camera work by a 12 year old in heat??? or a jiggle cam teenager????

Rating: 5/10 (5 August 2007)

the movie WOULD have been a 9 out of 10, like the 2 earlier titles from this series.
i am not sure if they ran over budget and hired a 12 year old "in heat" or if they got a teenager with a jiggle cam.
robert ludlum should raise the cameraman's salary?? did he pay them with a burger and fries? was this guy a real professional camera man?
the story, characters, action scenes (what you could see of them without all the constant wiggling of the camera and darkness) were otherwise well done.
did some amateur "auteur" think using a hand-held camera and constantly moving it, even on stills and close ups of characters in non action settings has something to do with movie making.
the camera technique used on this film was really hot stuff in the mid 70's for low budget porno movies when the first hand held cameras came out and it was exciting and new to see a scene shot differently, at least in the 70's it was realized that wiggling a camera constantly detracted from a movie, not enhanced it.
also the lighting, small tip for the movie staff, when the sun goes down you need to remember that one single candle is not enough light for a modern movie. once again, spend a few dollars on a technology called a light bulb, they were invented about a 130 years ago but i guess your staff might not have heard of the technology yet. also works well in dark rooms.
once again, 9 out of 10 for the first two movies from this series, this only gets a 5 due to the terrible film and lighting work.