Category Archives: Review

Total Recall (2012)

by

2

Forget me not.

We’ve so often been told what the future’s going to look like that I’m beginning to think it’s going to be pretty boring when I first get in my flying car. I’ll have seen everything there is to do in one by then. And I’m still waiting on the hoverboard that Back To The Future promised me would arrive this year. One thing I’ve yet to see in the future is a device for implanting memories into my head, so this is exciting. Total Recall , set in that familiar future that looks a bit like Tokyo at night time tells me it could go horribly wrong though. Damn!

Name sound as familiar as the setting? Yes, this is the big-budget reboot of the 1990 Arnold Schwarzenegger vehicle. This is a movie much beloved by many… but me? I’ve never seen it. OK, lambast me all you like, but as I said in my Expendables 2 review, I was never really a fan of movies from that era. That and I was a bit young at the time to care too much. Does this influence my review? Well, it may do, as I can look at this movie objectively with a clean slate and not be sucked into the Reboot Zone debate (again and again)

Colin Farrell couldn’t ever hope to replicate Arnie’s not at all over-the-top facial expression…

This incarnation of Total Recall takes place in the late 21st Century where us Brits have seemingly survived a toxic holocaust to create the United Federation of Britain (UFB), and through some amazing feat of engineering, have linked ourselves with Australia (called “The Colony”) by drilling through the middle of the Earth. The Colony is essentially the ghetto of the UFB. A bit like Australia is the UK’s poor cousin… with beaches… and surfer girls and guys… and better weather. Damn. The plot revolves around Douglas Quaid (Colin Farrell) – a drone of The Colony who’s fed up with his hum-drum life. So he goes to Rekall – a memory creation company to spice things up by getting some espionage memories implanted. And naturally, things go wrong and he finds himself on the run from the Government. Cue a spy story with lots of twists and turns.

It may sound a bit confusing, but the film copes with the plot’s convulsions well. What’s more confusing is why in future Britain and Australia no-one speaks with a British or Australian accent. Seemingly, in less than 100 years, we’re all going to speak with a US accent. Even the Irish Colin Farrell and British Kate Beckinsale lose their native tongue. But we are not to reason why…

“Fess up Farrell!! Where the HELL have you hidden all the British, Irish and Australian people?! And stop with that fake yankee accent will ya?!”

Visually, the film is a treat for the eyes. I know the future will be dark and neon-tinged, but these future countries look like Tokyo… on smack. A true cyber-punk sheen has been applied ala Bladerunner, or if you’re into video games, Deus Ex. The only gripe I have with the visuals is Len Wiseman‘s (director) obsession with screen flares. These are digitally generated, fake lens flares. They’re done ad nauseum and I have no idea what they accomplish. Some would argue “to look nice”, but by flare 15, at ten minutes into the film, I was over them. I’m also not entirely sure what to make of a scene where we see Farrell drop into the London we’re all familiar with, complete with wheeled cars that look remarkably 2012… If someone could chime in in the comments and clarify it, that’d be grand.

Get used to that facial expression. There’s a lot of it!

What of the acting? No real complaints here. Farrell is a bankable actor in an action film. The genre doesn’t really require an actor to run the gamut of emotions over a film’s running time. Similarly, Beckinsale and Jessica Biel are serviceable in their roles. There’s nothing outstanding about either, and Beckinsale‘s heavily made-up eyes in “mean girl stare” mode got old pretty fast. Although she comes across as a fine action woman (and who wouldn’t after three unnecessary Underworld sequels), you can’t help but feel she’s becoming a very one-dimensional actress, much in the same way as Mila Jovovich. And both of their husbands direct the money-making franchises in which they star… A coincidence or correlation?

And finally… what of my old friend, the plot? Overall: great concept. The premise, as I’m sure you’re aware if you’ve seen the trailers / the original, is that Quaid comes to question who he is. Is he an outlaw? Or is he still in fact sitting in the memory implantation machine at Rekall? Make no mistake, this is no new plot tool. Films like Vanilla Sky and eXistenZ have both employed the tactic and The Matrix opened with the premise of reality vs. illusion. But it’s done well. I found myself constantly looking out for signs to try and figure out whether he was or wasn’t in reality before the film revealed the answer.

