133 replies to this topic

[RJJB]

Seems to me to be an awful lot of energy spent knocking a movie that was released 25 yrs before you were born. If you don't like it, fine. But I'd move on.

[Obiwan]

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.

Well Dont they all do that? I mean almost every villian wether Bond films or not they do that and the hero ends up winning. So why are you making a big fuss over what happnes all the time in movies? Plus most villians underestimate thier advisary and think they can beat them like Goldfinger for instance. So if you bash on Goldfinger your really bashing on all the Bond films.

Edited by Obiwan, 06 July 2006 - 07:25 PM.

[bryonalston]

I'm not trying to change people's minds, just open them a bit. Before I started this thread, I was tired of seeing this movie being spoken of like it's perfect and that it signifies a peak in the series. This didn't only apply to the general public, but also to the people on this site (look back to the first page and read some of the initial responses to the thread.) While I have read a few posts on CBn every once in a while that talk about GF's flaws, I've never seen an entire thread dedicated to it.

You don't see me launching a crusade against TMWTGG or DAD (I think both movies are the worst in the series) and that's because there a countless other Bond fans who don't like these films and almost unanimously agree with eachother on that fact. This doesn't apply to GF, which is OBSCENELY overrated.

And Bon-San, you mentioned that all the Bond villains don't crush Bond like a bug, which is true, albeit irrelevant. If Goldfinger is truly the best villain in the series (we're comparing all of them) then he should have something that sets him apart from the rest. Aside from a waist size higher than his I.Q., there's not much else I can think of. It would be nice if we had a future villain who actually did shoot Bond immediately and NOT tell him his entire plan. That would shatter the "prototype" that Goldfinger set and would leave us as Bond fans on the edge for the rest of the film (since they shattered the formula.)

Now, can someone please explain why Goldfinger is such a good movie? People say that it works on all levels, but I can find flaws in every single one of them:

1. The PTS is overrated and didn't really pack much punch. The "Shocking..." line seems as overhyped and as unfulfilling as the rest of the scene. Maybe if Bond had used a jetpack, skiied off of a cliff, was thrown out of an airplane or something of that nature, it would have saved the sequence. When the title sequence started rolling, I was left expecting more.
2. The Title song is as overhyped as the rest of the movie. Shirley Bassey's other two songs are far superior.
3. The film is too disjointed and there is no natural flow. Bond just seems to meander around and not do much and most of the actions of him and the characters are gratuitous and are only there to serve the plot (when it should be the other way around.) The most obvious instance of this is the scene with the hoods (not only was the acting bad, but the scenario was ludicrous)
4. Pussy Galore is quite boring as a Bond girl. Although she has a key role in saving the day (and has a funny name,) she is pretty one sided and shows up way too late in the story to really have any impact on the viewer. I've always found her and Bond's romance at the end to be "convenient" and not necessarily natural.
5.The Aston-Martin was a great car and maybe in 1964 a GPS system and built in machine guns were amazing, but really...can this car turn into a submarine, be driven via remote control or turn invisible to the naked eye? Not only that, but the car chase was somewhat uneventful (it was a step-up from the one in DN, was wasn't even that good.) All he did was drive around and use the gadgets. Now, you might say that's all he did in all the other films (which is true) but the way he used them (particularly in TSWLM, TND and TLD) was so much more fun to watch. I even think that the non-gadget chases were better than this (The Mustang in DAF, the boat chase in LALD, the car chase in FYEO and the tanker chase in LTK.)
6. As I said before, getting sucked out of a depressurized plane is the best villain death? I guess getting burned alive (Sanchez) blown to bits (Kananga) sucked into outer space (Drax) falling off of the Golden Gate Bridge (Zorin) or even being sliced and diced up (Carver) was so much less creative than getting sucked out of a plane.[Insert Sarcasm]
7. Even though the plot was a vast improvement of the book's, it still doesn't hold up quite well. Breaking into Fort Knox is almost impossible. Even though implausible, the plots of TB, OHMSS (even though it was a little mundane for Blofeld), LALD (more down to earth), MR (the most grandiose villain plot yet), OP, AVTAK (a vast improvement over GF), LTK, GE, and especially TND make much more sense. I just find a media mogul who starts a war for ratings to be much more realistic than a man who loves gold and detonates an atomic bomb in FORT KNOX of all places.
8. Oddjob, although the prototype henchman, is actually quite boring. Sure he has a hat that can cut the head off of a statue (how can a hat with a brim that small accomplish such a feat?) but besides that, what else is there? At least Red Grant, Gobinda, Necros and Dario all had equal amounts of menace and were kind of creepy. Jaws and even Tee Hee were improvements on the Oddjob prototype.
9. The military battle pales in comparison to the ones in TB, YOLT, OHMSS, TB, MR, OP (it was a military style battle), and TLD. I actually find it to be embarrassingly smaller than life and boring (you need more than two sides shooting at eachother to make an interesting battle scene.)
10. "This is no time to be rescued."...How is this a good last line? There's no double entendre or anything even remotely humorous about it. This has been improved upon in many other Bond films, most notably TSWLM, MR and TWINE.

