Skip to main content

Do you know what a sin eater is? We take the sin and bury it down deep so the rest of the world can live pure.

The Bourne Legacy
(2012)

This might be a case of going in to the cinema with low expectations and having them exceeded, but I enjoyed this cash-grab attempt to continue the Bourne brand far more than I expected. Mainly because it's not obsessed with being an identikit copy of its predecessors. Indeed, the film is at its least interesting when the extended vehicular chase climax kicks in and the shaky cam takes over.

I don't know what the reaction to the first hour of this has been generally, but I doubt that anyone expecting a wall-to-wall thrill ride will be happy. Since what we get is mostly talk. But engaging talk, delivered by strong actors and used to create a dramatically involving scenario. I’m not sure it was really necessary to include the tricksiness of paralleling the plot to the events of Ultimatum (particularly as that film had it’s own tricksy timeline in respect of Supermeacy) but I appreciated the old-school spy movie vein running through it.

If Duplicity had me doubting Tony Gilroy a little, this sees him return to Michael Clayton territory of letting thesps get on with the heavy lifting while knowing how to stage a scene unobtrusively (that's not to suggest Legacy is anywhere near as good as Clayton, but it's a signal that if it was up to Gilroy he'd probably be making armchair intrigue of the like of Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy rather than unnecessarily continuing an action series). Gilroy is clearly fascinated by power structures, cogs within wheels and moral responsibility in that context. Significant time in this section is spent on Edward Norton and his clean-up operation - a man who repeatedly extols that he is doing what is necessary even though it is a nasty job, suggesting rigorous discipline of mind is required to keep his conscience clear -  and he ensures that his antagonist is as interesting and compelling as the new Bourne.

As for Jeremy Renner's Aaron Cross, the casting creates a very different tone after Damon's stoic affability. There's something quite cold about Renner's intensity, and one of the film's stumbling points is the attempt to nurture a relationship between Cross and Rachel Weisz's scientist (echoing Identity's coupling-on-the-run, to some extent). On the other hand, when it comes to selling a tussle with a wolf or a suspicion-laden encounter with fellow operative Oscar Isaac in an Alaskan cabin his casting pays dividends. Weisz is fine, but I presume she took the role as she needed to pay some bills; she's also central to the best set piece in the film, when her lab is taken out.

As mentioned, Tony Gilroy's not a natural fit for the Paul Greengrass school of epileptic direction, so for the most part this looks closer to Identity. Script-wise, I know he's taken criticism for going off into science fiction realms by making the lead a chemically-enhanced soldier of formerly low IQ but it wasn't a deal breaker for me. I quite liked that they ran in the opposite direction of having him want to retain whatever it was that was done to him; his former normal life was something he has no interest in resuming (although the film doesn’t have much interest in exploring the themes of genetic manipulation on eugenics). I can't say I was too convinced by the method suggested for locking down his abilities permanently, but it was another attempt to ape the original trilogy in the final reel that I had more of a problem with (most of my issues with Gilroy’s film come from that “we must remember this is a Bourne film” section); suddenly revealing another programme out of nowhere just so that Renner has someone to fight was lazy plotting.

So, definitely not up there with the Damon films, and I don't know where they can go from here that doesn't mimic that trilogy (assuming this is successful enough to command another instalment, which looks dubious), but worth a look if you can handle the more fantastical direction Gilroy takes the series in.

****

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Mondo bizarro. No offence man, but you’re in way over your head.

The X-Files 8.7: Via Negativa I wasn’t as down on the last couple of seasons of The X-Files as most seemed to be. For me, the mythology arc walked off a cliff somewhere around the first movie, with only the occasional glimmer of something worthwhile after that. So the fact that the show was tripping over itself with super soldiers and Mulder’s abduction/his and Scully’s baby (although we all now know it wasn’t, sheesh ), anything to stretch itself beyond breaking point in the vain hope viewers would carry on dangling, didn’t really make much odds. Of course, it finally snapped with the wretched main arc when the show returned, although the writing was truly on the wall with Season 9 finale The Truth . For the most part, though, I found 8 and 9 more watchable than, say 5 or 7. They came up with their fair share of engaging standalones, one of which I remembered to be Via Negativa .

Isn’t it true, it’s easier to be a holy man on the top of a mountain?

The Razor’s Edge (1984) (SPOILERS) I’d hadn’t so much a hankering as an idle interest in finally getting round to seeing Bill Murray’s passion project. Partly because it seemed like such an odd fit. And partly because passion isn’t something you tend to associate with any Murray movie project, involving as it usually does laidback deadpan. Murray, at nigh-on peak fame – only cemented by the movie he agreed to make to make this movie – embarks on a serious-acting-chops dramatic project, an adaptation of W Somerset Maugham’s story of one man’s journey of spiritual self-discovery. It should at least be interesting, shouldn’t it? A real curio? Alas, not. The Razor’s Edge is desperately turgid.

You have done well to keep so much hair, when so many’s after it.

