81 replies to this topic

[DR76]

I thought that GOLDFINGER had a lot of style and great music. But overall, it seemed "meh" to me. The novel, on the other hand, is horrible. Especially the second half.

[Mister E]

GF is my number 1 Bond film though I do enjoy the first half more then the secound half.

[Mr. Purple]

Goldfinger is said to be the quintessential, definitive Bond film. It clearly was the first to set many of the necessities of the entire saga in motion. It is one of the stronger of the Bond movies but definitely not the best though it is definitely one of Connery's best, very suave and sophisticated, and far superior to Moore's era.

Goldfinger is not as dark and serious as its predecessors, instead the film evokes more tongue-in-cheek humor, far-fetched gadgetry and the first installment to feature Bond's famous Aston-Martin with a few optional extras installed. The film features arguably the series most famous villain: Goldfinger played brilliantly by Gert Fröbe and easily one of my favorite over-the-top megalomaniacle Bond villains -- though one can't rule out his equally famous henchman Oddjob played by the mute but intimidating and cold Harold Sakata.

There isn't much plot to speak of, honestly. Gold smuggler Auric Goldfinger plans to detonate a nuclear device inside the Fort Knox gold depository, which if successful will greatly increase the value of his own gold. What enticed me about the film, and what makes the film entertaining despite the absurdity, is its leniency towards itself. The film doesn't seem to mind being silly because the entertainment value far outweighs the flaws. That being said this film isn't nearly as silly as some later installments would be.

The film still stands as one of the more risqué installments to date. Especially for its time, for there is some brief nudity, sexual scenes and the constant innuendo (mostly in part due to Honor Blackman's character "Pussy Galore" the name speaks for itself) and not to mention the character's very slight implications of lesbianism that is far more explored in Ian Fleming's novel.

The film however does sag in some areas, particularly in the middle, where if memory serves me correctly Bond didn't have a hell of a lot do and during this time was playing an entirely reactive role throughout, I believe he was imprisoned by Goldfinger. The locations are also quite dull and nothing to get excited about besides perhaps the Swiss Alps. The gold-melting plant in Geneva, for example, is blatantly some anonymous alleyway out the back of Pinewood. Pussy Galore was also a great character, a cold-hearted bitch you loved to hate. Too bad about the character rape at the end.

The film also suffers from a rather dull climax and nothing to make it stand out. No space station, no volcano, no hopping between oil trucks. Just a dull, bland blink-and-you-miss-it climax on a plane. Both Octopussy and The Living Daylights had better plane climaxes in my opinion. Though I can look past this rather mild discrepancy.

Still the film is classic Bond and that's usually what counts most.

[DR76]

I don't consider this movie to be "classic" Bond. It's too flawed, in my opinion. And I've seen a great number of Bond films that seemed better to me.

[hilly]

I went to see Goldfinger on Sunday at a cinema in Cambridge which has been screening remastered Bond films every Sunday during June, to mark Cubby Broccoli's centenary.
The film looked and sounded fantastic (I'm admittedly biased as it is one of my top 5).Despite having seen it God knows how many times on tv, vhs and dvd, seeing it on the big screen make it look a completely different movie.
During the PTS scenes in the heroin factory, there were several snorts of derision from students and teenagers regarding how primitive and low tech the equipment was and how "old" the film seemed.. This lasted for approximately 10 minutes, after which they were completely enthralled, laughed in all the right places and were generally wowed by the whole thing.
My girlfriend had suggested going. She is a film fan but not particularly a Bond Fan, feeling that most of the fims pre-Daniel Craig are interchangeable. (nb I am working on altering her opinion here!!)She is, however, tolerant and indulgent of my own Bond obsession. I asked her for her opinion afterwards and she thoroughly enjoyed it. She was especially impressed by John Barry's score, the pace of the film, the knowing humour and the Ken Adam sets. She was a little uneasy about Bond and Pussy's roll in the hay though, feeling that it just skimmed the edge of "No means No" a little too closely for comfort.
She was also keen to go back this weekend and see OHMSS, so a good result all round!

[Ambler]

She was a little uneasy about Bond and Pussy's roll in the hay though, feeling that it just skimmed the edge of "No means No" a little too closely for comfort.

Ho hum ... interesting times we live in.

[retrokitty]

Hey, Ambler,

Maybe hilly is dating L.Jones...

I think it was Seanery's magic penis (as L.Jones so wonderfully wrote) that swayed Pussy and nothing else.

[B. Brown]

I think it was Seanery's magic penis that swayed Pussy and nothing else.

[DR76]

I think it was Seanery's magic penis that swayed Pussy and nothing else.

He and Sophie Marceau, with her magic vagina, should get together.

