bourne movies rattling inside. Sometimes it's even difficult to understand what the point of this movie is... Is there some kind of conspiracy? Or is it just about one American agent, who runs after some pills? Yet another disappointment, after a dismal Ghost Protocol...
  40. Nov 9, 2012
    10
    The fight scenes in this film are FANTASTICALLY choreographed - Renner turns killing into a dance. The ending leaves just enough open that we can realistically expect a sequel.
  41. Nov 5, 2012
    5
    The Bourne Legacy has moments where it's electrifying, pulse-pounding, and everything else it's supposed to be. The problem is those moments don't add up to anything worth your while.
  42. Oct 30, 2012
    5
    I'm just gonna give this an average score because of two major mistakes the movie has. First of all, this movie is too long for a story and script so thin. The story seems to never develop as the movie has other unnecessary scenes like the death of the other agents and the long confrontation between Marta and the agents in her house. The other reason is that the pacing of the movie is very bad as the pacing is too slow at the start and middle then suddenly speeds up when they arrived in the Philippines with an abrupt ending. Despite good performances by the cast, it is still barely a good film. Oh yeah, action scenes are not as thrilling than the previous films. The franchise should have ended with Ultimatum. Expand
  43. Oct 17, 2012
    0
    If you are a HUGE Bourne fan like myself this movie will probably not be for you. This is Jason Bourne without Jason Bourne. The movie was disappointing to say the least. I must admit there was one good part and thats the part where I dosed off for 5min and nearly got a heart attack when my wife woke me
  44. Oct 4, 2012
    8
    The reason nobody liked this film is because there was much less action and much more dialogue than the previous three. But what they don't realize is that this new twist on Bourne is just getting started, and if the entire film had been judo and shoot-outs, what could we expect from the sequels? Legacy sets the foundation for what looks to be like an excellent parallel on Jason Bourne's story.
  45. Oct 4, 2012
    8
    Better than Supremacy by a hair. But couldn't keep pace with Identity or Ultimatum (of which both I would give a 10). Jeremy Renner does a nice job as the new anchor of the franchise. His character felt rooted in the real world with real training. Set in a story true to present day issues. For the most part the action and ingenuity of the lead didn't disappoint the first 90% of the film. But, overall the antagonist seems to growl more than bite. And I would love to know who's ending we got. The Studio's or the directors. The momentum seemed to sputter like a boat out of gas in view of the checkered flag. With the only real goal being the setup for a sequel. Expand
  46. Sep 30, 2012
    5
    The Bourne Legacy will dissapoint many fans of the orginal trilogy. It ultimatley feels like a cash in attempt to do Bourne without Bourne, although the cinematic style is thankfully reminiscent of the orginals. The story is easily the film's biggest let down and by the end of the film it's all to easy to just not give a toss. That said, the action, specifically a rooftop chase remain as enthralling as you should expect of a Bourne film, and solid performances from Jeremy Renner and Edward Norton almost overshadow the feeling that the film has no point. But in essence, The Bourne Legacy is a letdown for fans of Bourne, compelling plots and good spy movies altogether. Expand
  47. Sep 30, 2012
    6
    This movie started out great as a stand on it own movie, great beginning action. Then they started putting clips of the past three movies that Matt Damon did into it. I am not taking anything away from those I own all 3 and they are great! But did the writers just have brain freezes or something?
    Writers you should have set your standards higher and wrote this as it were Bond James
    Bond. You do not see them jumping back in time to previous movies just to be able to fill the screen. You left it so you could continue the story, please continue it don't back track. Expand
  48. Sep 29, 2012
    1
    This movie was an utter disgrace to what is probably my all-time favorite movie franchise. While the first Bourne movies were smart and engrossing - this movie feels like it was written by 3rd graders. The script is awful, the plot doesn't progress, and the characters are completely 1-dimensional. Not only that, but the entire premise of the movie involves borderline sci-fi garbage that has no place in the Bourne series. Certain scenes like the series' trademark chase scene clip and are unrealistic looking - and I can point to one (unimportant) scene in particular where an agent drops 20 feet from a tree in a blur like superman.

    Some people may have not liked Jeremy Renner - but as most reviews indicate - he was certainly not the problem. No plot, no script, and boring. I'm going to go on pretending that this movie doesn't exist, and hope they do the next Bourne movie the right way - with a plot and a script. Disgraceful.
    Expand
  49. Sep 24, 2012
    8
    I was surprised at how this movie didn't ruin the entire series for me, and how great of a protagonist Jeremy Renner is. This movie wasn't a total fail, and I actually thought it kept fairly consistent with it's predecessors.
  50. Sep 24, 2012
    6
    The Bourne Legacy failed to have the same greatness as the previous films but still delivers great action and acting, although the script is average and so is the story.

