Why does the third film in the trilogy always fall short?

Rating: 1/10 (20 August 2007)

The character of Jason Bourne and the previous two movies gave me high hopes that this too would be a film I'd enjoy watching. Boy was I wrong! Reasons? Here goes:
#1.The dialogue. On Bourne's side it was OK but the CIA Deputy director kept asking for the assassin to be sent in every 3 lines. The rest of the time he was barking at his staff. In an effort to make him seem a power crazed man they ended up making him sound repetitive. Maybe it was David Strathairn's take on the character, maybe the director kept shouting at him for more anger and hysteria. God knows. I'd have imagined him as a cold and calculated man, truly convinced that what he was doing was for the greater good but it's easy for me to tinker once I've seen the finished product. And what's with this obsession of having every bit of information blown up on screen 1? I must have heard that line at least 3 times.
#2. The extras. I couldn't help but notice most of the staff in that CIA war-room weren't doing much. You had your basic *guy-at-the-computer* guy and few others around him plus you *girl-with-the-files* girl all of them hunched over keypads. Every once in a while after a hysteric order from their chief they'd look up. Thrilling.
#3. The shaking camera. Some people think it's cinematic art. I agree but I still got a bit nauseous.
#4. The advertisements. All the bad but efficient guys had a Motorola. Hmmm. And the car that took the most hits and kept going was a Dacia Logan. Well noted. I'm getting me one of those.
All in all it's a 1 out of 10, not cause it's THAT bad but it sure doesn't deserve to be in the top 250.