This time around, I watched it without high expectations, and I tried to allow it to be its own movie and not an extension of the original Bourne trilogy, and I liked it much better. Renner's not bad, and though I would have liked less talking, it wasn't quite as "blah" as I thought it was the first time.
This makes me wonder about critiques in general. How much do my moods or emotions or expectations affect what I think about my entertainment choices? I tend to be critical, but maybe some of that is worse during certain high-emotion times in life, while at other times I'm more forgiving of a movie or book or TV show's weaknesses...
A topic for a future blog post, perhaps?
Anyway, here's my original review, and I have to disagree with my past self, having giving "Legacy" a second look. There are still certain inexplicable plot points-- seriously, would the entire police force in Manila really mobilize when the U.S. government faxed them the photos of the two fugitives? They seemed to have every cop in the country on their tails, and how in the heck did they find them in that crowded, crazy city?
But it is decent cinematic entertainment, and I feel I should retract my harsh criticism of Renner's performance. I thought he wasn't so bad this time. And overall, I enjoyed the movie a lot more this time, which was unexpected. So, Jeremy, I'm sorry. It wasn't a blah movie after all.