37 replies to this topic

[elizabeth]

I re-watched Goldfinger on Sunday night and...it basically did the same thing that FRWL does to me, only more intense. It was...amazing. The 60s were the golden age of James Bond, and Goldfinger just proves it. Everything about it is stunning: the girls, the locations, especially the Bond. As a matter of fact, I think this is the Bond film that Sean is the sexiest in.

[Brian Flagg]

Welcome to Bond's Golden Age!

[Aris007]

There will not be 60s for Bond again!

[sharpshooter]

Congratulations, you now see the truth.

[zencat]

Agree! Goldfinger IS the preeminent Bond film that set the tone and templet for the series. (I don't know why, in recent years, FRWL has replaced it.)

We need another Goldfinger. We need it BAD.

[whiteskwirl]

Agree! Goldfinger IS the preeminent Bond film that set the tone and templet for the series. (I don't know why, in recent years, FRWL has replaced it.)

We need another Goldfinger. We need it BAD.

If we're talking about setting the tone and template for the series, then Casino Royale was the next Goldfinger, I think.

[zencat]

If we're talking about setting the tone and template for the series, then Casino Royale was the next Goldfinger, I think.

Good point.

[The Shark]

Agree! Goldfinger IS the preeminent Bond film that set the tone and templet for the series. (I don't know why, in recent years, FRWL has replaced it.)

Maybe it's because FRWL is a better written, tauter, leaner, hard-edged and more engaging filmic venture?

If we're talking about setting the tone and template for the series, then Casino Royale was the next Goldfinger, I think.

I damn well hope that Casino Royale hasn't set the template for the next few. Far too flawed and schizophrenic for that status, IMHO.

[jaguar007]

(I don't know why, in recent years, FRWL has replaced it.)

FRWL may have replaced it with us die-hard Bond fans, but I think GF is still the Gold Standard for Bond as far as the general public is concerned.

I damn well hope that Casino Royale hasn't set the template for the next few. Far too flawed and schizophrenic for that status, IMHO.

yet it is still leagues ahead of any other Bond movie made in the last 30+ years.

[The Shark]

(I don't know why, in recent years, FRWL has replaced it.)

FRWL may have replaced it with us die-hard Bond fans, but I think GF is still the Gold Standard for Bond as far as the general public is concerned.

I damn well hope that Casino Royale hasn't set the template for the next few. Far too flawed and schizophrenic for that status, IMHO.

yet it is still leagues ahead of any other Bond movie made in the last 30+ years.

Personally I'd take both DAYLIGHTS and LICENSE over it, with a flash.

[zencat]

Agree! Goldfinger IS the preeminent Bond film that set the tone and templet for the series. (I don't know why, in recent years, FRWL has replaced it.)

Maybe it's because FRWL is a better written, tauter, leaner, hard-edged and more engaging filmic venture?

And that may be true, but I would argue they could not have made 20 FRWLs. They could have made a set of terrific Bond thrillers based on the popular novels, but Goldfinger broke it open into a timeless franchise, it expanded the possibilities, it created a Bond film style and phenomena beyond the books, and above all it was tonally something very fresh and new (so new it changed the entire spy genre, which FRWL was a more classic example). So the issue isn't which is the better film. The issue is which is the Bond film that became the model, that created a mega series? It was Goldfinger. That's history.

Now, tastes have shifted and, yes, FRWL is maybe recognized as the better thriller. But it should never be confused with being the Bond templet. Saying "I want to make another FRWL" throws up red flags for me, as does this new belief that FRWL, back in the day, created the series. It didn't. Heck, Dr. No is more a templet. As brilliant as it is (and it is brilliant) FRWL feels to me like the odd man out in those early films. Certainly as a kid I felt this way. When I first saw it, I didn't think it "felt" like a Bond film. To serious, man.

[Binyamin]

I honestly don't get the excitement over Goldfinger, personally. What a boring, pointless, paint-by-numbers, campy, uninspired film. Snore.

Bond saves the world by doing nothing and boning Pussy. By that standard, Charlie Sheen is the new 007.

