Skyfall Test Screening Review

Moore Than

It goes without saying that if you wish to remain spoiler free then DO NOT click on the link below. Yes, it could be a fake review, but it could also be genuine.

SPOILER ALERT!
Skyfall Test Screening Review
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1074638/board/thread/204061735?d=204061735&p=1#204061735

Thunderpussy

If a true review, Skyfall is going to be great.

Hoagie

Thunderpussy wrote:

If a true review, Skyfall is going to be great.

It's very badly written, but if it's made up then some of the ideas are bloody great! I'd say it's true. In which case it sounds fantastic.

Thunderpussy

It's written Gooderer than I would've done. )

Although on a second reading, It dosen't have any real new info
and no real detail. But I do agree It has some Brilliant ideas.

Thanks for the link, Moore Than

jasper_lamar_crabb

I'm calling BS. There isn't anything mentioned that we don't already know.

David Schofield

Some really naff stuff, but mostly very promising.

No surprise on either count from what's been rumoured before, then.

Moore Than

I tend to lean towards fake. Most of what the reviewer revealed (apart from some dialogue that is new to me) could have been taken from the trailers or news/rumour/comment in the Bond forums.

BIG TAM

The review reads sincerely enough & some of the ideas make sense. We do see the MI6 building take a hammering in the trailer. The idea of refurbishing M's office back to an oak panelled look would seem to complete the idea of everything coming full circle. Mendes himself says the ending has a feel of 1962. Perhaps that's it. A completely retro Bond embracing the introduction of the new Moneypenny, as secretary to Fiennes. Or perhaps that'll be saved for Bond 24.

But there's a puzzling element. In Empire's interview with Sam Mendes he states how he's been fine-tuning the film in the last fortnight. This test screening, at a whopping three hours would seem to be a very early stage version. Mendes has also stated a rough cut's already been previewed. I know studios like to safe-guard their investment but it wouldn't make sense to have another preview unless in a more complete form.

I'd like to think it's true but on closer scrutiny I think it may be more fanboy wish-fulfilment.

Number24

I think it sounds very promising, but I'm not sure it's genuine. MINOR SPOILER comment: My only worry from the review is the part about the parents...

Hoagie

Number24 wrote:

I think it sounds very promising, but I'm not sure it's genuine. MINOR SPOILER comment: My only worry from the review is the part about the parents...

Couldn't agree more number 24!! I hate these convenient 'links' in movies, it's the way Lucas totally ruined Star Wars, by trying to link everything together. So if that's true I think it would be a bit tacky (for want of a better word).

Gala Brand

Moore Than wrote:

It goes without saying that if you wish to remain spoiler free then DO NOT click on the link below. Yes, it could be a fake review, but it could also be genuine.

SPOILER ALERT!
Skyfall Test Screening Review
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1074638/board/thread/204061735?d=204061735&p=1#204061735

This review didn't explain something that has left me puzzled from the trailers. We see Bond get shot and fall more than a hundred feet off the train and into the river. But in another scene (where he straightens his cuffs) he's also on a train and he's wearing the same suit as before and he even has a large blood stain over his right chest, but he's bone-dry and seemingly unhurt. I haven't been able to figure that.

I guess I'll just have to see the damned movie. )

David Schofield

Hoagie wrote:

Number24 wrote:

I think it sounds very promising, but I'm not sure it's genuine. MINOR SPOILER comment: My only worry from the review is the part about the parents...

Couldn't agree more number 24!! I hate these convenient 'links' in movies, it's the way Lucas totally ruined Star Wars, by trying to link everything together. So if that's true I think it would be a bit tacky (for want of a better word).

I THINK that's the bit that makes the whole review seem like a fantasist's load of bollux.

I trust BB, MGW and Mendes to have sufficient respect for Fleming not to contrive that one. I hope!

Moore Than

Gala Brand wrote:

This review didn't explain something that has left me puzzled from the trailers. We see Bond get shot and fall more than a hundred feet off the train and into the river. But in another scene (where he straightens his cuffs) he's also on a train and he's wearing the same suit as before and he even has a large blood stain over his right chest, but he's bone-dry and seemingly unhurt. I haven't been able to figure that.

I guess I'll just have to see the damned movie. )

Things are not always as they appear in the trailers. In the film, the scene where Bond straightens his cuffs comes shortly before the scene where he is shot and falls. It is the same train.

David Schofield

And another thing, isn't the "villain as the dark side of Bond" crap, "suffering the same but reacting differently" as cliched as a fookin' white cat?

Scaramanga in TMWTGG?
Sanchez in LTK?
Trevelyan in GE?
Fook - even Moon/Graves in DAD????

