Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Why I love GOLDFINGER
On this site this one seems to have been a target recently. The accusations seem to be that it is boring. Its fifty years old and the pace, for its time, is pretty quick. Below is a review I have done of it a fews years back why it is deserving of its stellar reputation. Enjoy.
I've been doing some calculations of my own....to remove 15 billion dollars worth of bullion weighing 10,500 tonnes would take sixty men twelve days using two hundred trucks...I'd say you'd have two hours, tops, before the army, navy, air force move in and make you put it all back again...” Goldfinger, 1964
I’ve been dreading doing a review of this film because it is close to flawless. "Goldfinger" is the Bond series as its creative, critical and box office peak. This is the highwater mark of the series - the film that all the others would be judged against. It moves at a fast and furious pace and is a perfect blend of the real and the fantastic. In many ways it is the representative film of the series - that perfect blend of suspense, sex, intrigue, wit and satire - and all polished so as to glitter and shine. It is also the most iconic film of the series with its set pieces now part of film folklore - and it carries a central theme of greed for gold. The colour gold seems to permeate the film from start to finish.
While it's two predecessors "From Russia With Love" and "Dr No" were spy stories with fantastic elements thrown in - "Goldfinger" became really fantastic and the box office benefited. This was the first true Bond global blockbuster matched with an inspiring merchandising and advertising campaign. Bondmania really took off with "Goldfinger" and if you hadn't seen it by the end of 1964 when it was released you risked real social exclusion... It was just bigger and more fantastic then those which came before it. In many ways its pacing and humour transformed the film industry, audiences demanded that kind of action and humour. The lighter touch in "Goldfinger" is due to a change in director, Guy Hamilton, who brought a fresher lighter style. He also brought a rhythm to the film and one of the reasons for its success is that there is "cause and effect" in the story as Bond speeds around the world after the worlds most deadly gold smuggler.
The director said the problem with Goldfinger is "how to make the ridiculous real..". For the most part he accomplishes this but the ace up his sleeve has to be Sean Connery. By now he fitted the role of James Bond like a Savile Row suit. There is a confidence about Connery in this role. He still had another one ("Thunderball") before he would get bored and in many ways he personifies "cool" as he prowls around the film like a predator, quietly knowing the opposition doesn't stand a chance. And yet the performance never borders on the smug and assured. Gilbert keeps him on his toes. My favourite Sean moment occurs within the famous golf game. Connery, somehow, gives Bond an innocent exterior while, we, the audience, know he is conning Goldfinger out of five thousand pounds. The way Connery toys with Goldfinger is an absolute delight.
Prize for best Bond villain ever goes to Gert Froebe as Auric Goldfinger. Frobe fits Fleming's description to a tee - "the first thing which strikes Bond about Goldfinger is that "everything is out of proportion". This mountainous man had a tiny head attached to an enormous body, a painful looking tan, piggy eyes and slight red hair”. But for all his ridiculous appearance Goldfinger is a chilling villain and was recently voted by EMPIRE magazine as one of their top ten screen villains of all time.
Goldfingers original plan – to rob Fort Knox - is utterly impractical. When you think about it there is no way that Goldfinger could get away with that much gold before the American authorities caught up with him. The book put alot of effort in making it feasible but wisely stopped it going any further then Fort Knox railway sidings. In the novel Goldfinger gets nowhere near the bullion repository. But to add to the drama and a fitting climax - they needed to end inside Fort Knox. So the story was changed from a robbery to a scheme to destroy America's gold with an atomic weapon to send up the value of Goldfingers own stock. This works better especially when the backers behind the scheme are revealed to be the 'Red Chinese'. Communist China was a powerful maverick in 1964 and it is perfectly feasible that she would embark on a scheme to cripple the west financially.
Oddjob, along with Jaws in 'The Spy Who Loved Me', is generally considered the best henchman the series ever produced. They found a man called Harold Sakata to play him. He was a Hawaiian wrestler called 'Tosh Togo' and you can see where his wrestling experience came into play - Sean Connery looks particularly battered taking him on. Adding to the already sterling casting ensemble is the delectable Honor Blackman as Pussy Galore. The novel's Pussy Galore was rather implausible. She was the leader of a set of lesbian gangsters called the 'cement mixers'. But even she succumbed to 007's machismo in the final pages. In the film this is toned down although the 'tomboy tendencies' are there for all to see. I find it mildly offensive and rather egocentric that James Bond can 'straighten out' gay people - even if it is in the interests of winning them over to the other side. I like to think that Pussy realised that Goldfinger had lied to her, was shocked by the innocent deaths he would cause and realised she wouldn't be paid because the gold would have gone up in a puff of smoke. It would be good to think this is why she switches sides and informs the CIA of the plans.
So this was the one where everything came together perfectly - villain, plot, henchman, car, locations, girl, music and script. Some of the aforementioned have become iconic over the years. And who can forget the soundtrack to this film. For the next forty years when an artist is announced to helm the next "Bond song" they are automatically compared with Shirley Bassey's rendition and found wanting.
