Review: The Bourne Legacy

The Bourne Legacy is an odd film. It's not quite a sequel. It's not quite a reboot. Frankly, I'm not quite sure that it was a film that really needed to be made. Cynical audience members will probably say that this film is an obvious cash grab. Bourne fans starved for another entry might welcome it with open arms, excited at expanding the "universe" of Jason Bourne. How do I feel? Read on and see.

The Plot
The Bourne Legacy occurs in the same time frame as The Bourne Ultimatum. While Damon's Bourne is going through his shenanigans in New York, the eventual end of the Treadstone project that went bad starting in The Bourne Identity, other similar programs are being shutdown for their ties to Treadstone. One such project is Outcome, one step further than Treadstone in that these agents are also genetically enhanced. The drawback? Each agent is dependent on pills to keep their enhancements. That's right. Drug addicted assassin/agents. How very Phillip K. Dick. One such agent is Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner). When all the Outcome agents are liquidated (i.e. murdered), he survives. Desperate for his meds, he ends up saving a scientist, Dr. Shearing (Rachel Weisz) from her own liquidation. With the government hot on their heels, they journey to Manila, to the main factory of the meds to change Cross' future.

What Worked

1. Cinematography - Gilroy chooses to film Legacy as Liman did in Identity. That is to say in a traditional style without a lot of fast cutting. It is in sharp contrast to the documentary, shaky-cam that Greengrass used in the last 2 Bourne films. Not only is the film less nausea-inducing but one can appreciate the action much better as it is easy to follow and always shot in complimentary angles. Which leads us to...
2. The Action - the scenes are very well choreographed, particularly the climactic motorcycle chase at the end of the film which rivals the chase from The Bourne Identity. Also very good are scenes in which Cross escapes his liquidation and in which he saves Shearing from hers. Each one showcases his enhanced skills and ability to out-think his opponents, even when thinking on his feet.

What Did Not Work

1. The Action - while I loved the action scenes themselves, there were simply not enough of them. The 3 I mention above are pretty much all there are, save for a small scene at the factory. I don't mind dramas. I don't mind character development. However, when I go to an action movie, particularly one from the Bourne Series, I expect a delicate balance between drama and action and unfortunately, this film fell short in this area. In the other films, Bourne had interactions with various government agents, police, and assassins. There aren't too many of those types of scenes in this film. As a result, there is a lot of downtime in the film which slows down the pace.
2. The Characters - one of the reasons why the Bourne series worked so well is that Bourne was a very sympathetic character. He drove the narrative. You went along his journey as he tried to discover who he was and what Treadstone was. This is not the case in Cross. He knows who he is. Someone is out to kill him but he doesn't really seem to care. His driving force is meds to keep his abilities. That's it. His journey is very selfish, much more than Bourne's search for self. Unfortunately, that is not enough to sustain an entire narrative. Also, for some reason, Gilroy has made it a great point that Cross is the complete opposite of Bourne. He's very congenial. He's talkative. He smiles. The problem with this? It doesn't jive with his drug addiction. It also undermins his believability as a deadly assassin. Lastly, there is zero chemistry between Renner and Weisz. Thus the flirting and the "romance" that carries the later half of the film comes up flat and seems awkward at best.
3. The Story - this film has a completely unnecessary story. It doesn't add anything to the Bourne series. Instead, it just blatantly says, "Hey, we've got ANOTHER program like Treadstone and ANOTHER agent goes rogue." It's a complete rehash without any of the mystery or the depth. It's all very straightforward. We have yet another black ops style government program, this time with genetically enhanced agents. They shutdown the project and try to kill anyone tied to it. There are two survivors who have no idea why they are being tracked and seemingly don't care. Instead, they follow a plotline that has nothing to do with the other one going on. As a result, you get characters who don't drive the narrative. You get completely reactive characters that simply respond to the plot. There is no unifying driving force in the story which makes the film feel as if it is meandering, appearing instead to be a series of scenes and set pieces just strung together.

In Conclusion

I wanted to like The Bourne Legacy. I really did. I was hoping that it wasn't just a cash grab and that it would add to the mythology of the Bourne trilogy. Unfortunately, it does not. It doesn't reveal anything new about Treadstone or Blackbriar. It is literally a side-note. This wouldn't be so bad if the story itself was any good. Unfortunately, it isn't. It's almost as if someone took a list from the other Bourne films and created a template for this movie while completely missing what made the first 3 films work: great story and a good sympathetic, proactive protagonist. Is it a bad movie? Not really. It's just not as good as it could have been and nowhere as good as the Bourne trilogy. It's an action movie that doesn't have enough action to please action fans, and it is a spy film without enough intrigue to please spy film fans. I'm not quite sure who this movie was meant to appeal to. It certainly wasn't me.

