It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Bond's alerting the authorities in the novel--leaving a note under a toilet seat--is a bit comedic and far-fetched (had I been the cleaner I'd have laughed and tossed the note in the trash). And in the book Pussy's last-minute move to Bond's side is ridiculously convenient. So the film improves on the book by having Pussy succumb to Bond's charm earlier on. The scene is today uncomfortable because Bond is too forceful, but that is a separate topic. And having Pussy be the one who switches the gasses is also more plausible than what happens in the the book, since in the film she is Goldfinger's pilot and has an air circus. In any case, the filmmakers went with the more visually interesting and dramatic option--a dramatic scene between Bond and Pussy--instead of showing Bond messing about with a toilet.
That is what I thought. And that killing them was an afterthought, decided after he had prepared his presentation with model and visual, etc.
That is a fair point after all. But the solution they went with still leaves a lot to be desired. I remember my reaction on first viewing when the guards suddenly vake up out of nothing; "What the fuck is going on, this doesn´t make sense". Then you are offered the explanation at the end, and it feels... so incredibly stupid. I can accept some plot holes in Bond movies, absolutely. However a line is crossed when the entire logic of the film, and the premise behind people's actions, becomes too cartoonish. It might be that the original plot from the novel is so ilogical that it is basically unsalvable. But that is not really a good enough excuse for what is supposed to be the pinnacle of an iconic series containing 24 films...
At the end of the day the problem is not individual plot holes but the fact that the film simply doesn´t engage me. I was willing to accept all the plot holes in Skyfall because the film had me on the edge of my seat during my first viewings. I have sincerely tried to appreciate Goldfinger´s finale so many times, but it always feels like a let down.
I wonder if it's a matter of what era you started with?
Saying none of the Bond plots hold up to close scrutiny is a true enough statement, but if GF is supposedly the best then by that criteria it just lumps it in with the rest on the same basic level, doesn't it? And I am someone who agrees the film vastly improves on the book, but it still doesn't improve the film's standing for me just because it's better than the book.
FRWL's screenplay does things to make it a more satisfying translation for the screen and I consider it my favorite Fleming Bond book by making SPECTRE the main villains playing the British and Russians against each other, eliminating the lengthy assassination scene and toning down Grant's full-moon bloodlust and such things.
Bond being so virile he turns a woman who was "immune" is too much and when Fiona Volpe references it in TB it makes it all the more apparent. Besides, with just a few hours before Operation Grand Slam takes place, how would she find time to call Washington and switch the canisters, etc? GF's security must've really sucked. I guess I'm not supposed to think about it because it's GF, so it's okay to accept it.
Maybe Jobo and I can form our own radical faction.
That's the "basic level" of the thriller genre--a thriller is a succession of implausible events whose pace and excitement make us put disbelief aside. That level is nothing to be ashamed of. Even Hitchcock's thrillers have their plot holes and implausibilities, and Hitchcock was rightfully contemptuous of nitpickers, who he called "the plausibles."
And yet in multiple Bond films women fall into his arms in a matter of seconds. Bond is and always has been a fantasy figure of masculinity. His wrestling match with Pussy is as good a way of bonding with her as any, since she's plainly a tough cookie and has less regard for charm than strength and toughness, which Bond ultimately demonstrates. As for Fiona, she's meant to stay evil throughout the film, which is probably why we never see Bond make an effort to convince her to switch sides.
Pussy is Goldfinger's personal pilot, so obviously she has security clearance and ready access to the canisters (since she's the one who has to spray them!). The whole point is that Pussy can get this done because she's a major inside player in Goldfinger's organization. And since she commands a gang of her own, that saves time when she wants stuff done.
Gets criticised for being a generic action flick, but for me it has the bountiful lifestyle porn we know and love in a bond film.
Dalton hits his straps, Lowell is easy on the eye and Davi is superb.
I still maintain the aquatic action sequence where Bond commandeers the money-laden seaplane is second only to bond beating the living **** through red grant.