So, given this list of flaws/questions, how can anyone who has seen all twenty films say that Goldfinger is indeed the best? Just because the peak of Bond-mania was in the 60's

[JimmyBond]

Well, I wasnt going to do this, but seeing as how a lot of your points here I disagree with, I'm going to do a point by point rebuttal:

I'm not trying to change people's minds, just open them a bit. Before I started this thread, I was tired of seeing this movie being spoken of like it's perfect and that it signifies a peak in the series. This didn't only apply to the general public, but also to the people on this site (look back to the first page and read some of the initial responses to the thread.) While I have read a few posts on CBn every once in a while that talk about GF's flaws, I've never seen an entire thread dedicated to it.

Not really a rebuttal, but I just wanted to give you props for sticking to your guns regarding your opinion on this film, while I don't hate Goldfinger like you. I do feel it is somewhat overrated.

1. The PTS is overrated and didn't really pack much punch. The "Shocking..." line seems as overhyped and as unfulfilling as the rest of the scene. Maybe if Bond had used a jetpack, skiied off of a cliff, was thrown out of an airplane or something of that nature, it would have saved the sequence. When the title sequence started rolling, I was left expecting more.
2. The Title song is as overhyped as the rest of the movie. Shirley Bassey's other two songs are far superior.

These two points I couldnt disagree with more. The PTS has a great piece of music (repeated in TND by Arnold). And Bassey's Goldfinger is easily one of the best Bond songs, I don't think it will ever be surpassed.

3. The film is too disjointed and there is no natural flow. Bond just seems to meander around and not do much and most of the actions of him and the characters are gratuitous and are only there to serve the plot (when it should be the other way around.) The most obvious instance of this is the scene with the hoods (not only was the acting bad, but the scenario was ludicrous)

I agree with you here, actually. The film is good as a series of moments, but (for me anyways) it loses it way once Bond gets kidnapped in Switzerland.

5.The Aston-Martin was a great car and maybe in 1964 a GPS system and built in machine guns were amazing, but really...can this car turn into a submarine, be driven via remote control or turn invisible to the naked eye? Not only that, but the car chase was somewhat uneventful (it was a step-up from the one in DN, was wasn't even that good.) All he did was drive around and use the gadgets. Now, you might say that's all he did in all the other films (which is true) but the way he used them (particularly in TSWLM, TND and TLD) was so much more fun to watch. I even think that the non-gadget chases were better than this (The Mustang in DAF, the boat chase in LALD, the car chase in FYEO and the tanker chase in LTK.)

When one critiques a film, you really should talk about what the film, rather than what it isnt. At the time the film was made this was a great car chase (I'd argue that it still is). Back then no one was thinking about having the car turn into a submarine or even invisible, they were keeping their feet in reality, for the most part.

6. As I said before, getting sucked out of a depressurized plane is the best villain death? I guess getting burned alive (Sanchez) blown to bits (Kananga) sucked into outer space (Drax) falling off of the Golden Gate Bridge (Zorin) or even being sliced and diced up (Carver) was so much less creative than getting sucked out of a plane.[Insert Sarcasm]

Again, you can't compare Goldfinger's death to the others because at the time those others didnt exist. Hindsight is 20/20, but at the time this was just the third film, to them getting sucked out of a plane was a good idea (and again, I still think it is a great death).