Having said that, the final act started to feel forced and it appeared that the plot had run out of steam but was being dragged kicking and screaming to a longer run time. It’s here that the film fell down slightly for me, and no amount of lens flares could startle me into remaining alert. It finished satisfyingly enough, but that final road was an arduous one to trek.

With my inability to compare this version of Total Recall to what has gone before, I’ve got to say that I enjoyed what I saw. It’s a futuristic action / thriller – nothing more, nothing less. The first 2/3 of the film make for a great cinematic experience; albeit one with some rather one dimensional female leads. Although Farrell probably isn’t an Arnie, I don’t think that was his, or Len Wiseman‘s, intention to begin with.

However, if you’re really attached to the 1990 original, I don’t know what the film offers for you. Maybe you’d benefit from a trip to Rekall, so you can have those cherished memories dashed, or at least temporarily forgotten. And whilst you’re there can you book me in? Not to forget this version of Total Recall… it’s just that I don’t want to keep clinging to these hopes of a hoverboard popping up in the next three months.

Phage Factor:

3.5 Star

The Expendables 2 (2012)

by

5

Everyone likes to have a go at fan-fiction: where you pit two or more icons against one another to see who’d win. It’s like an elaborate, imaginary form of Top Trumps. Who’d win in a fight between a polar bear and a great white shark? Who’d win in a battle between Batman and Iron Man? Who’d win if my dad fought your dad? It’s true that most of these revolve around the “fight” premise, and many of them will never come to realisation; unless you have a particularly violent dad who just likes fighting. But 2012 is thus far shaping up to be the year that fan-fiction comes to realisation. We’ve had The Avengers, and seen Thor, Captain America and Iron Man fight one another on-screen, and now we bring in the Last Action Heroes, The Demolition Men, The Universal Soldiers… The Expendables.

If you’ve been living under a rock, or if you’ve spent the past few years trying to wrestle a polar bear towards Cape Town for the epic bear vs. shark fight, then The Expendables united some of the 1980’s and 1990’s biggest action heroes into one big gunfight back in 2010. You had Stallone and Lundgren combined with some of the genre’s biggest modern stars like Jet Li, Jason Statham and… erm… Randy Couture? The first outing for The Expendables was fun, but about as deep as a puddle. It had its moments but you sensed it was missing something. It had its big names, and its cameos from Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger, but it was lacking.

The Expandables 2 adds new names to the roster, such as Chuck Norris and Jean-Claude Van Damme, as well as expanding on the roles for Willis and Schwarzenegger, to almost provide the quintessential who’s who of action heroes. But does it deliver where its predecessor tripped over itself? Most certainly.

Some of the who’s who of action movies are in The Expendables 2… as well as some just plain “who?” too.

Make no mistakes, this film is never going to be nominated for an Oscar, nor is it going to receive any awards from any magazine, but it’s a lot of fun. I’ll lay it down here that I was never an avid watcher of the 1980’s action classics; I know of them and their premise, but I in no way attest to having watched all of them. Therefore I’m in no way, shape or form a “fan-boy” of the 80’s. I was more a fan of every-man John McClane than the one man army that is John Rambo and his ilk. But I still really enjoyed this.

The premise of the film essentially revolves around Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone) and his motley crew of mercenaries being tasked with recovering some data for US Government bod Mr. Church (Bruce Willis). Clearly, things don’t go as planned and the data falls into the hands of the villain with the inspired name Vilain (Jean-Claude Van Damme), then boots are put to asses. The plot is nothing special, but I don’t think it’s intending to be that either. It’s a straight up action film – true popcorn fodder, and at this it excels. However, I take umbrage with critics saying that this is “excusable” because “it’s only an action movie”. Why can’t a film like this have a riveting plot that keeps you on the edge of your seat? Die Hard: With A Vengeance for instance had a great plot that played out as a thriller as much as an action movie. I don’t accept that cop-out excuse.

Pure fan service: The Terminator, Rambo and John McClane, united at last.

What you do have is a fun, self-referential, action-heavy movie sure to please fans of the genre. There are so many nods to the stars’ previous films, from Van Damme‘s roundhouse kicks to Chuck Norris‘ accompanying intro music that plays every time he appears. Hell, there’s even a reference to the played out Chuck Norris jokes we’re all familiar with. It’s all very tongue-in-cheek and genuinely fun to behold. Much like The Avengers I’d actually argue that some of the most entertaining parts are when the guns aren’t firing – it’s the back-and-forth and banter between the guys that is most engaging. It really looks like they’re all having fun with the script and relishing those wisecracks. Well, except for Statham who is given a number of “one liners”, but none of them hit the mark. Better luck next time Jason.