Update: The Circle of Life

So I'm ready to post about why exactly my Spider-man review was late. Courtney and I saw the movie the morning of July 4th and I'd started formulating my review right after, intending to sit down and write it after dinner and fireworks that night. My mom, sis, aunt, and cousins came over for dinner that evening and we sat down to watch National Treasure (which seemed apropos considering the Maguffin in the movie).

As the movie wound down and the sporadic pops of fireworks started to ring out, we got the call. My dad was being rushed to the ER. We told ourselves that we wouldn't worry until there was something to worry about. In retrospect, we should have worried.

We got confirmation a couple hours later that he had passed. Just like that. He was gone. I didn't even really know how to react. Since Courtney and I were expecting, I couldn't really fly out. I was torn.

My mother and sister went to California to work out the arrangements. I flew out for 36 hours so I could attend the Vigil and Funeral, hoping I could fly back before Courtney went into labor. Fortunately, everything worked out. The services were beautiful. My dad is buried right next to my grandfather in one of the most beautiful memorial sites I've ever seen. And Courtney didn't go into labor. Awesome!

It wouldn't be until almost 2 weeks later that Courtney would go into labor. Lily Adele was born on 7/27 at 3:03am. Witnessing her birth was one of the most amazing experiences of my life. I didn't think I'd be able to be in that room, let alone see the whole thing happen. I have a fairly weak stomach, you see. But there I was. In that room. Seeing the miracle of life.

And it was in that hospital room, waiting for my wife to dilate, that I finally sat and wrote the Spider-man review. Weird how 2 weeks can change your life. It took my from one end of the spectrum of life to the other. It shows that when one door closes, another one opens. One end leads to another beginning. Sometimes life is truly beautiful.

My one and only regret is that my father wasn't here to see his first grandchild. I can only hope that he was watching her birth and smiling down upon her.

Review: The Amazing Spider-man

Let me start off by saying that I was not excited to see the Spider-man reboot for two reasons: 1. Spider-man 3 left me cold on thr all wall-crawler and 2. I had zero interest in seeing his origin again. For those of you who know me, you know that I don't like origin movies. As a comic fan, I'm well versed in the origin and don't really need to see it. I would much rather get to the action. In the case of this movie, I'd just seen the origin about a decade ago. No need to rehash it. That being said, the marketing blitz that preceded the release turned me around a bit for two reasons: 1. The web swinging looked much better and 2. It looked like I was finally going to get a Spider-man that was going to wisecrack, something sorely missing from Raimi's interpretation. So in the end, I was cautiously optimistic walking into the theater.

As a warning, since it has been a couple weeks since release, this review will have spoilers. So let's get to it.

The Plot
As I stated before, this is an origin film. I'm sure everyone knows it by now but here's the basic recap: Peter Parker is a nerdy kid in high school. He gets bitten by a radioactive spider and gets superpowers such as the ability to climb walls, enhanced strength, and an acute "spider-sense" that warns him of incoming danger. Instead of stopping a small-time thief, he lets him go only to find later that that same thief kills his Uncle Ben after his escape. He could have stopped him. From this point on, Peter vows to only do good since "with great power comes great responsibility". He then goes on to fight a similarly genetically enhanced foe who has a personal connection to him, which both tries him emotionally and physically. Along the way, he also finds a way to romance the girl he's had a crush on for a very long time.

Sound familiar? It should. This origin was told in Raimi's first Spider-man film and not much has been changed. The main differences would be that this film is truer to the source material in that his love interest is Gwen Stacy and not Mary Jane Watson. Though MJ is the more recognizable of the two, Spidey-fans will know that Gwen was his first love. And instead of giving us the Green Goblin like in Raimi's movie, we get The Lizard. But as clearly stated above, the basics remain the same.

