why bad james bond movie is a good art.

everyone who has watched the new bond is unhappy except the little kid with whom i saw it for first time(i told him heroin has a asthama and needs artificial breathing,which he percived as the contagious)
but this bond seems to be more about spaces ,corridors,colur schemes and video art.the which are interesting in movies are between two or three charactors.
large chunk of postmodern art after 1980 is about installation,and video art.and the things which were repeated were
1)corridors,
2)arge video pannels with blurred images,
3)d things presented as an art(debris,body fluids)
4)old forms of art presented with different e.g.chuck close present exhausted form of portrait with minute detailing thus giving more importance to process
5)allusions .parody and quoting from other artists thus david salle quotes or used works of other artist and invite legal sueing.

now no. 5 is just a cliche every bond used old movie techiques(famous is that of using someone's uniform which is avoidd in last 2 movies,but last fight in air and speed boat chase is)

1)in every scene where bond passes camera shows passages in chasing the murderer for example(second scene)
2)constant display of mobile and other messaging and data search is done in the video film format.
3)see how blood is used in severel shots.
bond put mantis amidst thedebris bag
4)look at the photographs which bond shoot are so chuck closian.
5)human folm in postmodern art is often shown as a nuetral nonemotional mannquinn like posture.look at our recent baroda scuilptures and bondgirl throughout in amovie look like the model outside shop.
this is is the one movie which if it is streched to 24 hours in psycholike art it will be more enjoyable(psycho was streched over 24 hours as avideo art.
every set even the last sequence in stones,tosca set,huge set in desert is a piece of art.