Although on paper the cast list appears to be too full, it’s good to see that not everyone is on the screen at all times, as this’d make for a horribly messy film. Some of the big names are reduced to cameos: Jet Li especially, who has about two minutes on-screen overall. However, I still don’t see the need for Randy Couture in the team. He’s a brilliant MMA fighter, but an actor he is not. And despite being part of the “core” group, he probably has five lines in the whole runtime. He’s probably the most expendable of The Expendables.

Can Stallone pull off the treble? Film Phage wants to see some of these guys in The Expendables 3…

If you’re unaware of the rumblings in Hollywood, then know that The Expendables 3 is a very real proposition and I’d anticipate it landing amidst explosions and gunfire sometime in 2014. Here’s hoping that Stallone can bring in some of the last remaining action players, such as Wesley Snipes and Steven Seagal, as well as other less obvious choices like Liam Neeson, Nic Cage and even Mel Gibson… Now that’s a film I’d love to see.

The Expendables 2 fires into cinemas with the expected combination of testosterone and guns. What was less expected was the self-referential humour and light-hearted quips that really made the film feel much more fluid and complete than its predecessor. Its only weakness is that the franchise is still lacking something in the way of cohesive story. I’m not looking for Memento with action heroes… just something a little different to spice things up. I know the franchise is capable of ratcheting it up that last notch.

Thankfully the film turns out more like Time Cop than Kindergarten Cop and I’m already baying for the announcement of the role-call for the inevitable third entry in the series.Then the fan-boys will get some more of their all time most wanted duels up on screen, which may not solve any of the “versus” arguments, but will no doubt entertain once again. And for the record Iron Man would hammer Batman… and my dad would also kick your dad’s ass. Fact.

Phage Factor:

3.5 Star

The Imposter (2012)

by

0

We’ve all lost a pet at some point in our lives: whether it was little Hammy the hamster, Goldy the goldfish, or Floppy the rabbit. Usually, this is due to them being ushered to the big playground in the sky. Your parents may have played this out in several ways; for instance they may say your pet had run away (probably due to those god awful, unoriginal names you used), or they may explain the cold hard truth – your pet is dead – get over it. More likely they’ll have tried to replace your cherished pet with a replica, so that you (the naive little kid) have no idea about the horrible fate that your little buddy succumbed to. But you know something’s wrong. That little creature just isn’t quite right… there’s something a bit different. Little “Hammy” is in fact an imposter.

Now imagine that this pet isn’t a pet… imagine it’s a brother, a son, or nephew; lost in their early teen years. No-one knows where they went, or where they are. They remain lost for over three years. Then suddenly you get a call – the boy has been found half way across the world. But this “little boy” isn’t your lost little boy. He’s someone else – an imposter. This is the premise behind The Imposter, a part-documentary, part-thriller, but very much true story in the vein of Catfish or Talhotblond. And boy do I recommend you watch it.

As per usual, I’m not going to explicitly reveal the plot here, but if you’re interested in the “true story’s” authenticity (and more on the plot), then read these articles in Time Magazine and The Guardian newspaper. I can reveal that the film tells how the Barclay family deals with reuniting with “Nicholas” in 1997: three years and four months after his disappearance from a small Texan community, in which time he seemingly had travelled to Spain and developed a French accent. Do they accept him? Do they figure it out? You’ll have to watch to find those details. This is Film Phage – we don’t spoil!

This isn’t Nicholas Barclay, nor does he look like a blonde haired, blue eyed Texan… but he’ll say he is…

If you’re familiar with Talhotblond (and if you’re not, I urge you to check it out), then you’ll recognise the format of the film. It primarily plays out as a documentary, with all of the key players talking in a frank and open manner about the events that occurred in the late 1990’s – these are not actors, these are the real people, each with their own view on events. This is interspersed with “flashbacks” that does use actors. After all, a film needs some action here and there. And I’m a sucker for genuine true stories, not this rubbish that’s so often cooked up by Hollywood as being a “true story”, when all that’s “true” are names and locations. Nothing more. This is the real deal, with real world implications.