What Worked:

1. Spider-man - my biggest complaint of Raimi's Spider-man films was that while he nailed a very 60's Lee/Ditko era Peter Parker, he dropped the ball on Spider-man. Spidey is supposed to be sarcastic, cocky, and trash-talking. He's the polar opposite of the nebbish Peter Parker, an outlet for the shy kid. Webb and his writers completely get this part of Spider-man and it's great to finally see him in action. In addition to that, the aforementioned swinging scenes helped add to the character. While I loved the CG of the original, there was a certain weightlessness to it where it was obvious that it was a CG double. In this film, they actually used gymnasts and acrobats for many of the scenes, adding the weight and realistic reactions of the human body (not like the ragdoll physics of CG doubles).
2. Andrew Garfield - the guys puts in a great performance. He really makes a difference between the nerdy Peter and the heroics of Spider-man. A lot of it has to do with his physicality. He is a bit awkward and lanky as Peter but confident as Spider-man. This even shows up right after he is bitten by the spider. His moves in a different way, jerking here and there, as if moving like a spider. There's also a great sense of control about him, particularly with emotional scenes. You can see that there is pain in his eyes even when the scene doesn't call for outright crying. These subtle touches really help create a memorable performance. I look forward to seeing him grow in the role.
3. Emma Stone - I like Emma Stone. There's a quality to her that seems very down-to-earth. She is not unbelievably gorgeous but she is attractive. She looks quite a bit like the girl next door. But she also has a part of her that seems like she could be "one of the guys" which also makes her endearing. She is the perfect Gwen Stacy. I can believe that she'd be into a guy like Peter. I can believe that she's really intelligent. I can also believe that she's really the wholesome daughter of a police captain. Great casting for this role.

What Didn't Work

1. The Plot - As I stated earlier, the movie is one big rehash. This wouldn't really be so bad if it weren't for the fact that the plot spends an equal amount of time building to the Spider-man reveal as the first Raimi movie without offering much different. The marketing promised an "untold story" but this stuff must have been left on the cutting room floor. Sure there are hints about the tragedy that struck Peter's parents and that there was some kind of conspiracy going on with Oscorp and Curt Connors being behind the murders. But it doesn't really go beyond the toe-wetting stage. There is a bit more character development done between Uncle Ben and Peter (which was wonderful as it really helped establish their bond, which Raimi's film fell short of a bit) but his purpose in the story is still the same. And he doesn't even get to say the most famous line, "With great power comes great responsibility". Of all the things they keep the same, they drop the most iconic line? Seriously? To make matters worse, the film also rehashes emotional beats from the first movie. Remember that scene in Raimi's in which the New Yorkers on the bridge unite and help out Spider-man? We get something like that with a bunch of construction workers and cranes. Remember how Norman Osborn started going insane because of his experimental drug and starts talking to himself? Curt Connors does it too. That's the big problem with the movie. It's a rehash that feels like a rehash, that retreads the same story beats and even some of the same emotional ones while completely under delivering in the "untold story" the marketing promised. Poor form.
2. Peter Parker - I get that Peter Parker is supposed to be a troubled youth. I also get that this Peter is a much more accurate reflection of a modern teenager. Tobey Maguire with his "aw shucks" wide-eyed enthusiasm was perfect in capturing that 60's era Parker. And as I stated above, Garfield is great as the character. My problem is with the character himself as he is written. He's very "emo". There is no other word for it really. I half expected him to listen to some whiny band as he put on black eye liner. I understand Peter is supposed to be troubled. But why is he so angsty? He seems damaged and emotionally scarred, two things that Garfield plays very well but are not things I associate with Peter Parker. Leave the angst to Batman. This makes me really sad since I love that they nailed the Spider-man character while messing up Peter Parker. I suppose this change in the character was done to appeal to a younger demographic (particularly the Twilight subsection of teen girls) and I must really just be out of touch with it.
3. Where's the Fun? - Peter isn't the only one that is ridden with angst. It permeates the feel of the whole movie. Webb spends so much time making this more serious Spider-man movie that he takes a bit of the fun out of it. By erring on the side of emo for Parker, we don't get enough of the joy he gets when discovering his powers. Maguire looked like he was having fun when getting used to his webs and when crawling up walls. Garfield looks like he's working, trying things over and over until he gets it right. There's a certain sense of humor that Raimi captures about a young teen discovering himself and coming into his own. Webb is more intent on making his version of Batman Begins. Again, this approach works for Batman, but not for a character like Spider-man who is supposed to be able to rise from his problems and still be positive.