Is there anything bad about it? Is it a critic-proof film?
Only one thing I can think of - there is more emphasis on humour then in either of the two previous efforts which were straight spy films. This was the start of the "Bond silliness" which would reach ridiculous proportions in the Roger Moore era. This one is aimed at the family and cleaned up at the box office. The gamble paid off, and this became the 007 flick that all others were judged against. It was the pride of the fleet for Broccoli and Saltzman and they would try and replicate for the next forty years. This is the blueprint James Bond film.
But, to be fair, it is very good.
I've been doing some calculations of my own....to remove 15 billion dollars worth of bullion weighing 10,500 tonnes would take sixty men twelve days using two hundred trucks...I'd say you'd have two hours, tops, before the army, navy, air force move in and make you put it all back again...” Goldfinger, 1964
I’ve been dreading doing a review of this film because it is close to flawless. "Goldfinger" is the Bond series as its creative, critical and box office peak. This is the highwater mark of the series - the film that all the others would be judged against. It moves at a fast and furious pace and is a perfect blend of the real and the fantastic. In many ways it is the representative film of the series - that perfect blend of suspense, sex, intrigue, wit and satire - and all polished so as to glitter and shine. It is also the most iconic film of the series with its set pieces now part of film folklore - and it carries a central theme of greed for gold. The colour gold seems to permeate the film from start to finish.
While it's two predecessors "From Russia With Love" and "Dr No" were spy stories with fantastic elements thrown in - "Goldfinger" became really fantastic and the box office benefited. This was the first true Bond global blockbuster matched with an inspiring merchandising and advertising campaign. Bondmania really took off with "Goldfinger" and if you hadn't seen it by the end of 1964 when it was released you risked real social exclusion... It was just bigger and more fantastic then those which came before it. In many ways its pacing and humour transformed the film industry, audiences demanded that kind of action and humour. The lighter touch in "Goldfinger" is due to a change in director, Guy Hamilton, who brought a fresher lighter style. He also brought a rhythm to the film and one of the reasons for its success is that there is "cause and effect" in the story as Bond speeds around the world after the worlds most deadly gold smuggler.
The director said the problem with Goldfinger is "how to make the ridiculous real..". For the most part he accomplishes this but the ace up his sleeve has to be Sean Connery. By now he fitted the role of James Bond like a Savile Row suit. There is a confidence about Connery in this role. He still had another one ("Thunderball") before he would get bored and in many ways he personifies "cool" as he prowls around the film like a predator, quietly knowing the opposition doesn't stand a chance. And yet the performance never borders on the smug and assured. Gilbert keeps him on his toes. My favourite Sean moment occurs within the famous golf game. Connery, somehow, gives Bond an innocent exterior while, we, the audience, know he is conning Goldfinger out of five thousand pounds. The way Connery toys with Goldfinger is an absolute delight.
Prize for best Bond villain ever goes to Gert Froebe as Auric Goldfinger. Frobe fits Fleming's description to a tee - "the first thing which strikes Bond about Goldfinger is that "everything is out of proportion". This mountainous man had a tiny head attached to an enormous body, a painful looking tan, piggy eyes and slight red hair”. But for all his ridiculous appearance Goldfinger is a chilling villain and was recently voted by EMPIRE magazine as one of their top ten screen villains of all time.
Goldfingers original plan – to rob Fort Knox - is utterly impractical. When you think about it there is no way that Goldfinger could get away with that much gold before the American authorities caught up with him. The book put alot of effort in making it feasible but wisely stopped it going any further then Fort Knox railway sidings. In the novel Goldfinger gets nowhere near the bullion repository. But to add to the drama and a fitting climax - they needed to end inside Fort Knox. So the story was changed from a robbery to a scheme to destroy America's gold with an atomic weapon to send up the value of Goldfingers own stock. This works better especially when the backers behind the scheme are revealed to be the 'Red Chinese'. Communist China was a powerful maverick in 1964 and it is perfectly feasible that she would embark on a scheme to cripple the west financially.
Oddjob, along with Jaws in 'The Spy Who Loved Me', is generally considered the best henchman the series ever produced. They found a man called Harold Sakata to play him. He was a Hawaiian wrestler called 'Tosh Togo' and you can see where his wrestling experience came into play - Sean Connery looks particularly battered taking him on. Adding to the already sterling casting ensemble is the delectable Honor Blackman as Pussy Galore. The novel's Pussy Galore was rather implausible. She was the leader of a set of lesbian gangsters called the 'cement mixers'. But even she succumbed to 007's machismo in the final pages. In the film this is toned down although the 'tomboy tendencies' are there for all to see. I find it mildly offensive and rather egocentric that James Bond can 'straighten out' gay people - even if it is in the interests of winning them over to the other side. I like to think that Pussy realised that Goldfinger had lied to her, was shocked by the innocent deaths he would cause and realised she wouldn't be paid because the gold would have gone up in a puff of smoke. It would be good to think this is why she switches sides and informs the CIA of the plans.