If you’re going to watch The Imposter, you’re not going to see great acting, because there isn’t much on show – it has re-enactments in the same way that Crimewatch or America’s Most Wanted does, but this isn’t why I enjoyed the film. It’s the story. I don’t recall the original events from 1997-1998, and was unfamiliar with the tale. If this is true for you too, then do not read up on it, as the film plays out much better if you have no clue about what’s coming next – it really adds to the suspense. I’m a sucker for a twisting plot, and this had it in spades. And the genius thing? It’s not the imagination of a writer – these are real events. This single fact makes you question the rationale and intelligence of some people, as well as their moral compasses.

Some of the real people involved in the case: from sister to FBI agent, all angles are covered.

That being said, the film is not an edge of your seat thriller from beginning to end. It does slow down considerably at the end of the first act, where the film loses its momentum somewhat and attention begins to wane. I even found myself becoming slightly sleepy due to the fact that the film is slim on music and noise in general – it’s primarily a vocal delivery. But luckily this drought was short-lived and the intrigue and suspense kicks back in again with a vengeance.

By the time the epilogue and credits roll you’ll be wondering how on Earth this is a true story. Some of it is so far fetched that you’d be forgiven for doubting its authenticity. You’ll be left with just as many questions as answers… and that’s the joy of it. I love a cerebral film and one that provokes discussion and introspection. Although the film will not be to everyone’s tastes, nor is it a flawless piece of cinema, it is one that I have no qualms in recommending thoroughly. There are never just two sides to a story…

You’ll be shocked, you’ll be intrigued and you’ll be stupified. I’ll guarantee these three things of The Imposter if you’re unfamiliar with the tale of Nicholas Barclay – the lost little Texan boy. And in a summer that’s also seen the release of Killer Joe, I doubt you’ll be wanting to visit Texas any time soon either…

Imagine you had that sense of loss and longing for that absent love – little Hammy. Then he’s swapped. Unknowingly. Would you know something was awry? And if you did, would you still accept him, and why? Does this desperation make you rash, or is there something being covered up? Something sinister? Would you rather just not know why Hammy changed after mum had done the vacuuming so thoroughly? The truth sometimes really is far stranger and more frightening than fiction.

Phage Factor:

The Wedding Video (2012)

by

0

A failed marriage

Ah, the tradition of making videos to capture those special moments in life; whether they be first birthdays, family holidays, or indeed weddings. Everyone’s been in one, and some of you may have filmed them… but how many of you have actually sat and watched those videos again? Honestly? I’m willing to bank on “not many”. I remember when I was younger being filmed on camcorder when in Disney World… have I ever seen that tape again? Have I hell! Even if my VHS player wasn’t in the attic, I still wouldn’t feel the desire to dig out those old recordings. So is The Wedding Video an exception to the rule, or should it still be gathering dust next to those old mangled GI Joe toys that will definitely be worth something one day?

Robert Webb, Lucy Punch

The Wedding Video: happily ever after, or a drunken mistake?

Before I bestow my opinion on this, let’s just fill you in on what this film is about. Firstly, it’s a British film, filled with British actors. This probably means a US remake is about 3 years away (hello Death At A Funeral – I’m looking at you). The film revolves around Raif (Rufus Hound), who decides to record the lead up to the wedding of his brother (Robert Webb) and his fiancée Saskia (Lucy Punch) as his wedding gift. It all operates in a very “found footage”-esque way, with the film recorded in a style to mimic the handy-cams made famous by The Blair Witch Project. It’s a nice take on the rom-com genre, as handy-cams have been used to record poltergeists, witches, and even ghosts on the moon… but not yet for the terrors of a wedding.

But that’s where the novelty and for me, enjoyment, wears off. I’m a great fan and advocate of British comedy. Recent series such as The Inbetweeners and Peep Show clearly showcase how fantastic the Brits are at making hilarious shows. The Inbetweeners in particular has been extremely successful, transitioning to the silver screen last year with unexpected success both financially and critically (US folks – it hits your cinemas on 7th September… and you have a horrible MTV remake of the series airing now I believe). On paper, The Wedding Video has the right ingredients to succeed, owing to the fact it has Peep Show‘s Robert Webb and comedian Rufus Hound, in addition to various other British comedy alumni. It should succeed… but I can honestly say I didn’t laugh once.

Do you think we should even be filming this?

