Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online


Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Empire wrote "SUMMER'S SMARTEST SEQUEL"... Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Empire wrote "SUMMER'S SMARTEST SEQUEL"... - 17/8/2012 3:49:19 PM   

Posts: 54399
Joined: 1/10/2005
Yes, but your point is just that you don't agree with the ratings some films have been given. UTB's point was simply that Empire see them in the same category BUT that doesn't mean they don't think one isn't better than the other. Your particular opinion on certain films doesn't change that.


Lips Together and Blow - blogtasticness and Glasgow Film Festival GFF13!



Annual Poll 2013 - All Lists Welcome

(in reply to dseys)
Post #: 61
RE: Enjoyable - 19/8/2012 3:29:42 PM   

Posts: 1304
Joined: 7/10/2005
I liked it. Maybe doesnt go as quite as deep into its lead character as in the previous films, but involving and exciting and Renner and Weicsz are very good together. Much more in line with Identity than supremacy and ultimatum.

7.6 out of 10


I'm just a fella. I think beer should be cold and boots should be dusty. I think 911 was bad. And freedom? Well, I think thats just a little bit better.
Post #: 62
RE: Didn't add a lot - 20/8/2012 9:52:46 AM   

Posts: 3671
Joined: 15/11/2005
From: The Royal County
It starts off quite well I thought, I was enjoying the bits up in Alaska but I got bored after that and it actually started to annoy me fairly soon. Some of the acting and dialogue was awful I thought, starting mainly with the scene in Rachel Weisz's house with the two agents, painful to watch. The action isn't great and the bike chase finale is a big let down. I like Renner but he's only ok here, a few ropey moments and he doesn't really grab you. I quite like Rachel Weisz as well but my god she annoyed me in this, especially hanging off the bike near the end.

It's not terrible but it's not very good either, somewhere around a 2 and a half stars for me.



It's a different film. It's a very different film! It's a different shark!

Suppose I shot ya..How'd that be?

Post #: 63
RE: - 22/8/2012 12:16:18 PM   


Posts: 38
Joined: 12/10/2005
So it turns out that the "Treadstone without the inconsistency" guy they talked about in the trailer isn't even Aaron Cross! Why didn't they make a movie about that guy then?!


Thanks for dropping by.
Post #: 64
RE: - 22/8/2012 12:20:50 PM   


Posts: 1728
Joined: 2/12/2010
From: Great Britain

ORIGINAL: Con Broccolli

" he’s in grave danger of going full retard. Which, frankly, is spoof-grade blarney. " What a pathetic thing to write in a review. I fear for the future of empire mag if this is the kind of material that's offered up (zoolander reference not acceptable as an excuse)

Oh dear...
Post #: 65
RE: - 22/8/2012 1:51:32 PM   

Posts: 1552
Joined: 1/5/2006


ORIGINAL: Con Broccolli

" he’s in grave danger of going full retard. Which, frankly, is spoof-grade blarney. " What a pathetic thing to write in a review. I fear for the future of empire mag if this is the kind of material that's offered up (zoolander reference not acceptable as an excuse)

I object to disablist language and views as much as the next guy, but the "going full-retard" is a (Tropic Thunder) reference to conceited actorly portrayals of mental disability, rather than the mentally disabled per se. It's a useful, clever and accurate term for overblown, dare one say Shatneresque approaches to portraying the mentally deficient.
Post #: 66
RE: RE: - 22/8/2012 2:55:11 PM   

Posts: 829
Joined: 30/9/2005
The first half is incredibly dull and constantly offers reminders that there's a more exciting movie taking place elsewhere in the universe. It picks up at the half way point but unfortunately the story goes nowhere special and abruptly ends there. Also, I've lost count of how many "different" government programs there are with highly trained super soldiers that all do the exact same thing.