So this was the one where everything came together perfectly - villain, plot, henchman, car, locations, girl, music and script. Some of the aforementioned have become iconic over the years. And who can forget the soundtrack to this film. For the next forty years when an artist is announced to helm the next "Bond song" they are automatically compared with Shirley Bassey's rendition and found wanting.
Is there anything bad about it? Is it a critic-proof film?
Only one thing I can think of - there is more emphasis on humour then in either of the two previous efforts which were straight spy films. This was the start of the "Bond silliness" which would reach ridiculous proportions in the Roger Moore era. This one is aimed at the family and cleaned up at the box office. The gamble paid off, and this became the 007 flick that all others were judged against. It was the pride of the fleet for Broccoli and Saltzman and they would try and replicate for the next forty years. This is the blueprint James Bond film.
But, to be fair, it is very good.
^ 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
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/2779/goldfinger/p1
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/2185/why-is-goldfinger-the-general-favourite/p1
There may be other threads on the film but this thread is about my review of it. I wondered if people might like it.
And since it is being featured in the movie Olympics. It is quite timely.
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/483/bondathon-april-goldfinger/p1
I'm perfectly impartial to your review, but its likely to prompt more.
Do you think Ian Fleming would have liked GF had he lived to see it?
Haha, I love that film but I agree. I think certainly for "90s" Bond GE set the standard. Action packed and glossy but filled with good characters too.
17 in fact, but still, it just has everything going for it. Pierce Brosnan, incredible action, an epic masterpiece soundtrack, outstanding villains, varied locations, gorgeous women, and the best pace in all of the series. Perhaps I should do my own review of GE!
The book has got more gorgeous detail. There is a wonderful bit at the beginning where he describes eating "stone crabs and butter" in Miami. I dare anyones mouth to stop watering after reading that.
Also it puts more flesh on the characters then the film ever does. We find out Goldfingers history, and the same with Pussy Galore. Why she is a criminal and more about her life.
I have never understood why Bond fans never read the books. You can get so much out of them.
But thats not whats inferred by blueprint. Blueprint means the genesis or original plans of a format. Therefore it cannot be at the end of the series only the beginning.
Well yes, that's a valid argument. I thought you were using the term as I've heard it before, meaning that all Bond movies should be judged by this one.
I've always though of GE as substandard, though the best brosnan and best 'modern bond'. Hated the soundtrack with a passion...didn't know whether i was watching a Bond film or in a dodgy amsterdam disco in the 1990's. Create a thread for people to write reviews on there fave...title it "Why I Love..."
I have read the book. I remember the opening where Bond's in the airport looking down at his hands and coming to terms with the fact he had killed a man the day before. I've seen the film far more times though.
I'm asking YOU what you think?
Seconded. A sad, sub-par pastiche of a Moore movie.
i adore the book.
Even the slower bits such as when he is left at The Grange and goes exploring and finds the cinecamera tracking him so he puts the ginger cat in to mess up the reels.
And Goldfinger gives the cat to Oddjob to eat. Little details like that make it more interesting then the film.
Its a wonderfully descriptive book.
I don't think GE can be called a blueprint, but it definetly nailed the formula. GF is definetly the blueprint film, but GE really did a great job of using that blueprint.
I've only read 3 Bond books, CR, MR and GF. I think GF is definetly the best one out of the 3.
Yeah, although some of the stuff is a bit different. Like in GF for instance Bond doesn't actually see Jill die like he does in the film. Also Tilly doesn't die until the end and Oddjob is the one sucked out of the aircraft - not Goldfinger.
GF is certainly the time when "hardware" became more of an integral part in the films though.
I've never read the books, but it is striking that the ones that draw most from the books often seem to be the best. CR really benefited from a strong story as its basis.
Then it might not be a good idea to judge it by 2012 values. The same thing could be thrown at Edgar Rice Burroughs or Arthur Conan Doyle. They are of their time.
I try not to but its still quite difficult not to cringe a bit sometimes. Especially during parts of LALD.
Cant argue with that. Fleming was abit of an elitist and Connery described him as "a terrible snob"
But the characters seem more alive in the books then the film.
To tell the truth Fleming doesn't sound like the nicest of chaps. I remember hearing that Noel Coward viewed him as a mere "poser". Coward of course saw himself as the genuine article.
In regard to which books I've read, I've read most at least once except TSWLM and the short stories. I've heard Spy isn't one of his best though?
They lived quite close to each other on Jamaica.
@actonsteve. Did you go to the Fleming centenery in 2008 at the London Palladium? That was a cracking event.
Its told through the Bond girls point of view and her backstory takes up the first third. But once Bond appears things pick up and I would say it is one of Flemings underrated books.
Dont expect any underwater cars though...
No didnt know about the Fleming centenery. He was of a different class and time. Thats why his Bond is quite unique. Its pretty much him.
Ohhhh!!! :(
Yeah, I've heard its told through the woman's POV. I also heard that Fleming hated the book so much he officially stopped anyone from adapting it into a film.