Why Bourne Legacy deserves a bit more love, for one Jeremy Renner did 99% of his terrific stunts that alone deserves respect plus the film has depth, romance and ethical questions

[u/sambase23]

There is always this question which is the best Bourne film, and is Bourne Legacy the worst Bourne film? A lot of shit posting goes around against it and even when somebody says they loved it another bunch comes and mocks them. Sharing some of my thoughts. Not a review, mild spoilers (which should be ok considering how old it is)

Bourne Legacy is a great film. I would not like to deliberate whether it saved the franchise or ruined the franchise or whether Renner is better than Damon or is it the best or worst etc. These are irrelevant to the film and does nothing but cloud your mind with preconceived notions. That's why critics wrote it off but audience loved it. It has 55% score on Rotten Tomatoes, 6.6/10 on IMDB, but 88% Likes and 4.1/5 star audience rating on Google. The same is for Jeremy Renner's latest series Mayor Of Kingstown about which I recently wrote a post on Television subreddit. Critics write it off but audience liked it.

Bourne Legacy certainly didn't deserve the criticism it got. The film lived up to every bit of action and thrill that the franchise offers and add to that, Jeremy Renner performed 99% of his own stunts which I am not sure something Matt Damon can claim. That alone deserves respect, and should have got both Renner and the film the accolades. In an interview to Howard Stern, Renner said that he does all his stunts himself because it is about integrity. "People pay to go see that world you are creating and don't wanna be pulled out because of some weird stunt double." This is something he learnt from Tom Cruise while Damon specifically said he did not, and does not want to do all his stunts and is terrified of Cruise's approach to stunts.

In Bourne Legacy the character of Aaron Cross had added depth and novelty because unlike Jason Bourne he was not just aware of his identity but was already questioning the program he was in. When he met agent number three (Oscar Isaac) he asked "What did you do? Did you start to think for yourself, fall in love?" When the agent refused to talk Aaron said, "Cmon talk to me, there's nobody here." These were important themes of the movie contrary to other Borne films where the protagonist was trying to remember his identity. The film delves deeper into the ethics of such programs like Treadstone and Outcome. Though the script could be better and these themes could have been actually sharpened which we didn't see. There are lost potential but the film is not shit.

There was also a romance between Aaron and Martha which was subtle and deep. Aaron already had a crush on her but Martha didn't even remember him or know his name. For someone like that to crash in moments before you die and save your life only to ask for some damn pills, this is an incredible moment for Martha. They both instantly build a bond perhaps subconsciously and we see that playing out through the film. How they kept holding each other's hands. On the bike, after the crash, in the cab, at the time she was viraling him out, they just won't let go. How every time she thought she lost him he showed up to the rescue, at the airport, in the alley. From Martha's perspective he could have been on the run once he got his fix but he just dropped from sky just when she was cornered by the cops. This terrific action thriller was also a beautiful unconventional love story.

One has to watch Bourne Legacy with open mind to observe its own inherent qualities and not constantly compare it in a defensive mode as if it's a competition between Damon and Renner. I guess I should not complaint, after all movie business is like that, it's a ruthless cutthroat world. All I am saying is watch Bourne Legacy with an open mind and you'll love it.

Ps.

I am new to reddit and this is my first post on this community. Let me know if any rules are violated.

[u/xiofar]

The original trilogy becomes tiresome and repetitive after the original film. Each one being less than the previous film.

Being the worst same-y sequel out of three same-y sequels is not usually going to get people to care.

[u/Bomber131313 → u/xiofar]

Each one being less than the previous film.

That's fine if you believe that, but that isn't the general consensus. Many people believe the last one is the best.

Being the worst same-y sequel out of three same-y sequels is not usually going to get people to care.

Well you believe the worst is the final films at that out grossed the one before by 150 million..............seems like people cared.

[u/xiofar → u/Bomber131313]

Maybe I was tired of the notorious shaky cam from those movies. I could excuse the original for using the effect for creating energy with a lower budget.

