123 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

Loomis, QOS is joyless by design. It’s about a character who is having a hard time finding peace, much less joy. It should follow that QOS would be joyless. However, look for things other than joy, and QOS is worth appreciating.

It's not a bleak film by any stretch, though; it's a fairly standard action movie. It's hardly Get Carter. It's just dead and lifeless. I'd say that the Bournes are much darker, with a main character with much less joy in his life than Bond; and yet they have a spark of life and are actually gripping: even Ultimatum which has the least interesting, most bolted-on plot of all them. And yet it's still a fantastic watch, whereas Quantum just ain't. There's no dramatic meat, there's no plot, there's no tension, there's no interesting action. Casino Royale had all of those, Quantum didn't.

Again, I agree completely with marktmurphy. I should perhaps just sit back and let him be my spokesman on QUANTUM OF SOLACE, because he says exactly what I want to say but says it better and more succinctly than I usually manage to do.

[HH007]

Loomis, QOS is joyless by design. It’s about a character who is having a hard time finding peace, much less joy. It should follow that QOS would be joyless. However, look for things other than joy, and QOS is worth appreciating.

It's not a bleak film by any stretch, though; it's a fairly standard action movie. It's hardly Get Carter. It's just dead and lifeless. I'd say that the Bournes are much darker, with a main character with much less joy in his life than Bond; and yet they have a spark of life and are actually gripping: even Ultimatum which has the least interesting, most bolted-on plot of all them. And yet it's still a fantastic watch, whereas Quantum just ain't. There's no dramatic meat, there's no plot, there's no tension, there's no interesting action. Casino Royale had all of those, Quantum didn't.

Again, I agree completely with marktmurphy. I should perhaps just sit back and let him be my spokesman on QUANTUM OF SOLACE, because he says exactly what I want to say but says it better and more succinctly than I usually manage to do.

Disagree completely. The Bourne sequels were to me dull and lifeless, with a lead character with no personality whatsoever.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Why all the hate? So much negativity; it's not DAD for crying out loud...

You're right, Die Another Day is more fun...




and a better Bond film.



I had high hopes for Quantum Of Solace going into the film. Unlike others, however, I wasn't expecting it to be as good as Casino Royale--hoping, yes; expecting, no. That would be tough to manage. Still, I was expecting a good, solid Bond adventure and we didn't get it. For a number of reasons the film doesn't work as well as it could have or should have (i.e. shaky cam, super-quick editing that doesn't allow one to take in what is happening which would allow them to get involved with the story, Elvis, Bond's treatment of Mathis' body, a hum-drum main titles sequence, and a misplaced gun barrel to name the major offenders) and Marc Forster is a major reason for that.

Where Casino Royale was firing on all eight cylinders, QOS is only firing on four. It does have some really good parts, but the negative aspects mentioned above take away from those good parts and what you're left with is a mediocre Bond film.

[Tybre]

Bond's treatment of Mathis' body

Alright, I've got to chime in. People gonna keep bringing this scene up, may as well join the horde of people pro-dump. Wait that sounds utterly different from what I...Aaaanyway, if you ask me, the scene is perfect. Logistically, Bond has to move. Fast. But he doesn't want to leave the corpse of his friend lying in the middle of the street. The dumpster is the only funeral Bond can offer at the moment. Ah, but then there's the old, limbs dangling out of it argument, now isn't there? Well see that's something else. If you ask me, I think Bond thinks that's what's going to become of him someday. He's going to be shot down and cast aside like a slab of raw meat. I find that scene positively beautiful, if sad. Now, that said, I wish they hadn't killed off Mathis, and there certainly are ways to give him a better death in the future, but I think what we got was downright perfect for the film. Had it happened in Casino Royale or The Living Daylights or something, you can bet your I'd be against it, because it just doesn't work. But it works perfectly in the context of Quantum of Solace.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Sorry, I completely disagree. As I've said many times before, it is totally out of Bond's character to treat a good friend and ally that way. Sure, Bond may feel that is what may become of him someday, and he may not care if he gets treated that way, but he would never do that to a friend.