[chrisno1]

In 2008 I watched all the Bond movies and wrote a series of reviews for another site.
The aim was to watch them in order in the run up to the premiere of QOS. I succeeded and the reviews were well received.
However, subsequently, I have re-read my reviews and re-watched a number of the movies (the BFI had a whole 007 season earlier this year and I saw quite a few on the big screen again!).
This is my updated review for Goldfinger.

GOLDFINGER
REVISED REVIEW 23/12/09

To see the difference between the Bond of 1962 and that of 1964, you only need to watch the first fifteen minutes of Goldfinger. There is an exciting pre-title sequence, Shirley Bassey sings a powerhouse theme song, sweeping helicopter shots of Miami are accompanied by a jazzy musical interlude, Goldfinger is introduced and their is the seduction and death of a good-time girl. In those minutes the James Bond franchise stood up, threw off its shackles and said “Look at me! I’m brilliant!” And Goldfinger is brilliant.

The new director, Guy Hamilton, brings a lighter tone to this film, while still retaining some of the traditional spy elements. If he has let the screenwriters drift away from the lines of the novel, this only serves to highlight the deficiencies in Fleming’s story. Goldfinger is a long novel, bogged down in lengthy detail and even longer speeches. The film is short and sharp. The action is swift. The editing crisp. Even the incidental music crackles, asking us to take notice. And if at times the production design of Ken Adam overshadows the stars, well at least we can see the money invested is being well spent.

The story, for such it is, follows Fleming’s original Fort Knox robbery, but brings in fantastical elements, such as an atomic bomb, a laser beam and a car equipped with an ejector seat. These seem fresh and exciting. They are as in place in Goldfinger as they would be out of place in the previous From Russia With Love. Much of the thanks must rest with Richard Maibaum and Paul Dehn, who construct excellent dialogue allowing Bond and his adversaries to use their wits (and witticisms’!) to create and escape the chaos. Bond electrocutes an assassin and trills “Positively shocking”; trapped Bond asks if he is expected to talk, “No” is Goldfinger’s reply “I expect you to die”; upon being introduced to the wonderfully named heroine Pussy Galore, only Bond could remark “I must be dreaming”.

James Bond is once more portrayed by Sean Connery and here at last he has settled into the role, comfortable both in his suits and his mannerisms. When M cuts him short, insisting he refrain from extending a personal vendetta, Connery responds, curtly, politely, but we sense his inner motivation. This is a performance Connery could not have given two years ago.

He is helped of course with some exemplary support from the male cast. Gert Frobe is the rotund, greedy, calculating and sophisticated Auric Goldfinger, who conveys unruffled menace beneath an elaborate exterior. More than anyone, Frobe inhabits his role, so much so that every time I re-read the novel, I picture him as Goldfinger. It is a wonderful piece of casting. His side-kick Oddjob, Harold Sakata, is a Korean mute, as adept at martial arts as he is at wielding deadly bowler hats and cheating at golf. Both his and Goldfinger’s death scenes started a trend in Bond movies to see which villain could have the goriest end. On the lighter side, M and Q are given screen time that nicely develops their relationship with Bond.

Unfortunately the female characters are under whelming. Honor Blackman’s Pussy (I had to write that!) is a confident heroine, who isn’t really given enough to do. As in the novel she is sidelined and used as a plot device, her ultimate change of heart doesn’t seem likely. Shirley Eaton’s Jill makes a spectacular impression, given her short role. We see her first reclining on a sun bed wearing only a tiny black bikini; she is sexy, beautiful and lacking morals, a perfect match for Bond. But four minutes later she is naked and dead in Bond’s bed, covered in gleaming gold paint. The third girl, Tilly, played by Tania Mallet, is a hopeless would be assassin, who is vacant and shallow; her scenes with Connery are clumsy. She only brightens up when Bond wreaks havoc during the car chase.

It is a credit to the assurance of the film makers that these details hardly matter. As the film rolls towards its climax in a splendidly realised Fort Knox, we are provided with gorgeous photography of the Swiss mountains, courtesy of Ted Moore, excellent special effects from John Stears, taut editing from Peter Hunt and a series of great action sequences arranged by Bob Simmons. All these are accompanied in full by a John Barry score that is miles away from his previous effort. By studiously avoiding Monty Norman’s Bond Theme, the music almost becomes a character by itself, lending as it does themes for each person which can be jokey, sexy or chilling. It conveys the danger and the fun of the action, without distracting us from what we see on the screen.

Every time I watch Goldfinger, I always have to ask myself, is it really the best Bond film? Truth be told, it is always going to be a close call. What I can say is that if it isn’t the best, then it must be one hell of a good movie that beats it.

RATING - 10 from 10

[DominicGreene]

Goldfinger is one of the best Bond films and certainly one of my favorites!