    The best thing about Legacy is the acting. Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weisz have done a fantastic job of acting their characters and totally fulfills their roles. Only the script let such good actors down.

    The worst
    thing about Legacy is the storyline. The protagonist (Jeremy Renner who plays Aaron Cross) needs to find pills in order to survive and is on the run with Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz) who knows where they are and both are on the run from the CIA. That´s it. Not very fulfilling.

    I shall give "The Bourne Legacy" a 6.5/10. Thanks!
    Expand
  51. Sep 17, 2012
    5
    I watched every film in the series before walking myself to the theatre to see this. I purposely wanted to give this a good four-movie review. I was looking forward to it very much. And then, I came to the awful realization that this latest release in the Bourne franchise is not so good at all. Maybe even leaning towards bad.
    I can't be too committal on my disappointment because I have to
    admit some scenes where good and I was intrigued. But I couldn't help to feel that this thing wasn't peaking. Am I the only one feeling like this? The guy is just looking to fix his meds. The plot gets going, every one seems super important in their roles, there is a lot of following and a lot of killing, but the thread of the story... not there, right?
    I reached the end of the film literally asking myself, this can't be it? Is it? Wait! it is!
    Expand
  52. Sep 17, 2012
    7
    I don't mind give it high rating for this movie. I didn't watch the prequel before, for a stand alone movie, Bourne Legacy wins. Breathtaking and intense action, ambush and chase scene. And Tony Gilroy's script is gold.
  53. Sep 11, 2012
    5
    "The Bourne Legacy" is good in many aspects, however the film doesn´t convinces as an action flick, because it has some very long, but boring, action sequences. The actors in it are okay, the dialogues are well written, but after all, the movie is just tedious and tiring.
  54. Sep 9, 2012
    4
    I'm very disappointed with the Bourne Legacy. The trailers and the anticipation was good, but the film was only "average". The beginning is very confused (but that's OK for a spy-movie) ... after the half and some good scene the movie goes down. The ending is "wait for The Bourne legacy 2" and totally inconsistent.
    Don't waste money going to the cinema for this.
  55. Sep 8, 2012
    0
    This movie simply has no art at all. No art in the action scenes, no art in dialogue, no art in acting. The plot sucks and makes me want to sleep, this movie doesn't teach you anything and the soundtracks are frustrating simply. I'm giving it a 0 out of 10 because for me it was a waste of time.
  56. Sep 8, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Wow, I thought the reviews were misleading, especially given how Bourne has to compete with Batman, and that Retner's previous film, Mission Impossible, was IMHO underwhelmingly reviewed at this site. But this time they got it right.

    Both Bourne and TDKR are films generally for fans of the series only. Anyone not privy to The Bourne Ultimatum is going to get a bit lost in Legacy. Luckily the film does a bit of hand-holding. But the first few minutes can be confusing, and in general the film suffers from somewhat mediocre storytelling.

    Retner does a good impression of a Bourne-esque hero, which tries to be this offshoot of Treadstone, but ultimately the whole film was trying to achieve the Bourne trilogy in 2 hours. And unlike Batman, which tried to approach the story via a new method of exposition, this film suffers from recycling plot points, general characters, and even action sequences from the previous movies. Its as if it tries to be a homage, but ultimately it is made to look like it can't survive on its own without hearkening back to Matt Damon's time.

    Characters are not very memorable apart from Cross. Like I said, the characters look recycled, and unoriginal. Fans of the series can only recall these people from previous movies, like its a homage.

    The story, despite the exposition, does expand upon Ultimatum. Ultimately, Legacy does show the fallout of Ultimatum, both during the film (but parallel using Cross POV), and shortly after the film. It does feel like a sequel is in the horizon, and it does feel like Jason Bourne's saga is not going to end in New York.

    Overall it is not a very bad movie, but only to fans of the series. Again the whole setup feels like a throwback to the Damon era, whilst trying to establish a mythos on its own. Unfortunately Cross would at best come out as a Bourne without the amnesia or struggle with his emotions, and his life's story would not be any different (some say even ripping off) from Bourne.
    Expand
  57. Sep 8, 2012
    7
    More aptly named "The Bourne Without Bourne", it's quite surprisingly that Legacy manages to use the franchise's formula to good use. It does suffer slight reduction to the pace, which was initially blinding fast, into a more exposition-filled story. The writers keep the plot from derailing off the original three and using a parallel story of another burned agent in a grander scheme affected by the previous events. Acting by Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weisz are superb and action is definitely there to meet blockbuster demand, it only lacks the fast cut of its predecessor and the titular hero.

