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

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.

Never lose any sleep over accusations. Unless they can be proved, of course.

Strangers on a Train (1951) (SPOILERS) Watching a run of lesser Hitchcock films is apt to mislead one into thinking he was merely a highly competent, supremely professional stylist. It takes a picture where, to use a not inappropriate gourmand analogy, his juices were really flowing to remind oneself just how peerless he was when inspired. Strangers on a Train is one of his very, very best works, one he may have a few issues with but really deserves nary a word said against it, even in “compromised” form.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.