A comedy film is only as successful as the laughs it can produce, and by my judgement one smile in a 94 minute run time isn’t good. The writing fails to connect on so many levels, with most of the attempts at humour falling very short of the mark. And this comes from the writer and director combination of Tim Firth and Nigel Cole, who brought the enormously successful Calender Girls to screens in 2003. These guys aren’t rookies. They should really have nailed this, but didn’t. You may be thinking I’m an elitist or comedy snob. Yes, I have high expectations of my comedy, but I’m not alone in this. Of the 40-50 others in my screening, I heard one or two bouts of laughter in the entire film. This is in comparison to Ted, where some people wouldn’t stop laughing, regardless of whether I judged a joke to be a hit or miss (damn Cleveland Show fans).

I feel sorry for the lead actors having to work with such a poor script. Neither are really given the opportunity to flex their comedic muscles. The female lead, Lucy Punch, fares just as well owing to that script. She also exudes an aura of Jennifer Saunders in her acting. I’m not sure if this is a compliment or not, but take it as you will. Two actors are worthy of praise though: the always reliable Miriam Margoyles (Romeo & Juliet, Harry Potter) delivers in every scene she’s in – a real highlight, as does Harriet Walter (Sense & Sensibility, Atonement), playing grandmother and mother of the bride respectively. Walter‘s wedding reception speech was particularly moving; it caught me off-guard and instantly alleviated my boredom. However, not even these great performances could rescue this film. Don’t even get me started on the farcical ending either. I’d normally advocate seeing a British comedy until my face turned blue. But not this one… not in the slightest. Hell, if you had to choose between this and the weak The Lorax, I’d choose the latter. Says it all really.

The Wedding Video acts as an example of how not to write a British comedy film; ultimately coming off as something that should have been restrained to an hour-long TV episode, and not a feature length film. Recently, British comedy has seen something of a resurgence on the big screen, with such hits as Shaun of the Dead, Four Lions and The Inbetweeners Movie. Luckily these films outweigh the Beans, Lesbian Vampire Killers and The Wedding Videos of this world.

In a way The Wedding Video is pretty true to its title. Wedding videos are created to be viewed to bring back memories of a moment you can love and cherish for the rest of your life. Sometimes though they just provide bitter memories of the time you married that utter tool who treated you like something they scraped off their shoe for the next 12 months before you caught them cheating on you with that douche / slut from the next street. They’re relationships and memories you’d rather forget. This is that video.

Phage Factor:

Brave (2012)

by

5

Pixar's Brave

Teenage issues eh? Ungrateful parents who’ve never done anything for you in their entire lives, issues with your body getting more bumpy and bulbous (hopefully in the right areas), and invoking magic to get your own way to prevent an arranged marriage. Wait… what?! I’m sure we can all attest to two out of those three issues. If you can say “yes” to all three then kudos to your for being brought up in mediaeval Britain with wizards and warlocks. And if you’re reading this, then I guess Paganism really pays off considering you’d be about 8-900 years old by now. AND you managed to find Film Phage. You sir, or madam, deserve a medal. Or an eye of newt, whichever you want.

So why am I bothering to invoke references to teenage life and mediaeval times? Well, you can thank Brave for that. Pixar’s latest animated endeavour focusing on the story of Merida (Kelly Macdonald): first born to King Fergus (Billy Connelly) and Queen Elinor (Emma Thompson) of Scotland. Her tale isn’t a new one: a young girl feels controlled by her overbearing mother, wants to rebel, rebels, deals with the repercussions of doing so and learns a lesson. You could take any Disney / Pixar / Dreamworks story and put the same framework over it, which is why I went into Brave not exactly expecting much; especially since I feel jaded after my last foray into the animated world with The Lorax. But you have to give credit to Pixar… they sure do know how to show and tell a story!

Whilst regular readers will know I get especially hung up on predictable plot lines, I guess you have to forgo these irritations in any U / PG-rated movie aimed primarily at kids, so I will. For now. Beyond this, my reasons for my initial frostiness towards the film stem from the trailers not engaging me in the slightest. They were devoid of humour and quickly became stale. Couple this with the hoo-ha surrounding the “first female protagonist of a Pixar film” and I was turned off. Making a fuss of gender – for me – means there’s nothing much else to brag about in the film. If you felt the same, then I urge you to put this aside, as the film is definitely worth your pounds and pennies, dollars and cents, or pieces of eight… whatever.

Ginger children: no matter how many buns they eat, they’ll never gain a soul.