    Jeremy Renner is a definite great choice for Aaron Cross, the new marked agent. He looks lively compared to the others rigid agents, it humanizes him and makes him more natural without compromising the resourcefulness of the character. The franchise always uses an agent in distress style and it stays true with Aaron's story, although he leans more on frantic attempt for self-preservation rather cold calculating and vengeful motive. Even though the story deems him a bit flawed, that actually makes him more sympathetic to the audience.

    Rachel Weisz as Dr. Shering delivers a spledid performance. She is convincing on her struggle as if she's doing a ballet piece on the verge of mental breakdown. She appears as strong as an ordinary person would be, but in the same time frail in the face of trained killers. The story gives much time to her, understandably so. This might hampers the pace a bit, but considering her quality acting, it's a safe investment. Her role's attitude switches from methodically calculating for the sake of survival to slowly growing affectionate towards her savior.

    Action is good, true to grimy Bourne stunt, it has plenty of chases and fights, mostly on densely populated area. I like the fact they use real stunt rather than CG, because it gives more organic motion and danger to it, especially the scenes in South East Asia. The editing is still lightning fast, but a bit slower and more concentrated this time around. The main concern is it has lesser content than the previous Bourne titles. With each of them packing a hefty amount of plot and action, Bourne Legacy feels only half of those. It doesn't give satisfying end, as I expect there might be more sequel(s) to it.

    Regardless of not reaching the height of previous endeavors, which is ironic since the main allure somewhat lies in the title, Bourne Legacy is still an enjoyable espionage thriller.

    Rate 7/10
    Expand
  58. Sep 4, 2012
    3
    This was a huge, essentially plotless disappointment: zero intrigue, zero character/relationship development, zero point, very little suspense, and empty dialogue. Renner and Weisz carried the entire thing, but outside of liking them I cared little or nothing for the "characters" or the "story."

