The Bourne Legacy Trailer

edited February 2012 in Everything Else
http://youtu.be/Wlj8Cy8Eb-s
Though I'm a huge fan of the original trilogy, I'm fine with this movie and I hope it's good. I'm glad a lot of the original cast is back to make it feel like it's still in the same universe. The overall tone feels very similar, which is also a plus. Overall, I'm happy with this Bourne without Bourne. It could be good, or it could suck; either way the original trilogy is still awesome so bring it on!

Comments

  • Bourne is born again.. sort of. I like that they aren't simply rebooting, that would be silly. Keeping the universe and possibly one or two characters is a good move in my opinion.
    I also really enjoyed the original trilogy, and if this is more of the same that's great news. Here's hoping Ed Norton has a fairly significant role to play, he should get more roles.
  • Looks quite interesting. I didn't both watching Bourne 3 after Bourne 2's bizarrely terrible visual style, but might check this out.
  • This isn't going to suck, Rody. I know that was only a hypothetical- but to my mind it may even be better than one of the previous three films.
    I really really like the concept. Taking the idea that, like Matt Damon's character, 'Jason Bourne' is a pseudonym used following brainwash/'commit yourself fully to the program' tactics, and that is sort of 'creates' the smart, brutish CIA agent we know as Bourne.
    I was never the 'OMG BOURNENEEEE!!!!!' guy, but I really loved the first film, got used to the style of the second, and then really really enjoyed the third, The Bourne Ultimatum- going so far as to wonder, like many critics, why and how it didn't secure an Academy Awards nomination. Truth be told, the cinematography and visual style were waaay out there- but there was also something entrancing and unique about the shakycam that played well into the 'world-building' of the Bourne universe-so that by the third film, you really felt like you were watching something special, well-hyped, and important. Even better, the last film in the trilogy was a fitting conclusion to Matt Damon's tale, using the best strengths of the two previous films, and leaving the ending and supporting character open-ended to other films.
    When I saw this in 2007, at the end of the film, I had to smirk a little bit. I think and continue to think it's kind of a cool idea to put an American 'Bond' on the block, who can come and go between different actors in a wide-spanning franchise. I think it's a great idea- and the execution here looks pretty excellent.
    Tony Gilroy, famed for being good friends with Damon/ghostwriting the Ocean's 11 movies, writing every previous Bourne screenplay, and directing (the absolutely excellent film) Michael Clayton and (fun, clever film) Duplicity, is the exact right choice for this film.
    Bring in Chris Cooper, Albert Finney, Joan Allen, and add Edward Norton and Rachel Weisz to it. And star Jeremy Renner as the new Bourne?
    It's a masterstroke in continuing the franchise, really. And it looks great. Can't wait for this.
    And Daniel, it's laughable you think Edward Norton should 'get more roles'. The guy's an A-list actor and is notable for turning down projects all-the-time. I love him as an actor, and think he elevates most things he's in (and is one of my favorite actors)- but even in movies he chooses to do he's notorious for wanting access to rewriting screenplays, wanting more money, and arguing with directors. Which is, in a tiny part, something a discerning maybe actor should do- but it also makes them difficult to work with. And when he's being offered roles probably every day, despite this, I think it's funny your wording suggests he isn't offered enough work. ;)

  • And Daniel, it's laughable you think Edward Norton should 'get more roles'. The guy's an A-list actor and is notable for turning down projects all-the-time. I love him as an actor, and think he elevates most things he's in (and is one of my favorite actors)- but even in movies he chooses to do he's notorious for wanting access to rewriting screenplays, wanting more money, and arguing with directors. Which is, in a tiny part, something a discerning maybe actor should do- but it also makes them difficult to work with. And when he's being offered roles probably every day, despite this, I think it's funny your wording suggests he isn't offered enough work. ;)

    My apologies for not knowing the habits of every (or indeed, many) working actor. What I meant was really "I would like to see him in more films", if that satisfies.
  • Heh. No, I meant it more as 'it's decently well known, and he's a fairly A-list actor'. Like Robert DeNiro or Marlon Brando being prima donnas. (Which is funny, because them and Norton were all three in the movie 'The Score' together and it was a nightmare, apparently.)
    I love Norton though, like I said I think he elevates everything he's in, and I'm happy to see him here in this. Just snickered at your comment a little bit. :D
  • I liked the original Bourne series and when I see this, I'm going to try to forget it's trying to be a Bourne movie.
  • It is a Bourne movie. Same actors, same writer, same style, same premise- different story following a different confused, lost 'soldier-to-no-one'. Isn't that the crux of 'Bourne' to begin with? ;)
  • Indeed it is. I just cringe watching this... I don't know why. I guess I can't see there being a good Bourne movie without a "Bourne"

Sign in to comment

Leave a Comment