I know it's hard to have a good natter while you're a hundred feet below sea level, but it seemed to go on a bit whenever Bond or anyone went underwater.
It was like all underwater scenes (possibly apart from the end battle) were there just to pad it out and show off the great underwater camera angles they'd used.
---------------------------
http://www.thewrongtree.com
Most of them are unnessecarily long but in my opinion there are many scenes on land which also should have been trimmed a little. But I consider the battle in the end to be quite entertaining. I think Thunderball is a hit and miss Bond movie with slow pacing and a predictable plot but some solid performances and cool action.
shareThey really bog the movie down for me, but the ending action bit was excellent.
shareBored? Quite the opposite, I absolutely love the underwater battles. The setting gives it such a unique and cool feeling, slow but still intense. Haven't seen anything like it since.
It is incredibly well done. Fantastic music, great editing, tight directing and beautiful cinematography.
Underrated it is.
The underwater scenes are GREAT. Especially the final fight and the scene where they remove the bombs from the Vulcan. Do you people understand the logistics of getting that many divers AND the underwater film crew all under at the same time? It's staggering.
shareyes/ ruins the film
Nope.
shareNo! I did not. This isn't a CGI mess. It was a live action spectacular and I still love this sequence more than any other in all the Bond films. There isn't even one minute of thrills and joy in SKYFALL that compares to THUNDERBALL for me.
“When a man gets too fancy, his luck runs out.” Raymond Chandler.
it was a decent scene/scenes but it got abit boring towards the end.
Insert @V@T@R
The filmmaking exhibited in Thunderball is an example of filmmaking done right. This film is simply amazing. The men covering up the bomber underwater is breathtaking. It illustrates how incredibly large the aircraft is (which it is, look it up) while implying the staggering feats of planning, execution, and logistics involved with such an operation without dumbing it down to a grade school level. It serves a practical purpose as well: why can't they find the bomber after an exhaustive search? Well, we saw them cover it up and we know why.
The bomber sequence is as ambitious as Bane's "rescue" in The Dark Knight Rises, and in my opinion, just as a effective.
The underwater sequences (specifically referring to the large conflict) is something you simply never see. To pull off such a sequence is very difficult, and it's no surprise you've never really seen it since. Considering they used real people for every shot, and no CGI it garners the film even more respect.
I am not the only one who disagrees with most people on this thread. Everyone who loves film, and enjoys good entertainment also disagrees.
The score is is awesome, too.
It was probably cool for people in 1965 who had never seen something like that in a movie before but for people in 2012, its just boring.
shareMy first viewing I wasn't into it... but each subsequent viewing, the underwater scenes go by more quickly.
It really was the first & last of its kind to film a full action sequence like that completely submerged. Props for that.