Good locations, not much else

Rating: 4/10 (9 December 2006)

Overall, I thought this was a disappointing film that didn't live up to the hype. The plot was thin and unoriginal, with a lot of gaps. What was all the bombing, crashing, jumping around like monkeys and shooting about - and right from the start of the film? The bearded guy is a friend and then suddenly he is not. Who was the American and what exactly was his connection to the plot line? Who was the man who was shot by Bond at the beginning of the film? What was the background of the outfit run by the man with the bleeding eye? None of this was properly explained.
By far the worst thing in the film was the anorexic woman who played Bond's love interest - she is a terrible actress. And apart from her skeletal and unattractive appearance in general, in one scene she is portrayed as completely flat-chested (wearing a purple dress), and in another as buxom (wearing a black dress). I know cinema is largely about illusion, but does this fact have to be quite so obvious?
Bond himself was not the best Bond by any means - although he was not terrible, I thought he was not particularly convincing or charismatic enough. He was not cool and suave like Bond should be (and always has been before), but some wimpish creature who occasionally suddenly and violently shoots someone, often seemingly without provocation. The actor is not bad - he is just miscast in this particular role.
The best things about the film were the locations, which were beautifully shot. The effects were also well done, but at the expense of the plot. The locations in particular helped cover up the bad plot line.
I cannot believe that 'critics' gave this film such high praise - just goes to show you can't rely on the opinions of people who seem to pander to taste and are seduced by hype.