Common criticisms of TND include. Extremely formulaic and predictable plot. Yeoh's acting. Lack of romantic chemistry. But I'll add a few more things.
1) The first 20 minutes. There's very little of Bond, or even dialogue from him. His introduction is sparse and forgettable.
2) The humor is forced and gets over-milked. The joke about Brosnan with the danish girl brushing up on his danish was funny, but then the "cunning linguist" comment overdid it. The joke about "pumping for information" was funny, but then kept on going. There are other examples, but you get my point.
3) The problem with heavy usage of machine guns isn't that it's too violent. But that it just becomes noise and filler without consequence. When have lackeys firing machine guns and missing every shot ever accomplished anything? When has an action hero firing machine guns at dozens of lackeys ever advanced a plot?
4) Imo, Brosnan is at his best when he's the urbane suit-and-tie Bond, using his wits and his smooth-talking to get out of a sticky situation. He's more suited for a casino, club, party or business meeting. As a hardened killer in the field doing action sequences and killing lots of people, he's not as convincing. And he doesn't really adapt his acting style to it as much.
5) While fiction allows characters actions to be enriched by sci-fi or fantasy elements, their motivations as a person still need to be believeable. I don't believe it's in Carver's interest to start WW3 just for ratings and profit. WW3 would risk everyone's lives; what if MI6 found out he's responsible for it and assassinates him? A smaller scale conflict with a non-nuclear countries would be more believable (i.e. Hearst and the Spanish-American War).
With journalistic integrity being more discussed in today's politics, you'd expect a film like this to get a greater appreciation. But it's not just what a film is about: it's how the film is executed. Yes, this film is about journalism. But does it really say anything insightful about it aside from "media is evil; dishonesty is bad".
This could've been more convincing it had some nuance. Real-life media moguls don't put giant pictures of themselves on buildings, and they don't even name the company after themselves; they usually just privately enjoy their wealth.
Real-life media moguls don't make it so apparent they're the villain. They'd draw less attention to themselves and paint other public figures as the villain.
This film portrays bad journalism as total fabrication. But there are shades in between: Information that starts as truth, but it embellished or stretched. Or information taken out of context.
In well-written fiction, no good guy is completely good; and even the villain has at least 1 redeeming qualities. What if the British government, Bond or MI6 did something morally questionable to make the public question them, and then Carver Media Group used that to discredit them; Bond + M16 would have an uphill battle in trying to change that and it would make for a more interesting plot.
There's some sort of balancing act. A movie would be boring if it were exactly like real life. But if it's too over-the-top and cartoony, it loses believeability.