I did like aspects of the film. I liked the realistic super soldier angle, the action is executed well and the cast is universally solid, but Aaron Cross just isn't that interesting of a protagonist for me to care. Bourne worked because he had an inner conflict. As he discovered more about his past he was faced with a version of himself he no longer liked. There's nothing going on behind the eyes of Cross. He just seems to be on a pill hunt for two thirds of the run time. It's a real shame because Renner works in the lead.

2/5 is about right.

(in reply to cerebusboy)
Post #: 67
RE: RE: - 23/8/2012 4:38:59 PM   

Posts: 1603
Joined: 1/10/2005
I'd give it a solid three stars.

main problem with the movie is we're not really given any rason to care about the main character. And given that all questions were answered over the last three movies there wasn't any intreague, few more flashbacks showing a more human side to him might have helped.

Still taken as a movie in it's own right it's an enjoyable night out.


I am but an egg.

(in reply to Gazz)
Post #: 68
RE: RE: - 23/8/2012 7:09:28 PM   
Dr Lenera


Posts: 4084
Joined: 19/10/2005
Overlong and even rather slow compared to the other, 'proper' Bourne films, this just about passes muster as a thriller, though is once again proof that only Paul Greengrass can do the 'shakycam/hyperfast editing' well and Jereny Renner is seriously poor in some scenes.

< Message edited by Dr Lenera -- 25/8/2012 6:35:37 PM >


check out more of my reviews on

(in reply to blackduck)
Post #: 69
RE: RE: - 23/8/2012 9:47:25 PM   

Posts: 260
Joined: 5/9/2008
From: Liverpool
Really don't get the hate for this, glad I never listened to the reviews. Thought the film was really entertaining. The two leads were strong. Aaron Cross is an interesting character that brings something different to the series with the pills storyline. And call me mad but the bike chase was better than any set piece in The Dark Knight Rises.

Critics have been too harsh on this, reminds me of the hate On Her Majesty's Secret Service got when in fact that was a strong Bond film.

(in reply to Dr Lenera)
Post #: 70
RE: The Bored Identity - 25/8/2012 9:31:48 PM   

Posts: 5529
Joined: 6/8/2007
From: Whalley Range
It wasn't awful. To be honest it's probably on a par with Identity, but it falls a fair way short of Supremacy and Ultimatum. Renner was good, Norton was okay. The motorcycle and rooftop chase seemed a direct rip-off of the one in Ultimatum, and they pulled the chasing agent out of thin air really, but the stuff in the mountains was great and it could have been a lot worse.


Top 100 Moz Songs / Top 100 Films
Post #: 71
RE: The Bored Identity - 25/8/2012 10:04:37 PM   

Posts: 24962
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ



There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.


ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to Piles)
Post #: 72
RE: The Bourne Legacy - 27/8/2012 2:52:57 PM   


Posts: 683
Joined: 16/3/2008
From: South Wales
I'm not really sure what some of you are remembering when it comes to Greengrass' Bourne movies.
Comments like he was the only director who could master shaky cam and rapid cuts, or Gilroy cuts away from the action too quickly, are leaving me slightly confused.
Every single action beat in the last two Bourne flicks is a puke inducing mess, with cuts literally occurring every second or so. Those rapid cuts combined with atrocious camera movement, which doesn't even stop shaking about when people are simply having a chat, meant the Bourne films for me are anything but a pleasure to watch.
At least Gilroy kept the camera steady with this one throughout the many talky scenes. And although Legacy's action sequences aren't particularly awe inspiring, they were considerably more easy to make out than any of the other Bournes.

I'd give it a 3/5.
Other than a 15 minute section in the middle, which seemed to drag a bit, it kept me entertained throughout.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 73
RE: BREAKING NEW GROUND - 12/9/2012 9:08:52 PM   


