Would have worked better as a Bond film

Rating: 6/10 (17 November 2006)

Daniel Craig was a fantastic Bond, and Judi Dench was a pleasure as always.
The rest, however, was unincredibly underwhelming. While the acting by Mikkelson and Green were passable, any possibility of great performances were bogged down by the lack of depth in either of their characters. Tauted as an amazing screenplay by (somehow) Academy Award winner Paul Haggis, I expected a sharp, emotionally driven story. Instead, presented was a trite, bland, generic action film with inklings of what could have been an amazing film.
The character of Lynd offered much potential in her initial meeting with Bond, but despite early backtalk, she quickly regressed into a stereotypical damsel in distress, which was incredibility disappointing and frankly boring. Nothing she said or did endeared her to anyone other than Bond, and how he could have ever fallen for such a generic female is a mystery. The two have little in common, and Lynd is far from resourceful, sassy, or even smart. His unexplained doting on her felt empty and unbelievable after such great female characters as Tracey and Elektra King, and the film took a huge step backwards for the series in the way it characterized women.
As well, certain elements of Lynd's motivation and goal in the movie were mishandled enormously: she could have been the amazing, dark, edgy woman the series needed, but instead she came off as a (very poorly made-up) piece of eye candy that drags Bond into the mud.
Though many claim Haggis to be an amazing writer of dramas--I'm not sure after this dud of a love story--but certainly not action. He seems to have little experience with the genre, which shows clearly in the way he draws out a generic 24-meets-Die-Hard action sequence, and later ellipses what could have been one of the most amazing car chases in Bond history into a ten second clip already shown in the trailer. Much of the tension is destroyed half-way through the film by a poor choice of structure, and the side characters are not strong enough to pick up the slack.
The script was rife with poor and oft-repeated exposition intended to make the stupid audience feel stupid, but luckily Mr. Haggis brought that shame upon himself. Many--and often extremely important--story points throughout the script were explained away by deus ex machinae, including the ending, which was an incredible let down; it came off as extremely amateur and had many in the audience laughing. Other scenes were so incredibly mind-meltingly ridiculous that it was hard to take the "gritty" tone of the film seriously.
On a similar note, I felt bombarded by product placement that was unsubtle, and in two cases the products were mentioned but never even shown on camera. After sitting through countless VAIOs and Sony-Erikkson phones, I had to laugh when Vesper pulls out her Sony (of course) digital camera to snap a photo of Bond. The Bond car was the least-utilized since GoldenEye.
Most of the action was handled well, when it wasn't being edited to pieces, and the realism and bloodiness was fresh. There were hints of snappy dialogue and witty scenes, but it felt like it was trying so hard not to be a Bond film that it missed the point, especially when the writer and director used Bondisms as crutches in scenes where their master "nouveau" plan fell through.
While this film was certainly better than the last Bond, it wasn't as good as The World is Not Enough, and certainly not close to GoldenEye. It didn't have the heart, wit, or unique characters that embody a Bond film, and I think it was to a definite loss. While I appreciate the sentiment of "Bond Begins," much of the supposed "key" or "new" elements touted in this film are not addressed past what's seen in the trailer.
If this was the best Haggis could do, he needs to get out the genre, and fast. I look forward to Craig's next outing, and to seeing what he can do in a Bond film instead of this self-hating mess.