Sorry sequel

Rating: Null/10 (18 November 2008)

If only they'd invent a machine for erasing memory selectively. They could keep one in cinema foyers, next to the sweetie boxes.
For some reason, they seemingly brought in a crack team of twatters to make this one – all the mistakes that you could possibly make (the ones that weren't in Casino Royale) are here. First of all, it's made like a music video, very confusing – there's little engagement with the viewer's modest needs for understanding plot and character motivations, little things like that. In the opening scene you can't figure out whether Bond's being chased or he's chasing somebody else, because all the cars are black. Almost immediately there's another chase sequence, demonstrating how little the makers cared about pacing their film.
Then we have daffy CGI fights, lots of preposterous plot points, crap title sequence, unnecessary dodging around the globe, one dimensional women, a clunky reference to Goldfinger, a crazy "empty hotel" finish etc. Big disappointment after Casino Royale – they obviously thought people would go to see the sequel in droves so they might as well not bother.
And yet there was room for so much drama. Drama I say, not action sequences punctuated by breaks, as though dialogue is some sort of filler. Here we have M almost being murdered by her own bodyguard, after being told by a suspect that his organisation is everywhere. You'd have expected a scene where the minister told M her organisation was on notice and all the 00 agents needed to be suspended or vetted etc. You'd also have expected M to be confined to the UK, not turning up in Russia at the end - unless she disobeys the minister's orders, which would have been interesting in itself. And the death of the carabinieri in the opening sequence could have certainly led to a police hunt for the perpetrator, piling the pressure on 007.
What good ideas there were are time and again wasted or confused. Bond's suspension later in the film seems to be forgotten about after a scene with Mathis, who tells him he can't supply passport, credit card etc, as they turn up in foreign parts. But the issue returns at the end, this time with M seemingly accusing Bond of leaving the service of his own accord.
This would lead you to conclude that, despite all the money spent on it, there's a lack of creativity at the heart of the film. What imagination in it is surface, like a video game demo. I suspect though that there was a lot of monkeying with the original script. For instance, instead of covering Fields in oil for the thrown away scene at Bond's hotel I bet in the original script the murderers left her on the bed seemingly intact. Bond realises there's a smell of oil, presses her chest maybe, and the oil spills out of her mouth. Then the scene where Bond leaves the villain out in the desert with a tin of oil to drink would have made some sort of sense.
Daniel Craig's great though – the only believable thing in the entire weary picture. Anyone else and we'd have left the cinema halfway through. Whatever they're paying him, it's not enough.