"THE BOURNE LEGACY" (2012) Review
Following the success of the 2007 movie, "THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM", Universal Pictures announced its intentions to release a fourth movie featuring the amnesiac CIA assassin, Jason Bourne. However, their plans nearly folded when actor Matt Damon announced that he would not do a fourth movie.
Damon's announcement failed to put a final kibosh on Universal's plans. Instead, the studio and writer-director Tony Gilroy went ahead with another movie about the CIA assassination programs in which Jason Bourne had participated. Instead of bringing back director Paul Greengrass, Universal and Gilroy (who had written the first three movies) hired Academy Award nominee Jeremy Renner to portray a second CIA assassin - Aaron Cross. With Gilroy in the director's chair, the results led to the fourth movie called "THE BOURNE LEGACY".
The movie's title came from Eric Van Lustbader's 2004 novel, but its plot is completely different. "THE BOURNE LEGACY" introduced a third black ops program called Operation Outcome. Unlike Operations Treadstone and Blackbriar, Outcome was specifically created by the U.S. Department of Defense and it enhances the physical and mental abilities of field operatives through pills referred to as "chems". The movie opens with one of its operatives - Aaron Cross - engaged in a training assignment in Alaska. After Cross traverses rugged terrain to a remote cabin, he meets its operator, an exiled Outcome operative, Number Three.
During Cross' time in Alaska, the Blackbriar and Treadstone programs are publicly being exposed (during the events of the previous film, "THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM"), leading the FBI and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to investigate CIA Deputy Director Pamela Landy, Blackbriar supervisor Noah Vosen, Treadstone clinical researcher Dr. Albert Hirsch and CIA Director Ezra Kramer. Kramer requests help from Eric Byer, a retired Air Force colonel responsible for overseeing the CIA's clandestine operations. Byer, who had originally recruited Cross, discovers potentially damaging video on the Internet in which the lead researchers for Treadstone and Outcome - especially Hirsch - appear at professional functions in public. To prevent the Treadstone/Blackbriar investigation from finding and revealing Outcome's top-secret scientific advances, Byer decides to end Outcome and kill its agents and medical personnel. He sees this sacrifice as acceptable because the government has already separately initiated next-generation "beta programs".
Byer attempts to kill both Cross and Number Three by sending a drone bomb to destroy the cabin. Number Three is killed and Cross manages to survive, due to being outside when the bomb dropped. Byer makes another attempt to kill Cross with a second drone and unbeknownst to him, ends up killing a wolf pack. Cross learns of a massacre at Outcome's private research lab, conducted by a chemically brainwashed scientist. The sole survivor is geneticist Dr. Marta Shearing, whom Cross later saves from CIA assassins. He hopes that Dr. Shearing can help him wean or "viral" off the chemicals and at the same time, save both of them from being killed by Byer and the Department of Defense.
When Universal first leaked news of a fourth movie with Matt Damon as Jason Bourne, I did not exactly embrace the idea. As far as I was concerned, three was enough. When Damon announced that he would not reprise the Bourne role, I felt a surge of relief. As much as I had enjoyed the third BOURNE movie, I felt it was a bit of a comedown after the first two movies. Then I heard news that Universal and Tony Gilroy was going ahead with a fourth movie . . . without Damon. Again, I dismissed the idea of going to see this new BOURNE movie, until I learned that Jeremy Renner had been cast in the lead. Since I am a fan of Renner's, I decided to go see this fourth film. However, I did not believe I would enjoy it as much as the first three.
Like all of the films in the movie franchise, "THE BOURNE LEGACY" is not perfect. One, I never understood the need for Tony Gilroy to create a third black ops program. Considering that Treadstone and the current Blackbriar programs were in danger of exposure by the end of "THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM", I was surprised that Gilroy did not simply make Cross a Blackbriar operative. In other words, I found the addition of a third black ops program rather irrelevant. Unfortunately, the movie also featured the continuing presence of CIA Director Ezra Kramer. His presence in the third movie struck me as writing blooper on Gilroy's part. His presence in this fourth movie is a continuation of that blooper. For some reason, Gilroy decided to utilize Paul Greengrass' shaky cam style of filming in some of the scense . . . much to my annoyance. My biggest problem with "THE BOURNE LEGACY" was the ending. I found it vague, rather sudden and anti-climatic. When the movie ended with Cross and Dr. Shearing somewhere in the South China Seas and Pamela Lundy in trouble with Federal authorities for revealing the details of the Treadstone and Blackbriar programs, the first words that left my mouth were "Is that it?". As far as I was concerned, the BOURNE franchise required a fifth movie to tie up the loose plots.