As for moving Mathis' body, why not just prop him up against the dumpster? Why callously drop him in it like a sack of garbage other than to create shock and stir up anger in a significant portion of the audience? No, it's bad all the way around. The worst scene in the series.

And yes, killing off a beloved Fleming character (in QOS or not) who doesn't die in the series (Fleming or post-Fleming) is just plain wrong. Better watch out Felix, you may be next.

[Jim]

Sorry, I completely disagree. As I've said many times before, it is totally out of Bond's character to treat a good friend and ally that way.

Is it, though?

Even if it is, should he be a fixed character and, accordingly, utterly predictable? And boring.

[marktmurphy]

Disagree completely. The Bourne sequels were to me dull and lifeless, with a lead character with no personality whatsoever.

His lack of personality is sort of the point; he's looking for his personality. That's he's still sympathetic without one is a bit of a feat. Bond has a personality on the other hand, so there's no excuse for Quantum being less interesting.

Bond's treatment of Mathis' body

Alright, I've got to chime in. People gonna keep bringing this scene up, may as well join the horde of people pro-dump.

Yeah I've got nothing against that scene. Bond's not a sentimental type when there's a job to do; and he's already shown a surprisingly emotional side to hold Mathis while he's dying: after that his body is just a body.
I don't remember him stopping to bury all of those other people that died at his side over the years: Sharkey's still on a meat hook, I think.

[Dainshdude118]

I thought it (Mathias’ death) was a beautiful scene and one of QOS’ redeeming aspects, along with pretty much everything that happened in the hotel (We’ve just won the lottery, stationary, we’re going to a party and the scene beginning with Bond fighting MI6 agents in the lift). We didn’t expect his death. Admit it, you didn’t see it coming. That’s the point, watching Bond films from now on, you’ll ever be quite as complaint when characters are in danger. When Felix was in an action scene before, you were (or at least, I was) thinking “He’s never gonna die”. But now, were not going to be sure. We’ll be thinking “I they won’t kill him. Will they?”

[H.M.S Ark Royal]

I thought it (Mathias’ death) was a beautiful scene and one of QOS’ redeeming aspects, along with pretty much everything that happened in the hotel (We’ve just won the lottery, stationary, we’re going to a party and the scene beginning with Bond fighting MI6 agents in the lift). We didn’t expect his death. Admit it, you didn’t see it coming.

I'm sorry but I did...And I think I'm not the only one...

[Tybre]

I thought it (Mathias’ death) was a beautiful scene and one of QOS’ redeeming aspects, along with pretty much everything that happened in the hotel (We’ve just won the lottery, stationary, we’re going to a party and the scene beginning with Bond fighting MI6 agents in the lift). We didn’t expect his death. Admit it, you didn’t see it coming.

I'm sorry but I did...And I think I'm not the only one...

Personally when he turned up in the trunk, it was 50-50 for me. Either he was going to die from those wounds, or Bond was going to get him to the nearest hospital or clinic or something ASAP. Turned out to be neither, although fairly close to the former. And I was, naturally, hoping for something along the lines of the second. I mean, who wanted to see Mathis killed off?

[Dainshdude118]

I thought it (Mathias’ death) was a beautiful scene and one of QOS’ redeeming aspects, along with pretty much everything that happened in the hotel (We’ve just won the lottery, stationary, we’re going to a party and the scene beginning with Bond fighting MI6 agents in the lift). We didn’t expect his death. Admit it, you didn’t see it coming.

I'm sorry but I did...And I think I'm not the only one...

Personally when he turned up in the trunk, it was 50-50 for me. Either he was going to die from those wounds, or Bond was going to get him to the nearest hospital or clinic or something ASAP. Turned out to be neither, although fairly close to the former. And I was, naturally, hoping for something along the lines of the second. I mean, who wanted to see Mathis killed off?