[SecretAgentFan]

Re-watched it. And loved it.

Yes, I know, there are several things that can be faulted. Let me answer those claims that the film does not deserve its golden status.

- The locations are boring.

Well, to most of the world, Switzerland, Miami and Kentucky were not as "ordinary" as they appear today. In 1964 this was still a sensational travelogue for worldwide audiences.

- Bond gets captured and is too passive for most of the time.

I actually like that Bond underestimates Goldfinger at first. Passive? Can´t see that at all. He constantly tries to outwit his enemies and finally manages to do so.

- Bond seducing Pussy away from her sexual orientation.

Yes, that is quite unbelievable. However, we always do believe that Bond can have any woman he likes. And Sean Connery definitely has a presence that at least makes it believable within the confines of the narrative. Of course, his approach is the typical 50´s and 60´s "She will want it if I only remain steadfast enough"-method. Rape? Yeah, today one would probably see it that way. Although it is not depicted that way. Pussy clearly gives in to his kiss. And since her orientation never really gets cleared up, one might even think that she is bi-curious. Does this whole thing spoil the film? Not to me. The film is a fantasy and in every aspect removed from a real life spy tale.

- "Goldfinger" was the beginning of the end of serious James Bond.

Yep, maybe so. More gadgets, more humour, more light entertainment. Still, the film is incredibly entertaining and fast-moving IMO. And Connery definitely suits the humour. I consider "Goldfinger" to contain his best Bond performance. He really seems to have fun playing it.

Also, the film has a fantastic score and title song. And it is edited very tightly. Of course, one always has to take into account the times in which the film was made in. It cannot match the spectacle and tempo of today´s films. But it still holds up and to me remains more entertaning than lots of blockbusters today.

My rating: 8 out of 10.

[Major Tallon]

Well said, SecretAgentFan.

I'm always puzzled by the criticism that the film shouldn't have been set in Kentucky. It's where Fort Knox, the world's most famous gold depository, is located. Without either sacrificing that iconic setting for one that was simply invented or, ludicrously, transplanting it to some other locale, there was no option but for the film to reach its conclusion at . . . Fort Knox, Kentucky!

There's also, of course, the small matter that they were making a film of a novel that involves that locale.

[Turn]

- Bond gets captured and is too passive for most of the time.

I actually like that Bond underestimates Goldfinger at first. Passive? Can´t see that at all. He constantly tries to outwit his enemies and finally manages to do so.

I think this is an underrated aspect of Goldfinger. Bond is a one-man wrecking crew from inside in this film. He manages to talk his way out of death in the laser table sequence. This scene could easily have turned out awful but it was written and played so well it became one of the best scenes in the series.

Then Bond manages to use his wits and charm rather than brute force to foil Goldfinger. I do think some of the stud far sequences are too drawn out, but when you look at it from the viewpoint of Bond plotting it out in his mind how to stop Goldfinger, it adds to the Bond mystique.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Well said, SecretAgentFan.

I'm always puzzled by the criticism that the film shouldn't have been set in Kentucky. It's where Fort Knox, the world's most famous gold depository, is located. Without either sacrificing that iconic setting for one that was simply invented or, ludicrously, transplanting it to some other locale, there was no option but for the film to reach its conclusion at . . . Fort Knox, Kentucky!

There's also, of course, the small matter that they were making a film of a novel that involves that locale.

Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself Major.

[DR76]

GOLDFINGER is not only a crappy movie filled with plot holes, I think it's also overrated.

[elizabeth]

There's no halves, but I'd give it an 8.5. Solid all around.

[Colossus]

There's also, of course, the small matter that they were making a film of a novel that involves that locale.

Really though it is funny, those that have a problem with that need to put the blame on Fleming himself!

[RJJB]

No matter what anyone thinks of Goldfinger, it's the most important entry in the series. The international success of the movie catapulted James Bond into the general public consciousness and was the true beginning of "Bondmania". If you had been around in 1964, you would have experienced the freshness and the excitement the movie generated. It wasn't just the movie, but it was Sean Connery too. Of course he had made the two previous Bond movies, but his fame definitely rose with the release of Goldfinger. The producers would love to duplicate the success and impact that Goldfinger had on the series and the movie industry. When people look at the movie and compare it unfavorably to the overblown spectacle they have come to expect they miss an important attribute of Goldfinger.

When the movie is called a James Bond movie, it's because Bond is the most important part of the movie, more so than the gadgets, location, action sequences and yes, even the women. They are all a part of it, but it's Bond that has to sell the movie. So Bond, when portrayed by the right actor, is for more interesting spending most of my time as Goldfinger's prisoner than a Bond who does nothing but press buttons on some gadget in an action sequence. While Bond may be somewhat “out of action”, he’s still the driving force behind the movie. It’s the old WWJBD – what will James Bond do?

