Terrible movie!

Rating: 1/10 (16 November 2008)

Where do I start. First of all, I want to say that I left the theater after 30 minutes because I could no longer stay and watch the rest of the movie. The movie, in my opinion, was that bad.
What was wrong with it?
(1) Bond movies usually have a great central villain. If you look at Bond movies from the 1960's through the 1980's, and for the most part the 1990's, Bond movies had interesting villains. The villain in this movie evokes little or no emotion in that you do not care if he wins or not because he is not diabolical enough. Bond villains are usually over the top and megalomaniac. The villain in this movie is just a generic bad guy in my opinion. Totally uninteresting.
(2) This movie had no real substance in that there was a great deal of action but no real dialog. In a Bond movie, there is usually a great conversation between the characters. For example, those smart quips between Q and Bond or Moneypenny and Bond or the head of the MI6 and Bond. Most of the conversation in this movie very terse and uninteresting.
(3) The gadgets is what makes Bond movies so interesting and something that people cannot wait to see. Do you all remember when Q would demonstrate some cool gadget to Bond and you just had to exclaim "wow" because it was so interesting? There was none like that here. That is not to say that there was no interesting gadgets but that the gadgets that were presented only got a lukewarm response. For instance, Bond had this IPhone like cell phone that does more than your average IPhone but it does not evoke any exciting response because you know it will be within reach in a couple of years.
(4) The action while "nice" was scattered and not focused. The type of cinematography presently is to shake the camera, more or less, with the action. I personally never liked that style of movie making and find that disorienting. That's not to say that it was like that throughout the film but I noticed it during action sequences.
(5) The new Bond is still not my cup of tea. Yes, he is probably more close to what Ian Fleming envisioned for Bond; meaning, gritty and no nonsense British agent but I grew up with Roger Moore, and in my opinion, Pierce Brosnan, and of course Sean Connery, are the "classic" Bond.
I will describe what I saw in that 30 minutes and you make up your mind.
The movie starts with some chase scene through what looks like the Italian Alps. In the back of Bond car is some guy and he is delivered to MI6. The guy claims he is from some secretive agency and that they have members all over the world. At that point, one of the British agent in the room kills the guy and kills some of the people in the room and takes off, and Bond chases him until he is killed. He later searches for some clue of this organization in Haiti where he kills some man and assumes his identity. He saves a girl who is supposed to be killed by the very man whose identity he has stolen. The person who wanted her dead is suppose to be the central villain in this movie where he wants to destabilize some Latin American country so that they can take over a patch of land where there might be oil. That's it.