Consider it - Sharkey has just been delivered on a fish hook and dalton’s bond goes troppo, evading a large boat, various submersibles, a plane and about twenty goons before flying away with millions of dollars. Most which he puts to brilliant use in isthmus city in what is surely every young man’s fantasy.
A fantastic bond and I will hear nothing bad about it ... until I do.
there is far too much redundancy in the narrative for it to be considered one of the better Bonds, IMO.
case in point - the switzerland car chase that still results in capture. these lazy sequences irritate me, but again, only my opinion.
the best flicks have a narrative tension that simmer under all the bravado, locations, bi-play, etc.
yes, I've probably seen more criticism now that I think about it.
the iconic elements tend to be taken for granted. also, it needs to be assessed in context. In 1963 it would've been absurdly enjoyable entertainment. first of its kind in so many respects.
on a more general level, it has connery and barry in their absolute pomp. a formidable combination on its own.
I must say I do find the Switzerland part pre-laser scene a bit slow. I very much prefer and enjoy the rest of the film, especially Kentucky.
I don't think there's anything lazy about that sequence--the car chase is a chance for the Aston Martin to fully strut its stuff before it has to exit the narrative. Bond's ensuing capture is necessary to set up the rest of the film, and to show how formidable Goldfinger is. Plus it immediately leads into the famous laser scene. Once again, a thrilling improvement over the book, which didn't do much with the Aston.
Yeah I dunno, perhaps earlier, when Bond was cruising through those glorious Alps. That way it could’ve been sold as a survived ambush attempt. But then again, Goldfinger didn’t know Bond was coming at that point. Tough gig, that screenwriting caper.
The Alps cruise was intended to show Bond trailing and foiling the still-mysterious Tillie--throwing in a car chase at that time would have made the story too busy. Additionally, having the Aston gradually show itself off in the Alps and then go all-out in the factory chase is more satisfying and gives us more of the car. Considering that 50 years later Bond films were still referencing that Aston, I think GF did a damn good job showcasing it! Closely comparing the film to the book shows what an incredibly consistent job the screenwriters did of improving their source material.
Notably
Thunderball
SF
That puts attention on another issue for me (there are many of them with the film, but I will spare you for all of them):
That car chase is, as you said, there for the Aston to 'trut it's stuff', not James Bond. For me that is the wrong way around. In that regard you can indeed call it lazy. The car moves the action along. I do not find it to be a very thrilling scene to be honest. That old lady with the machine gun is the most inventive thing about it, and what saves it is the brilliant scene that follows it. And mind you, saying the film 'vastly improves' on the book because it adds an action scene is a bit cheap! Which Bond film doesn't? By that logic YOLT the film improves on the book times a hundred.
I am very willing to discuss Goldfinger's strong points, which there are many of. However what we are debating is the original statement that Goldfinger could be considered the weakest of the 60's. You said you couldn't fathom why, well, we have tried to explain. Then complaining that we are 'bashing Goldfinger' is a bit much when you basically asked for negative remarks about it.
In any other era it wouldn't be the weakest. The 60's however is full of so many strong films that it is possible to hold this position. For me DN, FRWL and OHMSS are the crown jewels of the series. The other three are all quite strong with both strong points and weaknesses. However, with Goldfinger, I find that after the very strong 1st and 2nd act, I struggle more to find the 3rd and 4th enjoyable. The locations and imagery are also elements where the Kentucky section of Goldfinger comes up very short in comparison to TB and YOLT.
No she isn't Barry. Sort yourself out. She's useless ;)
after that turn around perhaps Daylights is due a re-visit... ;)
Have you been drinking?
That Blue dress does 'accentuate' Bach's performance very nicely...
Such lovely lines.
I love that whole sequence, and particularly due to Bach. First Anya's look after Bond delivers that line, then her noticing Bond check Naomi out in the boat and finally her killer stare when Bond asks her not to be a bother to Naomi.
There's even a still that gives that same vibe.