Posts: 192
Joined: 10/8/2012



As a fan of the trilogy, this movie did exactly what I wanted for a Bourne film...and I thoroughly enjoyed it. As a subscriber, I used to trust Empire reviews, not any more. Five stars used to mean 'breaking new ground'. I guess it's all about expectation. For example, The Dark Knight Rises certainly didn't live up to the expectation of the previous Nolan film and was flawed in several ways - to give it five stars was nonsense, four stars I could've just about accepted. However, all it did was a complete a successful three film franchise, hardly breaking new ground. The Bourne Legacy however, completely reboots a 'current' successful franchise with gusto. What other films have done that? Bond maybe, but only by replacing 007 at regular intervals. The Bourne Legacy is innovative and original without losing its concept. Stop waxing lyrical about Greengrass and Damon for a second and consider what Gilroy has achieved in his fourth film of the franchise. For me, it is 'breaking new ground' and he executed it admirably. Last night, the audience at my local cinema were enthralled and spontaneously applauded at the end, something that happens very rarely these days. Two stars is nonsense. What happened to the quality control of reviews at Empire?

Clear and true. Great movie.
Post #: 74
RE: Empire wrote "SUMMER'S SMARTEST SEQUEL"... - 14/9/2012 6:33:37 AM   


Posts: 8
Joined: 4/9/2012
I haven't seen this movie. When it was announced I was pretty excited to see it but after a few reviews that I've seen, It kind of disappoint me. hahaha...


I am Cheryl Sturgill, a movie lover, critic, blogger. I love reading reviews of other movie critics such as Eric Schiffer Seop and some others.

(in reply to AxlReznor)
Post #: 75
RE: The Bourne Legacy - 31/10/2012 4:24:23 PM   
chris kilby


Posts: 1516
Joined: 31/3/2010
So who’s that familiar figure floating in the water at the start of The Bourne Legacy? Why, it’s Captain Birdseye! Jeremy Renner sporting a very unflattering scraggly beard the whole of the first act which just had me thinking of Monty Python: It’s… not Jason Bourne. Good idea that; reminding your audience that the star of the franchise has gone AWOL.

The name’s Cross… Aaron Cross. (Cross? He was absolutely livid! Musta read the script.) Or was it Kenneth James? It could have been Kenneth Williams for all I cared. I like Jeremy Renner. I’ve liked him since 28 Weeks Later and I’m delighted he’s finally made it. But a good supporting player, I’m just not convinced he’s leading man material.

He’s no Matt Damon, that’s for sure. And Aaron Cross is no Jason Bourne. Wrestling wolves with his bare hands? That’s not Jason Bourne. That’s Wolverine. No, that’s Liam Neeson! He wishes. And hunted by drones? How ironic…

Renner’s pugilist mug is even more battered-looking than the current James Bond’s, which must have been confusing for Mrs Bond, aka: Rachel Weisz. (I wonder how 007 feels about his missus playing Bond girl to a rival super-spy?) Renner’s not unlike Daniel Craig actually, the Bond and Bourne franchises playing pass-the-influential-parcel at the moment. And I did like his improvised codpiece made out of a baking tin like McGuyver meets Gordon Ramsay. Here’s one he made earlier…

Not a sequel exactly, what is The Bourne Legacy? A side-quel? An extranequel? A superfluquel? Or just a tired re-hash? Another pointless runaround that goes through the motions in a cynical attempt to squeeze a few more bucks out of a concept which, after three admittedly excellent movies, had already run its course? Yup, it’s a sequel alright!

It’s the old law of diminishing returns and that’s as immutable as gravity. Most franchises are lucky if they make it to three half-decent entries and even that’s a struggle. Good sequels are like gold dust. Good threequels are about as common as a virgin in a knocking shop. The only true exception to this rule being Bond of course. Which is ironic considering some of the ungracious things Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass have said about him which, apart from sounding petulant and unprofessional, was also kinda ironic when you consider that a) Bourne wouldn’t even exist if it wasn’t for Bond (as Robert Ludlum would’ve been the first to acknowledge) and, b) like Bond, the Bourne movies are all the bleedin’ same, innit. Especially when, good as Bourne was, turns out he was just another Matt Helm!

Not many franchises last 50 years and precious few survive the departure of their star. As the eponymous Bourne franchise may be about to discover. The sad fact is this film wouldn’t have been any better even with Damon and Greengrass on board. The Bourne Ultimatum (“I want a rolled-up magazine and I want it now!”) was good but it was already showing signs of strain.