I understnad how you could see Mathias' demise coming once the death scene has started to progress, but I was really referring to when Mathias first appeared in the film. EON has in the past, been relucatant to kill of Flemming's recurring caracters. I didn't think they had any particular reason to break that rule in QOS, but was preasently surprised. Not that I'm saying there going to kill off Felix or something stupid like that. Still, my point is that it was a good scene.

[tdalton]

The question to all those who champion QoS remains, if you like this kind of crap that much, why don't you join a Bourne forum since evidently you're not satisfied by Bond and yo'd rather it aped Bourne to the core?
It's like a Bond fan complaining about the absence of casino scenes in Star Wars movies. That dumb.

Since a Bond film was filmed in a similar style to another rival spy series, I'm not allowed to like the Bond film? That's ridiculous.

Maybe the Bond series should just conclude with QUANTUM OF SOLACE, since no matter what EON does, they're going to be accused of ripping of Bourne, when it's really Bourne that ripped off Bond in the first place.

[double o ego]

His bloody name is, MATHIS!

Not Mathias.

[MrDraco]

Guys we made it threw TWINE....I liked qos and dont have a problem with the direction of the series..

[DR76]

I wish QUANTUM OF SOLACE was like THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM. THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM is a much better film.

I don't think so. THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM had some plot bloopers that were too major for me to ignore. Most of the bloopers centered around the character of the CIA director portryaed by Scott Glenn.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Disagree completely. The Bourne sequels were to me dull and lifeless, with a lead character with no personality whatsoever.

His lack of personality is sort of the point; he's looking for his personality. That's he's still sympathetic without one is a bit of a feat. Bond has a personality on the other hand, so there's no excuse for Quantum being less interesting.

Bond's treatment of Mathis' body

Alright, I've got to chime in. People gonna keep bringing this scene up, may as well join the horde of people pro-dump.

Yeah I've got nothing against that scene. Bond's not a sentimental type when there's a job to do; and he's already shown a surprisingly emotional side to hold Mathis while he's dying: after that his body is just a body.
I don't remember him stopping to bury all of those other people that died at his side over the years: Sharkey's still on a meat hook, I think.

No, he didn't bury his allies over the years--and he certainly didn't callously dump them in the nearest garbage bin either. He'd make a farewell gesture or look as with Kerim Bey and Saunders and/or would immediately get on with the job.

The point is, dumping Mathis in the garbage bin didn't need to be done. Bond could have either left him where he was or move him off the street. The same point regarding Bond's feelings (or lack thereof) and Mathis' not caring could have been made. Instead, the filmmakers chose to shock and anger a large number of people just to do so.

[Loomis]

I wish QUANTUM OF SOLACE was like THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM. THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM is a much better film.

I don't think so. THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM had some plot bloopers that were too major for me to ignore. Most of the bloopers centered around the character of the CIA director portryaed by Scott Glenn.

Tell me more. I have plenty of issues with ULTIMATUM's script (yes, the film is flawed, like most films, but it's still superior to QUANTUM OF SOLACE), but none with Glenn's character.

[marktmurphy]

I wish QUANTUM OF SOLACE was like THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM. THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM is a much better film.

I don't think so. THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM had some plot bloopers that were too major for me to ignore. Most of the bloopers centered around the character of the CIA director portryaed by Scott Glenn.

Ooh I can't think. He's barely in it is he?

One little touch I love in Ultimatum is that when Bourne has flashbacks to arriving at the CIA building years before, he remembers arriving in the Summer; all the trees are leaved and the Sun is shining. Whereas the here and now the film is set in is the cold grey overcast winter. A really nice little touch that probably would have taken quite a bit of effort to do.