    What made Jason Bourne so intriguing was that he was completely lost and there were
    strangers trying to kill him - a double nightmare loaded with action, mystery, and suspense. And we cared about him because he was repenting and struggling with what he did while brain washed at Treadstone. Aaron Cross and Dr. Shearing however are two characters of little interest simply running for their lives from the government they were working for. Aaron Cross in fact, as per a scene with Ed Norton, could be considered a ready and willing villain! He's not trying to get his life back, or get out of the business, or clear his conscience, he's just a killer that wants to stay smart and not get killed. There's nothing to figure out and no ending to arrive at, and therefore nothing to follow, connect to, or really care about. This movie was total bore that simply rode on its loose association to the far superior Bourne Trilogy. Expand
  59. Sep 3, 2012
    4
    Let me start off by saying that I wasn't thrilled with the original Bourne trilogy. They were redundant and all ended the same way. Sadly, this film is no exception. In fact, its plot is exactly the same as The Bourne Identity, which makes it a totally uninspired addition to the already dull franchise. It may entertain you, but the story and point have been shown all too many times.
  60. Sep 2, 2012
    7
    It's a good movie, that's for sure, and frenetic enough for me not to have noticed how quickly it went by, I wish there was more of it. Jeremy Renner was definitely the right actor to play Aaron Cross, and the rest of the cast did a good job too (taking into account what they were given). The idea/concept behind the story was interesting. I'm looking forward to watching a the sequel when it is done. The issues I have with it are: 1) There was not enough character development for Aaron to be a more likable lead character (the existing scenes weren't great and some felt even unnecessary) 2) Aaron did not seem to be fighting for anything other than survival, he didn't seem to have any objectives other than running 3) It seemed to take a bit too much for any real action to happen, and the action in Bourne Legacy is not as good in the other Bourne movies 4) CIA agents (including Edward Norton's character) were only there to fill in information on why Aaron was being pursued. They didn't do anything more than a wall of text on the screen would have done.5) The ending wasn't good. It was terrible, actually. I hope the sequel gets a much better conclusion. Expand
  61. Sep 1, 2012
    7
    Im going to get this part of the review out of the way... Its just isn't the same with out Matt Damon. Ok now, after Ultimatum, I was skeptical when i heard there was yet another movie. The plot was a little thin at times, but there were parts that connected to the trilogy, which shed some light on on some of the events that may not have been clarified previously. Now, the only reason why I'm giving this review a higher score was because of Jeremy Renner. I like this guy in all of his roles, and this one I found to be more enjoyable than the others. Jeremy really delivers in the action sequences and believing he's a badass is really easy since he is pretty badass. Overall, it was a good movie. Not like the trilogy but a nice edition to the series. Expand
  62. Aug 29, 2012
    8
    This was a really good movie. It hit all the right notes with a good spy story, believable characters, and awesome action. Aaron Cross is definitely not as unstoppable as Jason Bourne, which in my opinion made him seem really weak. Two things I wasn't too fond of: 1. I felt part of the plot with the virus and chromosome was difficult to follow at times. 2. The movie ended pretty abruptly and was very anti-climatic. HOWEVER despite the couple negatives the movie was a fantastic ride that kept me very engaged. Highly recommend. Expand
  63. Aug 29, 2012
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The original Jason Bourne trilogy starring Matt Damon had become a re-interpretation of action-spy films, perhaps even giving the James Bond series a run for their money, and after how well The Bourne Ultimatum was received, the icing had become the icing on the cake as it could not have gone much higher. Well, it would be pretty difficult to do so, at least. However, the fourth instalment The Bourne Legacy had other plans due to Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass Expand
  64. Aug 27, 2012
    8
    Smarter than the previous installments but a bit of a stretch to fit it into he scheme and story line which made it tough to follow at points. I'd have preferred a bow tied around the ending but it's clear they plan to continue to milk the franchise. The "superhuman" action sequences were believable enough to keep me from being distracted by them. The " ...science... " (loosely in quotes) was weak at best. Overall my score of 8 reflects my general good time had. Expand
  65. Aug 27, 2012
    1
    This is the first movie that i've actually FELL ASLEEP watching in the cinema. It was utterly awful. The only saving grace was the performance of Jeremy Renner, who was incredibly good in the role.
  66. Aug 26, 2012
    3
    I have not seen any of the other Bourne films so this is my first film a have seen out of the Bourne films, and what a let down. Very boring and I didn't really get it the films story. The Bourne Legacy 3.8/10
  67. Aug 26, 2012
    4
    The Bourne Legacy proves itself as little more than a half-hearted attempt to restart the franchise. Jeremy Renner stars as Aaron Cross, another government-trained assassin from an operation parallel to Treadstone and Blackbriar. Presumably his abilities surpass Bourne's, though this isn't really put to the test. Following the fallout of Ultimatum's potential media leak, officials decide to shut down a number of programs, ranging from field operatives to researchers. Cross decides to rescue Dr. Rachel Weisz in hope of receiving his medication, and the two then flee to Manila. Too much of Legacy just feels like a watered-down retread of the other Bourne pictures with different actors. It knows the words but not the music. Edward Norton channels Chris Cooper, Joan Allen, and David Strathairn of series' entries past without really bringing anything new to the role. Renner does solid work in the lead role. Weisz is mainly kept around as multi-purpose window dressing. The action sequences are only mildly interesting while other scenes fatally lack momentum. It's as if the director and writers thought they could coast on the audience's familiarity with the series and interest in seeing impressive stuntwork and professional ass-kickings. No new grounds are really covered, save some uninteresting scientific developments. The movie can be praised for its efficiency and technological aspects, but that praise would mean more if these aspects were put to use in a better movie. All in all The Bourne Legacy has no real reason to exist other than to regurgitate the series' now tired formula, and to open the door for yet another sequel. Expand
  68. Aug 25, 2012
    3
    Bourne Legacy was so disappointing. And we were really looking forward to seeing this. All it was was a 2 hour set up for a sequel. Which they could have done in 30 minutes. Not the two hours and 15 minutes that this thing was drug out
    We felt like we really wasted our money
  69. Aug 25, 2012
    4
    As others have said, this film is overly complicated. If you don't remember everything that happened in the first three movies, you will have no clue what's going on. Even if you, like me, remember just about everything from the first three movies, you'll be sadly disappointed. This film does nothing to further the Bourne story except to say that they introduce a new agent. Overall, the story is pretty boring and pointless. I had a free ticket to see it, otherwise, I would be regretting my ticket purchase. Save your money and see something else. Expand
  70. 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 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. Expand
  71. Aug 22, 2012
    5
    The Bourne Legacy. Take away a lead character with a sense of mystery about him with a guy you pretty much have figured straight away, add to the mix with not very tense shady government office exchanges, with a side order of chase / fight sequences which are sub par to the previous three films, and there you have it. Honestly, thought it wasn't too bad until the end chase sequence with a guy jumping from one motorbike to another at high speed [ not very realistic ] to the ensuing crash being not very cgi, instead of the real thing which made previous offerings so refreshing, with a sense of realism. In all, a waste of Renner and Norton Expand
  72. Aug 22, 2012
    5
    The male and female leads are great and good acting. Unfortunately this movie doesn't have enough actions, not enough tension and overall I found it boring after one hour and wanted to leave the cinema but i couldn't as i have paid it to watch this tormenting movie. Bourne trilogy, I would give 9/10. BUT Bourne legacy i give it 5/10 because of good acting only.
  73. Aug 20, 2012
    8
    This was a great film. Was it perfect? No of course not, its extremely rare to find a perfect film. The Bourne Legacy is a fast paced and intelligent film. It does have its flaws with some wooden moments from Rachel Weiz and the upsetting fact that Edward Norton really doesn't do anything besides word off some facts about the field agents and whats going on. It was a bit overly lond as well. 145 minute running time is pretty steep for this type of movie. Jeremy Renner of course didn't disappoint as he never does. It didn't seem like their were very many action scenes but now that i look back at it, i think theres a good healthy amount, and in everyone Renner is just awesome. He's a great action star and a great actor period. The story was well written but it wasn't executed to the best it could've been i believe, but overall it was a great and entertaining film. As good as the original trilogy? No, its a tad bit off from the original Matt Damon featured trilogy but it was still a damn good film and its definitely worth the admission price. I'd go see it again and i will most certainly purchase the blu-ray in the future. 8/10 Expand
  74. Aug 20, 2012
    4
    A promising new actor (Jeremy Remer) takes over as Arron Cross for Matt Damon's Jason Bourne character in the latest Bourne film but even with the talented and beautiful rachel Weisz in support they are not enough to save this turkey from thanksgiving day dinner. The opening chapter in Alaska with the drone attack shows promise of building suspense and action but everything ultimatley crashes due to a poor plot and a lousy closing chase scene. In a spy file, if the plot is improbable, you are in big trouble (unless its a Bond film-then no one apparently cares). Writer/director Tony Gilroy who wrote the scripts for the first three Bourne films, and takes over as director has lost the magic. The Bourne Legacy attempts to connect the dots from The Bourne Ultimatum before heading into new territory but instead the US government (again) tries to wipe out not only all the agents but even all the scientists behind the "new " program. Why? who knows? We know in reality our goverment wont care, but this leads to alot of silly murders to unsuccessfully build suspense. Because all suspense and credibility is lost, all the old Jason Bourne characters who are in this film (Ed Norton; albert Finney; davis strathern; joan allen etc) appear like retreaded tires.By the end, everything about the file seems like an old worn out tire. Expand
  75. Aug 19, 2012
    8
    'Legacy' is more of an action thriller than 'Identity' or 'Supremacy', but only because Bourne has already done most of the footwork for us. Less thought, more action this time around, but also more talking.

