133 replies to this topic

[bryonalston]

I know this might seem like treason to the Bond community, but for some reason, I've always dispised of Goldfinger. There's never been a point in time where I've kinda liked it or have been able to tolerate it, and I really don't know why. Unlike almost all of the other Bond films (with the exception of TMWTGG and most of DAD,) I don't gasp in awe when I see certain parts of GF, I'm never on the edge of my seat, and if I am, I'm asleep and am about to fall off.

The thing that I hate most about the movie is that everyone regards it as being the best, even though it's far from it. Everytime I meet someone new and they find out that I'm a Bond fan, they ALWAYS say that their favorite Bond film is Goldfinger. I also notice this trend in the Bond specials on TV (like the one on the GE special features) It seems like most people just say that GF is the best film so that they'll sound sophisticated, or as if they actually know what they're talking about, when this is hardly ever the case. In short, GF is EXTREMELY overrated.

The song (which I find irritating) is nowhere near the best, and I couldn't believe that it beat out 'Live And Let Die' on the AFI list last year. The PTS is rather mundane with horrible visual effects (the reflection in the eye was atrocious) and back-screen projection. The car chase is nothing spectacular, Goldfinger IS NOT the best villain of the series (he's a lazy, fat pig who has no menace whatsoever) and Oddjob, although interesting, is nothing compared to Red Grant, Wint and Kidd, Tee-Hee, Nick Nack and of course, Jaws. Bond's introduction to Pussy Galore is memorable, but Pussy's character is far under-used, and so is Bond. He spends a good chunk of the movie held captive in Kentucky (which isn't anything close to being an exotic locale.) The plot to the movie is all right, but the climax is predictable, and the plane scenes are ruined by bad special effects.

I'm not saying that Goldfinger is the worst Bond film, but I honestly don't get what people see in this movie. I understand that it was groundbreaking for its time, but so was Thunderball, and that isn't regarded as the best. Connery himself even said that Thunderball (which is superior) was his favorite. Can someone please explain, in detail, why everyone loves GF so much. I hope there are others out there who dislike the movie as well, so that I won't feel like such a freak for not liking the movie which appears to be the defining peak of the series (even though it was below FRWL and TB.)

[hrabb04]

No, Connery loved From Russia With Love the best. You don't like Goldfinger...well, that's fine. Some people think Hudson Hawk and Ishtar are pretty damned cool, so, hey, to each their own

[bryonalston]

I thought I read somewhere that Connery said that he felt proudest of TB, or that he liked making TB the best, but it wouldn't surprise me that he liked FRWL the best, since that is his best film. Either way, they still both outdo GF, or at least in my opinion.

[Qwerty]

I thought I read somewhere that Connery said that he felt proudest of TB, or that he liked making TB the best

What? Really? I was always under the impression that he was very tired from the Thunderball shooting schedule and how busy it was.

[K1Bond007]

Blasphemy.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I've always prefered From 'Russia with Love' becuase it's a serious spy thriller with a plausible storyline and action.Goldfinger is a pure fantasy.It takes Bond from the spy genre to it's own genre, as there was nothing like it before.I love Goldfinger.I think it's the most iconic Bond film in the series-not the best but the most classic.It's larger than life cinema rather than a spy thriller...

The pretitle is perfect;it encapsulates everything james Bond is about: a Paramilitary/assassin,playboy,suave,stylish and debonair cad who would glady offer a women's head as a shield from an assailent's club if she was an enemy...I think it's James Bond in top forum.The performance, the dialogue and Connery at 33 was in his prime(this contrast to Roger Moore's latter films makes it hard to accept Moore sometimes as James Bond).Yeah, I agree it's treason to diss Goldfinger! Whatcha thinking?

[bryonalston]

You act as if Goldfinger is the only Bond film that accomplished what it did. On paper, the PTS is great, but on film, it just feels unsatisfying (the "Shocking. Positively Shocking" line seems to be a bit corny. Connery delivered far better one-liners in TB, and seemed much more comfortable and smooth with his TB performance overall.)

[Tarl_Cabot]

It established a formula before TB: a Pretitle that had nothing to do with the rest of the story.The manner in which he meets his adversary in a socially competitive setting and provokes him, the exotic henchman and murder methods employed, the climax...etc. The screenplay architecture will be repeated about a dozen times from the mold of Goldfinger...I feel GF is Connery's most compelling star turn but I am also a hige fan of TB.

[bryonalston]

If it wasn't clear in my original post, I understand that GF set the trend for all of the Bond films following it (including TB) but just because GF did it first, doesn't mean that it's the best. The fist Harry Potter movie set the overall tone for all of the other one's following, but isn't considered to be the best. The same thing applies to the Star Wars series, the Batman series, and others as well.

