The Bourne Legacy (Tony Gilroy, 2012)
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
The Bourne Legacy (Tony Gilroy, 2012)
I'm surprised there hasn't been a thread or even any significant mention of the Bourne Legacy on the board, especially considering the warm reception Gilroy's first two films as director received. It seems either no one who saw it really cared much for it or no one bothered to seek it out due to association with the prior films!
In my continuing effort to keep in touch with popular films I somehow hadn't seen yet, I actually watched all three of the "original" Bourne films prior to this one. I'd only seen pieces of the films in passing before and nothing I saw made me want to place it in context. However, having seen them all now, I can say… yeah, not much gained by the full experience, other than the non-revelation that Paul Greengrass is one of the worst directors imaginable. The first film is clearly stuck in the mid-90s action mode of artless spectacle and out-of-place romantic angles and it was hard to figure why it led to two more sequels (though it's not hard to see why Doug Liman was dropped, even if his replacement could not possibly have been worse). The second flick, in an effort to make Matt Damon's moony cipher into an actual character, has him traipsing about in varying stages of apologia for his actions, which makes existent problems with Damon's character as an action hero only more prominent. Also, how sad that Oksana Akinshina was only able to transform her acclaim from Lilja 4-Ever into this thankless role. Though this is the franchise built on thankless roles, so she's in good company. I must admit that the third film, having streamlined and discarded all attempts at anything other than forward thrust, plays best of the original trilogy. The action sequences still have the stupid, godawful, fuck this trend aspect of the shaky cam waste of celluloid, but at least there's some effort made to move everything along so quickly that not a damn thing put on screen can possibly distract you from whatever else is about to happen.
But in contrast to the less-than-entertaining "entertainments" offered by the initial trilogy, there are several distinct pleasures at play in the Bourne Legacy, which is handily the best action film I've witnessed since the prime era of good Die Hard sequels.Tony Gilroy is now three for three for directing one of the year's best films and has proven himself to be one of our few top-shelf mainstream auteurs (and now that Soderbergh's gone, he may be The One). Even though Gilroy wrote or co-wrote all of the previous Bourne films, here he's no longer tied to Robert Ludlum's tired and antiquated spy nonsense. The Bourne Legacy, like all of Gilroy's films as director, is inextricably tied to the concerns of the world we live in today. Here the film could almost serve as a time capsule of 2012: drones, genetic research, and, in one of the most horrifying sequences in recent memory, workplace shootings. I honestly have no idea how any film with that sequence could possibly still rate a PG-13, but it is the most violent thing I've ever seen in a non-R film and goes a long way towards highlighting early-on how this film isn't interested in "safe" fun. Perhaps that's why the film far outgrossed the other entries-- this is a cool and detached action film, and one not afraid to get cruel.
I have nothing against Matt Damon in theory or practice, but Jeremy Renner aides this aspect tonally and crushes any claims to Damon being a legitimate action hero. Renner's Aaron Cross falls victim to none of the obnoxious "Like meee" character tics of Damon's Jason Bourne. Indeed, he's not even all that outwardly relatable-- he's curt, he's a little meatheaded, and he's ruthless. Those are attributes which make a lot more sense given the role, and it's a shame the film wasn't much of a hit because I'd gladly line up to see Renner play this role again (and maybe finally ditch the tenuous threads to the other films moving forward). I think there's also something to be said about how Renner's strongest drive isn't to fill in his memories but to not be stupid. The parallels to modern citizens not wanting to regress into the safety of trusting the government couldn't be plainer, but beyond symbolism there's also just the basic concept of personal intelligence as a highly-ranked and admirable personal goal. In a big budget summer action movie.
And as I said earlier, what an action movie! The most tedious segment of any of the previous installments were the never-ending and rather dull car chases, which were edited and filmed in such a way that I could honestly have picked up half the shots myself just by holding a camcorder out my window on the highway and editing it every second. But Gilroy tops the sundae of this film with quite the cherry via an unbelievably engaging motorcycle chase that is simultaneously one of the most ludicrous action sequences I've ever seen and one of the most delightfully entertaining. Gilroy understands something elemental about good action cinema and displays the knowledge for those receptive to enjoy. Again, it's a shame no one's probably going to hand him the keys to a film like this again, but at least we got this one.