The point is, dumping Mathis in the garbage bin didn't need to be done. Bond could have either left him where he was or move him off the street. The same point regarding Bond's feelings (or lack thereof) and Mathis' not caring could have been made. Instead, the filmmakers chose to shock and anger a large number of people just to do so.

Bleh; I don't care. Bond was trying to make it look like a street robbery and probably didn't want an instant fuss; the kind that there would be if a body was left in the street. It made sense to me; it was supposed to be a fairly cold, logical act from Bond, who is supposed to be a cold character at times.

[Judo chop]

I understand exactly where Loomis and Markt are coming from.

Part of my acceptance of QOS for what it is, comes from a view of it as it stands in the series. I’m not looking at QOS as if it were in a vacuum. If I were, I might tend to come closer to agreeing with these two posters. (Not all the way. I don’t think QOS is as dull and lifeless as they seem to feel.)

I like to look at QOS as being very much the sequel to CR; an aftermath of sorts. To me, QOS is the fallout from the nuclear explosion of CR. It makes a lot of sense in that light.

And not only that, but I look at QOS as it stands in the series. It does something that has never been done before, and I do think it succeeded where LTK primarily failed; QOS wasn’t afraid to take it all the way. All the way that Bond ever should, at least. Of course QOS could have been darker and tougher, but it’d have to do it at the total expense of anything resembling family fun, which obviously is counter to the point. It’s a unique addition to the series. I see value in that.

Granted, QOS ain’t as much ‘fun’ as it could be, and I don’t want another QOS, but I’ll gladly and gratefully take this one-time-only new look Bond film over the blubbery bulk of ‘fun’ Bond films that exist between 1981 and 2002.

[byline]

It's just a succession of chases briefly intermingled with conversation to give only the slightest appearance of a plot. Even the dialogue scenes are shot with that annoying handheld-for-the-sake-of-it style that directors shoot for in order to create "immediate artistic" effect. Though it wasn't as awful as Supremacy, I'm glad I didn't spend money on a ticket.
The question to all those who champion QoS remains, if you like this kind of crap that much, why don't you join a Bourne forum since evidently you're not satisfied by Bond and yo'd rather it aped Bourne to the core?
It's like a Bond fan complaining about the absence of casino scenes in Star Wars movies. That dumb.

Well, I do champion QoS; after more than 40 years of watching the movies and reading and re-reading Fleming, it is, for me, the best film of the series.

But I didn't like the Bourne Ultimatum and don't see the connection between it and QoS. I am one of the few people who seem to think that the Bourne series has become steadily worse. The first one was quite qood - despite my finding Damon only an okay-ish actor - the second adequate and the third just an extended chase with no arc or subtext whatsoever. In contrast, QoS has the best character arcs for Bond and his leading lady in any of the films, and the subtext throughout makes it a film for grown-ups who don't need a plot spoonfed to them. It is also the best-directed Bond film for me.

But,as I say, it is only my opinion. But I'm entitled to it and I thank you not to decide for me what makes me a Bond fan or not.

I very much agree with this.

[dee-bee-five]

It's just a succession of chases briefly intermingled with conversation to give only the slightest appearance of a plot. Even the dialogue scenes are shot with that annoying handheld-for-the-sake-of-it style that directors shoot for in order to create "immediate artistic" effect. Though it wasn't as awful as Supremacy, I'm glad I didn't spend money on a ticket.
The question to all those who champion QoS remains, if you like this kind of crap that much, why don't you join a Bourne forum since evidently you're not satisfied by Bond and yo'd rather it aped Bourne to the core?
It's like a Bond fan complaining about the absence of casino scenes in Star Wars movies. That dumb.

Well, I do champion QoS; after more than 40 years of watching the movies and reading and re-reading Fleming, it is, for me, the best film of the series.

But I didn't like the Bourne Ultimatum and don't see the connection between it and QoS. I am one of the few people who seem to think that the Bourne series has become steadily worse. The first one was quite qood - despite my finding Damon only an okay-ish actor - the second adequate and the third just an extended chase with no arc or subtext whatsoever. In contrast, QoS has the best character arcs for Bond and his leading lady in any of the films, and the subtext throughout makes it a film for grown-ups who don't need a plot spoonfed to them. It is also the best-directed Bond film for me.