A lot has been made about them, but I didn’t have a particular problem with the magic pills and Alex Cross’ borderline super-powers. The headaches were an issue in the first film and Bourne himself was already exhibiting worryingly Spider-Man-like powers of agility and “spider-sense” while tracking Julia Stiles across the rooftops of Tangiers in his last outing. If you were prepared to swallow that, you should be prepared to swallow a few pills.

Having said that, I wasn’t entirely sure that reducing Cross to a sweating, shivering junkie going through the agonies of withdrawal for a painfully protracted amount of the running time was a good idea. The Bourne Legacy? The Trainspotting Legacy more like! And speaking of cold turkeys… Choose life. Choose a job. Choose a fuckin’ big television. Choose to extend a franchise which had reached a natural conclusion way past its sell-by date. Choose a really shitty, pointless, superfluous sequel. Or not. So The Bourne Legacy was a cynical ca$h-in. What sequel isn’t?

This is the second super-hero Renner’s played this summer. But I didn’t realise Hawkeye was part of the super-soldier programme as well. I’m not being glib or facetious here. Well, maybe a bit. But The Bourne Legacy’s fucked-up, pill-popping super-soldiers do seem to have been influenced by Frank Miller’s Daredevil: Born Again. Or is that Bourne Again? First Spider-Bourne. Now Super-Soldier. These guys really are Super-Spies! What next – capes?

We’ve come a long way since The Bourne Identity, that’s for sure. At least that was grounded in some sort of semblance of pseudo-reality. It’s what interested original director, Doug Liman, in this material in the first place. The son of a US senator who was part of the Iran-Contra hearings and cross-examined Oliver North, he actually had something to say about the real world of spies and what’s colloquially known as intelligence. I’m not sure exactly what that was, but at least he tried. Sadly, intelligence is something else which has gone AWOL.

(Even the music’s not the same. James Newton Howard’s score is more Heat than Bourne, Jon Powell having also gone AWOL. And it “ends” with a slow boat to The Philipines and yet another remix of Moby’s Extreme Ways. Which is a bit like Austin Powers half-inching the James Bond Theme.)

When it comes to Bourne’s success as a sequel-generating franchise, I think Doug Liman has been unfairly neglected. Sure, The Bourne Identity was a notorious if not legendarily troubled shoot; largely attributed to its notoriously indecisive director. But he started this thing. He established the style and set the tone. Liman revolutionised and humanised the action genre (and Bond in the process) yet Greengrass gets all the credit. I don’t think that’s fair.

Stylistically The Bourne Legacy is still the same too. The same writer-turned-director; the same second unit director – Dan Bradley, another largely unsung hero. The Bourne Legacy has all the action and superficial trappings of the Bourne trilogy but none of the heart. Jason Bourne’s search for his lost identity, for his very humanity, was the heart and soul of this series. And without that The Bourne Legacy is just another action movie with an increasingly unkillable protagonist who ain’t got time to bleed!

Tony Gilroy is a good writer but only a so-so writer-director. I found Michael Clayton massively overrated, hugely disappointing and contrived as hell. While he superficially apes Greengrass and Liman’s style, this tired retread is just going through the motions.

It’s just one damn thing after another. The climactic set-piece motorbike chase through the streets of Manilla while too long does recapture some of the old Dan Bradley magic but we’ve seen it all before. And the sight of Renner on a motorbike impassively sporting shades does rather comically evoke memories of another unstoppable icon. He was impervious to bullets too!

I couldn’t watch this without EMPIRE’s kiss-off line ringing in my ears – “This shit has metastisised.” So thanks for that. “If he didn’t viral out he’s gonna run out of brain.” What, like the script? How did Gilroy’s actors ever spout this risible guff with a straight face?

That’s Ed Norton in the David Strathairn role of heavyweight actor slumming it as the prematurely silver-haired bad guy squinting at vast computer screens while barking clichés into a mobile who gets the dubious honour of spouting these zingers while looking like he’s about to fire his agent.

