Go back to film school!

Rating: 5/10 (30 November 2008)

I went in not expecting to see anything as good as Casino Royale but at least expecting a little bit of pure escapism. This is Bond after all. Instead, I just found myself saying "What just happened?!" over and over again. As many readers have no doubt noted, they decided to go for the shaky supposedly more realistic shots. Enough of this wish-it-had-remained-never-done filming technique already!. This is surely a low point in Bond productions when they stoop to the cutesy but pathetically poor cinematography trend of the day. All it did for me was leave me with a headache and wondering if I shouldn't have opted to watch Bolt with my daughter in the next theatre. Had I not gotten excellent, centre mid-theatre seats, I would probably have been reaching for some gravol. A waste of special effects (since it was impossible to see what actually happened), incredibly poor and corny directing (trying to show simultaneous action sequences didn't work and never does) and basically, a waste of mostly good acting and a very disappointing sequel to Casino Royale. I will be looking closely at the credits next time before I waste time arranging for babysitting and forking out money to see the next Bond movie in the theatre. Who picked this director and cinematographer anyway? Dump him and bring back the pros! This is a Bond movie - not a (felt like a) low-budget cheesy fresh out of film school experiment. If not for Daniel Craig and the classic bond tune (not the dubious title tune), I would have given it 3 stars.