7. Even though the plot was a vast improvement of the book's, it still doesn't hold up quite well. Breaking into Fort Knox is almost impossible. Even though implausible, the plots of TB, OHMSS (even though it was a little mundane for Blofeld), LALD (more down to earth), MR (the most grandiose villain plot yet), OP, AVTAK (a vast improvement over GF), LTK, GE, and especially TND make much more sense. I just find a media mogul who starts a war for ratings to be much more realistic than a man who loves gold and detonates an atomic bomb in FORT KNOX of all places.
8. Oddjob, although the prototype henchman, is actually quite boring. Sure he has a hat that can cut the head off of a statue (how can a hat with a brim that small accomplish such a feat?) but besides that, what else is there? At least Red Grant, Gobinda, Necros and Dario all had equal amounts of menace and were kind of creepy. Jaws and even Tee Hee were improvements on the Oddjob prototype.
9. The military battle pales in comparison to the ones in TB, YOLT, OHMSS, TB, MR, OP (it was a military style battle), and TLD. I actually find it to be embarrassingly smaller than life and boring (you need more than two sides shooting at eachother to make an interesting battle scene.)
10. "This is no time to be rescued."...How is this a good last line? There's no double entendre or anything even remotely humorous about it. This has been improved upon in many other Bond films, most notably TSWLM, MR and TWINE.

Disagree, disagree, and...disagree For all my faults with this film, those three are not one of them. Plus it's a Bond film, none of the plots bear close scrutiny if you look hard enough.

So, given this list of flaws/questions, how can anyone who has seen all twenty films say that Goldfinger is indeed the best? Just because the peak of Bond-mania was in the 60's

It may not be the best, but there is no denying it *was* the peak of Bond-mania, it was no coincidence that the peak was in the 60's, THIS FILM WAS THE PEAK.

[bryonalston]

By Bond-mania, I mean the height of popularity--not necessarily the peak of the series' quality. I think the only reason why this movie is seen as the best by the general public is because the series was at it's most popular in the mid-60's. If the series had been at it's most popular around the late 70's, then TSWLM would be seen as the best, and so forth. And just because millions of people who probably haven't seen more than an a few minutes of a couple of Bond films over the years say that GF is the best movie (but obviously have no idea what they're talking about) doesn't mean that it IS the best. Britney Spears is one of the most popular singers of the past decade. Does that make her the best? No, it doesn't.

As I've said, I respect GF for it's contribution to the series (hell, without it, we wouldn't have had the masterpiece that is DAD ) but that's about it. I DO understand that GF was impressive for its time, but I STILL don't understand why that automatically makes it the best. My definition of the best is something that is of the highest quality across the board and has not been improved upon. Name ONE aspect of Goldfinger which hasn't been topped in another movie. I personally think that the only movie that brings all of the elements together perfectly is TSWLM (and that's only because FRWL and TB are missing one or more of the "standard" ingredients. I do think that FRWL and TB are the best movies in the series.)

[Obiwan]

Give it a rest already, ok you dont like the film doesnt mean everyone doesnt like it. People have thier own view on movies. Why are you trying so hard to make sure you succed in trying to give us our own point of views?

[FLEMINGFAN]

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 <!-- CBN - FILM TAG BEGIN tb --><a target='_blank' href='http://www.commanderbond.net/index.cgi?action=Category&CID=97'><b class='film'>Thunderball</b></a><!-- CBN - FILM TAG END --> shooting schedule and how busy it was.

The odd thing about it all is that for all the early years Connery stated that RUSSIA was his favourite and recently he has publically stated that THUNDERBALL is the one. Very odd, but, like all of us, he is entitled to change his opinion.

Also, despite that it is the film that Connery looks the best he ever did in his career, I thought GOLDFINGER was dull at the premiere, and still is for me to this day.

[ACE]

I am one of the few fans (that's right, I am a geniune fan) that dislikes GF, and I created a thread similar to this one a few months ago. The only difference was that I wanted to actually learn to understand why GF is praised so highly, and to also open people's eyes to the fact that GF is not perfect (which may have come off as tearing the film apart.)

See post #55 on this thread

Er, haven't you concluded your "learning" process by now?
Your evangelical "hate" (your word) of Goldfinger is SO negative.

[Turn]

10. "This is no time to be rescued."...How is this a good last line? There's no double entendre or anything even remotely humorous about it. This has been improved upon in many other Bond films, most notably TSWLM, MR and TWINE.

I hadn't been totally against what you are saying until this one. Understand the difference, those lines were meant to be little asides, nothing huge in them. The examples you give are cheese at their worst. And please don't ever compare anything from TWINE to something like GF. That blows your case even further out of the water.

[Lazenby880]

So, given this list of flaws/questions, how can anyone who has seen all twenty films say that Goldfinger is indeed the best?

