'Bourne' does not live up to the Legacy

The Bourne Legacy (1 out of 5 Stars)

Directed by Tony Gilroy (Michael Clayton, Duplicity)

Written by Tony Gilroy (The Bourne Ultimatum) Dan Gilory (Reel Steel)

Starring: Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz, and Edward Norton

While waiting for the movie with my friend, I had two headlines waiting in the wing 'Bourne' lives up to the legacy, and 'Bourne' does not live up to legacy.  I got to use the latter.  In today's world of reboots, and re-branding of franchises The Bourne Legacy takes the franchise down numerous pegs.

Batman Begins started the popularity of the trend.  Christopher Nolan's version of Batman was a solid start, and its sequels to follow were even better and have made massive amounts of money.  There have been other films, mostly super hero films, which have followed this trend: Superman Returns, X-Men: First Class, The Amazing Spider-Man, and even Casino Royale is proving that James Bond is trying to keep up with the Joneses.  Studios are playing things safe rebooting or re-imagining  franchises for popular characters so that they do not have to take a major financial risk.  Only one problem fan exhaustion is setting in, and people are not showing up in massive numbers to see these films.  Some of these films are better than the original, but Bourne is not one of those films.

Bourne centers on Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner) who is one the projects along the line of Jason Bourne from the original series.  Cross has been sent off because he did follow protocol 100 percent, while in the wilderness he stumbles upon another guy who was part of the same experiment.  Aaron is curious about this experiment, but the man will not talk.  As Cross is proving his 'Bourne' like qualities climbing an impossible to climb mountain, the folks at Langley are realizing Jason Bourne has put them under a microscope.  Retired Colonel Eric Bayer (Edward Norton) decides to take control an terminate the project along with the agent; he also goes after the scientists within the lab one of whom is Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz).  Cross and Dr. Shearing manage to escape and somehow end up teaming up and go on the run from Langley.

The plot sounds somewhat interesting and there should be some semblance of a solid story, but this film is a massive misfire in the franchise.  Tony Gilroy the screenwriter of the first three Bourne movies is the culprit of the problem within this film.  Gilroy not only wrote but directed this film in the franchise.  The other films in the franchise were directed by Doug Liman and Paul Greengrass two visionary directors who utilized their script to not only create an action packed world, but a world full of emotional heft for Jason Bourne.  These two men's visionary direction helped catapult this series into more than just a mediocre action franchise.  Gilroy does not have the foresight within this film, especially with his direction; his action sequences prove he was not up to the task.  

Gilroy and his brother Dan Gilroy's script makes the problem even worse.  The script made me feel as though I was trying to prep for my AP Chemistry test from high school.  The film focuses on the technical more than any of the other films did trying to provide a backdrop to the story when all the pair do is convolute the history of the Bourne Legacy, which is something they do not seem to understand.  Who is Aaron Cross?  Why do we care about his past, what he has gone through, or about this project and the agents connect to him from Langley? In this film you do not, and the attempt the edit the story from the first three films into this film miserably.  The Gilroy's mention Jason Bourne several times, mentioning the chaos he has added to the world, but their shoe string connections never hold up to make you care about our protagonist, Aaron Cross.

Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weisz do their best in this poorly written film, but there is even a lack of chemistry between them, which could have almost saved this movie, but acts as another hinderance.  The characters in the film are one note, and Gilory banks on the cliche.  In the previous films Tony created complex characters, that even faded into the background of Bourne's life.  This film sidesteps explaining any character, especially the antagonists like Edward Norton's one note villain,  There is also an Asian man chasing Aaron and his lady at the end, the man has no name, does not speak, but Aaron Cross recognizes he is about the kill him. How?  Poor writing running a muck, that's how.

I was baffled by how poorly things were setup, and how the writer of the first three quality films in this series could mess up so bad. The Bourne Ultimatum even stunned Oscarologists by winning the Best Editing award at the Academy Awards, an honor typically reserved for Best Picture winners or nominees, but the editing is so poorly done within this film you notice the jarring movement during transitions.

I felt even more jarred when the credits rolled and the end scene Bourne music played signaling it was time to leave the theatre.  Did I just watch a movie connected with the rest of the franchise?  How did the person who wrote the first three construct this monstrosity?  Too many questions posed and no reasonable answers. This film challenged one of the longest running franchises, the James Bond franchise, the change things up, shaking the simplistic nature of the spy thriller action flick, and just ruined the legacy of its own dynasty.

Moonrise Kingdom Reigns Over the Typical Blockbusters of the Summer with Wit and Charm

Moonrise Kingdom (4 out of 5 Stars)

Directed by Wes Anderson (Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums)

Written by Wes Anderson and Roman Coppola (The Darjeeling Limited)

Starring: Jared Gilman, Kara Hayward, Bruce Willis, Bill Murray, Frances McDormand, and Edward Norton

Throughout the years Wes Anderson has constructed a variety of quirky films for his repertoire that have told many different tales.  From his initial film Bottle Rocket, which started out as a short film to his animated feature film Fantastic Mr. Fox Anderson has weaved magic in the world of film.  There have been some great crowning jewels in his crown like Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums, and Fantastic Mr. Fox.  There have also been a few that missed their mark, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, The Darjeeling Limited.  With Kingdom Anderson reigns over the typical blockbuster films of the season and focuses on young love, the concept of family, and throw in some quirk you have one of the funniest, beautiful films of the year.