In my continuing effort to keep in touch with popular films I somehow hadn't seen yet, I actually watched all three of the "original" Bourne films prior to this one. I'd only seen pieces of the films in passing before and nothing I saw made me want to place it in context. However, having seen them all now, I can say… yeah, not much gained by the full experience, other than the non-revelation that Paul Greengrass is one of the worst directors imaginable. The first film is clearly stuck in the mid-90s action mode of artless spectacle and out-of-place romantic angles and it was hard to figure why it led to two more sequels (though it's not hard to see why Doug Liman was dropped, even if his replacement could not possibly have been worse). The second flick, in an effort to make Matt Damon's moony cipher into an actual character, has him traipsing about in varying stages of apologia for his actions, which makes existent problems with Damon's character as an action hero only more prominent. Also, how sad that Oksana Akinshina was only able to transform her acclaim from Lilja 4-Ever into this thankless role. Though this is the franchise built on thankless roles, so she's in good company. I must admit that the third film, having streamlined and discarded all attempts at anything other than forward thrust, plays best of the original trilogy. The action sequences still have the stupid, godawful, fuck this trend aspect of the shaky cam waste of celluloid, but at least there's some effort made to move everything along so quickly that not a damn thing put on screen can possibly distract you from whatever else is about to happen.
But in contrast to the less-than-entertaining "entertainments" offered by the initial trilogy, there are several distinct pleasures at play in the Bourne Legacy, which is handily the best action film I've witnessed since the prime era of good Die Hard sequels.Tony Gilroy is now three for three for directing one of the year's best films and has proven himself to be one of our few top-shelf mainstream auteurs (and now that Soderbergh's gone, he may be The One). Even though Gilroy wrote or co-wrote all of the previous Bourne films, here he's no longer tied to Robert Ludlum's tired and antiquated spy nonsense. The Bourne Legacy, like all of Gilroy's films as director, is inextricably tied to the concerns of the world we live in today. Here the film could almost serve as a time capsule of 2012: drones, genetic research, and, in one of the most horrifying sequences in recent memory, workplace shootings. I honestly have no idea how any film with that sequence could possibly still rate a PG-13, but it is the most violent thing I've ever seen in a non-R film and goes a long way towards highlighting early-on how this film isn't interested in "safe" fun. Perhaps that's why the film far outgrossed the other entries-- this is a cool and detached action film, and one not afraid to get cruel.
I have nothing against Matt Damon in theory or practice, but Jeremy Renner aides this aspect tonally and crushes any claims to Damon being a legitimate action hero. Renner's Aaron Cross falls victim to none of the obnoxious "Like meee" character tics of Damon's Jason Bourne. Indeed, he's not even all that outwardly relatable-- he's curt, he's a little meatheaded, and he's ruthless. Those are attributes which make a lot more sense given the role, and it's a shame the film wasn't much of a hit because I'd gladly line up to see Renner play this role again (and maybe finally ditch the tenuous threads to the other films moving forward). I think there's also something to be said about how Renner's strongest drive isn't to fill in his memories but to not be stupid. The parallels to modern citizens not wanting to regress into the safety of trusting the government couldn't be plainer, but beyond symbolism there's also just the basic concept of personal intelligence as a highly-ranked and admirable personal goal. In a big budget summer action movie.
And as I said earlier, what an action movie! The most tedious segment of any of the previous installments were the never-ending and rather dull car chases, which were edited and filmed in such a way that I could honestly have picked up half the shots myself just by holding a camcorder out my window on the highway and editing it every second. But Gilroy tops the sundae of this film with quite the cherry via an unbelievably engaging motorcycle chase that is simultaneously one of the most ludicrous action sequences I've ever seen and one of the most delightfully entertaining. Gilroy understands something elemental about good action cinema and displays the knowledge for those receptive to enjoy. Again, it's a shame no one's probably going to hand him the keys to a film like this again, but at least we got this one.