In Conclusion

I thought the movie was good. Not great by any means but good. I checked my watch many times during the movie because it felt longer than it really was. This wasn't the fault of the filmmakers per se as the pacing of the movie seemed spot on. It was simply that I'd "been there, done that" and there wasn't enough different that kept my attention. My biggest gripe (in addition to the whole rehash thing) was the biggest lack of a sense of fun in the film, particularly in the character of Peter Parker. If I could, I would take the feel of Raimi's first film, inject a bit of the whimsical wide-eyed Parker into this film and we would have a perfect Spider-man movie. As it is, we have two imperfect films. Taken on its own, as if Raimi's film hadn't existed, I would probably rate this movie higher. The same issues with character and feel would still exist but overall the movie had some good acting and the pace was well done. Unfortunately, the movie doesn't exist in a vacuum and Raimi's movie do exist. Thus, the review must reflect that.

Review: The Dark Knight Rises

So the time has finally come for the last chapter in Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy. Is it a satisfying conclusion to 2 of the best comic book films to date? Or does it end the story like so many other trilogies (i.e. Raimi's Spider-man and the X-films) with a whimper rather than a bang? Read on faithful...er...readers for a spoiler-free review.

The Story:
The movie takes place 8 years after the events of The Dark Knight. Harvey Dent is remembered as a hero while Batman has disappeared, previously labeled the murderer of Dent. Bruce Wayne, too, has become a recluse, drawing comparisons to Howard Hughes. Gotham City, meanwhile, has been experiencing a long period of peace. But of course, it wouldn't be much of a film if it was all peace and flowers, and just like with Michael Corleone in Godfather III, just when Bruce Wayne thought that he was out, he was pulled back in. This time evil comes in the form of Bane, a muscular and intelligent psychopath who speaks with a strange voice, as if Sean Connery were doing some take on an Eastern European accent filtered through Darth Vader's mask. Bane and his crew of mercenaries/terrorists have come to take over Gotham and getting the help of the lower class to rebel against the upper class. It's all very basic Karl Marx. Can Bruce Wayne don the cape and cowl one more time and take down Bane, even with the help of the Catwoman, Commissioner Gordon, and a hotheaded beat cop?

What Worked:

1. Christian Bale - I've always loved Bale in the role and he really brings it in this movie. This Wayne is much more broken (literally and figuratively) than the one in the previous movies. He has been out of the game for so long. He has made great sacrifices and it has taken its toll on him. Also, I like that he kind of toned down his Batman voice so it's much more like a whisper/Clint Eastwood voice rather than the odd growl that he used in the past.
2. Anne Hathaway - I admit that I was skeptical of her casting for the role of Catwoman, er...Selina Kyle. I feared she wouldn't sultry enough. Thankfully she is sultry when she needs to be but also very intelligent and sophisticated. Basically, I believe that she is a very intelligent cat-burglar/grifter who can talk or flirt her way out of anything. And she doesn't look too bad in a full bodysuit.
3. Tom Hardy - I've liked Hardy since I saw him in Star Trek: Nemesis. His performance as Bane was incredible without being completely over-the-top or competing with Ledger's Joker. While his Bane is nowhere near as large or muscular as he is in the comics, he carries himself as if he was. He seems larger than life and you never really quite know if he is going to punch you, wrap his arms around you, or snap your neck. He is very cold and calculated. It says a lot when you can communicate so much without ever actually seeing the lower half of the face.

What Didn't Work:

1. The Pacing - This was a very slow movie. And not in a good way, like The Godfather is slow. Or like The Shawshank Redemption is slow. Sometimes it felt like scenes would drag on while others would cut away before you actually felt closure in the scene. Even the action scenes seemed slowly paced. I haven't often been bored by car chases or fight scenes, but it happened in this film a couple times. Which is sad since I enjoyed the major car chase in The Dark Knight very much. Unfortunately most of the major action scenes in this film felt kind of generic which slowed down the pace of the movie.
2. The Direction - I love the work of Christopher Nolan. He has this very intellectual style of filmmaking, very impersonal, which I think worked for his last 2 Batman movies as well as for films like Memento and The Prestige. His movies always strike me more as cerebral rather than sentimental. I simply don't think it works in a film that deals with such themes as personal sacrifice, regret, and vengeance, all very emotional themes. Because of this, despite Bale's great performance, sometimes it was hard to connect to the emotions in the film. The same was true in The Dark Knight actually. I didn't really buy that Rachel was the love of Bruce's life.
3. The "Bat Family" - My fears from the comics came true in this film, particularly that sometimes in the Batbooks of the past 15 years or so, Batman will take a backseat to his Bat Family, i.e. Robin, Nightwing, Huntress, Batgirl, Azreal, Gordon. There just wasn't that much Batman in this movie. There was certainly a lot of Bruce Wayne, which I appreciated, but Batman often took a backseat to a lot of the other characters. Is it really too much to ask to have more Batman in a Batman movie?