I also agree that Connery did a good job acting in GF, but I feel that he did his best job in TB. He built off of his performance in GF, polished it, and made it perfect. Roger Moore did a similar thing in MR (he built off of his performance in TSWLM) and then again in FYEO (his Bond matured a lot between MR and FYEO.)

[Tarl_Cabot]

Well have to agree to disagree then. But I think Goldfinger is the quintessential James Bond film for reasons I already provided.

[bryonalston]

Well have to agree to disagree then. But I think Goldfinger is the quintessential James Bond film for reasons I already provided.

I never said that it wasn't quintessential. I'm very aware of how important this movie was and still is to the series, but I just loathe it, and I don't understand why it's put on some pedestal by everyone as if it leaves all of the other Bond films in the dust, which it honestly doesn't.

[Qwerty]

Well have to agree to disagree then. But I think Goldfinger is the quintessential James Bond film for reasons I already provided.

Or the James Bond film - the one that seems to always be mentioned and very well known. IMO whether it's your favorite or not, it's been and will continue to be.

[00-FAN008]

I don't hate Goldfinger. It's a, well... it's a magnificent film indeed. But I'm sorta, well... even with Goldfinger; like one of those scales that they use in a court of law (only it's completely balanced). The thing is, I can't really agree with anyone when they say it's the best Bond film of them all. The fact of the matter is, Goldfinger pretty much (and I'm not saying this is 100% true) marked the turning point where Bond films became less about the characters and more about the gadgets. Now that's not necessarily a bad thing... but look what it evolved into. Nowadays, we don't really have any Bond films that can be really taken seriously; they're a little too much fun-and-games now, and they're sorta looked down by the "more superior"* films in the genre, such as the Bourne movies. Besides, I think there's still just something missing in Goldfinger, but I can't quite put my finger on it...








*Note superior is in quotation marks. I personally don't believe that the Bourne films are superior; more sophisticated? Yes. Superior? No.

[bryonalston]

It's kind of clear that the Bond films are looked down upon by Hollywood. Even though the legacy is unparalleled, that seems to be one of the few things that critics bring up about the Bond franchise. It seems like every once in a while on Ebert and Roeper, one of them (usually Ebert) will bring up an issue with a movie's credibility, plausibility and how much belief is supposed to be suspended. Then Roeper will just say something like "Look at the Bond films. Those are about as outlandish as you can get." That just goes to show you that Bond films nowadays are kind of a joke, and aren't really taken seriously.

Also, 00-Fan008, I do agree with you about the fact that something IS indeed missing from GF. The film does NOT seem complete for some reason. I thought that I was the only one that felt that.

[Turn]

It's hard for me to hate any Bond film. This series is the reason I lurk at this site almost every day, have tons of 007 memorabilia and consider it one of my hobbies. While I like some films a lot more than others, I'm surprised anybody would go so far as to hate any of the films, although one comes pretty close for me (obligatory TWINE bashing reference goes here ).

I never did post my review of GF when we were doing the full length ones (sorry, Qwerty). But in my review, I summed up that while I am not a huge fan of Goldfinger, I respect it a lot. It has three important things going for it -- Connery, the rest of the cast (the main cast, that is) and the writing. This is the film where it all kind of came together and took the series to a new level, so it will always be regarded that way. I guess you have to imagine sitting in the cinema and seeing the Aston Martin in action, Odd Job and the line "My name is Pussy Galore." Groundbreaking stuff there.

That said, I also cannot help but not hold it in that high standard some do. I saw GF a couple times when I was little, but didn't see it again until I was 15. Those were the years when I was becoming a serious Bond fan, and I read all the praise and all that, expecting something huge. Finally, it was being shown on television. The bad part was it was shown on ABC, which elminated the entire precredit sequence and few other things. I just wasn't that excited about it and though I've watched it tons of times since, GF just has never registered with me the way it has others.

[David Schofield]

"You're joking?!"

[bryonalston]

I've never said that I don't respect and admire what Goldfinger has done for the series, because I know that without it, the series would have been extremely different today, I just said that, like you Turn, I just don't see what everyone else sees in THE FILM. If you watched the movie without knowing anything else about the Bond series or hearing any hype about GF, would you enjoy it the same way? Like you, when I first watched it, I was a little let down, but unlike many other people, I don't use this one movie to critique the entire series.
I made it very clear in previous posts that while I respect what the movie has done, I don't like the fact that many amateurs and "civilians" just say that Goldfinger is the best movie so that they will sound smart or something, even though they probably haven't even seen the movie, and call themselves Bond fans, because they have seen a few of the Brosnan films. That gets on my nerves to the point where I've started to despise of the movie. I don't think that it's a "blasphemy" for disliking GF. It's not like it's a movie that hardcore fans are required to be infatuated with, right?

[Bondian]

Goldfinger was/is the epitome to the rest of the Bond films.