    Enter Rachel Weisz and Jeremy Renner, who are both very good at talking, and look good doing it. On screen, their characters describe perfectly the world they are in, even though it
    seems they don't know who or where they are, or even what they are doing. Typical Bourne... it's entertaining to see characters discover themselves on screen. But, with two characters, the dynamics are less internal and more about dialog. Lots of dialog.

    Eventually, they ask each other the right questions, and find that they each hold the key to the other's survival. They form an inseparable, if imperfect, team, so near to total disaster and death, that any mistake would normally prove fatal, but thank God for fiction, right? Many bullets are dodged but every bullet the hero fires hits. Disasters are averted by causing preemptive disasters. Continuing the Bourne themes of running, shooting, and asking too many questions, this film follows in the tradition of its predecessors.

    The shortcut of using pre-existing sequences and characters is both a boon and a bane; time is saved and newcomers are put on the fast track to understanding the plot, but previous viewers and fans will recognize sequences they've already seen and wonder why there isn't a better way. Sure, the stories happen simultaneously, and the flashbacks help show that the new film's time line coincides with past films', but it feels like someone was cheating when they did this. Shouldn't there be new material, artfully blended into the background to give the desired impression (the carved name was perfect), instead of stock footage? Shouldn't Bourne be hinted at, instead of flashed on screen? Honestly, 100% of the re-used footage needed to be left out. And that is why, ladies and gentlemen, this film is not getting top reviews.
    Expand
  76. Aug 19, 2012
    6
    I loved the first 3 Bourne movies and I love Matt Damon. I was hoping for a cameo in this movie but no dice. Regardless, Jeremy Renner does a fantastic job, and overall this was an enjoyable movie. A couple of criticisms:
    1) The movie is too long. Specifically the car/motorcycle chase at the end should have been about half as long as it was. It got pretty boring.
    2) (Related to #1) Cross
    should have fought LARX #3, instead of just having an overly long motorcycle chase.
    3) Overall there seemed to be a lack of good fight scenes us Bourne fans have come to expect from the first three movies. The few that are in the movie are good (especially the scene vs. the 4 CIA agents), but the rest are quite short, and Cross never fights anyone that seems to give him a real challenge. Again, he should have fought LARX #3. In fact, the movie builds up this inevitable confrontation between Cross and LARX #3, only to have the movie end shortly after their boring and too-long motorcycle chase, never having them engage in hand-to-hand combat.
    4) I tend to dislike abrupt and open endings, and I understand they were setting it up for the next sequel, but it just felt like a weird place to end it.