Moonrise Kingdom centers around  the young love between two children Sam Shakusky (Jared Gilman) and Suzy Bishop (Kara Hayward).  Sam is a little off kilter; he does not fit in with the other khaki scouts.  Sam was orphaned as a young child, and he feels as though he has nothing to lose in his adventurous life.  Meanwhile Suzy comes from a family intact although not happy.  Suzy may be even more disturbed even though her parents Laura Bishop (Frances McDormand) and Walt Bishop (Bill Murray) treat her and her brothers with love and care.  While with his khaki scouts Sam flees to find Suzy whom he met a year earlier.  Soon after Scout Master Ward (Edward Norton) and Captain Sharp (Bruce Willis) work to track down the children, while the children embark on their own adventure.

Within the last few years Anderson has created worlds that stretch the imagination, and make the audience part of this surreal place.  In this film Anderson takes us to an island in 1965, where they two children, their families, and the other characters seem to be part of world that does not even exist, as if this were a fantasy.  Anderson along with fellow screenwriter Roman Coppola never take things to a level that feels phony or Burtonesque.  Anderson's directions helps ground this fantastically witty dialogue that helps keeps this film weather the storm of becoming more than he can handle.

One of the bravest things he does is use two younger stars who have never been in a major film to carry the entire story.  Gilman and Hayward are two of the most talented young people I have seen on screen in years.  They are raw, and vulnerable.  I was lost in their performances and felt as though I wanted to watch them on screen forever.  I do not know if you can say that two twelve years olds can have chemistry, but this film uses the concept of young love so well that it's impossible to deny.  Anderson seems to have poured his heart and soul into this film declaring that children can act nonsensical, so can adults.  Wes Anderson's parents divorced while he was at a young age and you can't help but wonder if some of his own emotional weight is set in these two young performers, and the struggle they go through with being different, and finding one another.

With that said Anderson does an incredible job making the children the center focus of the story while creating interesting and complex supporting characters out of the major stars.  Murray and McDormand are great are Suzy's parents, and they add their brilliant comic flare.  Norton rarely gets to flex his comedic chops, which is a shame because he is a talented actor who can do it all, and I love watching him take his role as Troop Leader 55 so seriously.  I was struck most by Bruce Willis; he hit this role out of the park, and has done some of the best acting I have ever seen him do, his raw emotion mixed with great wit is terrific in this film.  Then there were the great small roles for the flawless Tilda Swinton, the straight man Harvey Keitel, and the incredible Jason Schwartzman who always shines in his films.

The movie is a breath of fresh air in a Summer filled with films that have tried too hard.  In all context Moonrise Kingdom is a great film, which made me, smile, laugh, and nostalgic for the simplistic nature of older films that know how to be genuine.  This film used cinematography and editing the capture the nature of classical film structure, not as a gimmick, but to fit within the context of the film.  Today films as stuck on gimmicks, but Anderson knows better, and that's what makes this film stand above the rest.

Avengers Assemble: Hulk aka Dr. Bruce Banner

The Hulk or Dr. Bruce Banner is another creation from the brilliant minds of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby.  Dr. Bruce Banner was a mild mannered, emotionally stunted genius who created a gamma bomb.  The gamma bomb exploded causing Bruce Banner's emotional distress to shape his transformation to the Hulk.  While the Hulk;s color, origin, and characterizations have changed throughout the years, these are the basic principles that remain the same.  The Hulk's first appearance was in The Incredible Hulk #1.  The original series only lasted 6 issues, but the Hulk made a quick appearance in The Fantastic Four #12 and soon became a founding member of The Avengers in their first issue.

While the Hulk story has been retold many times the basic premise still is there.  Stan Lee is cited as saying that Hulk origin came from combining a lot of different stories.  Lee stated ""I combined Jekyll and Hyde with Frankenstein," he explains, "and I got myself the monster I wanted, who was really good, but nobody knew it. He was also somebody who could change from a normal man into a monster, and lo, a legend was born." Lee remembers, "I had always loved the old movie Frankenstein. And it seemed to me that the monster, played by Boris Karloff, wasn't really a bad guy. He was the good guy. He didn't want to hurt anybody. It's just those idiots with torches kept running up and down the mountains, chasing him and getting him angry. And I thought, 'Wouldn't it be fun to create a monster and make him the good guy?"


While I have never been a fan of the character listening to Lee's explanation of the character's origins is fascinating. The problem with the Hulk is that beyond this logic he has two problems.  The first major problem I see is the reason many people find Superman boring, the Hulk has this eternal invincibility that is almost unstoppable.  While the character appears to have emotional vulnerabilities the Hulk was never a character I gravitated towards.  I think the second problem is that that every good hero deserves a great foe, and I never remember him having one, that made his struggle worth the journey.  


I have never seen either of the Hulk films.  The first film entitled Hulk (2003) was directed by the genius director Ang Lee and starred Eric Bana as Dr. Bruce Banner.  From what I heard Lee's artistic style was lost within this genre.  The film series was re-launched five years later in 2008.  The Incredible Hulk was directed by Louis Leterrier, and starred Edward Norton in the role of Dr. Bruce Banner.  Norton is a brilliant actor who was cited as being a major improvement on Bana, and the film received slightly better feedback than the first screen version.  In The Avengers Dr. Bruce Banner has another new actor, Mark Ruffalo.  While Marvel stated that Norton was not joining because Norton did not embody the spirit of the role, Norton's agent sided money as the factor.  The key to this role is Bruce Banner, but I am looking forward to watching the big green guy smash stuff with the other super heroes on the big screen at midnight tonight.