133 replies to this topic

[bryonalston]

[quote name='Spoon' date='13 August 2005 - 20:21'][quote]I also wish the general public would stop saying that GF is the best film just so that they can sound sophisticated and like they know what they are talking about.

[licensetostudy]

[quote name='Brian Flagg' date='16 August 2005 - 08:44']I love GOLDFINGER.

Edited by licensetostudy, 23 August 2005 - 10:14 PM.

[WC]

The only Bond film I hate is Die Another Day, which I believe is the worst entry in the entire series. I think Goldfinger is an excellent entry into the series with some of the best casting, gadgets, plot, imagery and dialogue. There are some absolute classic lines here. I like FRWL too, but it's a completely different film.

[Brian Flagg]

[quote name='licensetostudy' date='23 August 2005 - 18:02'][quote name='Brian Flagg' date='16 August 2005 - 08:44']I love GOLDFINGER.

[Kronsteen]

I agree that Goldfinger is overrated, but it's still a very entertaining Bondflm. Even if it's hardly ar my top ten I still enjoy much of it and still regard it as a very good movie.

I think Goldfinger has some good action scenes, very fine dialogue, a great plot and some of the best music ever created for a movie. But still, there are no really edge over it all and the characters are just kinda... well... lame. Goldfinger is evil, but not intruiging, Pussy Galore isn't that sexy and I just don't find her interesting. Oddjob is cool, but should've been used much, much more!
I think it has something to do with Guy Hamilton, he doesn't really seem to get it completely right in any of his movies... sadly.

[Red Grant 15]

I thought Guy Hamilton was a bad girector, because I really didn't like DAF or TMWTGG, but I do think he got it right with Goldfinger.

[Red Grant 15]

Sorry about the typo, I meant to put director, my bad.

[Napoleon Solo]

Jumping into a thread started two months ago.

In response to the title of the thread, I don't hate Goldfinger.

It is the first film where we laugh *at* Bond. For example, the fake bird on top of Bond's head in the pretitle sequence. Also, Bond's attempt to deactivate the atomic bomb when the other guy brushes him out and flicks a switch.

[Byron]

Re-watched Goldfinger and there is something that irritates me. Its when Oddjob and Bond are fighting in Fort Knox. Bond finds this large wooden pole behind a pile of gold bars which Oddjob then breaks in half. What's a large piece of wood that looks like a table leg doing behind a pile of gold????

Also there is a close-up of Connery in the Aston Martin after he drops off Tilly Masterson at the petrol station. You can see that the sun-visor above the steering wheel has been removed as there are holes in the upholstery!!!

Finally the car crash in the film and the crash used in the trailer are different. The crash in the trailer is much more severe.

Check it out.

[Harmsway]

Eh, Goldfinger deserves the praise, if only for being a landmark. The balance, pacing, dialogue - it never all came together as perfectly as it did here. Certain elements improved in later films, of course, but it was to the detriment of others. There's not a single bad note hit in the whole thing, IMO.

But of course, it's not my favorite. YOLT or TB or FRWL is. But GF is still grand entertainment. If you want my opinion on the truly overrated film: TSWLM. That movie has a second half so boring, I rarely watch it anymore.

[Turn]

Eh, Goldfinger deserves the praise, if only for being a landmark. The balance, pacing, dialogue - it never all came together as perfectly as it did here. Certain elements improved in later films, of course, but it was to the detriment of others. There's not a single bad note hit in the whole thing, IMO.

But of course, it's not my favorite. YOLT or TB or FRWL is. But GF is still grand entertainment. If you want my opinion on the truly overrated film: TSWLM. That movie has a second half so boring, I rarely watch it anymore.

Agree on the first sentence and maybe part of the second. In my review of GF, which I still haven't added here, I say pretty much the same thing about respecting the film because of its place in history.

But looking at GF and removing that whole landmark status tag from it, it reveals the film has a number of flaws among the gems. Sure, all the Bonds do, but take away the first-time moments that would be repeated later on and some just don't measure up.

Much of the Kentucky stud far sequence, for instance, has the most glaring missteps. There's the cheesy accents of the hoods (Whatcha' tryin' to pull Goldfinga'?"). The questionable move of killing all the hoods. So Goldfinger is to disappear to Cuba or where ever, how would he be able to hide with all the money his holdings would have brought in had he succeeded? Those people were pretty well connected, too.