- knives
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Re: The Bourne Legacy (Tony Gilroy, 2012)
I wouldn't go as far as you in complimenting the film, but when I left the theater for this one I did realize this is the only in the series I'd be willing to watch again. The direction is nice, the performances good, and the script isn't as embarrassing as it could be. It is a non-entity instantly forgotten film, but a pleasant enough one.
- Matt
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm
Re: The Bourne Legacy (Tony Gilroy, 2012)
I really liked the film as well. My favorite part, though, was that it had an intelligent female co-lead who is allowed to be brainy. The motorcycle chase goes a little over the top, but otherwise a top-notch action thriller.
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: The Bourne Legacy (Tony Gilroy, 2012)
Rachel Weisz' character really was another huge step up from the rest of the franchise. Instead of being basically useless and getting shipped off out of the narrative ala Franka Potente and Julia Stiles, Weisz is integral to the narrative and reacts credibly to her situation before warming and going along head-first for the whole ordeal.
- manicsounds
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 10:58 pm
- Location: Tokyo, Japan
Re: The Bourne Legacy (Tony Gilroy, 2012)
Didn't like this one as much as the first 3. They really shouldn't have even used the "Bourne" name in the title since it's more of a side story than a "Bourne" story. The first 3 were fun, but this one had some frustrating points like how the ending was so abrupt, and there was never a conclusively satisfying standoff between 3 and 5. Not exactly terrible, but not great.
- FerdinandGriffon
- Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:16 am
Re: The Bourne Legacy (Tony Gilroy, 2012)
I saw it on release, so I can't back up my opinion with many precise details, but I thought it was atrocious. Terrible cutting in the action sequences, endless reams of expositional dialogue that left me more bored and confused than enlightened, the overworked and bizarrely science-fictional Superman-drug conceit, and listless performances from both actors one would expect to sleepwalk (Norton, Renner) and ones who usually deliver more under even the worst of circumstances (Keach, Weisz). Mix these ingredients with the blander elements of the franchise (meaningless but constant globe-trotting, handheld camerawork, portentous but empty political seriousness) and you have what is handily both the worst film in the series and one of the dullest of 2012. I saw it because a friend has a small role, but afterwards found out that she's extremely embarrassed about her Hollywood debut and would rather forget it ever happened. I have pleasant memories of the second Damon film, but hated the third, and am surprised they managed to make something even worse.
- tenia
- Ask Me About My Bassoon
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
Re: The Bourne Legacy (Tony Gilroy, 2012)
Pretty much the same.
Though it's not cut as badly as Taken 2 (which is by far one of the worst edit I've ever seen), it's pretty bad. Also, the script is basically going nowhere for 75% of the movie, characters are awfully written, and you get this constant feel that they wanted to integrated the movie as part of the Bourne installments, but didn't know how. In the end, it looks like they wanted to but didn't have the rights to, or something.
It's sad, because the first 20 minutes are actually pretty good, but god the rest is boring as hell. And there's only like 3 very short action scenes, but an unbearably long chase-scene at the end of the movie.
Though it's not cut as badly as Taken 2 (which is by far one of the worst edit I've ever seen), it's pretty bad. Also, the script is basically going nowhere for 75% of the movie, characters are awfully written, and you get this constant feel that they wanted to integrated the movie as part of the Bourne installments, but didn't know how. In the end, it looks like they wanted to but didn't have the rights to, or something.
It's sad, because the first 20 minutes are actually pretty good, but god the rest is boring as hell. And there's only like 3 very short action scenes, but an unbearably long chase-scene at the end of the movie.
- Matt
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm
Re: The Bourne Legacy (Tony Gilroy, 2012)
It seems the reasons I like it (the reams of exposition, the editing) are the reasons most people here dislike it. Oh well. I'm used to it (but am definitely not used to domino harvey and I liking the same movie. That just never happens.)
- FerdinandGriffon
- Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:16 am
Re: The Bourne Legacy (Tony Gilroy, 2012)
When are reams of exposition ever a good thing? Especially when what is being expressed is an incoherent mish-mash of bureaucratic euphemism and science-fiction jargon? And when the actors are compensating for the dearth of meaning by shouting everything at each other at the tops of their lungs?