Despite the ending, despite the continuing presence of Ezra Kramer and despite the Greengrass filming and editing style; I enjoyed "THE BOURNE LEGACY" very much. Who am I kidding? I enjoyed it a lot. In fact, After seven years, I finally realized that it is my favorite movie in the franchise. I feel that Gilroy did a pretty good job of meshing the plot from "THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM" with this film. A throwaway discussion between Kramer and Noah Vosen regarding Pamela Lundy in the third film finally came to fruition by the end of this movie. The movie also explored - during most of its 135 minutes - Cross' difficulties in dealing with his dependency upon the "chems", the medication that enhanced both his physical and medical condition. Like the other movies in the franchise, "THE BOURNE LEGACY" featured some first-rate action sequences. My favorites include Cross' use of a wolf pack to distract the second drone bomb from himself, the massacre at the Operation Outcome lab that featured a chilling performance by Željko Ivanek, and the long chase sequence in Manila, the Philippines. But my favorite sequence featured Cross' rescue of Dr. Shearing from the CIA assassins.
The best thing that Tony Gilroy ever did for this movie was to avoid making Aaron Cross into a Jason Bourne 2.0. He did this by creating Cross as a completely personality - verbose, more extroverted and an acute judge of character. But what really made Cross worked as a character was Jeremy Renner's performance. Some critic once said that what was the point in watching a BOURNE movie without Matt Damon. Well, the first BOURNE production I ever saw was the 1988 miniseries starring Richard Chamberlain. And he was great. I also enjoyed Damon as Bourne, but . . . honestly? I did not really miss him, due to Renner's performance.
The movie also benefited from Rachel Weisz's excellent performance as Operation Outcome medical researcher, Dr. Marta Shearing. Weisz's Shearing was a quiet, intense personality, whose ordered life was thrown upside down by her brainwashed colleague and later, the CIA. Weisz was exceptional in the scene featuring the CIA assassins' murder attempt on her. More importantly, the actress and Renner proved to have a superb and somewhat humorous screen chemistry. Another excellent performance came from Edward Norton, who portrayed the ex-Air Force colonel Eric Byer. What I liked about Norton's performance was that he portrayed Byer without the occasional frantic behavior that marked David Strathairn or Chris Cooper's performances. Stacy Keach, whom I have not seen in several years, portrayed a high ranking Federal official named Mark Turso. I cannot recall ever seeing him in a villainous role (at least not to my knowledge), but I must admit that I found his performance very impressive. Oscar Isaac, whom I last saw in "STAR WARS: EPISODE VIII - THE LAST JEDI" and "TRIPLE FRONTIER", gave an effective and subtle performance as the other Outcome agent, Number Three. It was nice to see Joan Allen, David Strathairn, Scott Glenn and Albert Finney again. But they were not on the screen long enough for me to judge their performances. However, I did enjoy supporting performances from the likes of Donna Murphy, Dennis Boutsikaris, Michael Chernus, Corey Stoll, Elizabeth Marvel, Louis Ozawa Changchien and especially Željko Ivanek, who gave both a poignant and later, scary performance as Marta Shearing's colleague, Donald Foite.
Like I had earlier stated, "THE BOURNE LEGACY" was not perfect. But I more than enjoyed it very much. Not long after the film's release, Universal Studios had decided to green light a fifth film with Jeremy Renner reprising his role as Aaron Cross. His performance, along with Rachel Weisz and the rest of the cast, made this movie very enjoyable for me, along with a script that I believe was simply better than the franchise's other films. Unfortunately, that second film with Renner and Weisz never materialized. Damn.
"THE AVENGERS" (2012) Review
Back in 2007, Marvel Studios set out to do something that DC Comics managed to achieve some forty-four years ago through a Saturday morning animated series. The studio initiated a series of movies based upon some of its company's popular comic book characters. This series first culminated into the 2012 hit movie, "THE AVENGERS".
The initial group of comic book heroes that became a team in "THE AVENGERS", turned out to be the following - Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, the Hulk, the Black Widow and Hawkeye. The first four starred in their own movies in what has become known as "Phase One" of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). And the last two characters, the Black Widow and Hawkeye, appeared as supporting characters in 2010's "IRON MAN 2" and 2011's "THOR" respectively. Each movie, starting with 2008's "IRON MAN", hinted at the formation of Marvel Comics' team of superheroes.
