It's a bittersweet relationship I have with summer blockbuster movies. On the one hand I look forward to getting eye-fucked by Michael Bay-esque explosions and scantily clad "actresses" while forgetting that movies often use devices such as plot and character development to progress and tell a good story. On the other hand, it's this mindless congregation of imprudent films for three straight months that makes me miss films with actual intelligence and a will to entertain as well as tell a coherent and compelling story. Hollywood is strategic in their release dates that match up with the seasons themselves. January to March is meant for scripts that have sunk to the bottom of the toilet but just won't flush. These movies are generally throwaway films for the studios to reap a few extra bucks before the release of their more profitable summer movies. Jan-March is Tyler Perry stomping ground. April to August are blockbuster months. Movies that cost upwards of two hundred mill that studios know will draw every kind of viewer. They usually feature large explosions, fake tits, superheroes, sequels, or big-budget, high-concept comedies. Tyler Perry is usually replaced here with Michael Bay. September to October are the leftovers of summer. These movies don't have as high of a budget, but they're still of a higher quality than anything released in the first three months of the year. Studios know that this is the time when kids are going back to school, parents are going back to work and the theater is essentially barren. Tyler Perry generally will make a resurgence here, as well. Also, in October is usually when most horror movies are released, however, Jan-March usually features one or two horror movies that just escaped straight-to-dvd limbo. Finally, November and December are Oscar bait movies. These, generally, will be the best movies of the year and some will even feature budgets as big as those in summer. Nov-Dec is summer part two (which is strange seeing as how part two's usually come out in summer).
What these different "seasons" in Hollywood do is prepare you for the type of movie you're generally paying to see. It's hard to justify losing twelve bucks to a film in the beginning of the year. It's easier at the end of the year. But, it's summer that's the hardest. It's difficult to differentiate between trash and fun. A lot of summer movies are deceiving. This year we had mindless action that actually worked (The Avengers) and mindless action that didn't (Battleship). We had sequels that worked (The Dark Knight Rises) and sequels that didn't (Men in Black 3). So, it's hard to pick and choose which will be worth your time because every once in awhile, you guess wrong. This year, I was very excited to see Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, but after negative word-of-mouth and reviews, I convinced myself that it wasn't worth my cash. On the other hand, I had no desire whatsoever to see Savages, but, again, after positive word-of-mouth and reviews I went, and it was well worth my time and money. The Bourne Legacy was one of those right in the middle where I couldn't make up my mind if I wanted to see it or not. The reviews were generally average and there wasn't much word-of-mouth, and it was just, kind of... forgotten.
And now I know why.
There's nothing inherently wrong with it per se, it's that it's one of the most forgettable films I've seen in theaters in awhile. What worked about the Bourne franchise is that it retained that big-budget summer feel, but added that extra depth and intelligence often lacking in summer films. So, needless to say there was a higher expectation going into the film than there would be going into, say, a fourth Transformers film. This new Bourne film features the new character of Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner), a member of Operation Outcome directly related to the Operation Blackbriar and Treadstone Projects from the previous films. Due to the actions of one infamous Jason Bourne, Operation Outcome, as well as its agents are ordered to be "shut down" by Eric Byer (Edward Norton), which involves ridding the department of all its agents. Naturally, Cross doesn't take too kindly to this news and decides to fight back. The side story, or B Plot for you writers out there, involves Cross and the agents of Outcome being given performance-enhancing drugs known as "chems". Except these ain't no Barry Bonds Bartolo Colon type shit... these chems make you a human killing machine. So, Cross, out of chems and losing his strength and mind enlists the help of Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz), who's also a target of Byer, to help him get more chems. This is where the movie starts to take a wrong turn. The focus of the film shifts from it's A-story to solely on the B-story.
While it remains annoying throughout the film, everyone opposing Cross only cares about Jason Bourne. There'll be a scene with Cross running through the tundra, fighting wolves - then cut back to Washington where everyone is concerned with the last place Jason Bourne was possibly spotted. This left me wondering throughout the first half... why do we care about Aaron Cross? Finally, he becomes a person of interest when the CIA finds out he was not killed with the rest of the agents of Outcome. Yet, Cross still doesn't seem to be the center of attention because Jason Bourne's name keeps popping right back up along with anecdotes of other minor characters from previous films. Then, as the film progresses, it's less about Cross finding the people responsible for wiping out his entire crew, but about getting chems to keep him strong.
By the end of the film, nothing major is resolved. The minor conflicts that arise as the movie progresses are solved, but all of the big picture stuff is never even addressed. Edward Norton disappears in the last twenty minutes of the movie. It's frustrating to realize that not even the filmmakers cared long enough to focus on the big picture aspects that the viewer is invested in. It's as if the studio, when finding out that they wouldn't be able to lock down Matt Damon for another few years, decided to produce this movie solely so that the mass populous of moviegoers don't forget about the franchise. It's a filler movie until three or four years from now when the fifth Bourne film is produced and Matt Damon is back in the titular role that made the franchise so profitable.
That's not to say that it was a complete failure, because it wasn't. Jeremy Renner did well with what he was given. Aaron Cross is, by far, the most interesting character in the film, but when the stakes are so low for a character that's just begging to be interesting, the film shows its weaknesses. And, though, the three previous films were written by Tony Gilroy, the man should have stayed behind the computer, not behind the camera. Gilroy as a writer has always been hit or miss, but he really hit his stride with the Bourne franchise. Each Bourne movie progressively getting better and better as they went on. I attribute this to strong writing, but it's the strong directing of Doug Liman and Paul Greengrass that gives the franchise staying power. Gilroy's three attempts at directing (Michael Clayton, Duplicity, and now Bourne Legacy) have all been extremely bland. It's as if he knows how to write spy thrillers and incite tension on paper, but can't figure out how to do it onscreen. The end result is almost boring. And I can't tell you the last time a freeway chase scene has been boring, but somehow Gilroy figured out a way.
While Bourne Legacy fails in a lot of the ways the previous three thrived, there are still much worse action movies to be seen this past summer. They actually care about Cross and give him ample time for character development, but it's the plot that wears thin and the inability to finish what was started that drops this Bourne into the lower echelon of Summer blockbusters.
C
No comments:
Post a Comment