But,as I say, it is only my opinion. But I'm entitled to it and I thank you not to decide for me what makes me a Bond fan or not.

I very much agree with this.

Thanks.

I watched QoS again last night on Blu Ray. Yet again, I found myself loving the film even more; it's the only film I've ever known to affect me like this. And I kept thinking throughout that - from my perspective at least - it's a nonsense to suggest the film is joyless. In fact, pound-for-pound there are more lines that amuse me in QoS than CR. And I reported in my original review of the film how a friend texted me to say Qos is "much better fun" than CR.

[Safari Suit]

All the best reviews (or should I say "rvs") are written in text these days. Seriously though, that is one text I agree with.

[DR76]

Actually, some of my complaints go back to BOURNE SUPREMACY, as well as BOURNE ULTIMATUM:


1. Manheim and Jarda

When I first saw "SUPREMACY", I had assumed that the German-born Treadstone operative in this movie (Marton Csokas) was the same German-born operative who had killed Alexander Conklin in "IDENTITY". Well, I was wrong. Apparently, they are two different men. "IDENTITY" had identified three other Treadstone assasins other than Bourne operating in Europe - the Professor (Clive Owen), Castel (Nicky Naude) and Manheim. Out of all of them, Manheim was the only one who had survived. Yet two years later in "SUPREMACY", Bourne meets Jarda, who claimed that they were the only two Treadstone operatives left. What in the hell happened to Manheim? He survived the events of "IDENTITY", yet he was dead two years later? How did he died? And how did Jarda pop up into this mix?

I also have another question regarding Jarda. How did Bourne find out about him? Hell, how did Bourne know where to find him? When did he have the opportunity to get his hands on the files of Treadstone's European operatives? He certainly was not able to do so in "IDENTITY"'s finale. Nicky was already in the process of destroying the files when Bourne and Conklin had their showdown. Bourne certainly had no opportunity to do so in "SUPREMACY". So, how did he find out about Jarda?


2. Nicky's Comments About Her Past With Bourne

In "ULTIMATUM", CIA Logistics Coordinator Nicky Parsons (Julia Stiles) had hinted of some past relationship between her and Bourne that had left her shaken. A relationship that Bourne has no memory of. Now, I am confused. Was she speaking of their encounter in Berlin? Or of an affair when they were both posted in Paris? I am aware that both Bourne and Nicky were stationed in Paris before the attempted Wombosi hit that left him with amnesia. But recalling Nicky's reaction to Bourne near the end of the film, I never got the impression that they had enjoyed past intimacy with each other. At least not from Nicky. Her reaction to Bourne near the end of "IDENTITY" seemed to be the same as her reaction to the Professor after meeting him . . . namely trepidation. Nor did Nicky bring up any past intimacy between her and Bourne in "SUPREMACY". Aside from her trepidation in "IDENTITY", Nicky had expressed sheer terror when Bourne had kidnapped her in the second film in order to learn more about Treadstone and Pamela Landy (Joan Allen). So, exactly what was Nicky talking about?


3. CIA Directors - Martin Marshall and Ezra Cramer

Confusion really seemed to reign over the roles of the two CIA Directors featured in the films - Martin Marshall (Tomas Arana) and Ezra Cramer (Scott Glenn). Martin Marshall's name had briefly came up as the CIA's Director in "BOURNE IDENTITY". We finally got to see him in the flesh in "SUPREMACY". Yet, in "ULTIMATUM", which is set six weeks later after "SUPREMACY", the CIA has a new director - Ezra Cramer. What in the hell happened to Marshall during those six weeks? Someone had claimed that perhaps he had encountered trouble for what happened in Berlin at the beginning of the second film. Frankly, this makes no sense to me. The Berlin operation was big enough to get Pamela Landy in trouble, but certainly not Marshall.

