But what if Treadstone wasn't the only project that the CIA was using to create super assassins?

That's where The Bourne Legacy picks up, introducing Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner) as one of six agents in a Treadstone-inspired project called Outcome. Unlike Treadstone, however, Outcome is designed to create killers who can work alone in high-risk environments.

The film opens with Cross in the middle of the Alaskan wilderness, having to fend off a wolf attack and survive a hostile environment until he meets up with another agent (Oscar Isaac). Cross learns that he's not the only product of Outcome and is forced to make his way back to civilization after a drone attacks their isolated cabin.

Meanwhile, Outcome is masterminded by Colonel Eric Byer (Edward Norton), the director of the National Research Assay Group that ran Treadstone. But something's wrong with the program and on the fear that it might all come to light in a Senate investigation, Byer recommends canceling the project and destroying all traces of their research.

One of the people affected is NRAG scientist Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz), who survives a harrowing attack by one of her fellow researchers, just to go home and encounter more agents from NRAG who might have more on their agenda than just questioning her. In the nick of time, Cross shows up and rescues her, and the chase is on, with her shanghaied into trying to stabilize his drug needs while the NRAG team tracks them halfway across the globe.

I'm an unabashed fan of the original Bourne series and in particular of Matt Damon's portrayal of everyman Jason Bourne with his tremendous secret. To continue the series without him being involved was a bold step, and to promote writer Tony Gilroy to direct was even more risky. 

Unfortunately, it doesn't entirely pay off. 

The biggest problem with The Bourne Legacy is that it only sporadically makes sense, even as it has a similar frenetic energy and impressive action scenes. Without spoiling it, I can't detail exactly what's broken, but how does Cross know what he knows? How does he get from one place to another so quickly?

Worse, the base story revolves around the government creating super addicts through genetic-altering mental and physical drugs: much of the film is Cross running, as any addict would, to find his next fix. That Dr. Shearing so quickly decides to help him is hard to accept for just this reason. A bit disappointing as a primary motivator, rather than honor or even revenge.

Still, it's well assembled and well acted, and the story offers up enough narrative tie-ins to make it a good idea to watch the previous films before going into the theater. Cross is also a good successor to Bourne, it's the film storyline itself that's confusing. Indeed, I found it hard to understand most of what was going on during the first thirty minutes of the film, as Project Outcome is introduced and then steps are taken to destroy all evidence of it, while Cross somehow escapes Alaska and makes it back to NRAG in the nick of time.

The Bourne Legacy is exciting and does a nice job of explaining how the series continues without Bourne being involved. But it ends with too many elements unexplained and a crass, everything but a "next episode" end title appearing on screen, which could have been toned down quite a bit, rather than surprising the audience with the closing titles.

It's inevitable that we're not going to agree on which films were the best and which were the worst of the year. As a critic, I'm used to it, used to walking out of a theater shaking my head at what a banal, insipid film I just wasted two hours of my life watching, while surrounded by people excitedly talking about how awesome and thrilling it was. Yeah, so it's totally okay if you disagree,

I also suspect that we look for different things in movies. Generally I look for films that demonstrate the hero's journey, a mythic tale of growing up, finding oneself and overcoming obstacles to grow and mature at the end of the film. It doesn't have to be The Karate Kid, however, even Iron Man (not a 2010 release, I know) does a great job of exemplifying what I'm talking about. In my opinion, a film should be a journey, an adventure!

Except for when it's not. Sometimes big, loud, sexy, exciting, silly and sophomoric is just what works and I will candidly admit that I can enjoy Police Academy just as much as I enjoy Lawrence of Arabia. Well, maybe not quite as much, but you get the idea. Roger Ebert coined the phrase "guilty pleasure movies" and I think that's a great name for 'em, though I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be guilty about.

Anyway, enough preface! Onward!!

The film opens up with a bank robbery, and it's clear immediately that this isn't a suave, sophisticated gang of thieves who are going to charm their victims, but a tough band of thugs who use physical force and intimidation to frighten them. Affleck plays disaffected criminal Doug MacRay, a lifelong Charlestown (Boston) resident who commits heists with his dangerously violent brother James (Jeremy Renner).

The bank robbery doesn't transpire as planned and they grab bank manager Claire Keesey (Rebecca Hall) and use her as a hostage to guarantee a smooth getaway. On Doug's urging, they release her unharmed and when FBI Special Agent Adam Frawley (Jon Hamm) later interviews her, he's suspicious. But can Claire identify the robbers? That's the central question in the film, and Doug begins stalking her -- and then dating her -- to ensure she doesn't rat them out. Add in the "one more job" trope and you've got The Town.

Even with the occasionally ragged storyline, the action was exciting, the dialog gritty, vulgar and believable, the film reeked of verisimilitude, the performances were all spot-on, and the exterior shots of Boston were terrific. I really enjoyed The Town and anticipate Affleck becoming a reliable director of great films, much as Clint Eastwood has transformed his career and become one of the top directors in Hollywood. In a nutshell: go see The Town. You won't regret it.

Nonetheless, I enjoy war films but always measure them against the dual yardstick of how realistically they portray war and whether there's a story, an interesting narrative, too.  That's why I both really liked and was left surprisingly untouched by Kathryn Bigelow's The Hurt Locker.

Set in Iraq in 2004, it offers up a collection of interesting -- and sporadically quite intense -- scenes focused on U.S. Army Staff Sergeant William James (Jeremy Renner), a wild member of an EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) unit on the front lines of the complicated war zone that is Baghdad. But the story line, the narrative progression of the film, was surprisingly weak and many scenes could easily have had their order swapped without the audience even knowing.

The film starts out with a quote that really explains the point Bigelow is making, "war is a drug", and for James, that's exactly what it is, even as his two squadmates, Sergeant JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and Specialist Owen Eldridge (a nuanced performance by Brian Geraghty), try to figure out what makes him tick. Why?  Because James is a fearless and undisciplined daredevil who eschews all safety rules in the interest of just walking in and defusing the bomb.