In 'The Bourne Legacy', Jeremy Renner as Hero Aaron Cross Goes to a Deeper and Darker Place

This installment of the Bourne franchise explores just how deep government cover ups can go.

The Bourne Legacy

Director: Tony Gilroy
Cast: Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz, Edward Norton,
Distributor: Universal
Rated: PG-13
Release date: 2012-12-11

The events of The Bourne Legacy take place simultaneously as Jason Bourne’s story comes to its conclusion in The Bourne Ultimatum. Other secret government agencies with highly trained special operatives working all over the world are dealing with the fallout of the exposure of Treadstone and Blackbriar.

One of the primary players in all of this espionage is Colonel Eric Byer (Ed Norton). He is the driving force in the creation and realization of government fringe groups that push the envelope ethically and legally. He decides the only way to protect the future of such programs is to wipe out everything and everyone currently involved in his latest brainchild, Outcome. This includes an agent named Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner).

However, unlike Bourne, Cross has no interest in the secret machinations of the higher ups or in the political ramifications of what he does. Aaron Cross just wants two things: to stay alive and to retain the physical and mental benefits he has acquired as an Outcome agent.

After Byer fails to kill Cross while the agent is on a training mission in Alaska, Cross seeks out the only person he thinks who can help him, Dr. Marta Shearing. Shearing is the lone survivor in a workplace shooting in the lab facility where Outcome agents would receive their medical exams. Shearing is unaware that her small role in the Outcome program has made her a target. Cross shows up in time to rescue Shearing from a team sent by Byer to kill her; a loose end in his cover up.

Neither Cross nor Shearing have access to the full picture, which is evident once they escape, and Cross questions the doctor. She tells him that she is just a scientist and has no idea what happens to him or the other “program participants” once they leave the lab. Shearing is just desperate to escape, but Cross spells out how limited her options are. He tells her she can’t run; she can’t hide and going to the press is possible but by no means a viable way to protect herself, “Could you ever say it loud enough or fast enough that they’d be too afraid to finish what they started?”

She explains to him that the work she does is “tuning chemistry”. The meds are produced from a live virus which is kept on site in a facility in the Philippines. The big question is what specifically these pills do. Generally speaking, the green make him stronger and faster while the blue increase intelligence.

When Shearing questions Cross where he stands on his drugs supplies and dosing, he tells her he hasn’t had a green pill in two days, but he feels fine. He says his blue pills won’t even get him through another day. Shearing is shocked to hear that he is still taking green, because he was injected with a live virus. This procedure allows Cross to sustain his physical enhancements, which makes taking the pills moot. Even though Cross enjoys the benefits of the experimentation, he does recognize that procedurally, it is all very unethical. Shearing tells him that she doesn’t administer meds nor does she make policy, “Look, I was there for the science.”

Cross asks her if it would be possible to viral him off the blue pills as well to which she responds yes. The film goes into great detail explaining what goes into the science of creating a superior physical specimen whose purpose is taking down adversaries of the US government. Technically, it isn’t that hard to follow, but like the other Bourne films, this is an intelligent action movie. You can’t expect to sit in a darkened theater and turn your brain off for two hours.

The longer Cross goes without the blue pills, the worse his mental capacity will become. Apparently, complete withdrawal from the chemicals could turn his brain into Jell-O. Cross confides in Shearing that before he was inducted into outcome, he was just a dumb grunt soldier who was too stupid to even get into the military without a recruiting agent fudging the numbers. Cross’s fear makes him more vulnerable and more likeable than Bourne.

Byer sends another agent from another program to dispose of Cross and Shearing. This is one part of the film that doesn’t make sense, since Byer is supposed to be intent on shutting down these operations. His hope initially seemed to be that they could wipe the slate clean and start fresh in a few years. Obviously, nobody learned anything from the Bourne debacle. This franchise could go on endlessly with the number of secret groups and agents that function with little or no accountability.

The DVD special features include deleted scenes and a short feature that describes the challenges of making another Bourne film without following the Bourne character. The goal was to stay inside Bourne’s world, but explore it from the viewpoint of a completely different character with a very specific problem. They definitely succeed in that respect. The film also explores a deeper level of conspiracy.

Blu-Ray exclusives include a character study of Aaron Cross, and an explanation of the importance of locations and how they were chosen. Everyone involved felt it was important not to revisit places that audiences had already been watching the first three films. The special features also offer viewers the opportunity to take a deeper look into certain sequences and stunts. One of which is included in the DVD. Both the DVD and Blu-Ray have a director’s commentary.

The Blu-Ray offers an analysis of the relationship between Cross and Shearing, and their reliance on each other to get through these series of events. This is explored in interviews with Renner, Weisz and director Tony Gilroy, who also co-wrote the first three Bourne films. There’s an app for the super fan as well as internet-connected features.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.