Then there's the whole Solo thing. Let's build this whole thing because it's a cool way to off somebody. Let's have Leiter and his crony race up and down the highway and get in a plug for KFC (Cubby was sly about product placement event back then). Yeah, it literally crushed Bond's plan, but I don't think it did anything to move the story along.

[bryonalston]

I agree with Turn. If you viewed GF on it's own (without ever seeing another Bond movie before) do you really think it would be that good? There are so many plot holes that have been covered previously on this board so I won't repeat them, but as I've stated previously, GF has never done "IT" for me (you know the feeling that only a Bond film can give you.) Everything just seemed so cheesy and "blah." I didn't get any sense of depth or dimension from any of the characters (Goldfinger was just a fat, greedy man; Pussy was a fierce woman who's only purpose in the story was to be there; Oddjob was just a henchman; don't get me started on the Hoods, or Felix or any of the other minor characters.) I also found the PTS to be bland and sort of pretentious (like they were trying too hard to make Bond look and sound cool.)

I do give GF credit for establishing SOME of the formula for the subsequent Bond films, but in no way do I see it as a peak of the series (BTW, I think TSWLM is a much better prototype for the moderb Bond films than GF is, IMO) but when you compare GF to it's immediate predecessor and follower, it does not hold up all that well (FRWL was better altogether, while TB had much more of that "fantastical" quality.) It is wrong on so many levels to compare every subsequent Bond film to GF (like LALD for example, which is a completely different type of Bond film.)

[scottright]

"Goldfinger" is, besides being great entertainment, remarkable for many reasons. First, it's one of the few James Bond movies that actually improves upon Fleming's book. Second, THIS is Sean Connery's finest performance as Bond. He's terrific in "Thunderball" but at that point, the role fit him like a good suit. In "Goldfinger" Connery's confident, comic, impulsive, reckless, and totally charismatic (oh - and one other reason why "Goldfinger" is better than "Thunderball" - you get a great "Bond, James Bond" delivered in perfect context and with a glorious version of The Theme). Third, great villains. Few - if any - of the Bond villains past or present match up to Gert Frobe's Goldfinger (or, for that matter Harold Sakata's Oddjob).
He's clever, well written, menacing, even funny. I don't want to belabor the point, but by comparison Largo's just some stock Italian mobster.

I disagree strongly with those who think that "Goldfinger" needs to be seen in the context of the other Bond movies. Exactly the opposite - if someone asked me what was the one Bond movie to see, I would without hesitation recommend "Goldfinger". This is the one that perfectly distills all the elements that make a great Bond movie - action, music, great writing, good villains, smashing women, and the best Bond - into one smashing adventure. Yes, it has plot holes you can drive an Aston Martin through - but what Bond movie doesn't? More to the point, some of those plot holes - such as spilling the beans to Mr., Solo and crew, the unique killing of Mr. Solo - are now endearing cliches (see "The Legend of Zorro" where the one guy who wants out...is killed after the plot is unfolded). "Goldfinger" is the one that invents the cliches - the villain spilling the beans (I've always loved the pool table that turn into a console), the cool car loaded with gadgets, the battle royale at the climax, the fantastic Ken Adam sets, the bevey of Bond beauties, the clever one liners. No wonder the Bond series spent the past 42 years trying to recapture the magic.

In the World of Bond, everyone's entitled to their favorites...and I begrudge no one their guilty pleasure - but "Goldfinger" is THE ONE. It had the biggest economic and cultural impact yes, but that attempts to gloss over just how grand and entertaining this movie is. "Goldfinger" IS the best Bond. Period.

[Turn]

"Goldfinger" is, besides being great entertainment, remarkable for many reasons. First, it's one of the few James Bond movies that actually improves upon Fleming's book. Second, THIS is Sean Connery's finest performance as Bond. He's terrific in "Thunderball" but at that point, the role fit him like a good suit. In "Goldfinger" Connery's confident, comic, impulsive, reckless, and totally charismatic (oh - and one other reason why "Goldfinger" is better than "Thunderball" - you get a great "Bond, James Bond" delivered in perfect context and with a glorious version of The Theme). Third, great villains. Few - if any - of the Bond villains past or present match up to Gert Frobe's Goldfinger (or, for that matter Harold Sakata's Oddjob).
He's clever, well written, menacing, even funny. I don't want to belabor the point, but by comparison Largo's just some stock Italian mobster.

