Stop Picking On 'The Bourne Legacy' People

The Jeremy Renner Bourne spinoff is one of the most misunderstood movies ever to be made and deserves critical reevaluation  

Jeremy Renner in 'The Bourne Legacy' (CREDIT: Universal Pictures)

                        by Jack Linsdell

On the 30th July, it'll be eight years since Tony Gilroy's The Bourne Legacy made it's domestic debut in theatres. The Jermey Renner-led Bourne spinoff/sidequel, would be that weekend's number one movie, surpassing studio expectations and selling 400,000 more tickets than Doug Liman's The Bourne Identity ten years earlier. It would earn a decent (but soft when compared to the $69 million debut of Paul Greengrass' The Bourne Ultimatum in 2007) $38 million debut weekend, on it's way to an "okay" $113 million cume (a series low though). Internationally, it did a little better, with a total worldwide gross of $276 million, just about breaking even on it's $125 million budget (plus marketing), although it was still only the second lowest in the series. Add in the mixed reviews and little "buzz", it's fair to say The Bourne Legacy wasn't well received (at least not compared to the three Matt Damon flicks). 

Since 2012, it's legacy (your welcome) has not improved. It's hated by fans, who pretend it doesn't exist, and even critics will tell you it's the worst one in the now five film series (it's not). The Jeremy Renner/Rachel Weisz/Edward Norton flick turned the Bourne series into a "franchise" by revealing a wider web of CIA blackops assassination programmes. Yet, it's world building meant to give Universal longevity for the franchise has almost been in vain. Eight years later, and we're (or I'm) still waiting for The Bourne Legacy 2 (the closest the sequel came to actually getting made was when Justin Lin came onboard, before he helmed Star Trek Beyond instead). So, why has it received such a negative legacy?

The biggest criticism of The Bourne Legacy, and the most significant reason for it's so-deemed failure, is that it doesn't feature Matt Damon as Jason Bourne. Sure, general audiences may only like a Bourne flick if it stars Damon as the popular assassin, which probably explains why Damon's return to the series in 2016 (along with Supremacy and Ultimatum director Greengrass) would nab bigger domestic ($162 million) and worldwide ($415 million) cumes - a third bigger than Legacy. And, indeed, Renner was not a star like Damon was back then (it was only once The Avengers was released that year that he grew in stardom) so I can understand a financial downturn from a general audience perspective. But, for the critical and fan reaction to be as negative as it was, is still baffling. 

Contrary to popular belief, Gilroy's flick was not swapping Renner for Damon. Renner played a new assassin named Aaron Cross who belonged to a different programme. It was not "Jeremy Renner takes over as Jason Bourne" but rather "Jeremy Renner plays an assassin who exists within Bourne's world". And, that makes The Bourne Legacy a severely misunderstood movie. It was not trying to replace Damon or the character of Jason Bourne. Rather, it just expanded the universe to focus on new characters and programmes that existed in the same world, done in the same "on the run" style. It explored the legacy of Bourne's actions exposing the CIA and their illegal/immoral programmes, culminating with the events of Ultimatum and the Blackbriar programme. Hence, why it's called The Bourne LEGACY. It's the legacy to Bourne's actions and therefore ISN'T about him. 

When treated as what it's meant to be (a Bourne spinoff), The Bourne Legacy is a damn good movie. Writer/director Gilroy (who also wrote the original trilogy) does an excellent job crafting a tense, character-driven and sophisticated action-thriller. It's a really well-written movie, maintaining the "on the wall" politics of the trilogy, if not being even more topical for it's very "real world" plotlines and action set pieces. We have a first act set piece involving drone warfare, a frankly harrowing workplace mass shooting, a third act showdown set in a Manila factory (exploring the mass production boom in Asia), and a story involving the effects of using science to genetically enhance soldiers. 

It's dove-tailing narrative with the Waterloo assassination in Ultimatum is genuinely clever and it's world-building is not distracting - it's engaging and handled with excellent sensibility. Cross is a slightly more engaging protagonist than Bourne (if only because he talks more), and with a superb "three person" storyline involving Cross, Rachel Weisz's Dr Marta Shearing and Edward Norton's Eric Byer, Legacy is certainly intelligent and engrossing popcorn entertainment. Renner and Weisz (whose relationship is never sexualised or romanticised) are terrific in the movie. Both find incredible layers and vulnerability in the their characters, as well as bringing an exceptional physicality to the movie - they handle the action and stunt work very well. And with new locations (the franchise had never been to Asia or in snowy environments before Legacy), and with a supporting cast including Stacey Keach, Oscar Issac and Joan Allen, Legacy feels very unique and fresh even to this day. Although done to the Bourne aesthetic, Legacy does not try to replicate what came before. It exists as it's own movie, which is the very definition of what a spinoff is.

I still don't understand to this day why people hate The Bourne Legacy. On it's own merit, the Tony Gilroy-directed flick is a very entertaining and well-crafted action blockbuster. But, as a Bourne spinoff and part of the franchise, it's a damn good installment that doesn't overule or discount what came before - it merely harmlessly adds more to the Bourne universe in it's own unique way. I feel sorry for Gilroy (whose an excellent writer and filmmaker) because this was his baby and he did an excellent job but has not received the credit or subsequent opportunities he deserved from it. 

So, eight years after it's initial release, I think it's time you all take a critical revaluation of The Bourne Legacy and give it the time of day it deserves. Much like The 5th Wave, it exists as an excellent attempt to expand/create a franchise that was grounded in real-world, character driven action. Yet, it's legacy has become unfairly defined by criticisms from fans who clearly don't understand what the movie was, and what it was trying to achieve. Perhaps...The Bourne Legacy should have called Aaron Cross: The Movie That Will Annoy Fans (For No Reason).