Osiris3657

Why are you giving Rotten Tomatoes shit? They just collect reviews from across the web. It's not a percentage they create based on their opinion of the film.

DJariya

My mistake then. I know they collect reviews from Film critics, but I didn't quite get how that scoring system worked. I thought any random asshole can vote 10% and say it sucks without having seen it.

RichC2

Naw, that's IMDB. Rotten Tomatoes is just an aggregate of web critics, they have requirements to meet to be included on the meter.

Some people are a little too dependent on it, as on RT a movie is either Fresh or Rotten. Unfortunately, a Rotten review tends to be no stars to 2.5 out of 4. So a movie that gets 100 reviews and scores all 2.5/4 reviews (almost a good movie) would have the same % rating as a movie that got all 0/4 reviews.

Similarly a movie can score 100% with all 3 out of 4 or 3 out of 5 star reviews. So somebody could walk in expecting greatness and leave unimpressed very easily.

Mr. Cinema

You can also look past the % on RT and focus on the movie rating average. Every film has an average score out of 10.

Bourne Legacy is now at 58%, but has an avg. rating of 6.3/10.

And there's always metacritic.

Ropes Pierre

The only way Jeremy Renner could carry a movie, was if it came in a dvd case, and he was walking across the street to return it to Blockbuster.

I find his acting wooden, his spark or charisma sorely lacking and his cheeks disturbingly chipmunk-like. He is the sole reason i have never seen "The Hurt Locker" and his appearance in a film distracts me.

I do hope others find what peace they are looking for within this movie though and enjoy it immensely.

My Other Self

I'm warming up to Renner after The Avengers. I wasn't sold on him before. To be honest, I'm still not sold on him in this movie. Is it his acting that the critics don't like or some sort of convoluted plot?

I don't think the guy can carry a film yet. He really hasn't reached star status in that regard.

PenguinJoe

So the first review of The Bourne Legacy says its a mess, you don't say?

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/57517

Osiris3657

Update from RT:

61%, (40+, 26-)

Consensus:
It isn't quite as compelling as the earlier trilogy, but The Bourne Legacy proves the franchise has stories left to tell -- and benefits from Jeremy Renner's magnetic work in the starring role.

PenguinJoe

61% is a D. Worth my $8 for a D?

RichC2

Can't tell, do you agree more with the 61% that liked it or the 39% that didn't?

Solid Snake

I'll probably watch this cuz I like the franchise and for this film it has a cast that I very much like.

Dr. DVD

When a film sits around the 60% range, it typically means it overall entertains, but don't get your expectations too high. Looks like a matinee.

WeylandYutani

So I had a free movie voucher and decided to catch the midnight show tonight. Tomorrow I may write a review or go into further detail with spoilers once others actually see it but for now, here's some random points off the top of my head. I know this won't be cohesive or necessarily make sense but I gotta get it off my chest before bed here goes:

I'm glad I didn't actually pay to see this. To those excited for this movie because of their love of the franchise and the talent involved, lower those expectations big-time. Seriously. To those simply curious and wanting something new to see at the cineplex, make it a matinee at most. The rest, just wait for Netflix.

This has to be the worst performance I've ever seen Rachel Weisz give, as well as the most thankless, worthless role I've ever seen Edward Norton in. After his performances in things like Primal Fear and American History X it's almost painful to see him here doing his damnest to try to make this shit sound interesting.

I don't know how you take a half hour's worth of actual story and stretch it to over 2 hours but Tony Gilroy has done it here. If this ever had a working title it must've been Exposition: The Movie. We get scene after scene after scene of no-name, faceless actors looking at monitors and shouting into telephones, spouting overwritten technical jargon and pseudo-scientific dribble trying to conjure up some excitement for an uninvolving and flat story the movie gives you no reason to give a shit about. The first half-hour is just Renner dicking around the Alaskan mountains and scuffling with wolves. Almost immediately you can feel how undercooked the script is. In Greengrass' hands the entire first hour could've and most likely would have been streamlined and reworked into a lean and mean fifteen-minute section of film. The pacing is lethargic throughout and moves in fits and starts. The dialogue lacks the punchy wit of Gilroy's previous Bourne screenplays, most notably Supremacy's. "I thought he was gay". Lol. Every aspect of this movie was done far better in any one of the first three films. Damon and Franka Potente had nice chemistry in Identity. Renner and Weisz do not. The action scenes, what few there are, have a predictable feeling of been there-done that. The attempts to try to tie this with the events of the last few movies, with repeated mentions and the flashing of Matt Damon's picture, don't help in the least. They just remind you how much of a better time you'd be having back home rewatching one of the old ones on Blu-Ray for the hundredth time.

