Beautiful imagery can be the biggest trap of all if the storytellers believe more in their own label copy than in the material handed to them. Directors Alastair Fothergill and Andy Byatt set up such a scenario with Deep Blue, an incredibly self-conscious documentary. Every frame says “look at me -- I’m pretty -- just watch how the light shines through the seaweed!” Who cares? My intense dislike for the film continues with a sequence in which the camera dwells on killer whales attacking young sea-lions. George Fenton’s music truly misfires here, even in all of its operatic creakiness.

Less would be more if filmmakers shot fewer takes. Alas, the modern propensity for blanket coverage stops many from realising that even a computer could create something workmanlike from the footage. Where does the camera begin and the artist’s ego end? As narrator Michael Gambon explains, it’s “an endless cycle of birth, death and renewal.” So, why make a film about it? The only reason I can find for the existence of Deep Blue has to do with the enormous success of The Blue Planet television documentary. The latter had David Attenborough’s voice while Deep Blue relies on the much colder Michael Gambon -- obviously, he’s no Attenborough when it comes to this sort of thing.

To be fair, the film does exhibit some class, particularly during shots of unnamed sea creatures glowing in the dark. However, the laws of selective thinking do not apply to the picture as a whole. And that’s because many of these “wonder” shots either take too long going nowhere or appear piled on top of each other like rusty hammocks in a man o’ war vessel.

For the most part, I get the impression this footage would work better in a shorter format. A certain discipline is required when making any film, especially in the editing room. Deep Blue needs trimming. Above all, a sharper focus of intent would not hurt. My chief disappointment with this documentary stems from the fact that well-made nature programmes are pretty frequent on the box. So, justifying the investment for placing such work on the cinema screen becomes harder to grasp.

Another reason for the arrival of Deep Blue -- so soon after its predecessor -- is due to significant audience interest. Whether one feels partial to the subject matter or not, The Blue Planet was a ratings triumph. However, I can’t seem to wash away the feeling that the makers of Deep Blue undertook this expedition only because they could, not because they should. That may be the difference between something organic or hollow. Unfortunately, this big screen adaptation represents the latter category.

(Released by Miramax Films and rated "G" by MPAA.)