Firstly, it looks truly stunning. Pixar really are leaps and bounds ahead of their competition in this regard. Much fuss was made of 2010’s Tangled being the most aesthetically pleasing animated film of all time (Walt Disney played the “female lead” card with that film too because she wasn’t a damsel in distress. We get it, women and men are equals. This isn’t the 1950’s. It’s a given now isn’t it? Let me know when you make a bloody Labrador the lead ok?!), but this blows it out of the water. You also cannot talk about the quality of an animated film without also discussing the voice work. And whilst Brave doesn’t boast A-list Hollywood royalty, it does a fantastic job. I’m very glad of this actually, considering the film’s Scottish setting. There’s nothing worse than a US actor having a ham-fisted attempt at a Scottish accent. You can’t pull it off. Don’t try.

I particularly enjoyed Billy Connelly‘s turn as King Fergus: a rough-and-tumble leader who’s indebted to his loving wife, but also encourages his daughter’s tendencies to wield weapons and act more like a warrior, much to his wife’s disdain. Credit also has to be given to Kelly Macdonald for taking the lead and running with it. Although Macdonald is far older than her on-screen character, she pulls it off. She’s come a long way since 1996 where she starred in Danny Boyle‘s Transpotting. From a tale of heroin-addicts in Glasgow to a tale of a fiery princess… also based in Scotland.

“There Can Only Be One!” Oh wait, wrong Scottish-themed movie.

Sure, it all comes to a head in that saccharine way you expect of animated movies, with no emotionally devastating curveballs (ala Up!), but the story does opt for a charming take on reconciliation between mother and daughter: one that you wouldn’t expect. Although you will wonder why the witch in the movie is still in employment considering her panacea cure-all approach to spell-weaving. Why’d they all have the same outcome? It was also very refreshing to see a movie that doesn’t rely on the cliché guy-meets-girl love story. And no, that’s not a spoiler, as that’s not what the film’s about so reel your anger back in if you thought that was spoiling anything about the movie.

The film’s scope also merits discussion. Pixar and Dreamworks both have a tendency to tackle epics. Not quite Avengers Assemble style epic, but epic nevertheless. How To Train Your Dragon, another Scotland-based romp, is apt here. In that our young protagonist strives for independence and earns his father’s respect. The film also culminates in a whopping great battle – a feast for the eyes. Brave is nothing like this; it’s very pared back and the story never leaves the Scottish glens. Yes, it would be odd to see Merida fly off into space or battle massive super-villains, but there was a lack of “final conflict” between her and anyone. Here the hero wins with love and words, as opposed to steel and bravery, which is ironic considering the title of the film. Some will mourn the loss of such a climax, whilst others will be happy to see a more focused story. The only way to find out is to judge for yourself.

Brave is another shot on target for Pixar, even if not squarely in the bullseye. Whilst it’s not in the same leagues as Toy Story, Monsters Inc. or Wall-E, it’s certainly no Cars 2. Mind you, considering how high Pixar’s standards have been, this is nothing to be ashamed about. Whether the film has the lasting appeal of its contemporaries however remains to be seen. You can’t judge whether a film is a classic without the passage of time.

That is unless you’re the 800 year old Pagan witch that’s still reading this review. For you, it’ll take no time – just mix 56 Bavarian herbs and spices, the blood of a deer and liquid of the scarlet bull and there you go: a potion to see the future. Either that, or it’s how I ended up in ER last weekend. Can’t remember which… I’ll try again and let you know.

Phage Factor:

4 Star

The Bourne Legacy (2012)

by

2

“The name’s Bond, James Bo-… it isn’t? Ethan Hunt? No? Well, I must be Jason Bourne then right? I’m so forgetful – you know, with the whole amnesiac assassin thing I have going on… What? I’m… Aaron Cross?! Who?” Life as a government trained agent can be terribly hard on the old grey matter. With so many franchises and names bounding around, you’ve got to feel for a character like Aaron Cross; being up against some of the biggest, brightest and down-right bad ass(est) in the field. So with Cross picking up the mantle from Bourne in The Bourne Legacy can he deliver where it matters… even if he didn’t get his desired title of The Cross Conundrum?

Hunt, Bond, Bourne and Cross. Pick your hero.

