Not much to vote for - but its still a Bond film so one will see it

Rating: 3/10 (13 December 2008)

Hmm.... this Bond movie doesn't do it for me. First the Bond movies got ruined by hiring the ugliest man on the planet to play the part of Bond - who previously served as exciting eye candy for women. Not anymore. So Bond movies have already lost 70% of their magnetic pull.
In this movie, not only is Bond unattractive to the teeth (can't they blur the close-ups?), but even the environment in almost every scene is unappealing and has nothing to offer. The directing is bad. To mention one example; in one scene Bond walks into his hotel room his lover is dead on his bed, covered in oil. But you barely see her! Had I not known this take from a newspaper article I may barely have noticed her. Then you have the intro, which has now been added in the end of the movie which does not fit at all.
With Bond one usually expects: a good looking man (that's been thrown to the dogs) a lot of action with unusual situations a lot of clever new gadgets awesome locations (that too is gone with this film) quick wit and humor attractive ladies who are bold and clever and so on. This film is missing nearly all of the required stereotypes we love about Bond.
By the way, I am not one of those people who agree that Daniel Craig created the huge success for Casino Royal. We had a lot of crappy movies out at the time Casino Royal had premiere and people were desperate to be entertained no matter who the new Bond was. Almost anyone is willing to see good action films and with Bond movies, you're safe to a certain degree. Had nothing to do with Craig. If Craig was the cause of the films success, he would have created the same success out of this film. And he hasn't. All people want is a good story, great plot and a well told story that fits the characters in the film. It doesn't matter if actors or known or unknown if the story is good.