When: 25 August 2012
Where: GSC, Tropicana City Mall
Who: FLXW, and her sister, and her brother-in-law
I have to start with the disclaimer that I have never read any of the Robert Ludlum books, nor did I watch the first trilogy of Bourne movies. I am vaguely aware of how they are both somewhat successful both critically and commercially, but I tend to avoid action movies which I’m not already somewhat invested in the mythos that inspired them (e.g. comic book adaptations). Why I decided to watch the movie (aside from being asked to) was Edward Norton. And maybe Rachel Weisz who I’ve always found appealing ever since The Mummy.
With that out of the way - I have to say that if they decide to go on their merry way and produce more movies to complete a spin-off Bourne trilogy starring Jeremy Renner (not saying that they are: the ending was thankfully quite conclusive), The Bourne Legacy does not make me want to continue watching said more movies.
I hated how clunky the narrative in the beginning was, and while I appreciate that sequels/spin-offs can rightfully just piggyback on existing material and save on storytelling, I think it’s bad form for movies to be so heavily dependent on their predecessors that it detracts a new viewer’s understanding of what the heck is going on (Hello, Harry Potter movies!). That said, I don’t think the clunky narrative in the beginning paid off, and I feel that even if I was a huge Bourne fan and read all the books and watched all the movies and understood what a red pill was for, I’d just be as lost.
Although I think my real point is that I’m not all that interested to see if that’s actually true.
Edward Norton was fun to watch though. I like how he always looks like a whiny, little kid in a suit that got put in a position of authority. And Rachel Weisz is still pretty.