Written by Zak Penn and Joss Whedon and directed by the latter, "THE AVENGERS" begins with Loki, the villain from "THOR" and the latter's adopted brother, making a deal with the leader of the Chitauri aliens called the Other to lead an army on Earth, in order to subjigate the human race. In order to do this, Loki needs to retrieve the Tesseract, a powerful energy source originally found on Earth in "CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER". The Tesseract opens a doorway that allows Loki to arrive a top secret S.H.I.E.L.D., use his scepter to enslave a few agents, Dr. Eric Selvig and Clint Barton aka Hawkeye and take the Tesseract.
In response to Loki's attack, S.H.I.E.L.D. Director Nick Fury reactivates the Avengers Initiative. He, along with agents Phil Coulson and Natasha Romanoff aka the Black Widow; recruits Steve Rogers aka Captain America, Tony Stark aka Iron Man and Dr. Bruce Banner aka the Hulk to form a team and stop Loki's plans and recover the Tesseract. Both Captain America and Iron Man manage to capture Loki in Germany. But during a flight back to the States, Thorarrives and frees Loki, hoping to convince him to abandon his plan and return to Asgard. Instead, a confrontation ensues between the three heroes before Thor agrees to accompany them all back to the Helicarrier, S.H.I.E.L.D.'s flying aircraft carrier. Despite Loki being a captive, the Avengers still need to find the missing Tesseract. Even worse, Loki does not remain a captive very long.
Nearly five years had passed since "THE AVENGERS" first hit the movie screens. And during its time in the movie theaters, it became one of the highest-grossing film of all time. Most fans and critics of comic hero movies tend to view any film with more than one villain as a box office or critical disaster. And yet . . . many of these same critics and fans seemed to have no problem with a movie featuring six comic book heroes. I find that rather . . . odd and contradictory, but there is no explaining humanity's chaotic nature. I have never had a problem with a comic book movie featuring more than one villain or hero, as long as that movie was well written. And I cannot deny that Whedon and Zak Penn wrote a first-rate movie.
First of all, Marvel Studios had made the wise decision to map out the movie's plot with four to five other movies. This enabled them to set up most of the characters before shooting "THE AVENGERS". Natasha Romanoff had received a small introduction in "IRON MAN 2". And Clint Barton was allowed nothing more than a cameo appearance in "THOR". This meant that these two were the only ones left to be properly introduced in this film, along with their previous relationship as S.H.I.E.L.D. agents. Even the Tesseract, the energy source that Loki will use to allow Chitauri warriors to invade Manhattan in the movie's last act, had originally been introduced in "CAPTAIN AMERICA" and hinted briefly in "IRON MAN 2" and in the Easter Egg scene for "THOR". I wish I knew who had the idea to set up the story and characters for "THE AVENGERS" in previous movies. I would congratulate him or her for convincing Marvel to pursue this course of storytelling. For it paid off very well.
Second, I was impressed at how the main cast members - especially those portraying members of the Avengers - managed to click so well and create a viable screen team. Whedon and Penn's script did not make it easy for them. Only the Black Widow and Hawkeye initially felt comfortably working together and even their relationship was disrupted by Loki's temporary enslavement of Hawkeye's mind. I could point out one or two particular performances by the cast. But if I must be honest, practically all of them stepped up to bat and performed beautifully. Okay, I must admit there were a few dramatic scenes that really impressed me.
I enjoyed the quarrel between Tony Stark and Steve Rogers, thanks to Robert Downey Jr. and Chris Evans, who did a great job in developing the characters from initial hostility and wariness to trust and teamwork. I also enjoyed Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston, who continued their outstanding work and screen chemistry as the two Asgardian siblings, in a scene in which Thor tries to convince Loki that he and their family still loved the latter, despite his actions in "THOR". Scarlett Johansson managed to appear in three scenes that impressed me. One featured a contest of will and intellect between her Black Widow and Hiddleston's Loki. Another featured both her and Mark Ruffalo, as she manages to convince Bruce Banner to help S.H.I.E.L.D. to track down the Tesseract. But my favorite scene featured a heart-to-heart conversation between Natasha and her old partner, Clint Barton, as they discussed her past and his mind enslavement by Loki. Samuel L. Jackson did an excellent job as the intimidating, yet manipulative director of S.H.I.E.L.D., Nick Fury. He also seemed surprisingly spry for a man in his mid-60s, as his character dodged several near death experiences. Clark Gregg was entertaining as ever as one of S.H.I.E.L.D.'s top agents, Phil Coulson. It was nice to see Stellan Skarsgård repeat his role as Dr. Eric Selvig. Although his role was not particularly big, Selvig had a major impact on the plot. And Skarsgård managed to give his usual, top-notch performance. Cobie Smulders managed to hold herself well as one of Fury's assistants, Maria Hill. It is a pity that Whedon was unable to showcase Alexis Denisof a little more as leader of the Chitauri aliens. I suspect that being cloaked and hidden in the small number of scenes probably did not help much, in the end.