And in "ULTIMATUM", it was stated that Ezra Cramer had given Noah Vosen (David Strathairn) permission to use the Blackbriar program as a replacement for Treadstone. All I can say is . . . huh? At the end of "IDENTITY", it was Ward Abbott (Brian Cox) who had introduced the Blackbriar program to the CIA. Yes, I am aware that Blackbriar was originally sold by Abbott as a communications program between agencies and later became an assasination program. But when did this happen? During the six weeks between "SUPREMACY" and "ULTIMATUM"? Did Cramer give his authority to the Blackbriar program during this six-week period? Judging from the numerous files in Vosen's safe, I rather doubt it.

[dee-bee-five]

All the best reviews (or should I say "rvs") are written in text these days. Seriously though, that is one text I agree with.

In fairness, I guess it depends on what one finds funny. I appreciate wit, rather than slapstick. So I find Bond's deadpan quip that "I don't think he smoked" when M regards one of her Christmas presents to Mitchell(an ashtray which she smashes) very funny. Doubtless others don't.

Actually, some of my complaints go back to BOURNE SUPREMACY, as well as BOURNE ULTIMATUM:


1. Manheim and Jarda

When I first saw "SUPREMACY", I had assumed that the German-born Treadstone operative in this movie (Marton Csokas) was the same German-born operative who had killed Alexander Conklin in "IDENTITY". Well, I was wrong. Apparently, they are two different men. "IDENTITY" had identified three other Treadstone assasins other than Bourne operating in Europe - the Professor (Clive Owen), Castel (Nicky Naude) and Manheim. Out of all of them, Manheim was the only one who had survived. Yet two years later in "SUPREMACY", Bourne meets Jarda, who claimed that they were the only two Treadstone operatives left. What in the hell happened to Manheim? He survived the events of "IDENTITY", yet he was dead two years later? How did he died? And how did Jarda pop up into this mix?

I also have another question regarding Jarda. How did Bourne find out about him? Hell, how did Bourne know where to find him? When did he have the opportunity to get his hands on the files of Treadstone's European operatives? He certainly was not able to do so in "IDENTITY"'s finale. Nicky was already in the process of destroying the files when Bourne and Conklin had their showdown. Bourne certainly had no opportunity to do so in "SUPREMACY". So, how did he find out about Jarda?


2. Nicky's Comments About Her Past With Bourne

In "ULTIMATUM", CIA Logistics Coordinator Nicky Parsons (Julia Stiles) had hinted of some past relationship between her and Bourne that had left her shaken. A relationship that Bourne has no memory of. Now, I am confused. Was she speaking of their encounter in Berlin? Or of an affair when they were both posted in Paris? I am aware that both Bourne and Nicky were stationed in Paris before the attempted Wombosi hit that left him with amnesia. But recalling Nicky's reaction to Bourne near the end of the film, I never got the impression that they had enjoyed past intimacy with each other. At least not from Nicky. Her reaction to Bourne near the end of "IDENTITY" seemed to be the same as her reaction to the Professor after meeting him . . . namely trepidation. Nor did Nicky bring up any past intimacy between her and Bourne in "SUPREMACY". Aside from her trepidation in "IDENTITY", Nicky had expressed sheer terror when Bourne had kidnapped her in the second film in order to learn more about Treadstone and Pamela Landy (Joan Allen). So, exactly what was Nicky talking about?


3. CIA Directors - Martin Marshall and Ezra Cramer

Confusion really seemed to reign over the roles of the two CIA Directors featured in the films - Martin Marshall (Tomas Arana) and Ezra Cramer (Scott Glenn). Martin Marshall's name had briefly came up as the CIA's Director in "BOURNE IDENTITY". We finally got to see him in the flesh in "SUPREMACY". Yet, in "ULTIMATUM", which is set six weeks later after "SUPREMACY", the CIA has a new director - Ezra Cramer. What in the hell happened to Marshall during those six weeks? Someone had claimed that perhaps he had encountered trouble for what happened in Berlin at the beginning of the second film. Frankly, this makes no sense to me. The Berlin operation was big enough to get Pamela Landy in trouble, but certainly not Marshall.