I disagree strongly with those who think that "Goldfinger" needs to be seen in the context of the other Bond movies. Exactly the opposite - if someone asked me what was the one Bond movie to see, I would without hesitation recommend "Goldfinger". This is the one that perfectly distills all the elements that make a great Bond movie - action, music, great writing, good villains, smashing women, and the best Bond - into one smashing adventure. Yes, it has plot holes you can drive an Aston Martin through - but what Bond movie doesn't? More to the point, some of those plot holes - such as spilling the beans to Mr., Solo and crew, the unique killing of Mr. Solo - are now endearing cliches (see "The Legend of Zorro" where the one guy who wants out...is killed after the plot is unfolded). "Goldfinger" is the one that invents the cliches - the villain spilling the beans (I've always loved the pool table that turn into a console), the cool car loaded with gadgets, the battle royale at the climax, the fantastic Ken Adam sets, the bevey of Bond beauties, the clever one liners. No wonder the Bond series spent the past 42 years trying to recapture the magic.

In the World of Bond, everyone's entitled to their favorites...and I begrudge no one their guilty pleasure - but "Goldfinger" is THE ONE. It had the biggest economic and cultural impact yes, but that attempts to gloss over just how grand and entertaining this movie is. "Goldfinger" IS the best Bond. Period.

I agree Goldfinger is a great villain, probably the best, Connery's performance is timeless and worth the price of admission alone and Pussy Galore's into will send a jolt through people for the rest of time.

I disagree, though, that without the hindsight of its reputation, GF would just not enthrall somebody new to the series. I can see appreciating the film in a respectful way you do a lot of classics, but GF has possibly the least action in the series, a hallmark a lot of would-be fans would find conspicuously missing. A trick pool table just isn't that cool 40 years on when you have Bond falling out of planes and skiing off mountains in later years.

[killkenny kid]

[quote name='Turn' date='1 May 2006 - 20:59' post='550038']

[/quote]
I agree Goldfinger is a great villain, probably the best, Connery's performance is timeless and worth the price of admission alone and Pussy Galore's into will send a jolt through people for the rest of time.

I disagree, though, that without the hindsight of its reputation, GF would just not enthrall somebody new to the series. I can see appreciating the film in a respectful way you do a lot of classics, but GF has possibly the least action in the series, a hallmark a lot of would-be fans would find conspicuously missing. A trick pool table just isn't that cool 40 years on when you have Bond falling out of planes and skiing off mountains in later years.
[/quote]


Sorry Turn, but after 40 years. It's still cool to me.

[Turn]

[quote name='killkenny kid' date='2 May 2006 - 06:27' post='550185']
[quote name='Turn' date='1 May 2006 - 20:59' post='550038']

[/quote]
I agree Goldfinger is a great villain, probably the best, Connery's performance is timeless and worth the price of admission alone and Pussy Galore's into will send a jolt through people for the rest of time.

I disagree, though, that without the hindsight of its reputation, GF would just not enthrall somebody new to the series. I can see appreciating the film in a respectful way you do a lot of classics, but GF has possibly the least action in the series, a hallmark a lot of would-be fans would find conspicuously missing. A trick pool table just isn't that cool 40 years on when you have Bond falling out of planes and skiing off mountains in later years.
[/quote]


Sorry Turn, but after 40 years. It's still cool to me.
[/quote]
But I never said it wasn't cool. It's among the coolest Bond films for me. But we are from that generation that found it cool and the latest wave of Bond fans, raised on video games and huge action, will likely find it quaint in comparison to what they're used to.

[bryonalston]

Just because GF established much of the formula doesn't make it the best. Also, it seems like the characters actions were designed to serve the plot and not vice versa (which explains many of the plot holes and oddities that the people who praise this film sweep under the carpet.)

Also, what made Goldfinger "the best villain of the series"? I honestly didn't see anything special from him that wasn't improved on in other movies. (IMHO, I feel that Blofeld will always be Bond's arch-nemesis and one of cinema's greatest villains.) GF was fat, lazy, a sore loser and a cheat. While "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!!!" was a fantastic line, I never got a sense of menace from him (like Sanchez) I didn't feel that he was suave (like Kamal Khan) I didn't feel that he had a personal connection with Bond or that he was that much of a criminal mastermind. He seemed slightly above average (and a step down from the menacing Dr. No and the dynamic duo of Rosa Klebb and Red Grant.)