Edited by Binyamin, 15 June 2010 - 07:00 PM.

[0077]

I don't think CR was another Goldfinger template either. In all honesty Bond 23 has the potential to be another "Goldfinger" only if it's done carefully and right.

[jaguar007]

I honestly don't get the excitement over Goldfinger, personally. What a boring, pointless, paint-by-numbers, campy, uninspired film. Snore.

Keep in mind that back in 1964 is was anything but a pint-by-numbers film. It was original, creative and exciting / fun on a new level that cinema had not seen at that time. Not only did it serve as a template for future Bond films, to a certain extent it served as a template for the modern action/adventure film.

[Mr_Wint]

I damn well hope that Casino Royale hasn't set the template for the next few. Far too flawed and schizophrenic for that status, IMHO.

yet it is still leagues ahead of any other Bond movie made in the last 30+ years.

No Way.

[The Shark]

I honestly don't get the excitement over Goldfinger, personally. What a boring, pointless, paint-by-numbers, campy, uninspired film. Snore.

Keep in mind that back in 1964 is was anything but a pint-by-numbers film. It was original, creative and exciting / fun on a new level that cinema had not seen at that time. Not only did it serve as a template for future Bond films, to a certain extent it served as a template for the modern action/adventure film.

Some would construe however, that it was a regressive and detrimental template in the long term.

[jaguar007]

I honestly don't get the excitement over Goldfinger, personally. What a boring, pointless, paint-by-numbers, campy, uninspired film. Snore.

Keep in mind that back in 1964 is was anything but a pint-by-numbers film. It was original, creative and exciting / fun on a new level that cinema had not seen at that time. Not only did it serve as a template for future Bond films, to a certain extent it served as a template for the modern action/adventure film.

Some would construe however, that it was a regressive and detrimental template in the long term.

I'm not really going to argue with you on that point. Personally I prefer FRWL, FRWL and CR are my two favorite Bond films. Preferences aside, one cannot dismiss the cultural impact that Goldfinger had on the Bond series and cinema in general. Of course GF does rank in my top 5 favorite Bond movies along with the aforementioned and OHMSS & TLD.

[Guy Haines]

It strikes me that there have been three templates through the series based on the first three films. The producers may not have intended this, but what we have is, I think, as follows:-

Dr No - Bond takes on reclusive evil genius with secret lair and world threatening plans. The heir to Fu Manchu? See also YOLT, TSWLM and MR. TND follows this only in part - Elliot Carver being far from reclusive.

(also OHMSS. A love story certainly, but it still features a reclusive evil genius with a world threatening plan, although Piz Gloria could hardly be described as secret)

From Russia With Love - more of a traditional spy thriller. It takes its cue from, amongst others, The Thirty Nine Steps and North By North West? Since FYEO, the film makers have claimed that almost every other Bond has been inspired by FRWL. Debatable in the case of some.

Goldfinger - Bond living the high life whilst taking on a very rich villain who is in it for the money. See TB, DAF, AVTAK. (although DAF features a recluse pretending to be another recluse!)

There are some crossovers, certainly. TWINE, for instance, has elements of FRWL whilst having a Goldfinger style villain's plan. GoldenEye is all twists and turns (a villain who is supposed to be dead, for example), but reverts to the Dr No template once we get to Cuba.

But I think that, without any master plan, the templates for future films were set out between 1962 and 1964.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I honestly don't get the excitement over Goldfinger, personally. What a boring, pointless, paint-by-numbers, campy, uninspired film. Snore.

Keep in mind that back in 1964 is was anything but a pint-by-numbers film. It was original, creative and exciting / fun on a new level that cinema had not seen at that time. Not only did it serve as a template for future Bond films, to a certain extent it served as a template for the modern action/adventure film.

Agreed.

[Colossus]

Heck forget Bond, the 60s are the golden age for movies (many say 70s but to me 60s!), tv and music.

[Bryce (003)]

Goldfinger is what it is and remembered for. It's iconic. (i.e) Right style, right time. Right everything. Lightning in a bottle.