In Conclusion:

I was slightly disappointed in The Dark Knight Rises but that may be because The Dark Knight set such high expectations. I thought the performances were all great and I liked the overall plot of the film. I just felt that it wasn't all that focused and some directorial choices, particularly with pacing, really hurt the final product. Is it as bad as Spider-man 3 or X3? Certainly not. It is lightyears ahead of those godawful excuses for movies. It's more in line with Return of the Jedi. Certainly a good movie but not nearly as good as the one that preceded it. Still, anyone who is a fan of the first two must see this movie, if for nothing else than to finish the story that Nolan started. Also, I enjoyed it more than I enjoyed The Amazing Spider-man which I was supposed to review on the 4th of July but refrained as my family suffered a tragic loss. I will probably write up a review of that anyway later on.

Apologies and a Review

Has it really been over a year? I have absolutely been remiss and I apologize. A lot of things have happened since I last posted. We moved into the house. We've had our first year under our belt. And we're expecting our first child this month. It has really been that long. Crazy.

Casper and I put the podcast on semi-permanent hiatus. We will be retooling the site and establishing a new identity. While we are still in love with the Level Up concept, we feel it is ready for a new fresh take. Thus we have come up with Secondhand Gents. In addition to the stuff we've done in the past, we have also starting "leveling up" our wardrobe with budget buys and thrift store finds. Check out our tumblr at secondhandgents.tumblr.com.

So on to the review. I saw Magic Mike today. Odd choice for a movie I know seeing as it seems geared towards a female audience (it's a movie about male strippers) and I really don't like Channing Tatum all that much. But I do love Steven Soderbergh. If he could get me to love Julia Roberts in Ocean's Eleven, maybe he could do the same in Magic Mike.

The movie is basically the male version of Showgirls, only with a bit less cattiness and a lot less camp. It's the old formula of "young ingenue is taken under the wing of the big star". Not the most original of concepts but I haven't really seen it explored with men. I've seen it plenty of times with women, like in All About Eve to the aforementioned Showgirls.

What worked:

1. Cinematography - I love Soderbergh's errr...Peter Andrews' camera work. It's quirky. Off-beat. Definitely not slick. Odd angles and a lot of natural light. I love it.
2. Choreography - Come on. It's a movie about male dancers. The dancing better be up to snuff and for the most part, it is. And Tatum definitely shows off his moves, learned from his own years of being a stripper. 
3. Matthew McConaughey - steals every scene he's in. He has that lethal combination of ignorance and arrogance with a good helping of ambition. He is the funniest part of the movie, an entrepreneur living in his own delusion.

What didn't work:

1. Alex Pettyfer - was a bit too bland in my opinion. Yes, he's supposed to be the aimless guy who gets in over his head but he seems pretty one note through the whole movie. He was also hindered by the script in that he didn't really have much character development. I would have liked to see him go through an arc similar to Dirk Diggler's in Boogie Nights.
2. The script - the movie meandered quite a bit too much for my liking. I loved that it never really got into melodrama. But it also didn't really get into the characters. For the most part, they were all superficial ciphers. 
3. The tone - the movie starts off very comedic but it get's pretty heavy about halfway through. I actually like the drama in the movie but I do feel that it was uneven. It's funny. The part of the movie that makes it so much better than Showgirls in my opinion (the fact that it's not campy) may also be it's biggest downfall. It's not funny enough to be a comedy and it's not serious enough to be a drama. It tries to be both without really being successful at either.

Overall, I liked the movie. Sure, it wasn't the greatest movie ever made. I think it was a good beginning for a movie. I think it could probably have been 30 minutes to an hour longer and you could really get into the nitty gritty of the characters. Develop some better conflict. Have a better sense of resolution. But let's be honest. The majority of people who are going to see Magic Mike aren't interested in character development. They're looking for scantly clad men gyrating their hips. And this movie has it in spades.