But it’s poor old Rachel Weisz, already saddled with the thankless role of screaming victim/love interest, who gets lumbered with the most incomprehensible pseudo-scientific technobollock dire-logue this side of Star Trek. “Viral receptor mapping”? “Mondochromial cellural uptake”? “Genomic targetting”? Christ on a bike! And there are pages of this utterly incomprehensible psycho-pharmachological bullshit (which may or may not have some basis in fact – who knows? Who cares?) in place of actual dialogue.

She’d have been as well reading out the ingredients on the back of a medicine bottle. Maybe she did! I mean, what the fuck was she talking about? And what on earth did she make of her incomprehensible script? It’s like fanfic or something. It’s actually hard to believe Gilroy wrote the first three. Not without some heavy re-writing by invisible hands.

All this gubbins about mind-altering pills, designer drugs and chromosome-mutating viruses strays dangerously close to early Cronenberg, if not Marvel Comics territory. There’s also a ham-fisted theme of culpability buried in there somewhere. Rachel Weisz seems to represent the guys who built The Bomb. Or arms manufacturers. Guns don’t kill people, sledgehammer unsubtlty does. But J. Robert Oppenheimer should rest in peace – the blood on his hands is nothing compared to this!

Scott Glenn (old) cameos again, swapping thudding exposition with Stacy Keach (grim, Ben Grimm): “We gave you a Ferari and you treated it like a lawnmower.” Albert Finney (tired) cameos too. I think. I’m not sure, I may have blinked. (Overall, there was some very uninspired casting here. What? Zeljko Ivanec’s a bad guy? Who’d have thunk? I never saw that coming!)

Last minute cameos from David Strathairn and Joan Allen are a further reminder of what’s been sadly lacking while unforgivably rendering the conclusive-ish ending of The Bourne Ultimatum not nearly as final in retrospect as it seemed at the time, effectively undotting “i”s and uncrossing “t”s in the clumsiest way possible while threatening to drag this thing out indefinitely. “Treadstone’s just the tip of the iceberg.” Uh-oh. And I thought the hitherto unhinted-at romantic history cooked-up between Damon and Stiles in The Bourne Ultimatum was a plot contrivance too far.

So how far does this conspiracy reach? And how deep does the rabbit hole go? Or is it now a bottomless pit at the centre of a neverending labyrinth? A franchise which admirably had achieved closure of sorts is now potentially endless. Oh goody. And what’s this? Aggravated suicide now? If the Bourne franchise gets any more paranoid it’ll be implicating the audience next. We are talking internet levels of paranoia here!

“There was never just one,” ran the uninspired tagline. Oh lummy! That sounds more like a threat than a promise. What’s next? The Stath in The Bourne Travesty? Bourne is AWOL and this franchise is FUBAR. So if anyone offers you any more Bourne sequels, just say no! And there was me quietly hoping this would be the dark horse of the summer too. More like an oven-ready turkey I’m afraid. A dreary experience, frankly. The Boring Legacy, more like. Shame.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 76
- 30/7/2013 5:14:00 PM   


Posts: 1
Joined: 30/7/2013
I needed a Bourne fix and loved this movie as much as the others. Obviously, the rooftop and motorbike chases were lame. The fake wolf was a little silly but the idea was good and the lead up was very entertaining. Those drone operators were great! I thought the script was 2nd only to BI. Intelligent and intriguing with surprising ideas. Renner vs Damon? I love both actors, thinking Renner did an amazing job won't mean I'm betraying Damon. Renner did not play Bourne, he plays Cross... who remembers. Big difference. I thought the acting had impeccable timing and delivery. People are against another movie which I find baffling. Get Damon, Renner, Greengrass and Gilroy together for a 5th, it would be something special. Go Universal! 3.5 stars.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 77
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: Empire wrote "SUMMER'S SMARTEST SEQUEL"... Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:

New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts

Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI