Entertaining, yet a bit (too) puzzling to enjoy all the way

Rating: 7/10 (28 May 2003)

Years ago I saw the 80s TV-adaptation of Ludlum's great book which I read by chance some years after. I liked the film (as far as I remember), I loved the book and now I'm sort of slightly disappointed.
Right, Bourne 2002 is a solid action movie with a catching car hunt through Paris, nice fighting scenes and some actors I always enjoy to see on screen (Franka and Matt make a matching couple, just look at their profiles...). But - and that's rather a BUT - during the whole film, I was kind of puzzled.

First puzzler: The Zurich shots were definitely not made in Zurich. I think I know this town quite well, but where the heck should this have been filmed? It looks kinda like it, but it sure is not. Whereas in the 80's version you could tell it was! (OK, being Swiss I may be a little too sensitive about that...) - Second puzzler: How did Jason Bourne make it to Switzerland in the first place - on a train, without any document of identification? They DO control at the swiss border, you know... - Third puzzler: What about Bourne's (and the professor's) headache? Why mention it anyway, if there's no real point to it in the whole storyline? - Forth puzzler: What is "Treadstone" about anyway? And don't expect me to read the book again to answer that! If I spend money for a DVD I might as well expect some conclusion here.

I might add some more, but my comment already sounds far more negative than I intended it to be in the first place. So let's bring this to a nice Hollywood-like ending (as in the movie...): Sit back, relax, enjoy the show and ignore the inconsistencies and loose ends. Under these aspects, I give it a 7/10 - but I still like the 80's version better.