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
This is the bond film that many purist point to as where the series went off track. Where gadgets replaced wits, humour replaced tension, and spectacle replaced realism. Well they are dead wrong.
Goldfinger the book is widely regarded as one of the weaker Fleming stories, unlike From Russia With Love and Dr No. Not only does the script read more coherently than the novel, writer Richard Maibaum actually improves the pacing of this particular story by adding in and removing material from the novel while still maintaining the core elements of the story. Infact Goldfinger's plan of robbing Fort Knox is turned from something monumentally stupid in the book into something quite genius in the film.
Sometimes the film is criticised for sticking too closely to the novel, like when Bond is captured and fails to escape for the rest of the film. The criticism is that Bond does not affect the story and is more often than not just a bystander. Well, yes, that's because the same thing happened in the book. Bond is forced to work for Goldfinger taking notes and despite several attempts, fails to escape. Let's not forget that Bond is not a superhero here, he is a spy. And he gets caught by the enemy whilst covertly spying on their operation. Now, if he was like Brosnan he would simply knock out the nearest guard, take their weapon and proceed to mow down the entire army of henchman inside Goldfinger's Base. But up until this point, like in Dr No and From Russia With love, Bond is just a spy. A normal human being. So he tries and fails to escape, and then he tries to get help and that fails. If Connery was full on superhero Bond at this point then this wouldn't happen.
This leads onto another annoying criticism the film receives. I resent the implication that the character of bond has changed in anyway from his two previous outings. He hasn't. The circumstances he finds himself in have changed, certainly, but the character has not. I'll give an example, when we meet Bond after the credits he is on holiday in Miami, so naturally not being on a mission he is more upbeat than we have seen him before, all carefree and cheery. That's because we haven't seen him on holiday before so we're seeing a new aspect of his personality. After all, we all behave a different attitude when we're stressed at work and when we're relaxing on holiday. Then Bond is captured, roughly half way through the film and must be amiable and chirpy for the rest of the film because he doesn't want to appear weak. Again this hasn't happened before and the few times bond has been captured, like when Bond dined with Dr No or when at gunpoint with Grant this is exactly the way he behaves. The does the same act whenever he knows that there is nothing he can do, and that just happens to be for along time on this particular mission.
Let's not forget that they didn't have the Goldfinger formula when they made Goldfinger. It was once the film was released and had success that they decided to copy from it with future installments. Don't blame the original, blame the copies. Why the producers took so much of the structure of this film and used it in others I don't know, but don't blame the film itself. Yes the formula has been done to death NOW, but back in 1964 it was freshly conceived.
I agree with you on music in general - a great score makes any film, especially a Bond film, that much better (and vice versa).
That being said, I find DN's music charming and appropriate, oddly enough. I don't think it's a great score, but I don't think I'd want to see the film any other way.
Indeed, I wouldn't want to see DN without it either. It's grown to me.
Completely agreed. For me, that's the defining characteristic of these two masters' portrayals, along with their unmatched film charisma & confidence.
I think Craig gets fairly close to achieving something similar at times with CR (encouraging Dimitrios to "have a chance to win his money back" knowing he was going to lose).
I absolutely agree on that scene in CR. That was pure Bondian cool and helped (along with other small scenes in that film like the hotel car collision distraction) to establish Craig quickly as Bond for me.
That always cracks me up! Bond has the most interesting sense of humor...
Moore and Connery though, are on an entire different level. Connery and Moore were effortlessly cool and charismatic to the point that it should be seen as a criminal offense, from their very first scene in DN/LALD to to their very last scene in DAF/AVTAK.
So, what about fishing?
Fly-casting?
*wink wink*
Max Zorin: ...............I'm neglecting my other guests.
Not bad, simply overrated. A disappointing adaptation of Fleming's magnum opus. The film is 30 minutes longer than is needed for such a simple story. The opening chase is either too intense to be as long as it is or too long to be as intense as it is. straight away we're presented with characters that can hop from one building to the next and keep running. I didn't know either spies or arms experts were trained for this sort of thing, yet both are more than capable.
After much distraction, we finally arrive at the plot of the film an hour into the film. Bond must win at cards. Here we're introduced to Vesper and immediately Bond and Lynd Launch into a back and forth having never met. There's no formalities between colleges, no reserved conversation, no sense of the two slowly warm to each other. Instead Vesper throws herself into the chair opposite Bond and declares 'I'm the money'.
The love story is simply awful, cliched and uninspired. some of the dialogue in this section is unbearable. These two character's who we have only seen kiss once are now madly in love. There is nothing even connecting it to the rest of the film, it feels like a separate story that was tacked on to keep pace with the book. When it comes to Vesper's inevitable death, all sense of personnel tragedy for Bond plays second pegging to yet another elaborate action set piece. The sinking house sequence is one of the most misjudged from any Bond film.
6/10
although enjoyable enough, this Bond outing gets more praise than it deserves.
There are two things that make this movie my 2nd choice for favourite Bond movie behind TLD.
First: I generally love Michael Kamen's work, but here he delivers a generic 'Kamen' score with rather bland Bond flourishes.
Second: I don't know if it was the DOP, or the fact that most of it was in daylight, or if it was the smaller budget, but it looks a bit less textured than the previous entry.
That said, it was pretty awesome, again. I never tire of this flick. Mainly because of Dalton.
9/10
You know, for the first half, this isn't a bad Bond film. Connery, though he's noticeably aged and lost his hair (and gained a gut), is in much better form than in You Only Live Twice; Jill St. John is beautiful and compelling as Tiffany Case, and the film is filled with delightfully weird dark humor.
There's just one problem. This movie came after On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and in that, it fails on every level imaginable. I don't really need to discuss in detail what's wrong there, since everyone else on here has already gone over it, but there's nothing in the way of grieving or even the slightest follow up, which pretty well dooms the whole movie in context.
Still, in a vacuum, the movie remains entertaining, if a bit silly, until it's all revealed to be a big Blofeld plot. Charles Gray isn't fitting for the role, as he's too genteel and has none of the menace of the faceless actor, Pleasence, or Savalas. Aside from that, Tiffany loses about half her IQ points when she discovers she might be going to jail, Blofeld shows up in drag, the final battle is underwhelming, and the special effects on the laser are just dreadful.
I do have a soft spot for Bambi and Thumper, for whatever reason, and Norman Burton's Felix Leiter is just too greasy and slimy-looking to be Felix. The movie itself is frustrating, because it shows clear potential before its collapse, and even in a vacuum it wouldn't be as bad. But alas, it must exist in the shadow of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which dooms it to the bottom tier.
Wait until next week, when it's time to leave the early days of Bond once and for all with a leap into Roger Moore's films!
1. Goldfinger
2. From Russia With Love
3. On Her Majesty's Secret Service
4. Dr. No
5. You Only Live Twice
6. Thunderball
7. Diamonds are Forever
Man, I was totally in the right mood for an OTT piece of nonsense last night, and this hit the spot! "Now there's a mouthful." Hilarious.
And Graves cracked me up every time he opened his mouth. It's a very funny movie if you're in the proper mood. :D
Connery is (and always will be) at #1 for me in that regard, with TLD Dalton sliding into a distant second.