I would lay odds that most people who knock Goldfinger are people who saw it after they’ve seen the so called “epics.” Goldfinger introduced so many elements that now belong to the entire series: the businessman who has a secret plot, car /vehicle chases, the seemingly invulnerable henchman, the bizarre death of the main villain, the big battle of good versus evil, and the disposal sacrificial second woman. Goldfinger was the blueprint the series. I always have to laugh when people suggest the early Bond movies should be re-made. They have been re-made over and over again, but just with different titles. The bloated cartoons that the series became in the Moore years were just tired retreads of everything that was once fresh.

Goldfinger moves at a quick pace, never insults its audience and provides more than enough spectacle without being overblown. To all its detractors I say, check out some of the books that have been written on film criticism, especially the ones that name some of the “must see” movies. Goldfinger is often included, more than any other James Bond movie. Goldfinger is solid entertainment. It’s a shame not everyone can see that.

[DamnCoffee]

Goldfinger is the most famous Bond film of all time. I really feel that this movie establishes the James Bond character.

Goldfinger started a phenomenon, which should be credit in itself. Some people round here think that the 3rd James Bond movie is vastly overrated, but for me, Goldfinger, is one of the best Bond movies ever made. Even though I feel that Dr No and From Russia With Love are stronger films, I think that Goldfinger should be given credit for truly establishing James Bond on the big screen.

[O.H.M.S.S.]

Finally somebody starts a thread like this, Goldfinger comes in 4th in my ranking, I'd give it 10/10. Why? Sean Connery, Gert Fröbe, Honor Blackman, Harold Sakata, Shirley Eaton, Bernard Lee, Burt Kwouk, Desmond Llewelynn, John Barry, Ken Adam, Guy Hamilton, Ted Moore, Peter Hunt, Richard Maibaum and the Aston Martin DB5. They all contribute to the trendsetting peak of the franchise.

Sometimes movie critics over-emphasize the importance of Goldfinger, however fans tend to underrate it as "the one that gets overrated" but Goldfinger is in many ways one of the highlights in the series.

Edited by O.H.M.S.S., 05 February 2010 - 06:03 PM.

[jaguar007]

It is in my top 5 films as well. Easily the most iconic of the Bond films. Jill painted Gold, the Aston Martin, the great dialogue "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to DIE!". Some of the best scenes in the history of films.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Total fan. This must have been amazing in 1964, the epitome of a Bond film.
In terms of the action adventure genre, I think the script was the blueprint (to which Hamilton did full justice).

[RJJB]

This should be merged with the CBn reviews Goldfinger topic.

[Colossus]

Goldfinger has been hailed as the totem pole for decades in the general public's mind and it warrants every bit of praise it receives. I always wondered why this is the one shown and not FRWL or OHMSS in best movie lists, especially in a book like 1001 Movies you Should See they have this but no other Bond, they actually mention the first two, Dr. No being a Sputnik era Fu Manchu movie, FRWL being an Eric Ambler adventure, while with Goldfinger, the Bond movie gains its own singular identity with this movie and that's why this is the Bond movie that's seen on a different plane from the rest. This was one of the 15 movies picked by TCM's 15 greatest movie soundtracks and with good reason. This was the first Bond movie that really infuzed the music with the images, when it's suspensful in the opening until Bond drops on the guard and it switches to loud, or when he's shaving and each time he blocks the peep holes a cling sound hints during the music, every Bond movie from then on knew the course it had to take with this. I read somewhere before this movie best captures the mood and strange atmosphere of the year 1964 itself. I also like the camera work which would really get inside spaces and the screen would be filled by someone's eyeball or face. I now really appreciate the new ground Goldfinger broke for cinema as a whole.

[elizabeth]

Goldfinger is probably in my top 5 too. A classic Bond film with a classic Bond and a classic storyline.

[RJJB]

It does my heart good to read such wise reviews for Goldfinger.

Edited by RJJB, 06 February 2010 - 04:23 PM.

[Mr. Somerset]

Loving the love for Goldfinger. Probably my number 1 film in the series. Sean is at his best here, and has genuine chemistry with the rest of the cast. Great M scenes, and the most classic Q scene.
I recall seeing the truncated ABC version when I was 8 and feeling a bit disappointed. It wasn't until a couple years later I saw the film on vhs and it became my favorite. Too bad many fans here don't seem to care for it as much......

[DamnCoffee]

ABC edit? I didn't know such a thing existed.

[Joe Bond]

ABC edit? I didn't know such a thing existed.

As I recall they totally removed the gunbarrell scene when I read it from this article quite some time ago.