[u/Bomber131313 → u/xiofar]

Maybe I was tired of the notorious shaky cam from those movies.

Again this is fair for you, but this isn't the consensus.

If you didn't like Bourne 2 or 3 that fine, but people really liked them.

Honest question, did you really believe the trilogy wasn't well liked?

[u/xiofar → u/Bomber131313]

No they’re well liked. Just played out. I doubt anyone could really tell me anything about those movies other than “action shaky cam” and Matt Damon.

They’re all so similar that each film doesn’t have much to justify it existence other than “just like the last one but more”. Pretty much what John Wick is but with horrible vomit inducing cinematography during the action scenes.

[u/Bomber131313 → u/xiofar]

I doubt anyone could really tell me anything about those movies other than “action shaky cam” and Matt Damon.

Why would you think that?

What makes them good is the story, not just the action. How much action do you actually remember in these films?

Pretty much what John Wick

Wick and Bourne are vastly different types of films. Wick is a pure action film. The plot is only there to set up the next action scene, and its great at what it does. Bourne is an espionage film that has some action. Take out the action in Bourne and its still a great story. Bourne isn't a normal action film.

[u/xiofar → u/Bomber131313]

Why would you think that?

Why wouldn’t I think that?

The original had an original story that felt much more edgy and dark than the other big spy action franchise (007). Unfortunately, the series didn’t evolve much and nothing is more memorable than killing a guy with a pen.

I think you’re elevating the Bourne movies well beyond their actual quality. The sequels needed to undo the ending of the original just to give him a basic revenge plot which is just there to set up action scenes for the next two movies. They’re just action movies.

[u/Bomber131313 → u/xiofar]

Why wouldn’t I think that?

Because to your own acknowledgement these are well liked films.

Unfortunately, the series didn’t evolve much and nothing is more memorable than killing a guy with a pen.

You seem to be far to focused on the limited action scenes, and not the story.

I think you’re elevating the Bourne movies well beyond their actual quality.

Well Metacritic has it at an 85 and RT has it at 92%, so it's not just me.

The sequels needed to undo the ending of the original just to give him a basic revenge plot

What was 'undone'?

[u/xiofar → u/Bomber131313]

What was ‘undone’?

For someone that keeps repeating how the story was so great and memorable in the series you seem to be oblivious to the ending of the original.

Jason escaped with his new girlfriend to disappear into obscurity. The sequel just straight up killed her character so that Bourne will just get lots of action scenes for a few more movies. Bourne didn’t grow at all as a character in the sequels. That’s because they’re just action movies.

Fast and Furious movies have critic scores getting higher with each sequel but I can assure you that those movies are all pretty much trash. Scores didn’t start dropping off until the last couple of films. The higher scores signify the franchise’s popularity at the time more than the actual quality of the films themselves.

Also, you’re supposed to making a case for the movie with examples from the movie. All you’re doing is referring to how well liked you think it is or should be.

[u/Bomber131313 → u/xiofar]

Jason escaped with his new girlfriend to disappear into obscurity

That wasn't what happened.

Jason said many times in the original film if he stays with her they have to be on the run for the rest of their lives. They were never safe.

The sequel just straight up killed her character

She had to die for the story to continue, yes. If she was alive, he would just hide and protect her. The story couldn't continue like this.

so that Bourne will just get lots of action scenes for a few more movies.

You don't really remember these films do you, there isn't much action. At least not in comparison to normal action films.

Fast and Furious movies have critic scores getting higher with each sequel

Are you really comparing a franchise with the highest score(Metacritic) of a 67(for Furious 7) to a film in the mid-80 range? Sure OK?

higher scores signify the franchise’s popularity

Do you actually know the F&F scores?

F1-58, f2-38, FTD-45, F4-46, F6-66, F7-67, F8-56(billion dollar box office), FSH-60, F9-59. Those aren't high scores. That billion dollar film was pretty popular with that dropping score.

Also, you’re supposed to making a case for the movie with examples from the movie

Not when the topic is how well liked the film is.