After From Russia With Love's serious and Hitchcokian approach, the Producers decide to lighted Bond up a bit.

Dr. No and From Russia With Love gave Broccoli and Wilson more cash to make a bigger and more spectacular movie.

Goldfinger doesn't need any explanation. It's a landmark in cinema history.

[hrabb04]

Goldfinger was directed, of course, by Guy Hamilton, the Joel Schumacher of the Bond series.

[bryonalston]

Goldfinger was directed, of course, by Guy Hamilton, the Joel Schumacher of the Bond series.

Yeah, look what Joel Schumacher did to the Batman series with his last two films.

BTW, if you go to IMdB, you can read the general public's critiques of GF. It turns out that I'm not the only person who thinks that GF is overrated.

[hrabb04]

Like Schumacher, Hamilton camped it all up. Diamonds Are Forever really stands as a precursor to the Schumacher Batmans. The campiness, gaudiness, and gayness of it all.

[Gri007]

Goldfinger was the turning point in the franchise. Off course it is one of the best

[Qwerty]

I never did post my review of GF when we were doing the full length ones (sorry, Qwerty).

I can always add it into the mainpage story if you like!

[bryonalston]

I never said that GF was the worst Bond film, or anywhere near that, I just said that I don't like it. In fact, it's people who so strongly defend the film that make me hate it so much. I'll just repeat myself again... GOLDFINGER IS NOT A BAD BOND MOVIE, I JUST DON'T LIKE IT.

And BTW, is it considered treason to actually LIKE movies such as AVTAK or LTK? No. Those movies held a bad reputation for years before people finally went into it with an open mind and came to like them. I highly doubt that people will take the same approach with GF and realize that it isn't AS good as people are led to believe, because a lot of the people on this thread seem to be rather close-minded and would rather stick to the lazy opinion of the masses instead of taking a risk by NOT liking this supposed "masterpiece," just like people who are fans of TMWTGG, AVTAK and LTK took risks at one point when they actually stood up for their favorite films. I'm taking the same risk, only from an opposite approach.

Edited by bryonalston, 06 July 2005 - 07:09 PM.

[Doctor Shatterhand]

The thing that I hate most about the movie is that everyone regards it as being the best, even though it's far from it.

Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe. - Lex Luthor

I'm just curious. What do you consider the BEST Bond movie? People primarily choose GF because it was the blueprint for the rest of the series. It paved a path for action films to mimic and although the effects are weak compared to today's films, it still has a well written script, fantastic sets, great gadgets and memorable villains. Note also that just about every death in that film is unique.

Now I think both FRWL and TB are fantastic Bond films. I also love YOLT and OHMSS. Yet none of those I would choose as the pinnacle Bond film. No, it is GF that comes out as the blueprint film and changed the course of action films forever.

If you had only one Bond film to show to someone who does not know who OO7 is and you only had two hours to show them, then which Bond film would you choose to show? DN and FRWL are great choices but tend to be a little slow in the pure escapism department. TB can be slow due to the underwater scenes. YOLT can be confusing since a newcomer does not understand the history behind SPECTRE to fully comprehend the volcano hideout and mysterious villain with the white cat. OHMSS is superb but has a downer of an ending that most newcomers would be put off by. DAF thru DAD would only make the early films look dated and tired by the time a newcomer got a chance to see them.

This leaves GF as the true Bond film to introduce to new fans. It has all the elements of the Bond formula and with the exception of a few scenes - GF works on all levels.

[Bon-san]

I never said that GF was the worst Bond film, or anywhere near that, I just said that I don't like it. In fact, it's people who so strongly defend the film that make me hate it so much. I'll just repeat myself again... GOLDFINGER IS NOT A BAD BOND MOVIE, I JUST DON'T LIKE IT.

And BTW, is it considered treason to actually LIKE movies such as AVTAK or LTK? No. Those movies held a bad reputation for years before people finally went into it with an open mind and came to like them. I highly doubt that people will take the same approach with GF and realize that it isn't AS good as people are led to believe, because a lot of the people on this thread seem to be rather close-minded and would rather stick to the lazy opinion of the masses instead of taking a risk by NOT liking this supposed "masterpiece," just like people who are fans of TMWTGG, AVTAK and LTK took risks at one point when they actually stood up for their favorite films. I'm taking the same risk, only from an opposite approach.

Hmm. The movies we're dealing with here are utter piffle, after all. Some people like their popcorn salty, some like it buttery, some like it carmelized, etc.

Personally, I rate Goldfinger quite highly. Perhaps it's because I sat down one wonderful Friday evening in the mid 70's to watch it with my folks, and I was completely captivated by the assault of iconic images from beginning to end. The Fountainbleu Hotel, the golden girl, the magnificent DB5, cruising through the splendor of the Swiss Alps, the death of Tilly, the laser table, the plane ride with Pussy, and on and on. As the climax loomed, I was truly worried for Bond when Oddjob was kicking his all over Fort Knox. And I was very pleased that he and Pussy ended up arm in arm.

