What happened to good cinematography?

Rating: 6/10 (5 July 2009)

I've been a huge fan of Mann's since Miami Vice and Spinotti is one of my favorite DPs.
That said, I find myself struggling to understand the aesthetic for the cinematography of this film. It's underlit, with a lot of pure black dominating the frame in almost every scene. Night exteriors are severely underlit and even night interiors lack detail in shadow areas to the degree that it just looks like a mistake.
The hand held camera work is shaky, but not shaky in a good way. Many closeups and medium shots of people delivering dialog have sudden spastic shakes and just are generally awkward. I'm a huge proponent of hand held shooting and thought The Constant Gardner was a very good example of this style of shooting while this film had a lot of ugly camera work in general that I would never expect to see in a big budget studio film.
The overall "look" of the film with its TV news-video feel was off putting and made me feel (constantly) like I was watching a low budget film shot on some old analog video camera. When I take the time and spend 10 bucks to see a movie in the theater, I want it to LOOK like a movie, not a student film.
The skin tones were hideous, looked very harsh, and screamed VIDEO every time I saw a closeup of an actor.
Did Mann and Spinotti spend only 1/10 of their lighting budget and pocket the rest?
Are Mann and Spinotti "breaking new ground" with a brave new gritty approach?
I just don't know.