No one can excuse the atrocious special effects (that were suddenly much better in TB, which came out the following year) the fact that Pussy Galore was barely involved (she reminds me of Kissy, who had the same fate.) The car chase flair (maybe it was exciting at the time, but a car that has a smoke-screen and ejector seat pales in comparison to a car that turns into a submarine.) Also, the military battles in TB, YOLT, OHMSS and TSWLM are far superior to the one in this picture.

One of the biggest complaints that I have about this movie is that Bond doesn't have much of a role in the film. While in DN and FRWL, he was an integral part to the plot, he didn't really make any significant contributions to anything; as previously noted, he didn't disarm the atomic bomb, he spent most of his stay in Kentucky (since when is the Mid-West an exotic locale?) in captivity, he was directly responsible for the death of Jill, and all he basically did towards the end of the movie was convince Pussy to save the day (SHE saved the day, not Bond.)

I'll credit the movie with establishing the formula, having a few witty lines and improving the novel's plot. But saying that this is the best? The zenith? The absolute peak of the series? No way.

And also, if I was going to show someone their first Bond movie, I would show them TSWLM without even thinking twice about it (unless they're young, then I'll show them GE or TND.) I think TSWLM is far more interesting to watch and improves on the formula set by GF across the board.

[Arch Stanton]

I'm not a big Goldfinger fan. Though, I did enjoy the Fort Knox sequence (at least when they're inside, not all that stuff with the planes flying over and that crappy music). Also thought Goldfinger's plan of contaminating the gold was better than just stealing it in the book (though I did quite enjoy the book, and I rank it pretty high on my list).

[JimmyBond]

Hate's a strong word, but I don't really like the film as much as I used to. I imagine for several of the same reasons that bryonalston outlines in the thread. Although those "reasons" arent enough for me to hate it.

[Vanish]

Indeed. I really enjoyed the book, easily one of my favorites.


The movie, however, has never been one of my favorites - It wouldn't even make my Top 10. From the embarrassing scene with the Hoods, to the lame Felix Lighter, to the excitement-deprived scenes in Kentucky, and finally to a weak villain in Goldfinger himself - It just doesn't work for me. I respect what the film did for the franchise, and its place in history... But that's about it.

[The Richmond Spy]

I know what you mean regarding Goldfinger and the tendency for people (mostly non-Bond fans) to mention it as their favorite in an effort to look more Bond-smart. This has happened more than a few times to me while playing Bond video games or catching part of a Bond marathon with friends.

For example:

Bond fan: I can't wait for Casino Royale to come out.

non-Bond fan 1: Oh it has that new Bond, what's his name. I hope its better than that last one with Halle Berry.

non-Bond fan 2: Yeah, I like GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies the best.

non-Bond fan 3: Yeah, I like the old movies like uh.....Goldfinger. It is so much better than this new stuff. You should watch it instead.

Bond fan: I have watched it, I'm just simply excited about Casino Royale.

non-Bond fan 3: Yeah, I guess I'm just a more old school type Bond fan than you are.

Bond fan: But, but, but....ugh.


Frustrating.

[DaveBond21]

Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion. It is always interesting that we are all Bond fans, but we don't agree on everything.

I like Goldfinger, it isn't my favourite. But here is a breakdown of what I like and don't like:-

Positive things:-
The PTS - Bond summed up in the space of a few minutes (why can't they make them like that anymore?)
The car
The girls
Jill Masterson painted gold
The Golf match
The conversation with M, and the gold bar
The briefing from Q
The drive in the Alps
The car chase around Goldfinger's factory
The laser


Negative things:-
Bond doesn't actually do much. Pussy Galore saves the day by switching the gas in the planes and alerting the CIA
The ending
Felix Leiter
Too much sitting around in Kentucky

[The Richmond Spy]

In my previous post I didn't stress the fact that I enjoy GF and think it is great. The only thing that bugs me is what I mentioned above about the non-Bond fans' fake love for the film.

[Tiin007]

I know what you mean regarding Goldfinger and the tendency for people (mostly non-Bond fans) to mention it as their favorite in an effort to look more Bond-smart. This has happened more than a few times to me while playing Bond video games or catching part of a Bond marathon with friends.

For example:

Bond fan: I can't wait for Casino Royale to come out.

non-Bond fan 1: Oh it has that new Bond, what's his name. I hope its better than that last one with Halle Berry.

non-Bond fan 2: Yeah, I like GoldenEye and Tomorrow Never Dies the best.

non-Bond fan 3: Yeah, I like the old movies like uh.....Goldfinger. It is so much better than this new stuff. You should watch it instead.

