Zach Kircher of Metal Arcade writes:
I’m not exactly a fan of “fourth films.” Sure, there are some examples of fourth films in a franchise that are actually pretty good (Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol is probably the best example), but otherwise most are unnecessary cash grabs. Seriously, didn’t Jaws: Revenge, Batman and Robin, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (which I actually liked, but I’m still throwing it out there since I know a lot of people don’t) and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides give Hollywood some kind of clue? They make money to be sure, but oftentimes they are so poorly handled that they ruin entire franchises and tarnish the reputations of great talent. Yes, Universal even felt the need to continue the Bourne trilogy, which already had a perfectly satisfying ending to begin with. I mean, obviously Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon didn’t think it was a good idea since they threw themselves out of the equation early on. Still, I recognize that Tony Gilroy is a smart writer, so when the trailers popped online for The Bourne Legacy I actually became excited and hopeful that a successful series of new Bourne-related stories could be told without the need of the title character. Did writer-director Tony Gilroy’s gamble pay off, or will this film leave a bad legacy for what was known as one of the best film trilogies of all-time?