    Overall a good and enjoyable movie. Renner is great, and Weisz does a good job too. Ed Norton is fantastic as the not-quite-villain but definitely-not-good-guy-either antagonist. He makes some tough moral choices and they have definitely set it up for a confrontation between Cross and Norton's Byer in the next sequel. Hopefully we'll get to see both Damon and Renner in the next one.
    Expand
  77. Aug 19, 2012
    9
    The ending is trash, the rest is badass. The change of lead actors from Matt Damon and Jeremy Renner is surprising but you will definitely enjoy this movie, especially if you're a fan of the franchise. Aaron Cross is a solidly-built character and Renner's portrayal gives enough rope to hang either the doubters or himself. Brace yourself for a summer action flick that will keep the adrenalines pumping. Expand
  78. 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 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. Expand
  79. Aug 18, 2012
    6
    It's boring. Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weisz's are great in their roles, but the movie throws a lot at you - you'll get confused if you don't remember the previous movies - but soon it's no biggy. The action scenes are awesome, but until you see them, you might already be sleeping.
  80. Aug 17, 2012
    4
    An unworthy, unwelcome, and unnecessary addition to what is the greatest trio of spy movies ever made. The movie was only saved due to Jeremy Renner's solid performance as the lead actor, however his character was done injustice due to poor writing. This movie lacks all things Bourne: the intensity, suspense, action, compelling villains. Identity, Supremacy and Ultimatum were actually about a government conspiracy about elite Assassins. Legacy is about a science project creating Terminators, there's a difference. Jason Bourne was badass and all, but in the end we could all relate to him. We could all connect to his situation whether he was shot, fighting, being chased all around the city, we could relate to him. Aaron Cross was poorly developed, but like I said I wouldn't blame Renner, it's the poor writing. The trilogy was all about Bourne being hunted by Treadstone and later Blackbriar, his main objective: find out who wants him dead. Cross is in the same situation only with a different objective which translates to "I need some meds!!", no connection to the story there. Likewise for the villains, they didn't give a rats ass about Aaron Cross, and where the Matt Damon movies features non-stop amazing action, here we have a bunch of guys doing chit chat. Not only does it fail there, there are other Bourne moments absent: Where's the agent vs agent fight? Where's Cross making a call to the people after him? Where's the confrontation with the man who wants him dead? Yes this movie is a disappointment, and not worthy of the Bourne title. Yet to me Bourne remains a trilogy. Ultimatum wrapped up the story with near perfection, I never really saw the need to continue the story at all, my expectations were never really high in the first place so from what I can conclude this movie failed to prove me wrong and it actually didn't even manage to live up to my moderate expectations. This movie gets a 4/10 only because of Jeremy Renner's acting, the man gave it his best. Honourable mention to Rachel Weisz and Edward Norton who also put up solid performances but like Renner they were victim to the terrible writing this movie had. Expand
  81. Aug 17, 2012
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Bourne Legacy. There have been many questions surrounding the Bourne Legacy. One is, how will Jeremy Renner fill Matt Damon's shoes? And another one is, how will this follow on from the Bourne Trilogy. Personally, I believe that Jeremy Renner has done the fans justice, it was however the poor script letting him down. Aaron Cross, who is played by Jeremy Renner is hardly like Jason Bourne. He knows who he is, but never really questions why the 'CIA' are after him. That is clearly not Renner's fault. The script doesn't really make sense, as it feels as if the writers are trying to milk another film out of the famous trilogy. The beginning kicks straight into the action, as Renner's seen on the mountain tops, but the story doesn't really get any more interesting than that, apart from the Car chase (I'll get onto that later). The story line introduces a new twist, which we didn't know about before, which is the 'blue and greens'. I think this is quite a good addition, as many people felt like they didn't know why Treadstone or Blackbriar made these assassins think and act like this. Awesomness is on another level when Rachel Weisz is added to the story. I think her character is thought of really well, and is like Marie in the Trilogy but better. She gets involved with Cross more than Marie did with Bourne, which in a way is a brilliant thing. Her character, as a scientist, is intriguing as she makes the assassins who they are through gene changing. The car chase. Wow. Unlike the chases in the Bourne Trilogy, the chase is faster, and more nerve racking as they are more naive with how they deal with it. However, I feel like the assassin who was sent after Cross wasn't as compelling as the other assassins. Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed the film. I hope in the future we could see a Damon/Renner team up, which would be utterly amazing. I gave this film an 8 as I thought some improvements could be made with the script and the story line, but I would really recommend going to see it! Expand
  82. Aug 16, 2012
    4
    How do you review a movie that was so boring you fought to stay awake, who's characters were poorly written and unable to engage you in any interesting way. A spy movie that either has the thinnest plot ever or none at all depending on your perspective. Who tried to copy all the cool things about it's predecessors and put them all in one cool action film, but instead somehow made all those things much less intriguing. A movie who's only redeemable quality is that it has pretty good acting, and looks good. I guess that's how. Expand
  83. Aug 16, 2012
    8