(Possibly irrelevant aside: Compare this with To's Drug War, where the characters never spend any time explaining the stakes of the action, and never explain the elaborate plans they hatch, but where the audience understands both at all times thanks to effective, non-redundant editing, writing and mise-en-scene.)
(Possibly irrelevant aside: Compare this with To's Drug War, where the characters never spend any time explaining the stakes of the action, and never explain the elaborate plans they hatch, but where the audience understands both at all times thanks to effective, non-redundant editing, writing and mise-en-scene.)
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: The Bourne Legacy (Tony Gilroy, 2012)
Huh? I literally just saw this so I can say without hesitation that your descriptions don't match the actual film. I don't doubt you've seen it and disliked it, but I think your memory has played tricks on you. And the suggestion that somehow the editing in this film is inferior to that found in the Greengrass pics...FerdinandGriffon wrote:When are reams of exposition ever a good thing? Especially when what is being expressed is an incoherent mish-mash of bureaucratic euphemism and science-fiction jargon? And when the actors are compensating for the dearth of meaning by shouting everything at each other at the tops of their lungs?
- colinr0380
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
- Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
Re: The Bourne Legacy (Tony Gilroy, 2012)
Someone hasn't seen LifeForce yet.FerdinandGriffon wrote:When are reams of exposition ever a good thing? Especially when what is being expressed is an incoherent mish-mash of bureaucratic euphemism and science-fiction jargon? And when the actors are compensating for the dearth of meaning by shouting everything at each other at the tops of their lungs?
- FerdinandGriffon
- Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:16 am
Re: The Bourne Legacy (Tony Gilroy, 2012)
My memory certainly isn't infallible (it was called into question rather embarassingly in another thread just this afternoon), but I remember the vague outlines of the plot and it would seem to demand rather lengthy exposition. How else are you going to presentdomino harvey wrote:Huh? I literally just saw this so I can say without hesitation that your descriptions don't match the actual film. I don't doubt you've seen it and disliked it, but I think your memory has played tricks on you. And the suggestion that somehow the editing in this film is inferior to that found in the Greengrass pics...
SpoilerShow
the heirarchy, structure and purpose of secret organizations imbedded within secret organization within secret organizations; a secret superdrug and its testing, production, distribution, implementation, effects and side-effects; inter-governmental allegiances, rivalries, spying and counter-spying; not to mention set up how this film's particular mythology and timeline connect to and extend the already over-elaborate mythology and timeline of the Damon pictures?
As for the cutting, I can't say that it was worse than Greengrass', but this may be a case of being asked to choose between two almost equally unattractive options. At least Greengrass has something approaching what one could call a personal "style", even if it is a nauseating and repetitive one. Gilroy's seemed like a watered down, normalized version of Greengrass' more frenetic intensified continuity, and resembled any other of the dozens of dross imitators the Bourne movies have inspired.
- tenia
- Ask Me About My Bassoon
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am
Re: The Bourne Legacy (Tony Gilroy, 2012)
There's still lots of plot holes everywhere.
SpoilerShow
The CIA completely forgetting to warn the ultra secret super-drug factory that "we got an angry guy coming at you, be careful at the security gate, it might be helped by one of ours".
"Hey guy, I'm this completely innoncent guy you've never seen, I just want to have a tour inside, OK ?"
"You sure ? I don't really know you, and you don't seem familiar at all."
"But I have this nice doctor with me."
"Ok you can go"
"Hey guy, I'm this completely innoncent guy you've never seen, I just want to have a tour inside, OK ?"
"You sure ? I don't really know you, and you don't seem familiar at all."
"But I have this nice doctor with me."
"Ok you can go"
- knives
- Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm
Re: The Bourne Legacy (Tony Gilroy, 2012)
Who cares about plot holes though if the film isn't concerned with them? Nobody heard Kane's last words does that weaken the film any?
