No, he was definitely calling from the desk landline. The shot where he hangs it up right after “the line” was clear, if short.
There seemed to be some sort of projector malfunction when I saw it as well. The whole film was kinda “jiggly.” Still enjoyable, tho.
I concur. Definitely using the director’s desk phone.
And he had to count on the director answering his phone that way.
In that case, I stand corrected. But I’d ask, why not his cell phone, that was untraceable?
I was under the impression that he wanted to draw everyone back to headquarters, giving Landy an opportunity to get where she needed to go without being followed, and knowing that he’d be able to get out of the building before they could catch him. Unless I’m misremembering the order of events, the only thing that screwed up his plan was that one of the techies figured out the code he’d used with Landy.
Since we’re having fun pointing out implausibilities:
Why would the director leave his office at all? He just quarterbacked three white knuckle operations from headquarters, where he’s got infinite phone and video contact with his entire world wide team. Then, for this particular operation, he’s going to sit in the front of a van with a walkie-talkie?!
And Jason Bourne just walks into the now empty office? Is there a special elevator or something?
I thought this was a solid movie for what it was, fun and absorbing in a way that most action movies no longer are.
But all the complaints in this thread combined don’t even begin to get at the craziness.
The scene in Waterloo Station is exactly why snipers don’t work in real life. Killing a reporter in the middle of a crowd is an obvious professional hit. There would be front page headlines and an international incident. It’s exactly what a secret organization would go out of its way *never * to do under any circumstances. We’re taking hits in the international community for what we do to anonymous terrorists. Killing a reporter writing articles about the CIA? It would put the CIA out of business the next day.
And if that didn’t, the wreckage from the car chase in NYC would. The cable news channels would devote every minute of the next month to it, the Senate and House would hold hearings 24/7, and every act the CIA ever did in its history would be picked apart.
And they would deserve it for their stupidity. Who puts a spy operation into a skyscraper in the middle of a big city with giant open windows allowing anyone in the world to spy on the documents on their desktops? How did Bourne get through to the office with the safe? Who wouldn’t protect a safe from opening with a cell phone message passed through a tape recorder? That’s the first safety precaution any first-year engineer would take. Just how did Bourne manage the fingerprint requirement anyway? Who puts a black ops killer training program into another midtown skyscraper? Or what kind of secret office has a nearby convenient window for somebody to drop directly to the street?
If the real world CIA is that incompetent I’d be happy to have them all arrested.
Some people are calling this movie realistic. It’s by far the least realistic of the three. And as soon as somebody tells Paul Greenglass about airbags in cars, his career is over. 
Ha! Good observation!
Of course, CTU perimeters have more holes than the plot of a Jerry Bruckheimer film…
There was a reason he called Noah Vosen from Vosen’s office:
Bourne needed Noah Vosen to say his name, so that he could get into the safe. As we saw earlier, the safe opened with thumbprint ID and voice recognition of Vosen’s name. Bourne taped him answering the phone saying his name. How did Bourne know the man would do that? Since Pamela Landy also answered her phone in the same manner, I assume that must be standard in the agency. I guess he still didn’t need to say he was in the office, though, but it sure was entetaining seeing the man’s face when he realized that was where Bourne was.
Which you’d think the writers would have in their heads, since that was a major plot point of the first movie. The failed hit that started the whole thing rolling, was designed by Bourne specifically to take out the target in such a way that the only plausible explanation would have been that the target’s own bodyguards were responsible–an internal coup. Now the whole thing has degenerated into 007 fare, where the top government assassins are top because they’re really good at killing people, sometimes in wholesale batches. :rolleyes:
Really? All the assassins in the movie seemed to have killed a total of two people, the reporter and Neal Daniels.
And two things about that.
First, since Bourne stopped the car ahead of the bomb there was no obvious reason why the bomb should have killed him so easily. Especially since he was inside, protected by the car, and Bourne was outside between him and the bomb. Yet he died and Bourne had enough energy to run miles, leap though glass windows, and fight an assassin to the death.
Second, the paperwork with his name on it showed it clearly spelled Neil. How does the script supervisor or the continuity director not catch that?
Bourne didn’t stop the diplomat’s car ahead of the bomb. The assassin dropped his knapsack in the street, which Bourne saw, and he stopped the diplomat’s car a safe distance from it; but the bomb was on the assassin’s scooter, which the diplomat’s car was now sitting next to. The assassin spied Bourne in his rear-view, and adjusted his plan so that Bourne would participate in killing the diplomat, by dropping the (empty) knapsack as a decoy. It goes by really fast, and it doesn’t exactly pass the plausibility test (primarily that Bourne would coincidentally stop the diplomat immediately next to the bomb-laden scooter, among other details), but that’s how it played out.
I didn’t catch this ‘till my second viewing. The bag Desh tossed on the ground was a decoy. At the last second Bourne looks up and realizes the bomb was planted in the motor scooter which, when Daniels stops the car, is immediately adjacent to his door. Bourne was shielded from the blast by Daniels’ car, which, in action/adventure world, is equivalent to a nice hot stone massage.
And I agree with SCSimmons: how much of a bull-in-the-china shop is Blackbriar, compared to Treadstone? Assassin’s rifles in busy train stations, blowing up cars in public streets.
**Conklin: **
Well, ignoring any collateral damage from a car bomb going off in a busy street or a car chase through New York.
One of the reasons Bourne is such a liability is that on the run he isn’t obligated to BE invisible and they are afraid he won’t be. Why hide Treadstone and Blackbriar if your assassins take our reporters writing about your top secret programs via sniper in train stations is friendly countries?
Fun movies though, even if they don’t pass the bullshit test.
Another bullshit test not passing - if there was a prior relationship between Bourne and Nikki, CERTAINLY the CIA would know about it. They may be aware Bourne doesn’t remember it, but they’d know Nikki does.
I was thinking that Nikki was somehow involved in the training aspect of Bourne’s past. All she really said was the Bourne was ‘difficult’ for her. Sounded to me like she implemented some part of the training the was painful ( probably psychologically painful) and that it was difficult for her because she liked him. I guess we await the sequel to find out.
Probably not an “error”, but something that momentarily confused me. Wasn’t the Straitharn character (Vosen?) introduced as the top dog in the secret London office? I pretty much got the impression that that was his “home base.” But then near the end, he had an established office in NYC.
I guess it is not inconceivable that top level execs might have offices in multiple sites, but I must have missed it in the film when Vosen said he was relocating from London to NYC.
I was getting romance vibes - but I was getting romance “pre-Bourne” vibes from the whole thing. But that could be just because that is Hollywood formula - if there is a sequel, it could all turn out to be completely professional.