    I've heard a lot of negative criticism surrounding this film, and quite frankly I can't really understand why. From start to finish this visceral narrative skips and hops around absolutely stunning locations that are an adventure in their own rights. There is a solid mix of both lush visuals and grounded prose that gives clear insight to the story behind the elusive pills and the whole story slowly weaves itself into an excellent film. I won't give too much away, but if you decide to watch the film you're in for one hell of a ride, with a hopeful ending and possible hint to a sequel! Expand
  84. Aug 15, 2012
    7
    Overall a decent action movie with a good cast. However it's that's really only where it excels, it's action. The story is interesting enough to keep you watching but with a pretty lacklustre ending, you won't be discussing this film for the story. You'll be talking about all the really well put together action scenes. Worth watching.
  85. Aug 14, 2012
    5
    Here is what I think happened... There was a man. They were chasing him. Then in the end.. he got away. Story was overly complicated. Actors were great. Action was exciting but could of used a little more.
  86. Aug 14, 2012
    7
    I can say that as a fan of the original trilogy I both liked it and had issues. It has the same time line and lots of the same characters and the same style, which is all good. The main problem is that while Jeremy Renner is good he is just never going to be Matt Damon. Also he has no memory loss, which was what gave Jason Bourne and the original trilogy an emotional hook. You have to wait but there is a great chase/bike scene. For fans only I'd say. Expand
  87. Aug 14, 2012
    8
    The directing, acting, and intrigue are great. The problem is there is no climax, it feels more like a first act to a trilogy coming. In the other Bournes, Jason Bourne always took down the person that set the story in action at the end, here Edward Norton and Renner never meet. We may look back after the next two Bournes with Renner and appreciate it, but now it does feel very anti-climactic... but still better than any superhero movie. Expand
  88. Aug 14, 2012
    7
    After a five-year stint, BOURNE redux (the fourth chapter) has returned with a pristine cast starring a red-hot Jeremy Renner as Aaron Cross, another secret agent going rogue (not Matt Damon
  89. Aug 13, 2012
    7
    I enjoyed this movie, although I wish it had something new to offer. It was very similar to the first movie, Bourne Identity, in several ways, almost as if they took that script, changed just a few things, and recast it. Ok, it's definitely not exactly the same, but it was very reminiscent. Also, as a huge fan of Matt Damon, it was sad to watch it with them referring to Jason Bourne a million times, and the character not actually being there. That being said, I found it enjoyable (cameras every so slightly less shaky than previous movies...I know that has bothered a lot of people), and I'd say it's worth seeing in the theatre. Also, I've always loved Rachel Weisz, so she added a lot to the movie in my books. Expand
  90. Aug 13, 2012
    5
    I wasn't exactly looking foward to this film, mainly due to the 5 years since the last one, and while I love Renner, he's no Matt Damon. After it received poor reviews, I was diswayed even more. But I saw it, and its exactly what I thought it would be. It featured two greatly entertaining shootouts and some cool CIA stuff, but a lot, A LOT of talking and a run time that overstays its welcome. Hopefully this is a bridge to a 5th film with both Renner and Damon, which will be a resurrection of the franchise. Expand
  91. Aug 13, 2012
    7
    Excitement starts at the last half hour, before that you might as well munch on your popcorn, text someone or do whatever. Stunts are exhausting yet surreal, Bourne without an excellent car chase is next to impossible. And don't be surprised when you see the credits rolling so suddenly.
  92. Aug 13, 2012
    5
    This film was such a disappointment. The first hour was spent explaining the program and the second hour was spent trying to kIl the agents in the new program. The film was not not suspenseful or exciting. I felt like they took the footage that did not make the last film and just added to it so they could have another movie. How many times do we have to see the finale where our hero is sailing away with the beautiful girl? This film was just a cheap effort to make a quick buck. Expand
  93. Aug 12, 2012
    5
    The Bourne saga is back! This time with a lot more thrills, action and more kick-ass hand to hand combat then ever before! Unfortunately, not so much. This story starts off with Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner) who is in Alaska for Treadstone training. Then, while Cross is in training, we have another story going. From here, the movie becomes hectic and confusing. (Edward Norton) is introduced as retired Col. Eric Byer, and (Stacy Keach) as retired ADM. Mark Turso. These two characters take down all of the Treadstone spy Expand
  94. Aug 12, 2012
    8
    Jeremy Renner takes the place of Matt Damon as a CIA superagent , who's life is threatened by his own boss. The plot unravels slowly and is confusing for a while. However, multiple unexplained events and sharp filmmaking maintain interest. Other than some quick fights, almost all of the action takes place in one final burst. Following the style of the previous Bourne's, there's flashy editing and blurry camerawork, which makes it hard to tell what's happening Expand
  95. Aug 11, 2012
    9
    A worthy addition to the Bourne franchise. The action is non-stop and frequently breath taking. Great script. Great acting. Great editing. Great movie. My only problem was all the references to Damon. He isn't in the movie so why all the talk about his character.
  96. Aug 11, 2012
    10
    Here we see a real lack in the...well, all I can say is intelligence ...of many film critics. If you see the term confusing in a review...that is a red flag the critic was not paying attention, has poor listening or analytical skills or is just not too smart.