Jeremiah Johnson (1972) (SPOILERS) Hitherto, I was most familiar with Jeremiah Johnson in the form of a popular animated gif of beardy Robert Redford smiling and nodding in slow zoom close up (a moment that is every bit as cheesy in the film as it is in the gif). For whatever reason, I hadn’t mustered the enthusiasm to check out the 1970s’ The Revenant until now (well, beard-wise, at any rate). It’s easy to distinguish the different personalities at work in the movie. The John Milius one – the (mythic) man against the mythic landscape; the likeably accentuated, semi-poetic dialogue – versus the more naturalistic approach favoured by director Sydney Pollack and star Redford. The fusion of the two makes for a very watchable, if undeniably languorous picture. It was evidently an influence on Dances with Wolves in some respects, although that Best Picture Oscar winner is at greater pains to summon a more sensitive portrayal of Native Americans (and thus, perversely, at times a more patr

Schnell, you stinkers! Come on, raus!

Private’s Progress (1956) (SPOILERS) Truth be told, there’s good reason sequel I’m Alright Jack reaps the raves – it is, after all, razor sharp and entirely focussed in its satire – but Private’s Progress is no slouch either. In some respects, it makes for an easy bedfellow with such wartime larks as Norman Wisdom’s The Square Peg (one of the slapstick funny man’s better vehicles). But it’s also, typically of the Boulting Brothers’ unsentimental disposition, utterly remorseless in rebuffing any notions of romantic wartime heroism, nobility and fighting the good fight. Everyone in the British Army is entirely cynical, or terrified, or an idiot.

My Doggett would have called that crazy.

The X-Files 9.4: 4-D I get the impression no one much liked Agent Monica Reyes (Annabeth Gish), but I felt, for all the sub-Counsellor Troi, empath twiddling that dogged her characterisation, she was a mostly positive addition to the series’ last two years (of its main run). Undoubtedly, pairing her with Doggett, in anticipation of Gillian Anderson exiting just as David Duchovny had – you rewatch these seasons and you wonder where her head was at in hanging on – made for aggressively facile gender-swapped conflict positions on any given assignment. And generally, I’d have been more interested in seeing how two individuals sympathetic to the cause – her and Mulder – might have got on. Nevertheless, in an episode like 4-D you get her character, and Doggett’s, at probably their best mutual showing.

It’s not as if she were a… maniac, a raving thing.

Psycho (1960) (SPOILERS) One of cinema’s most feted and most studied texts, and for good reason. Even if the worthier and more literate psycho movie of that year is Michael Powell’s Peeping Tom . One effectively ended a prolific director’s career and the other made its maker more in demand than ever, even if he too would discover he had peaked with his populist fear flick. Pretty much all the criticism and praise of Psycho is entirely valid. It remains a marvellously effective low-budget shocker, one peppered with superb performances and masterful staging. It’s also fairly rudimentary in tone, character and psychology. But those negative elements remain irrelevant to its overall power.

You’re a disgrace, sir... Weren’t you at Harrow?

Our Man in Marrakesh aka Bang! Bang! You’re Dead (1966) (SPOILERS) I hadn’t seen this one in more than three decades, and I had in mind that it was a decent spy spoof, well populated with a selection of stalwart British character actors in supporting roles. Well, I had the last bit right. I wasn’t aware this came from the stable of producer Harry Alan Towers, less still of his pedigree, or lack thereof, as a sort of British Roger Corman (he tried his hand at Star Wars with The Shape of Things to Come and Conan the Barbarian with Gor , for example). More legitimately, if you wish to call it that, he was responsible for the Christopher Lee Fu Manchu flicks. Our Man in Marrakesh – riffing overtly on Graham Greene’s Our Man in Havana in title – seems to have in mind the then popular spy genre and its burgeoning spoofs, but it’s unsure which it is; too lightweight to work as a thriller and too light on laughs to elicit a chuckle.

I tell you, it saw me! The hanged man’s asphyx saw me!

The Asphyx (1972) (SPOILERS) There was such a welter of British horror from the mid 60s to mid 70s, even leaving aside the Hammers and Amicuses, that it’s easy to lose track of them in the shuffle. This one, the sole directorial effort of Peter Newbrook (a cameraman for David Lean, then a cinematographer), has a strong premise and a decent cast, but it stumbles somewhat when it comes to taking that premise any place interesting. On the plus side, it largely eschews the grue. On the minus, directing clearly wasn’t Newbrook’s forte, and even aided by industry stalwart cinematographer Freddie Young (also a go-to for Lean), The Aspyhx is stylistically rather flat.

The best thing in the world for the inside of a man or a woman is the outside of a horse.

Marnie (1964) (SPOILERS) Hitch in a creative ditch. If you’ve read my Vertigo review, you’ll know I admired rather than really liked the picture many fete as his greatest work. Marnie is, in many ways, a redux, in the way De Palma kept repeating himself in the early 80s only significantly less delirious and… well, compelling. While Marnie succeeds in commanding the attention fitfully, it’s usually for the wrong reasons. And Hitch, digging his heels in as he strives to fashion a star against public disinterest – he failed to persuade Grace Kelly out of retirement for Marnie Rutland – comes entirely adrift with his leads.

You know what I sometimes wish? I sometimes wish I were ordinary like you. Ordinary and dead like all the others.

Séance on a Wet Afternoon (1964) (SPOILERS) Bryan Forbes’ adaptation of Mark McShane’s 1961’s novel has been much acclaimed. It boasts a distinctive storyline and effective performances from its leads, accompanied by effective black-and-white cinematography from Gerry Turpin and a suitably atmospheric score from John Barry. I’m not sure Forbes makes the most of the material, however, as he underlines Séance on a Wet Afternoon ’s inherently theatrical qualities at the expense of its filmic potential.