And in "ULTIMATUM", it was stated that Ezra Cramer had given Noah Vosen (David Strathairn) permission to use the Blackbriar program as a replacement for Treadstone. All I can say is . . . huh? At the end of "IDENTITY", it was Ward Abbott (Brian Cox) who had introduced the Blackbriar program to the CIA. Yes, I am aware that Blackbriar was originally sold by Abbott as a communications program between agencies and later became an assasination program. But when did this happen? During the six weeks between "SUPREMACY" and "ULTIMATUM"? Did Cramer give his authority to the Blackbriar program during this six-week period? Judging from the numerous files in Vosen's safe, I rather doubt it.

I'm sure you're right. But your post ably demonstrates why my interest waned after Identity; I simply didn't care about any of it...

[Loomis]

When I first saw "SUPREMACY", I had assumed that the German-born Treadstone operative in this movie (Marton Csokas) was the same German-born operative who had killed Alexander Conklin in "IDENTITY". Well, I was wrong. Apparently, they are two different men. "IDENTITY" had identified three other Treadstone assasins other than Bourne operating in Europe - the Professor (Clive Owen), Castel (Nicky Naude) and Manheim. Out of all of them, Manheim was the only one who had survived. Yet two years later in "SUPREMACY", Bourne meets Jarda, who claimed that they were the only two Treadstone operatives left. What in the hell happened to Manheim? He survived the events of "IDENTITY", yet he was dead two years later? How did he died?

Maybe he died on a mission. Perhaps he went to work in Iraq as a "freelance security consultant" and got taken out by a bomb in a Baghdad market. Or maybe he had a heart attack while shagging one night, or got struck by lightning on a hiking holiday. Who knows and who cares?

Also, what makes you think IDENTITY showed us all the Treadstone agents instead of just a representative sample?

In "ULTIMATUM", CIA Logistics Coordinator Nicky Parsons (Julia Stiles) had hinted of some past relationship between her and Bourne that had left her shaken. A relationship that Bourne has no memory of. Now, I am confused. Was she speaking of their encounter in Berlin? Or of an affair when they were both posted in Paris? I am aware that both Bourne and Nicky were stationed in Paris before the attempted Wombosi hit that left him with amnesia. But recalling Nicky's reaction to Bourne near the end of the film, I never got the impression that they had enjoyed past intimacy with each other. At least not from Nicky. Her reaction to Bourne near the end of "IDENTITY" seemed to be the same as her reaction to the Professor after meeting him . . . namely trepidation.

Yes, because she thought that Bourne had flipped his lid and was on a kill-crazy rampage and that she might be one of his targets.

Nor did Nicky bring up any past intimacy between her and Bourne in "SUPREMACY".

She didn't have time to bring it up with Bourne, and bringing it up among her CIA superiors would have made no difference and would probably have also landed her in hot water.

Aside from her trepidation in "IDENTITY", Nicky had expressed sheer terror when Bourne had kidnapped her in the second film in order to learn more about Treadstone and Pamela Landy (Joan Allen).

Again, her terror is understandable. Everyone thinks Bourne has gone loco. Which is something that his behaviour towards her in SUPREMACY completely supports. She's not going to start reminiscing about their lovey-dovey past (if indeed they had one) while he's pinning her to a wall and barking questions at her with a gun to her head.

So, exactly what was Nicky talking about?