This movie has no fucking ending. It just stops. There is very little resolution for many of the secondary characters or certain plot threads. I'm guessing the filmmakers were meaning for this to set-up a sequel, as on the surface it parallels the ending of Identity. But if this were the case then they are in for a surprise because the word-of-mouth for this is going to be horrendous and it will undoubtedly drop like a rock after this weekend. When the Moby song kicks in at the end several people at my screening went 'WTF' and the air of disappointment amongst those shuffling out of the aisles was palpable.

There was absolutely no reason for this movie to be made.

areacode212

I was at a free screening of this last night, but I was stuck in the very front row, which sucked and made it hard to process what was happening on screen a lot especially during action scenes.


I'll echo previous comments that it's a matinee movie. The overall arc of the movie is strange--the end feels abrupt because Aaron Cross's goal isn't high-stakes enough. I was like, "wait, that's all he wanted to do?". Also, there's this supervillain type that's introduced close to the end, a development that just comes out of nowhere. I had only seen the first Bourne movie (like 10 years ago), so fans of the series will get more out of it than I did. Renner wasn't super charismatic, but wasn't bad, and I could see him doing well in future installments.


Overall, I'm glad I saw it, but I'm glad it was for free.

foxdvd

I agree with you about Renner...and it is the reason I plan on skipping this movie, but I have to say everything you say about his acting...the wooden lack of charisma... is what makes his performance in the hurt locker work. I can't explain it, but it works

Michael Corvin

Ouch.


Norton has been mailing it in since The Italian Job, I expect no less these days.

RichC2

Norton phones in most of his performances anymore.

Osiris3657

He was great in "Leaves of Grass" where he played identical twins.

BrewCrew

^
Nobody saw it but it was nice to see Norton give a good performance.

Tom Creo

Damn, gonna see it this afternoon but it sounds like the summer of disappointing action movies continues.

Osiris3657

Ebert didn't like it (2 1/2 stars out of 4)

"The Bourne Legacy" is always gripping in the moment. The problem is in getting the moments to add up. I freely confess that for at least the first 30 minutes I had no clear idea of why anything was happening. The dialogue is concise, the cinematography is arresting and the plot is a murky muddle.

Also at 52% now on RT

Why So Blu?

Since this will be the actual review thread, I'll spoil it here and there.

It's long. It's about 2hrs and 10m long. It's just okay, but I would consider at the bottom of the heap in the series. I rank them 3,2,1,4.

The problem with this entry is that it has to start all over again with a new character. There are long stretches where nothing happens, and when they do, too few and far between.

Yes, the ending literally stops in what seemed to be the middle of the story. It's like the filmmakers went the Kill Bill route. The messed up part is that we won't be getting The Bourne Legacy: Vol 2 in 6 months.

The actors did fine in their respective roles - I've never had a problem with Renner. He rocked in The Hurt Locker and 28 Weeks Later, so it's pretty cool to see him in the spotlight.

I'm sure if they release the sequel (part 2 of part 1) it will play better, but right now, it's a tad awkward. I paid $10 too see it at a matinee.

Why So Blu?

It's Norton's own fault. He was top shit for a minute, but became unreasonable, so this is exactly what he gets.

PenguinJoe

So for those who saw it, what's with the scene where Jeremy Renner fights a wolf? I'll prob netflix the movie but three reviews I read talk about its randomness which is peaking my curiosity.

JumpCutz

Fixed.