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: The Bourne Legacy (Tony Gilroy, 2012)
This is turning into the IMDB board now
I don't even know how to engage with Ferdinand's comments, though, except to say I agree that Norton is worthless in the film, but then so is every other great actor who filled the same essential role throughout the rest of the series, so it's hardly news. However, Gilroy's style does not even remotely resemble Greengrass', like at all, and just saying it over and over doesn't make it so. Perhaps it was clearer to me after seeing all of these movies back to back, but the difference is so drastic and clear between the two films that it is beyond me how someone could make that claim in any facet
SpoilerShow
Considering Secret Org HQ had no idea where Renner and the doctor were until 45 minutes after they landed and then immediately phoned the factory foreman at the plant as soon as someone at Secret Org HQ realizes who she's with (as he was presumed dead, remember, and there was no indication of contact between the two) and what's in the Philippines and upon doing so are told the foreman was already suspicious of their arrival and sent guards-- how is this a plot hole at all? The film addresses your concerns specifically. Something isn't a plot hole just because you don't like it
- FerdinandGriffon
- Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:16 am
Re: The Bourne Legacy (Tony Gilroy, 2012)
The Bourne brand has been enormously successful, and has established itself as much with its visual and editing style as with its characters and world. When Bond started aping Bourne, it was in both respects, not just that of having the protagonist mopily work through past traumas by hitting people in the face. With Legacy, Bourne/Damon himself is out of the picture. All the studio could do to connect the spin-off to the brand is offer its audience the same kind of "gritty", "visceral", Handheld, "anti-Bond" action that they associated with it. Looking at clips of fight scenes from across the franchise on Youtube, I see a few minor differences between Greengrass' and Gilroy's scenes, but they're substantially the same, using the same cheats, excluding the same information, overly reliant on Handheld camerawork, etc. Gilroy does sometimes have slightly longer takes and does pepper in a few stable shots, usually to show off a particularly cool parkour move taking Renner in or out of the action. I still find these scenes boring, clunky, and spatially disorientating, and will continue to go elsewhere for my action kicks. There's zero to no chance of me watching the film again, so my contributions to the thread might as well come to an end.
- warren oates
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm
Re: The Bourne Legacy (Tony Gilroy, 2012)
Surprised to see that nobody's mentioning what to me is the best scene in the film, the extended horror of that workplace shooting at Weisz's lab.
I might not praise this one as highly as domino, but I agree that it's underrated and/or unduly maligned. I think some of the criticisms above are fair in certain respects. There is a giant clumsy dialogue-driven exposition dump in the long car ride after the house shoot-out, which at least gives both characters some dramatic motivation to tell each other stuff the audience already knows. But most of the other exposition in the film -- including the complicated set-up of paralleling this film's story with the worlds of the other Bourne films -- is handled with dexterity. And, indeed, to go after films like this one for having too much exposition is almost tantamount to missing the point entirely. As David Bordwell has noted over at his blog, there's a newish trend (with some older roots) in certain thrillers (as different as Inception or Primer or Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy) for treating exposition as if it were action, for foregrounding and featuring exposition as the primary mode of drama. Indeed, when we're talking about a spy thriller, the proper subject of which is generally the real-time high-stakes determination of exactly what's happening, exposition couldn't be more central to the story.
I might not praise this one as highly as domino, but I agree that it's underrated and/or unduly maligned. I think some of the criticisms above are fair in certain respects. There is a giant clumsy dialogue-driven exposition dump in the long car ride after the house shoot-out, which at least gives both characters some dramatic motivation to tell each other stuff the audience already knows. But most of the other exposition in the film -- including the complicated set-up of paralleling this film's story with the worlds of the other Bourne films -- is handled with dexterity. And, indeed, to go after films like this one for having too much exposition is almost tantamount to missing the point entirely. As David Bordwell has noted over at his blog, there's a newish trend (with some older roots) in certain thrillers (as different as Inception or Primer or Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy) for treating exposition as if it were action, for foregrounding and featuring exposition as the primary mode of drama. Indeed, when we're talking about a spy thriller, the proper subject of which is generally the real-time high-stakes determination of exactly what's happening, exposition couldn't be more central to the story.
