CO-REVIEW: THE BOURNE LEGACY

THE BOURNE LEGACY
USA 2012
Directed by Tony Gilroy
Written by Tony Gilroy and Dan Gilroy
Starring Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz, Edward Norton, Stacy Keach

SYNOPSIS:  The fourth film in the in-name-only adaptation of Robert Ludlum's BOURNE novels (Ok; the first fifteen minutes of the first film were taken from the books.), now sans Jason Bourne. Agent Aaron Cross (Renner) has to fight to survive when the government decides to purge the program, killing off all operatives, as well as non-essential employees who know too much.  Along for the ride is Dr. Marta Shearing (Weisz), a scientist on the government's hit list.

THOUGHTS:

PHIL:  Let me start out by saying that I didn't particularly care for the previous three films (also written, but not directed, by Gilroy), and Anna hasn't seen any of them.  So neither of us were coming into this as fans of the series.

I like the concept of the franchise - a more gritty, brutal, almost cinema verite style of spy thriller.  But I was never gripped by either the simplistic storyline (Seriously; the first three films could've easily been condensed into one.), nor Matt Damon's leaden performance.  Their sense of self-seriousness made them unintentionally laughable at times, and boring at others.  Some pretty sweet action photography and choreography, but nothing too compelling.

So it came as a pleasant surprise when this latest film decided to emphasize a theme that has been present, though understated, since the start of the series; an analysis of the banality of conspiracy.  Closer in tone to the paranoid thrillers of the seventies, such as THE PARALLAX VIEW and THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR, than the James Bond style shenanigans of the original films, we follow a series of average looking conspirators in average looking rooms, as they calmly talk about "eliminating assets".  The "assets" in question are people, but you get no impression from their tone or demeanor that they talking about taking multiple lives.

ANNA: So, I hated this. I hated it with a lot of rage. Philip says, "Well, honey, it wasn't made with you in mind as the audience," and to that I say, "That is exactly what's wrong with it!" It's perfectly okay for the lives, property and food of hundreds of 'expendables', i.e. people of color and women, to be completely destroyed so that one super-enhanced white dude can...not lose his new chemically-induced level of intelligence created by Science(TM)? As long as it's a film for the Status Quo!

Rachel Weisz has begun to sicken me with her role choices as well. "Oh, she's a brunette who wears glasses and is a scientist! She is a Strong Woman and thus I will be a credit to the human race for portraying her with my Middle American Accent." Or maybe she'll be running around aimlessly crushed by trauma into deep ineffectuality such that she has to be literally tossed around like a brainless prop by the Super Enhanced White Dude so that he can get his fix. She'll also fall maddeningly in love with him because she has to care for him while he falters, that ever so irresistible power-struggle charm.

There's not even a throw-away line to make this even a mote satisfying as a dystopic view on the hindered emotions of our over-medicalized society, or even how the Super Enhanced White Dudes are being used by the government to improve society, or ensure freedom. Arduous scenes with tensely-postured suited white dudes asking "what the hell is going on?!" in front of files and fancy computer screens while referring to some kind of monetary or outcome loss does not a compelling drama make. Why do I care about what's happening here?

PHIL:  Again, I'm not really selling it here, but I think that's kind of the point; no one really cares about what's happening.  The main character even says in the film "Don't you ever just not care?".  I take it as a commentary on the atrocities we hear about in little snippets on mainstream news, slid in between stories of celebrity breakups and political sex scandals.  Stories about assassinations, destabilized third world countries, war crimes;  all things that the American TV audience has become completely desensitized to.

And I don't think Gilroy is trying to portray anyone as a hero here. Bourne was the only proactive, altruistic character in the series (who was, admittedly, mostly driven by revenge), but his efforts to expose the government conspiracies are actually the direct cause of all the conflict in this film.  The "Bourne legacy" is that Cross and Shearing end up on the run for their lives.  Norton and Keach, as the main heavies, aren't getting sadistic glee out of killing people.  They're just doing their jobs, and covering their asses.

I will give the film a demerit for all of the references to the other films; it's like they felt a strong need to justify a Bourne-less film.  Guys, if you're gonna tell a new story, just tell a new story.  But what worked for me is how well Gilroy is able to milk the tension. There is a shooting in a lab, and an attempted forced "suicide", which are both highly unsettling scenes that had a much stronger emotional impact on me than any action scene in the previous films.  They're almost Polanski-esqe in their surreality.  

Overall, it's easily my favorite installment of the series, which isn't saying a WHOLE lot.  Imperfect, but I loved many of the things that were attempted here, some of which ended up being pulled off admirably.

ANNA:  Yeah, I think I could experience people just doing their jobs and covering their asses (while harming others to do so) in my every day life, so I'm not sure I need to see a movie with that as the theme. It doesn't elevate beyond that; there's no spiritual resonance or even any good kills. The movie is as desensitized as the commentary they may or may not be making.

I will agree; the lab shooting was pretty tight and I felt a flicker of hope that at least I'd get a good, fun, suspenseful action movie out of it. And although it may be directly associated with recently watching his performance in Big Love, I knew Zeljko Ivanek had an intense creepiness about him from the beginning. 

ANNA RATING:  -1 (Fuck Off!)
PHIL RATING:  5 (Like)