The problem, bryonalston, with your analysis is that you present these 'flaws' as facts when they are only your opinions, most often not backed up by any argument. You just list things you do not like. I am surprised you think that GOLDFINGER is lauded as 'perfect' as that is not the feeling I get. Certainly one could argue that it is the prototype, the film that established the Bond formula and thus the film that others will most likely be compared against. Indeed, seldom have I seen the picture cited as the best or perfect on these forums, so your central notion that it is being misguidedly drowned in praise on here I find somewhat perplexing. As far as the general public are concerned, I suppose it is overrated, but then as GOLDFINGER is not my favourite I would say that. I do think it is bold, imaginative and colourful with little to criticise really, however I do prefer FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and THUNDERBALL. On top of all of them however is the seminal ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, but that is a whole other cul de sac.

1. The PTS is overrated and didn't really pack much punch. The "Shocking..." line seems as overhyped and as unfulfilling as the rest of the scene. Maybe if Bond had used a jetpack, skiied off of a cliff, was thrown out of an airplane or something of that nature, it would have saved the sequence. When the title sequence started rolling, I was left expecting more.

Surely the point of the PTS is simply to titillate the viewer, to whet their appetite, not to provide a sort of mini-movie. By the latter Brosnan era it did get a little ridiculous in terms of length and scope, becoming a bloated action sequence that took up too much screentime. I *far* prefer the smaller PTS' that hint at what is to come, such as that in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE or, indeed, GOLDFINGER. In alluding to the PTS' of MOONRAKER and THE SPY WHO LOVED ME you seem to be suggesting that you want long-ish sequences before the opening titles with some incredibly daring and fantasical stunt at the climax. This is fine and exciting some of the time, but does it not become a bit repetitive?

2. The Title song is as overhyped as the rest of the movie. Shirley Bassey's other two songs are far superior.

I agree that Bassey's other two songs are superior, although I do not really view that as a reason to denigrate the film.

4. Pussy Galore is quite boring as a Bond girl. Although she has a key role in saving the day (and has a funny name,) she is pretty one sided and shows up way too late in the story to really have any impact on the viewer. I've always found her and Bond's romance at the end to be "convenient" and not necessarily natural.

Personally, I think she is a perfect example of a strong female character in a Bond film without succumbing to the Jinx effect (for British television viewers, there is a rather unsubtle 'joke' there). Moreover, almost *every* romance in a Bond film is pretty convenient and rarely natural. Christmas Jones, anyone? I don't really think the intention of any Bond film is that the viewer believe the romance between Bond and the girl. Nevertheless, make that complaint if you will, but be aware that it does apply to lots -- if not all -- of the films, often to a far greater extent.

5.The Aston-Martin was a great car and maybe in 1964 a GPS system and built in machine guns were amazing, but really...can this car turn into a submarine, be driven via remote control or turn invisible to the naked eye? Not only that, but the car chase was somewhat uneventful (it was a step-up from the one in DN, was wasn't even that good.) All he did was drive around and use the gadgets. Now, you might say that's all he did in all the other films (which is true) but the way he used them (particularly in TSWLM, TND and TLD) was so much more fun to watch. I even think that the non-gadget chases were better than this (The Mustang in DAF, the boat chase in LALD, the car chase in FYEO and the tanker chase in LTK.)

I know the Bond films are not supposed to be rational or likely-in-the-real-world *at all*, but is the fact that the car cannot turn invisible really a criticism? A car is a car, it should look nice and get from point A to point B. Why, in order to be praiseworthy, must it do all sorts of crazy and wholly unbelievable things? Is it because you want the spectacle? If so, bear in mind that at the time an ejector seat and built-in machine guns were really quite something. It is a bit unfair to draw comparisons between a mid-60s car to a 2002 one with technology that is a bit preposterous even now.

7. Even though the plot was a vast improvement of the book's, it still doesn't hold up quite well. Breaking into Fort Knox is almost impossible. Even though implausible, the plots of TB, OHMSS (even though it was a little mundane for Blofeld), LALD (more down to earth), MR (the most grandiose villain plot yet), OP, AVTAK (a vast improvement over GF), LTK, GE, and especially TND make much more sense. I just find a media mogul who starts a war for ratings to be much more realistic than a man who loves gold and detonates an atomic bomb in FORT KNOX of all places.

My head is exploding. First of all, *none* of the plots are plausible. Second, there is *no* way that TOMORROW NEVER DIES makes any more sense than GOLDFINGER. Prompting a war between two nuclear nations for ratings is pretty stupid since Carver would wipe out a huge chunk of his audience, more so as such a war would draw in other actors. In any event, the notion that Britain --unilaterally -- would be hungry for a fight with China (and its huge arsenal of atomic and conventional weaponry) is absurd. Plus, China and Britain do actually have diplomatic links, they would (especially our side) try and resolve such a dispute before sending in the fleet. Also, despite the fact that I love it so, how does ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE make any sort of sense? Hmm, let's see, I'll get some international lovelies onto the top of this here mountain and brainwash them so that they spread bacteriological disease to wipe out some crops. Yes, that'll teach 'em!

