วันศุกร์ที่ 20 พฤศจิกายน พ.ศ. 2558

The Bourne Legacy : Rachel Weisz



Rachel Weisz says she keeps details of her marriage private because Daniel Craig is 'just too famous'
She captured the heart of 007 himself, but just like Daniel Craig's most famous character, Rachel Weisz is decidedly secretive about their romance. Weisz, 45, says she doesn't open up much about her four-year marriage to the Spectre star because "he's just too famous." "It would be a betrayal," she tells More for its the Dec/Jan 2016 cover story.

The Bourne Legacy: Movie Review

Directed by Tony Gilroy Starring Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz, Edward Norton Grade : C The Bourne Legacy should be the last bourne film I hope. This entirely new concept has no relation to Jason Bourne...

Directed by Tony Gilroy

Starring Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz, Edward Norton

Grade : C

The Bourne Legacy should be the last bourne film I hope. This entirely new concept has no relation to Jason Bourne series. The title legacy has nothing to do with the bourne. Yes director would have thought for bringing in another Jason bourne movie. That's fine. But without Jason Bourne ?? Not a good idea! So what he does in here? He brings in Aaron Cross, whose identity is not known till a point in the movie. Showing jason Bourne in television channel would not save the film. Where is Bourne in the film ? This is the question audience would think after coming out. I expected climax to reveal the whereabouts of Bourne. Nope! I am totally disappointed. So where is the point of another movie in the franchise and what's the point of making this film to be called as Bourne Legacy.

The film cuts across locations all around the world showing pills and bleeding concept for the victims. Well, we also see Renner in an isolated location in Alaska hunting down wolfs. What's he doing there? Who is he ? Later we come to know that he is Aaron Cross. That's the point. Back to the story we see Rachel Weisz is a doctor who works in a pharmaceutical lab working on something. A mad scientist shoots everyone and shoots himself in the lab. Then we see her being caught by two unknown people in her house. There comes Aaron Cross, to save her and ask her his medication. The point is all about a medication and the pills Aaron swallows during snow locales, are somehow connected to these. Now the defense system is tracking them and want to destroy them. Here comes the chase in the film. But all this! What is the point?

The writing in the film is so careless. We see snaps of scenes zipping by every minute and the director takes us to other location. All this feels faster, but he is forgetting the point that he is not able to make coherence and interest in viewers. Snail mail way the plot goes and Bourne fans are able to digest to wait for his arrival. Non Bourne fans, would be hoping for the exit door. The film starts with Renner swimming and living alone in Alaska. Nice way to start and bring the thrill on. The drones in the film lack understanding and the whereabouts of Renner is still a mystery till one point. This is totally sloppy and the whole plot goes in a car where Weisz explains the concept to Renner. Sorry Weisz, you might be thinking that, you got yourself a great character, but I pity on you. The whole 130 minutes has 10 minutes of plot and rest all goes without coherence. What is going on? Why are they being chased? The climax with the frenetic bike chase and subsequent scene was anticlimactic. The story has not ended. Wait a minute! Where's the story? Pills, cognition and flash memories all together at some point does not convince the viewers. They need reasoning and science behind all this. Instead of dialog driven plot, Gilroy should have shown visually the plot. For example: I would consider animation or use of computer graphics to show the plot so that viewers can understand about the depth in it. With words, it looked all dull and seemed rather forced.

Character development lacked point. Aaron Cross played by Renner is nothing but good fighter, sharp mountain climber and great bike rider. Where is the depth in his characterization? (His past, his importance for the plot) . Rachel Weisz plays a scientist who works with viruses and do all such goody stuffs. Here character is limited to dialogues (I work for science and science) and shouts. Nothing deep indeed. Edward Norton probably the best character in the film was wasted purposefully. His role is so diminished that I got angry about the writers. He justs sits in chair, watches news channels and gives order.

Performances are real savers for the film. Renner is perfect in body language and dialogue delivery. He does emote well to the situation. Weisz is also perfect for her dialogue delivery and explaining science to Renner in a simplistic way by taking example of a suitcase. Norton is excellent in dialogue delivery. All the problem goes with the plot and sloppy writing. Thanks cast, you all did perfect to save a sinking movie to float for sometime.

So Bourne Legacy, is bourne film without Jason Bourne. This is a gamble. For Renner, (Damon fans) and strictly Norton fans (After Incredible Hulk) people might fly to the multiplexes. The best of the cast are been wasted for a careless and incoherent plot.

Haphazard, flat and wandering plot spoils the ambitious work from RennerFree Web Content, Weisz and Norton. Gilroy's The Bourne Legacy slips through fingers.

Source: Free Articles from ArticlesFactory.com

ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:

โพสต์ความคิดเห็น