:*( money grabbing. Sadly what is now expected from Hollywood.

Rating: 1/10 (9 December 2012)

I am both a Bond fan and an aspiring writer. If I watch a movie it needs to look good, have an exciting story line and well-developed characters. I have never reviewed on here before but felt a need to counter all the people that have been totally drawn in by the endless advertisement and flashy selling techniques that are what this movie depends on.
Hollywood movies spend 200 million on equipment,cameramen, editors, impressive locations, big explosions and a director who, when asked in the interview for the job "what do you think about much loved Bond movies that are adored around the globe?" likely answered "they're rubbish".
Why is so much money available for all this but the writing seems to have been done by a few guys thankful to be given 3 meals a day to keep going?
A lot of reviews on here have already been through the huge list of plot flaws, far more than you would normally expect in a big budget movie. But to add to that how many distractions do you need from following the story line? Its not enough that you can't turn around for an advertisement for months before the release but then during the movie you can't help but notice a Daniel Craig in the peak of physical fitness drinking Heineken.
And on the subject of Daniel Craig I don't think he's a bad actor but how many times do you need his top off? Not being sexist. Fair is fair Bond films normally have lots of flesh in so why not something for the ladies? But this just gets distracting. He's staring in the mirror with his top off, then he's sitting in bed with stubble, drinking Heineken, with his top off; then there's a lengthy shot panning up a sparkly looking building to a private swimming pool where he sits with water dripping off him, with his top off for a good 30 seconds not doing anything; then Moneypenny is treating his wounds with his top off while he tries some clumsy flirting. Oh. . . did I mention a long solemn stare in the mirror? With his top off?
Characterization. Are you writing for a bloody soap? (trying not to swear). The bad guy: "oh, i'm gay and making jokes", "now i'm angry at M" , "Now i'm depressed because I took my teeth out", "now i'm manically laughing", "now i'm running away underground and don't really have a personality", "now i'm angry for the rest of the movie and have forgotten the characteristics I was given in my opening scene".
I was just waiting for them to discover that M was actually his mum who he had sex with and James Bond is his incest created son. The acting was good but the way his character was written would have worked in a soap.
Moneypenny was obvious and clearly there just so the writers could think they had been clever in 'keeping her secret' till the end even though it was obvious after a couple scenes. The Bond girl was an afterthought to try and keep a male audience as was obvious by killing her 20 mins after introducing her. We live in Britain, not just England, Hollywood has never done America any favors when it comes to being viewed as ignorant by everyone else. All in all a somewhat clumsy attempt to make a general action film, only using the name of bond to generate more money.