It was really the first time I had seen a Bond film all the way through (after a few years of catching glimpses of 007's exploits from the back seat at the drive-in theatre). And I pretty much fell in awestruck love with Bond-dom that very day.

I would gather it's a different experience having one's first GF viewing to happen in, say, 2001. The tinsel might seem quaint instead of chic. And I'm sure there are those that saw GF in a theatre in 1964, who just don't fancy it. Nevertheless, it has been called "the acme of modern stylish action cinema."* I agree with that assessment, and therefore don't think it can ever truly be over-rated. But it really is all in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.


*Mr. Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang, 1997

[bryonalston]

To answer your question Shatterhand, if I could pick ONLY ONE Bond film to show someone in hopes to get them captivated into the series, I would pick TSWLM. Now, I know that TSWLM uses all of the elements that were introduced in GF, and that without GF, there would be no TSWLM, but I say...WHO CARES? Just because GF did something first, doesn't make it the best. I'm not saying that TSWLM is the best Bond film, but that's the one that I would show to someone (and I have before, and now they're a bona-fide Bond fan because of it. They too do not like GF, but they don't hate it as much as I do.)

I do agree with the assessment that GF is "the acme of modern stylish cinema," but I do believe that a lot of movies since 1964 have combined all of the elements introduced in GF a lot better. I don't think that anyone here can say that there wasn't a lot of room for improvement in GF, meaning that it was not the perfect movie that it's cracked up to be. GF strayed too far away from being a spy movie and turned to gimmicks to fill up the lack of substantial depth in the plot. The reason why I prefer FRWL is because no gimmicks were needed to make it good. The same thing applies for TB. Not that many gadgets or gimmicks were NEEDED in the movie, since it's plot was intriguing enough, but they just chose to put them in there to add a bit more spice.

[Bon-san]

GF strayed too far away from being a spy movie and turned to gimmicks to fill up the lack of substantial depth in the plot. The reason why I prefer FRWL is because no gimmicks were needed to make it good. The same thing applies for TB. Not that many gadgets or gimmicks were NEEDED in the movie, since it's plot was intriguing enough, but they just chose to put them in there to add a bit more spice.

I'm certainly not of the opinion that GF lacks depth in the plot. Irradiating all the gold in Fort Knox is one of coolest plots I've ever heard of. And the plot centers around Fleming's use of the three meetings between 007 and Goldfinger: first time is happenstance; second time is coincidence; third time is enemy action.

As to gimmicks, I'm not really sure what you mean by that. FRWL is a fine film. But it basically lifted the crop-dusting sequence wholesale from North By Northwest and inserted it into the long, long denoument of the film. Where the book basically climaxed after Bond disposes of Grant, the filmmakers saw fit to tag on two rather unrelated and superfluous action set pieces.

I love all these films, but I will go out on limb here, and say that IMHO, FRWL is over-rated. It's come on as a trendy critical darling pick, but to me it's a small film. Bond is BIG. Like GF and TB.

My take. Out.

[YOLT]

No, Connery loved From Russia With Love the best.  You don't like Goldfinger...well, that's fine.  Some people think Hudson Hawk and Ishtar are pretty damned cool, so, hey, to each their own

Not only Connery but Cubby and Fleming also said so. FRWL is the best 007 movie to be ever made.

[bryonalston]

[/quote]
I'm certainly not of the opinion that GF lacks depth in the plot. Irradiating all the gold in Fort Knox is one of coolest plots I've ever heard of. And the plot centers around Fleming's use of the three meetings between 007 and Goldfinger: first time is happenstance; second time is coincidence; third time is enemy action.

[/quote]
I wasn't referring to the overall plot (I think that contaminating the gold supply is inspired, and far better than the book's plot. I was talking about the entire movie. When compared to FRWL, TB, OHMSS, or even DAF (sort of) it's plot is kind of shallow. The kind of plot that I find to be deep and involving is the kind that you probably won't understand the first time you watch the movie, but will understand more and more in subsequent viewings. TND is a lot like GF: It has a great plot, but is kind of shallow and relies on gimmicks and gadgets (cool ones) to act as padding to make the movie seem deeper than it actually is. A good SPY story is more than just a nice plot from the villains and a great gadget or two. TB had the right balance of gadgets and depth. FRWL didn't need gadget at all, which is why it's such a great SPY THRILLER.

Answer this question: If GF didn't have the Aston-Martin and all of the gadgets, do you think that it would have made as much of an impact as it did? No, it wouldn't have, proving that it NEEDED those gimmicks to make it a "great movie"