Gala Brand

Moore Than wrote:

Gala Brand wrote:

This review didn't explain something that has left me puzzled from the trailers. We see Bond get shot and fall more than a hundred feet off the train and into the river. But in another scene (where he straightens his cuffs) he's also on a train and he's wearing the same suit as before and he even has a large blood stain over his right chest, but he's bone-dry and seemingly unhurt. I haven't been able to figure that.

I guess I'll just have to see the damned movie. )

Things are not always as they appear in the trailers. In the film, the scene where Bond straightens his cuffs comes shortly before the scene where he is shot and falls. It is the same train.

But when he's falling through the water after he's been shot, you can see the bloodstain. Then, when he lands on his feet in the train and straightens his cuffs, the bloodstain is briefly visible. Maybe the bloodstain was caused by some other injury, not by being shot by Naomi.

Gala Brand

David Schofield wrote:

And another thing, isn't the "villain as the dark side of Bond" crap, "suffering the same but reacting differently" as cliched as a fookin' white cat?

Scaramanga in TMWTGG?
Sanchez in LTK?
Trevelyan in GE?
Fook - even Moon/Graves in DAD????

The only ones I can see that meets the description of the "villain as the dark side of Bond" are Trevelyn and Scaramanga and since Goldeneye and TMWTGG were crap maybe they'll do it better this time.

Halcon

I will say this is real.

I have not read such details anywhere else, especially the bit where Bond kills with his bowtie...if this really happens in the film it deserves to be rated as best Bond kill ever....

BIG TAM

The idea of a bow-tie strangulation is indeed an interesting Fleming quirk. Didn't Bond use his watch as a knuckle-duster in the book of OHMSS? Perhaps someone might enlighten me on that front.

Some of the descriptions of the film seem almost too good to be true. Though a bit of a cynic, I'm happy to lap up any titbits thrown at me through the cheeky rumourmill that is the internet.

Moore Than

Gala Brand wrote:

Moore Than wrote:

Gala Brand wrote:

This review didn't explain something that has left me puzzled from the trailers. We see Bond get shot and fall more than a hundred feet off the train and into the river. But in another scene (where he straightens his cuffs) he's also on a train and he's wearing the same suit as before and he even has a large blood stain over his right chest, but he's bone-dry and seemingly unhurt. I haven't been able to figure that.

I guess I'll just have to see the damned movie. )

Things are not always as they appear in the trailers. In the film, the scene where Bond straightens his cuffs comes shortly before the scene where he is shot and falls. It is the same train.

But when he's falling through the water after he's been shot, you can see the bloodstain. Then, when he lands on his feet in the train and straightens his cuffs, the bloodstain is briefly visible. Maybe the bloodstain was caused by some other injury, not by being shot by Naomi.

I believe the bloodstain is caused by another injury, not by Eve (Naomie). If you look closely at the International trailer (at 2 min), The likely cause is when Patrice shoots at Bond while he is inside a digger and the glass shatters.

HowardB

Interesting...is it real? Who knows? Three hour running time doesn't surprise me. "Dark Knight Rises" was 2hrs 45 minutes. However, I would guess that it will be paired down to just under 2 1/2 hrs for final release. The running time of Casino Royale shows that EON/Sony/MGM have no problem releasing a 2 1/2 hr film, especially if they really "believe" in the film.

One thing that really has my interest is this "emotional" ending. When the smoke clears and all is said and done with Silva, et al, does Bond get the order to "retire" M ?

Ooops...just went back to the link and it has been deleted, which could mean either it was found to be stone bogus, or it's for real and EON made them take it down. Hmm..... :v

Moore Than

HowardB wrote:

Ooops...just went back to the link and it has been deleted, which could mean either it was found to be stone bogus, or it's for real and EON made them take it down. Hmm..... :v

According to this tweet, Eon has confirmed that the Skyfall test screening review is false.

http://twitter.com/Skyfall007Fan/status/243276123029508096

Agent007jamest

funny I thought it was fake until eon decided to tweet about it. also the review being removed from imbd is odd since they never seem to fix any of the other false info that sight is littered with. hmmm...now I actually think it may be real )

HowardB

Agent007jamest wrote:

funny I thought it was fake until eon decided to tweet about it. also the review being removed from imbd is odd since they never seem to fix any of the other false info that sight is littered with. hmmm...now I actually think it may be real )

Agree with your logic. Do people who attend previews have to sign non-disclosure forms?

welshboy78

Hmm interesting indeed!!

Missed the link but I think I don't want to learn anymore from this point