Bond fan: I have watched it, I'm just simply excited about Casino Royale.

non-Bond fan 3: Yeah, I guess I'm just a more old school type Bond fan than you are.

Bond fan: But, but, but....ugh.


Frustrating.

I completely agree with you. Frustrating. I've had so many similar conversations and it gets so annoying.

[ThunderhearT]

Oh yeah, Goldfinger was sorta corny....
......thats it
but the song was good

[tambourineman]

I dont dislike Goldfinger, but I certainly dont see why is is continually called the best Bond movie. I dont think it even makes my top 10. Personally I prefer every other Connery movie (including DAF) over Goldfinger.

Just what is so great about it? Ok, Connery's performance as Bond is terrific, but apart from what, why is it so amazing?

The things that make a great Bond for me (and most Bond fans I presume) are exotic locations, hot women and a good villain. The locations were mostly boring (a horse stud?), the women were average (except the golden girl) and the villain... that brings me to my next point.

What the hell is so great about Auric Goldfinger? He was hardly threatening, he was more a comedic bumbling figure then a meance. He didnt have the charm and charisma or the threat of other Bond villains. He was someone who cheated at gin and golf, was easily threatened by Bond just warning him about telling the miami police he was cheating at cards, and the voice dubbing just looks wrong. Even his most famous line "No Mr Bond... etc) is regarded as the best villain line ever. Why? Yeah, its a good line alright but other villains have said much better ones.

Ok, I like the film, as I like all Bond films, but I just dont get the love for this particular movie which leaves out so much of what makes a great Bond film. If the whole movie had been like the first half an hour, I'd love it.

[the doctor]

i agree that the film is overrated, especially by the public, recently i was reading the 1001 movies you must see before you die book, goldfinger was the only bond film in there and basically the book said it was the best of the series.

[Turn]

What the hell is so great about Auric Goldfinger? He was hardly threatening, he was more a comedic bumbling figure then a meance. He didnt have the charm and charisma or the threat of other Bond villains. He was someone who cheated at gin and golf, was easily threatened by Bond just warning him about telling the miami police he was cheating at cards, and the voice dubbing just looks wrong. Even his most famous line "No Mr Bond... etc) is regarded as the best villain line ever. Why? Yeah, its a good line alright but other villains have said much better ones.

Speaking as somebody who also generally agrees that GF's place is somewhat overrated, I completely disagree about Goldfinger as a character. I actually agree with those who think he is the best Bond arch villain.

The thing is he LOOKS bumbling and comedic, which he's not, he's one of the richest men in the world and that's what makes him interesting and dangerous. His cunning and ruthlesness in achieving his means is without measure to achieve his end.

That cocky smile as he explains his scheme or when he leans over Bond on the laser table is priceless. Bond is a mere nusiance to this man and that makes him a great villain. "No, I expect you to die" is a perfect example of this. He basically tells Bond he can crush him like a bug. People complain that GF isn't a good film because Bond doesn't do much, well, credit that to Goldfinger, who keeps Bond under his thumb for the most part. Bond really has to work to stop this plot.

Your criticism of his worrying about the Miami Police is because he doesn't want to attract attention to himself while he plots his revenge and keep the heat off himself as he plans Operation Grand Slam, although painting his secratary to death didn't help, but it's a Bond movie and one of the most memorable images from one.

[bryonalston]

I think that all the positive points about Goldfinger as a villain that you pointed out are some of the reasons why I don't like him. If he could crush Bond like a bug, then he should just do it instead of telling Bond his entire plan like a buffoon. And what work does Bond have to do in the movie? Pussy does much more than James does and she's not even on his side. GF is a weak villain (especially compared to Blofeld--who IS the ultimate arch nemesis IMO.) I think that as far as the early 007 flicks are concerned, Dr. No is the best main villain for all the aspects which Auric fails to bring to life. What menace does he have? What direct physical threat does he pose to 007? His unrequited love for gold was corny beyond belief and just because his plot is better than in the book does NOT make GF a good movie.

