It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
A lot of good points made by all but this nails it for me.
RN is a decent film but it's not amazing. Yes it is probably the current market leader in terms of action but that's not because it's doing anything gobsmsckingly incredible. It's just pretty good and that's all you need to be to trump Bond set pieces these days.
Let's not confuse Bond action being sub standard with RN being the new Raiders.
MI is Arsenal - happily chugging along doing the same thing season in season out.
The only reason they are in with a shot at the title this year is the teams around them are all shite not because they have upped their game particularly. Apart from MI2 which is awful, the MI films have all been around a 7 or 8 out of 10.
Very solid but films but nothing truly outstanding.
I think the bottom line here, and the one thing we can all agree on, is that EON really needs to up its game when it comes to action because the last Bond set piece that really blew me away was the CR parkour 10 years and 4 films ago.
Otherwise, cede the space and focus on lower key thriller suspense, like SF (the China elevator and skyscraper fight for instance) or CR (the staircase fight for instance) which don't need big set pieces. Please just don't give us any substandard scenes like the plane sequence or ridiculous finale in the latest effort. It's damn near embarrassing given what has come before.
Irrespective of being true or false about BU filming before a complete script, it still turned out to be a better film than the last 3 Bond movies and is nowhere near as poorly conceived in the same way that QoS was slapped together.
I thought Legacy was absolute trash; talk about a complete misrepresentation of the Bourne brand. All that excellent work of the 3 precedeeing films sunk with a weak ass vision and an even weaker execution. Imagine going to see a film produced by EoN with a Bond-centric title only for the film to be about the adventures of some random 00 or standard intelligence agent or if we got a film about 009 cruising down the streets of country x in foreign city complete with his rather unfortunate taste in music. Perish the thought.
I wouldn't say it's a disaster of a film, but when you compare it to what came before, it's easily the last of the pack. Cross's character doesn't help either. I've said this many times when poking and prodding at this movie, but he's just not interesting in any way. Everything that is great about him are skills he got from popping pills. Bourne learned all his abilities through extensive training. It's the equivalent of Captain America vs. Batman. The serum stimulated soldier vs. the all natural combatant. It's easy to see why Bourne is far more interesting. You can feel the history in his every punch and kick, but with Cross you know that none of what he does has any connection to a dangerous past that shaped and hardened him. He just went to the doctor, swallowed some pills and was ready to go. Snore.
something like "The Treadstone Legacy" would have been better in that it showed that the focus was wider than Bourne but there was a connection. It also shows a lack of confidence and ambition for the series to move out into its own domain rather than focus on one character (and by inference , one actor)
If you had a movie called "The James Bond Legacy" , is the movie about Bond or about his legacy? Most punters would have an expectation that Bond is in the movie.
I think you've hit the nail on the head in terms of what fails. I remember that when I first saw it now (thanks to your mentioning it). I had less interest in the character because of all this 'pill popping'. It was almost like Universal Soldier. There's no doubt that I find Batman a more interesting character than Superman (I always have) and that's because he is all natural human so to speak, rather than enhanced alien. I'm surprised the writers/producers didn't realize the impact this could have, what with drug bans in athletics etc.
There's something very compelling about a man who's naturally trained to become the ultimate killing machine that is Jason Bourne. Using Bourne in the Bourne Legacy title didn't help either, as others have said. False marketing and smelled of cashing in so to speak.
Actually, I'll probably rewatch the trilogy while waiting for the trailer, only to watch them again due to the probable epicness of the new trailer.
This man is 100% correct. I need to get around to buying the blu-ray set of these movies; I used to own them individually, but 'Supremacy' was a little messed up and there was a huge section of the chase sequence in 'Ultimatum' (the one before Bourne and Desh fight) that would skip or cut out entirely, so I have to re-buy a new version of them.
Oh heck....to hell with it. I'm going to watch the tv version tonight. It's suitably different yet entertaining in its own right. More similar to the book.
Ha! I swear, just last night I watched Supremacy. That scene where Bourne takes out that CIA agent and security guy whilst detained in a room at the airport gets me every time.
Not only is he an intelligent filmmaker I think he's one of the best action directors around.
Wish he'd directed a Bond film but he's too much of a left winger to want to do it. Shame.
I doubt it. I'm sure it'll be given the same feel as the last three. I could be dead wrong, of course.