8. Oddjob, although the prototype henchman, is actually quite boring. Sure he has a hat that can cut the head off of a statue (how can a hat with a brim that small accomplish such a feat?) but besides that, what else is there? At least Red Grant, Gobinda, Necros and Dario all had equal amounts of menace and were kind of creepy. Jaws and even Tee Hee were improvements on the Oddjob prototype.

In what way was Tee Hee an improvement? I think Oddjob is fun, and I like his hat. He is supposed to be a bit weird, and his constant silence does make him a bit creepy.

10. "This is no time to be rescued."...How is this a good last line? There's no double entendre or anything even remotely humorous about it. This has been improved upon in many other Bond films, most notably TSWLM, MR and TWINE.

The last line of THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH is *awful*. I do think that film gets a rather rough ride on these forums, but the contention that the closing line is better than that in GOLDFINGER is something I cannot agree with. It was just vulgar and not funny, like the dreadful exchanges at the close of DIE ANOTHER DAY. Nonetheless, the last line is surely not *that* important, and I for one am glad that GOLDFINGER's is not some silly double entendre, something that was added to the formula at a later stage.

Dislike the film all you want, but much of the grievances listed apply equally, or to a greater degree, to countless other films. To say it does not make sense is hardly a criticism, it is a Bond film! Of course it doesn't make sense. The vast majority of them don't make anything approaching sense. Some are on a smaller scale (FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS), some on a larger scale (THE SPY WHO LOVED ME), all are supposed to be fun and escapist. They are not designed to withstand deep and meaningful analysis. I personally prefer those on a smaller scale, but they could not credibly be described as 'realistic' or 'plausible'. That said, I do think that things like the car Bond drives should be within the realms of possibility or believability, therefore I have no problem with the Aston in GOLDFINGER. In fact, I think it is rather sharp. I also think the chase is pretty exciting.

Above all, the 'flaws' you identify are purely opinion, as are my disagreements listed previously. You hate it, I like it. Unless, of course, this is all some clever ruse to cause some controversy, or perhaps to prove some point? If so, most interesting.

[Hotwinds]

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.)

All I can say is that Goldfinger was "the" movie to see when it came out and it helped make Thunderball the blockbuster that it was. There are many images from that film that still haunt me to this day. It is too bad you cant erase all memories of all Bond films and watch it for the first time fresh. I bet you would change your opinion.

[Strangelove]

I'm not trying to change people's minds, just open them a bit. Before I started this thread, I was tired of seeing this movie being spoken of like it's perfect and that it signifies a peak in the series.

My mind is open. Both From Russia With Love and Goldfinger are my favorites. Right now, I'll give it to Goldfinger. I'm very open minded, and I even went through a phase where I thought Goldfinger was overrated. I've since come back around. To each their own.

[The Richmond Spy]

I definitely see your point byronalston, it is an overrated film. I say this because when I began watching all the Bond films all I had seen were the 4 Brosnan's and I can say that I was looking the most forward to seeing GF because of all the hype and such.

So, setting aside the 4 Brosnan's, I figured GF would be my favorite Bond film. Instead, it is only in my Top 10 for various reasons. Bad Bond film? Not a chance. Overrated to me? Yes. Would I consider it a bad film if there had been no hype? No.

We almost all dislike at least one "sacred" Bond film. I count FRWL, GF, TB, OHMSS, TSWLM, and TLD as being "sacred". Of them, I can say I'm not a huge fan of TB or TLD. (TB is kind of boring and TLD is not worthy of Dalton- yet still better than LTK, imo.) Both are middle of the pack to me.

[I never miss]

It's a good point to say that many of us have a 'sacred' Bond movie that we don't rate as highly as we perhaps should. Mine would be Dr No, and a large reason for this is the melodramatic score by the (IMO) out-of-his-depth Monty Norman.
As for GF, well it isn't as action-packed as the rest of the 60s Bonds as far as I remember. For large sections of the movie there is no action at all as Bond is a prisoner and is unable to do much at all. This doesn't make it boring though - far from it. It is a wonderful movie that captured the public's imagination - right time, right place etc. Is it the best Bond movie? The public would say yes. I would say no - OHMSS and TB are better. However, it is beyond me how anyone could not have GF in their top 5.