Here are some villains that I think are better than Goldfinger, along with explanations as to why I think so:

-Dr. No: I think he is the prototype Bond villain. He has a physical deformity. He's ominous, calculating and manipulative. He provides menace and doesn't need to give long speeches to do it. His lair is much more exotic than a farm in the mid-west and his plot is reasonable (detonating an atomic bomb in Ft. Knox is better than the book, but it's still ludicrous)

-Blofeld: E.S. Blofeld needs no formal explanation, so I'll just get to the point. He IS the prototype supervillain in movie history. Almost every movie with a supervillain type character (ranging from Star Wars to Austin Powers) uses the Blofeld mold as a cliche. From his mysterious beginnings in FRWL and TB to killing Bond's wife in OHMSS (I won't get into DAF) he definitely impacted the Bond character more than any other (and is one of the most three dimensional villains in the series)

-Kananga: I think that Kananga was a great villain because of the methods which he utilized in order to set his plan in motion (the Voodoo, the ghetto and third world locales and the down to earth scheme made him not only more realistic, but smarter than Goldfinger. Who would think that a ghetto soul food restaurant was actually a front for an internation crime ring? Not the same folks who would fall for Goldfinger's thin ruse.

-Scaramanga: He's the only Bond villain who is truly Bond's equal (006 was good in theory, but the Trevelyan character was too one-sided.) If you've seen the movie, you know all about the character and what makes him so unique. The only complaint that I have is that he had a stupid plot (TMWTGG would have been so much better if it had just focused on Bond and Scaramanga.) Scaramanga is actually a true match for James Bond and he didn't need a bunch of henchmen to protect his ivory tower.

-Hugo Drax: Drax succeeds on all the levels of which Goldfinger failed. He has an even bigger and more outrageous plan that Goldfinger does (but it works well with the movie) he utilizes some of the most exotic locales in the world (and Kentucky is not one of them fortunately) and he has some great lines in the movie (some of the best in the series.) Drax's death was even similar to Goldfinger's, but worked much better IMHO, since getting sucked into space (with Bond saying "Take a giant step for mankind" is much better than some cheesy brawl on a toy airplane (did I mention the crappy F/X in GF?) and getting sucked out of a private jet.

Kamal Khan: Khan was a crafty, sneaky weasel of a man, which is what made him so interesting to watch. He wormed or cheated his way out of every situation (the Backgammon scene with him using the loaded dice was much more satisfying than the similar scene in GF.) I found this spoiled brat-turned Bond villain to be very intriguing and wonderfully portrayed (without bad dubbing mind-you.)

Franz Sanchez: Sanchez is the most menacing, three-dimensional villain in the series IMO. He is the most dangerous, complex and respectable villain (by respectable I mean that he actually has good values--loyalty for starters) and he is someone who you find yourself terrifyed of in some scenes, and loving in others. Goldfinger doesn't hold a candle to Sanchez, and if you disagree, ask yourself this-- Which is more stupid-- a fat billionaire who has an almost sexual infatuation with gold, or a somewhat warm hearted man who craves 100% loyalty but will turn into a cold blooded murderer at the snap of a finger?

It's been a year since I started this thread and I'm glad to see that more and more people are jumping off the bandwagon and realizing that GF is not all it's cracked up to be (though, when I think of the "fans" who claim it's a perfect masterpiece. the word "crack" seems to come to mind.) Hate might be a strong word, and it's not necessarily the movie itself that I hate, but more of the reputation it has in the Bond community (and the backlash I've received from a lot of the "fans" who have labeled me a traitor just because I'm offering a different perspective on this "gem" (it's tarnished gold in my book.)

BTW, I think the song is corny (and the note at the end isn't even that long) and the PTS isn't even that good. How is Bond blowing up a building (TERRIBLE special F/X) meeting up with a woman and electrocuting a guy better than the PTS of TB, TSWLM, MR, OP, AVTAK, TLD, GE, TND or TWINE? Will someone please tell me WHY Goldfinger is considered to have the best of everything (one of the best songs, one of the best scores, the best PTS, the best villain, the best last line, etc.) and don't give me that horsepoo about "It established the formula, therefore, it's the best and none of the subsequent movies has or ever will improve on that formula."

[Bon-san]

I think that all the positive points about Goldfinger as a villain that you pointed out are some of the reasons why I don't like him. If he could crush Bond like a bug, then he should just do it instead of telling Bond his entire plan like a buffoon.

Applies pretty much to all Bond villains.

Your crusade against Goldfinger is curious. You don't like it because it's overrated? You seek to enlighten those who (ignorantly? incorrectly?) favour it? Why?