10 Reasons Why The Bourne Legacy Sucks

9. It Won't Let Go Of Jason Bourne

I would not dare to criticise the film simply because it references Jason Bourne; that would be patently unfair given the mythology that we are steeped in at this point. He is the fixture upon which all else rests, and in wake of his departure, Bourne has left quite a mess, and indeed, quite a legacy. The problem is that every two minutes, the script makes references to Bourne's activities - with part of the film even taking place during his Waterloo station excursion from Ultimatum - and the shitstorm he and Pamela Landy caused last time. This is problematic because, simply, it's a lot more interesting than the plot Gilroy came up with for this film, and the constant reminders of how awesome Matt Damon was in the last three films only detracts from Renner's already middling screen presence. Just when there's a moment in which we feel like we're going to warm to Aaron Cross, Bourne is mentioned again, and we're pulled out of the picture. The feeling this approach invites is that Gilroy was not confident enough in Aaron Cross to simply reference Bourne at the beginning and then create a branched off, separate story about Operation Outcome. Rather predictably, Bourne is leaned on as a crutch, to give the film a false sense of credibility, and to - in vain - try and give it the same feel and continuity as the previous three films.
Contributor
Contributor

Frequently sleep-deprived film addict and video game obsessive who spends more time than is healthy in darkened London screening rooms. Follow his twitter on @ShaunMunroFilm or e-mail him at shaneo632 [at] gmail.com.