Well, we just don't know. My own feeling is that Bourne and Nicky never had a relationship, as such, but that Nicky was in love with him for a while early in their CIA careers, and probably communicated her feelings to him at one point but that Bourne gently turned her down, because he was unwilling to get involved with a fellow operative, and/or because he felt his line of work did not allow for entanglements. I don't think Nicky's line in ULTIMATUM ("It was difficult for me.... with you") suggests anything more than that. I don't think anything ever "happened" between them. However, Nicky obviously had feelings for Bourne, and back in the day Bourne knew it. That's about it, though.

Confusion really seemed to reign over the roles of the two CIA Directors featured in the films - Martin Marshall (Tomas Arana) and Ezra Cramer (Scott Glenn). Martin Marshall's name had briefly came up as the CIA's Director in "BOURNE IDENTITY". We finally got to see him in the flesh in "SUPREMACY". Yet, in "ULTIMATUM", which is set six weeks later after "SUPREMACY", the CIA has a new director - Ezra Cramer. What in the hell happened to Marshall during those six weeks?

Again, who knows or cares? Maybe Marshall was due to retire or go on sabbatical or choked to death on a Chicken McNugget or whothehellcares? I'd agree that it seems as though Scott Glenn has been in the job a heck of a lot longer than just a few weeks, but, hey, none of these unanswered questions are particularly important or affect my considerable enjoyment of the films, and they certainly pale in comparison to the dozens of unanswered questions posed by the Bond films over the decades.

I mean, why does M have a new office between CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE? What happened to Villiers? Where did Tanner come from all of a sudden? Why does Bond appear starved of sleep at the start of QUANTUM yet looks bright-eyed and bushy-tailed at the end of CASINO? Did the car chase go on all night long? Why does Bond ask Mathis to accompany him to South America? And so on and so forth.

[Harmsway]

Why does Bond ask Mathis to accompany him to South America?

This question, at least, is easy enough to answer; Bond wants to utilize Mathis' old contacts and sources.

[Loomis]

Hmmm.... but never actually ends up doing so. Mathis doesn't do anything for Bond in South America that Bond was incapable of doing himself. Still, your answer is perfectly valid, but it's hard to escape the conclusion that the filmmakers were merely shoehorning Mathis into South America towards the perverse end of killing him off. I'd rather he featured only in the Talamone sequence, providing Bond with new credit cards and a passport, and living to feature in more Bond flicks.

[Tybre]

Actually, some of my complaints go back to BOURNE SUPREMACY, as well as BOURNE ULTIMATUM:

According to the interwebs, some of your problems can be traced back to thus:

The Bourne Identity was adapted pretty well and good from the novel.
The Bourne Supremacy and Ultimatum just sort of used the book for groundwork.

[Judo chop]

Mathis doesn't do anything for Bond in South America that Bond was incapable of doing himself.

He introduces Bond to the Colonel! The mutal friend! Could Bond, on the run, have just walked up to this guy and said, "Hi. I'm a good friend of Rene Mathis. Perhaps you've heard of me? The name's Bond. James Bond. I had him tortured, yes it's true, but just recently he begrudgingly gave me some of his good wine... so, as you can see, things are smoothed over. Can I borrow some of your police force?"

Let us also factor in the possibility that Bond, on the run and tortured with raging internal debates between duty and revenge (whether or not you think the debate is addressed well or not is neither here nor there), simply wants Mathis to come along?

Bond wants Mathis to come. He's there at Mathis' door for information. He's there for help. He's there to say 'sorry'. He's there because he wants to see his friend. It's all there.

[Loomis]

Mathis doesn't do anything for Bond in South America that Bond was incapable of doing himself.

He introduces Bond to the Colonel!

And a fat lot of good the Colonel was.

I hear what y'all are saying, but, sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-it, it's pretty obvious that the Purvmeister, the Wademeister and the Haggmeister were writing to the brief of "Mathis must be given a fairly large role in this one - Giancarlo isn't cheap, so let's get as much mileage out of him as we can", rather than a brief of "Let the story and characters develop organically".

That's my take on it, and I'm sticking to it.