    The movie on the other hand is very smart, really fast, exciting and well done. Everything, every line and action makes sense
    within the integrated whole of the movie.

    If you like your movies intelligent, exciting fast we complex and sophicticated characters and writing see this move. Highly recommended.
    Expand
  97. 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
  98. Aug 10, 2012
    3
    Jason Bourne is one of the more intriguing film characters of the past decade. He methodically and purposefully found out who he was, who was responsible for his condition, and attempted to bring everything back together again. Even better, he was not a superhero; Jason was just a guy who went through a lot of training. He is elite, but deep down he is still one of us. Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner), on the other hand, has been tweaked a little bit. He pops pills to up his physical and mental skills. Yes, he is still human too, but perhaps a bit genetically modified. This splash of sci/fi does not help an audience tuned in to the adventures of Jason Bourne connect with the new guy.

    When I first heard there was another Bourne installment, this time without Matt Damon, I figured someone either wrote a good script to carry on a new story line, or the studio wanted to churn out a guaranteed cash cow under the title of a proven and successful action series. Writer/director Tony Gilroy wrote the scripts for the first three Bourne films, but this is his first time behind the camera in the series. He successfully directed Michael Clayton and the under-appreciated Duplicity, but now the magic is gone. The Bourne Legacy is stale. Enduring a painfully slow beginning, The Bourne Legacy reveals it is set at the same point in time as The Bourne Ultimatum. In fact, if you have forgotten the plot points and supporting characters of the previous film, take the time to either watch it again or read about it online before heading into the new feature. Jason Bourne's escapades have thrown multiple CIA operations out in the open and the shadowy powers are frantically trying to sweep them under the rug before either Congress or the press start asking questions. Eric Byer (Edward Norton) orders the termination of Project Outcome, the new series of super agent represented by Aaron Cross. Instead of telling the agents to pack up and go home, the CIA chooses to assassinate them instead. Oh, and they try to wipe out all of the scientists who made them so super in the first place.

    Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz) is one of those scientists seeking ways to alter chromosomes to make a more perfect human. After surviving annihilation himself, Aaron conveniently scoops the good Dr. out of harms way which sets up an 'us against them' theme quite similar to the one you remember from The Bourne Identity. Unfortunately, The Bourne Legacy noticeably lacks the quality script and thrilling action sequences of that first film. The chase scenes in the new film are edited so atrociously, especially during motorcycle elements, that they are almost impossible to logically follow. You know they are weaving in and out of traffic, there are near misses, and flying bullets; but there are only quick glimpses of that on the screen in the midst of the unsteady camera work and split-second jump cuts.

    The Bourne Identity also had a mystery to unravel and wandered around the world trying to find out who was behind the curtain. There is no curtain now, Edward Norton is pulling the strings in plain sight using all of the means in the intelligence community he can lay his hands on. There are armed Predator drones, devious mop-up CIA killing squads, and even a possible super-duper agent; imagine the Schwarzenegger Terminator battling the new T-1000. Renner and Weisz do their best to remake a film which was already pretty great. Yes, they have new names and faces, but they are running from the same agency, dodging the same bullets, but this time they have a higher chromosomal level on their side. The Bourne Legacy will be known as that film which derailed the very respectable Bourne franchise. Paul Greengrass, the director of The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum, was correct when he said any further film would feel like The Bourne Redundancy.
    Expand
  99. Aug 10, 2012
    9
    The Bourne Legacy, the new movie of the Bourne saga. Ok, what happen? We know the story about this movie, and after some producers decide do a remake, but this movie is really amazing.
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: Ian Nathan
    Aug 12, 2012
    40
    As earnestly as they have tried to continue the formerly excellent spy series, everything Gilroy and crew concoct only serves to mock the excellence and passion with which Greengrass delivered his films.
  2. Reviewed by: Steve Persall
    Aug 12, 2012
    75
    The globetrotting is reined in, the mayhem at each stop just as exciting. Renner is a sturdy action hero, with an interesting face that unlike Damon's appears to have taken a punch or two.
  3. Reviewed by: Peter Rainer
    Aug 12, 2012
    67
    Good at scenes of high-level nastiness, but there's too much confusing exposition in this "Legacy" and the action scenes, some of them good, are too little and too late.