- FerdinandGriffon
- Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:16 am
Re: The Bourne Legacy (Tony Gilroy, 2012)
It's funny you mention Bordwell, as he was on my mind throughout this conversation, especially when I made the comparison to To's Drug War. I think it's true that the exposition-as-action thriller is a new(ish) and legitimate genre, and that Inception and Primer are both examples of this type of film done with some success.* However, qualitative assessments aside, I wouldn't place Legacy in the same category. In the exposition-as-action genre, there's always a dynamic tension between the verbalized exposition and the visualized action, lending the exposition an active quality it wouldn't otherwise have. In both Inception and Primer, the exposition is responsible for presenting how complex and non-linear systems should or could ideally work in a closed and controlled environment, while the action presents what actually does happen with those same systems in a real or uncontrolled environment, sometimes simultaneous with the exposition. The rules of the game are described, and then (or simultaneously) chance and human error play their part, redefining or reconfiguring the rules as the action continues. The image criticizes or engages the sound and vice versa. In Legacy, the exposition only serves to describe and explain a concrete, linear reality. Renner tells Weisz how the mess they're in works and what they need to do to get out of it, or Norton didactically fumes at the objective data he receives through his intelligence network. The action is only ever being explained or predicted by the exposition. Dialogue tells us what we will see or what we have seen, creating a stable, static relationship between the two elements of narration. This being the case, I can see no reason to separate Legacy from any of the hundreds of over-expository thrillers that preceded it.
*I leave out Tinker because I have not seen it.
*I leave out Tinker because I have not seen it.
- warren oates
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm
Re: The Bourne Legacy (Tony Gilroy, 2012)
All very good points. And I'm exicted to see Drug War this weekend with raves like the ones you and Bordwell have given it.
I suppose I'm contending that Gilroy's writerly influence on all of the Bourne films, including The Bourne Legacy, elevates them a little, sets them apart from more ordinary action films in that some of the narratives' (and the characters') philosophical concerns expressed in the exposition are indeed less about setting up every next action set piece and more about what I take to be the essence of all serious spy fiction: a heated expository interrogation of what it is that's really happening and why.
Let's not forget that, for Shane Carruth, one of the biggest influences on Primer was the talky paranoid journalists as spies docudrama All The President's Men.
I suppose I'm contending that Gilroy's writerly influence on all of the Bourne films, including The Bourne Legacy, elevates them a little, sets them apart from more ordinary action films in that some of the narratives' (and the characters') philosophical concerns expressed in the exposition are indeed less about setting up every next action set piece and more about what I take to be the essence of all serious spy fiction: a heated expository interrogation of what it is that's really happening and why.
Let's not forget that, for Shane Carruth, one of the biggest influences on Primer was the talky paranoid journalists as spies docudrama All The President's Men.
- FerdinandGriffon
- Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:16 am
Re: The Bourne Legacy (Tony Gilroy, 2012)
I think that's true, but I would only put it down to Gilroy in that he was part of a concerted effort (under the Bourne/Ludlum name) to revive the serious, topical spy thrillers that had been made with such commercial and critical success in the fifties, sixties and seventies. Gilroy and Greengrass seem equally committed to effecting this revival, and have consistently focused on "current events" both within their collaboration (which has been going on since 1992's The Cutting Edge, long before the Bourne series) and without, in their solo projects. I don't know why Gilroy should get all the credit for the topicality of the films when Greengrass has arguably made this part of his filmmaking practice more often and over a longer career.
Again, I'm not criticizing one to defend the other. I just don't see much of a difference between them.
Again, I'm not criticizing one to defend the other. I just don't see much of a difference between them.
- domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
Re: The Bourne Legacy (Tony Gilroy, 2012)
To the surprise of no one, Universal's booted Gilroy and instead hired... the guy who wrote fucking Sherlock Holmes for the fifth filmdomino harvey wrote:Again, it's a shame no one's probably going to hand him the keys to a film like this again, but at least we got this one.
- Brian C
- I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
- Location: Chicago, IL
Re: The Bourne Legacy (Tony Gilroy, 2012)
Sweet, I've always wondered what Sir Arthur could do with a big studio budget behind him.
- warren oates
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm
Re: The Bourne Legacy (Tony Gilroy, 2012)
Maybe they'll get Guy Ritchie to direct too and finish destroying the franchise in one fell swoop.