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

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Prepare the Heathen’s Stand! By order of purification!

Apostle (2018)
(SPOILERS) Another week, another undercooked Netflix flick from an undeniably talented director. What’s up with their quality control? Do they have any? Are they so set on attracting an embarrassment of creatives, they give them carte blanche, to hell with whether the results are any good or not? Apostle's an ungainly folk-horror mashup of The Wicker Man (most obviously, but without the remotest trace of that screenplay's finesse) and any cult-centric Brit horror movie you’d care to think of (including Ben Wheatley's, himself an exponent of similar influences-on-sleeve filmmaking with Kill List), taking in tropes from Hammer, torture porn, and pagan lore but revealing nothing much that's different or original beyond them.

You can’t just outsource your entire life.

Tully (2018)
(SPOILERS) A major twist is revealed in the last fifteen minutes of Tully, one I'll happily admit not to have seen coming, but it says something about the movie that it failed to affect my misgivings over the picture up to that point either way. About the worst thing you can say about a twist is that it leaves you shrugging.

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

No one understands the lonely perfection of my dreams.

Ridley Scott Ridders Ranked
During the '80s, I anticipated few filmmakers' movies more than Ridley Scott's; those of his fellow xenomorph wrangler James Cameron, perhaps. In both cases, that eagerness for something equalling their early efforts receded as they studiously managed to avoid the heights they had once reached. Cameron's output dropped off a cliff after he won an Oscar. Contrastingly, Scott's surged like never before when his film took home gold. Which at least meant he occasionally delivered something interesting, but sadly, it was mostly quantity over quality. Here are the movies Scott has directed in his career thus far - and with his rate of  productivity, another 25 by the time he's 100 may well be feasible – ranked from worst to best.

Well, you did take advantage of a drunken sailor.

Tomb Raider (2018)
(SPOILERS) There's evidently an appetite out there for a decent Tomb Raider movie, given that the lousy 2001 incarnation was successful enough to spawn a (lousy) sequel, and that this lousier reboot, scarcely conceivably, may have attracted enough bums on seats to do likewise. If we're going to distinguish between order of demerits, we could characterise the Angelina Jolie movies as both pretty bad; Tomb Raider, in contrast, is unforgivably tedious.

If you want to have a staring contest with me, you will lose.

Phantom Thread (2017)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps surprisingly not the lowest grossing of last year's Best Picture Oscar nominees (that was Call Me by Your Name) but certainly the one with the least buzz as a genuine contender, subjected as Phantom Thread was to a range of views from masterpiece (the critics) to drudge (a fair selection of general viewers). The mixed reaction wasn’t so very far from Paul Thomas Anderson's earlier The Master, and one suspects the nomination was more to do with the golden glow of Daniel Day-Lewis in his first role in half a decade (and last ever, if he's to be believed) than mass Academy rapture with the picture. Which is ironic, as the relatively unknown Vicky Krieps steals the film from under him.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

This is it. This is the moment of my death.

Fearless (1993)
Hollywood tends to make a hash of any exploration of existential or spiritual themes. The urge towards the simplistic, the treacly or the mawkishly uplifting, without appropriate filtering or insight, usually overpowers even the best intentions. Rarely, a movie comes along that makes good on its potential and then, more than likely, it gets completely ignored. Such a fate befell Fearless, Peter Weir’s plane crash survivor-angst film, despite roundly positive critical notices. For some reason audiences were willing to see a rubgy team turn cannibal in Alive, but this was a turn-off? Yet invariably anyone who has seen Fearless speaks of it in glowing terms, and rightly so.

Weir’s pictures are often thematically rich, more anchored by narrative than those of, say, Terrence Malick but similarly preoccupied with big ideas and their expression. He has a rare grasp of poetry, symbolism and the mythic. Weir also displays an acute grasp of the subjective mind-set, and possesses …

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.