I remembered that Mark Ruffalo's portrayal of Bruce Banner/the Hulk has received rave reviews from the critics and the fans. Many critics had also suggested that his portrayal of the character was superior to both Eric Bana's performance in 2003 and Edward Norton's 2008 portrayal. I say bullshit to that. I suspect that the critics had spouted this crap, because Ruffalo got to portray the Hulk in a movie that proved tobe a box office and critical hit. Ruffalo did a great job in portraying Bruce at this later stage of his existence as the Hulk. However, I also feel there was nothing exceptional about his performance that made his Hulk superior to Bana and Norton's. This whole notion of Ruffalo giving a better performance than the other two actors strikes me as nothing but a lot of fanboy horseshit.
One cannot talk about "THE AVENGERS" without discussing the film's visual effects. What can I say? They were outstanding. Well . . . somewhat outstanding. Seamus McGarvey's photography struck me as very effective in giving the movie an epic feel. And his work was vastly assisted by the visual effects team led by Jake Morrison. For a movie set either in New York City, or over the Atlantic Ocean, aboard a flying aircraft carrier, I was very surprised to learn that a great deal of the movie was shot in both Albuquerque, New Mexico and Cleveland, Ohio. Surprisingly, the film crew only spent two days shooting in Manhattan.
I do have a few complaints about "THE AVENGERS". One, although I was impressed by Whedon's direction and McGarvey's photography, I cannot say the same about the work they did for the Black Widow/Hawkeye fight scene aboard the Helicarrier. To be honest, I found it slightly murky and confusing. Jeffrey Ford and Lisa Lassek's editing did not help. Their work revived bad memories of Paul Greengrass' quick-cut editing at its worst. Honestly? Jon Favreau did a better job of shooting her fight scenes in "IRON MAN 2". I also realized that Whedon had been talking out of his ass, when he claimed that a good deal of the movie would be shown from Steve Rogers' point-of-view. One, I never thought that Whedon had a firm handle on the Steve Rogers' character. Whedon's Steve Rogers aka Captain America seems willing to question authority figures - only in extreme circumstances. This is not the Steve Rogers who is more inclined to follow his own path than blindly follow orders. Even worse, the film never really hinted any troubles Steve may have experienced dealing with the early 21st century. And then we come to the Dr. Bruce Banner aka the Hulk character. Could someone explain why the Hulk turned out to be more powerful than a pair of Norse gods - namely Thor and Loki? How in the hell did that come about? This certainly was not the case over fifty years ago, when Thor beat the pants of both the Hulk and the Sub-Mariner in the Marvel issue, Avengers #3 (Jan. 1964). Could someone please explain this phenomenon?
I have another minor problem with the movie. In the past five years, fans of the MCU movies have been aware that the Titan supervillain, Thanos, has been collecting all of the Infinity stones, including the Tesseract featured in this film. And yet … Thanos handed over one of the stones - the Mind Stone set in a scepter - to Loki for the latter’s use during the Chitauri’s invasion of Earth. Why would he do that? Thanos is going through a great deal of trouble to get his hands on the Infinity stones. Why would he hand over the only stone - even temporarily - he had in his possession? That makes no sense to me. If I had been Thanos, I would have kept that stone close to me, no matter what.
"THE AVENGERS" may not be perfect. But it is still obviously one of the best comic book movies I have seen, hands down. And it turned out to be one of the best movies of 2012. It deserved all of the accolades it had received. And for the first time in his career, Joss Whedon seemed to have directed a movie that matched his work with his "BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER" and "ANGEL" television series.
Below are images from "THE AVENGERS", the 2012 movie featuring Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) superheroes. The movie was directed by Joss Whedon:
"THE AVENGERS" (2012) Photo Gallery
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