The Bourne Legacy, in case your grey matter has also been taxed too hard, is the fourth installment in the “Bourne…” franchise of films. The original trilogy, starring Matt Damon, was loosely based on a set of books from the 1980s by Robert Ludlum. The Bourne Legacy takes its title from the fourth book, which isn’t written by Ludlum, and… has nothing else in common with the book. The film is set chronologically alongside the events of The Bourne Ultimatum and follows a new agent: Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner), who much like Bourne, enjoys successfully running away from the CIA. With this being a thriller, and my oath to the Nine Realms, that’s all I’ll reveal of the plot, but I’m sure you know the premise after three blockbuster movies!

Let me make one thing clear from the get go: I never worshipped at the altar of Bourne. Perhaps it all went wrong with me watching The Bourne Supremacy before any other of the movies. Sure, it was glitzy, the action was frenzied and Matt Damon was brutal, but it lacked soul for me. Does this hinder your enjoyment of this fourth installment? Well, yes and no. If you’re not familiar with certain key terms such as “Treadstone” and “Blackbriar”, or the premise behind the initial trilogy then the first 45 minutes will be very tough for you. The film doesn’t like to dwell on the past. I understand the need to “get on with the show”, but if The Avengers can summarise a whole five other movies and back-stories so seamlessly, then it’s not infeasible. Even though I knew what these terms meant, that opening act left me feeling cold and somewhat lost. It’s like I’d fallen asleep in the trailers and woken up midway into a film. It was jarring, and not at all helpful. Not a great start.

Hawkeye switches arrows for good old bullets.

That being said, there is much to enjoy in this movie once you’ve picked up the premise and Jeremy Renner has had a shave (you’ll see what I mean). What ensues is an international game of cat and mouse filled with great action sequences and a constant degree of suspense. Maybe not as much as one would hope for, but enough to sate the appetite. In typical thriller fashion, these events clearly lead to a crescendo… a climactic end sequence… the money job. Whilst it was a thrilling ride, I can’t help but feel that writer and director Tony Gilroy had been watching a bit too much Terminator 2: Judgement Day, as it all came off a tad “invincible cyborg”. You could have switched Renner and “X” with Arnie and T-1000 and felt right at home, even down to “X”‘s origin story and lack of dialogue. Though this T-1000 is no-where near as menacing as Robert Patrick.

It was great to finally see Jeremy Renner again taking the lead in a movie, after recently being locked in serviceable supporting slots in Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol and The Avengers. He’s deserved a chance to again take the leading role, and I’m glad it’s come. Alongside Hawkeye Renner in the top-billed cast is Rachael Weisz and the old Hulk Ed Norton as friend and foe respectively. Everyone’s acting is up to scratch, but no-one really excels. There’s no “wow” moment in terms of dialogue or manner of delivery. The film is carried along primarily by the action and the plot. After all, this is a Bourne… movie, so maybe witty monologues aren’t to be expected. That being said, there’s also no excuse for muddying the action scenes with such rabid editing, which made it difficult to discern what was going on on-screen. Just don’t expect such exquisitely shot fight scenes as in The Raid: Redemption and you’ll be fine.

Hawkeye, for the love of God, don’t tell him you thought Mark Ruffalo was a better Bruce Banner… You wouldn’t like him when he’s angry.

One has to wonder whether this will be the last slice of Bourne we’ll be having at our cinemas. Sure, there are six more books, but as I mentioned – this film had nothing to do with the book, spare the title. And unless Universal can convince Paul Greengrass to return as director, we won’t be seeing Matt Damon return as Jason Bourne either. So the future is somewhat open-ended for this universe. A universe I, as a non-avid fan, would be keen to return to.

Overall, The Bourne Legacy is a lot like Usain Bolt after stepping off a theme park ride and into a sprint: unstable on its feet for a while, but eventually gathers itself and tears along at pace. It’s a solid entry in the franchise, but is really hampered by that slow and meandering opening. Although I wouldn’t expect Gilroy to take the novice viewer by the hand for the initial 15 minutes, explaining previous plot points, I would expect more exposition to improve on that opening.

The beginning of Aaron Cross’ story is intriguing, but isn’t yet enough to cement him along the A list of on-screen agents. But thankfully, he’s not with the reject pile of Johnny English and those damn Spy Kids either. But maybe I just prefer my agents to quaff shaken martinis, make sexual puns about “brushing up on a little Swede”… and lamentably parade around in Speedos, as he insists on doing in recent years.

Phage Factor:

3.5 Star