I always held to the "third time is the charm" with each of the actors in the Bond series. We never got to see Laz grow into the role (Charles might have an opinion or two about this ). TSWLM was also (as with GF) perfect for it's time. We've all puzzled in countless threads of what Dalton's third film would have been like.

TWINE didn't quite hit the mark for some. Casting, music choices and pacing IMO.

So, with this MGM debacle presently, we can be (and are) excited about Bond 23 even it is in limbo right now. With all the baggage from CR and and QoS resolved (to a point), B23 needs to have a kick-butt PTS unrelated to the main film followed by Bond matching wits with a baddie out for their own personal gain. Maybe an implication of Quantum having a finger in the pie, but not involved over all.

We don't know how much info Bond got during his drive out to the desert to drop off Greene.

That's my two cents. BOT - elizabeth, glad GF hit you like it did. I recall my first viewing with my corgi DB5 clutched in my hand closer than the popcorn. Cheers dear.

[Colossus]

I honestly don't get the excitement over Goldfinger, personally. What a boring, pointless, paint-by-numbers, campy, uninspired film. Snore.

Keep in mind that back in 1964 is was anything but a pint-by-numbers film. It was original, creative and exciting / fun on a new level that cinema had not seen at that time. Not only did it serve as a template for future Bond films, to a certain extent it served as a template for the modern action/adventure film.

Some would construe however, that it was a regressive and detrimental template in the long term.

You can't blame Goldfinger for being so influential on countless Bond and spy movies, without it there wouldn't have been any term at all.

[bond 16.05.72]

I'd be quite happy never to watch it again frankly, the most overrated film of the series alongside GE for me.

Loved it when I was a kid but now it just leaves me cold, love Barry's score and the PTS but after that it's quite boring.

[volante]

I'd be quite happy never to watch it again frankly, the most overrated film of the series alongside GE for me.

Loved it when I was a kid but now it just leaves me cold, love Barry's score and the PTS but after that it's quite boring.

The beauty of the film is that it delivered everything that the fans wanted.
Dr. No had taken everyone by storm; FRWL gave us the first gadget, and the intreage of the spy story. The fan base was eager for more.
GF gave us the PTS with a dinner jacket, a girl a fight and an explosion.
The film gave us a golden girl an iconic car, more gadgets than we could shake a stick at. A villian who expected Bond to die (don't forget EXPECTED was the buzz word with Bond, eg Come in Mr. Bond we were expecting you)and Oddjob.
From Jamacia to Istanbul; we now expected to be taken to places we had only read about...and we got it.
America, Fort Knox.Miami beach.
As a 9yo boy (when the film was released) I learned more about Lasers, aircraft pressure systems; the gold standard, golf, girls in pajamas; champagne; oh yeah and Aston Martin DB5's than they could teach me at school.

and most importantly as the teen years arrived that you can turn a lesbian, if you know martial arts.

Now a days, the sight of the American army falling over when a plane goes over; does seem silly; especially when you think that Pussy, needed to convince all the other girls not to release the gas, and become a goody.

Still I don't suppose the Bond kids of today understand the plot holes in CR and QOS

[Guy Haines]

It remains in my top two or three, in spite of its flaws - the main one being that Bond's role is largely passive in the second half of the film - he doesn't even get to "save the day", he's just lucky that his improbable ploy of turning Pussy Galore worked, the message got through to the US authorities and the bomb disposal people turned up on time (just!).

Others have commented about the DB5, the golden girl, the iconic imagery and the rest and I don't propose to repeat these comments. I would say though that the film featured a great villain in Gert Frobe as the title character (despite the actor's alleged weak command of the English language - something the dubbing and editing seemed to mask quite well, I think).

And it also improves on the main flaw in the Fleming novel - how do you remove that much gold all in one raid? And using a so called "clean" atomic bomb to blow your way in - is there such a thing?

The screenwriters answered these questions well - you don't! Just destroy the bank and its assets and watch your holdings value grow. As 007 himself said - "Brilliant".

[jaguar007]

especially when you think that Pussy, needed to convince all the other girls not to release the gas, and become a goody.

Pussy didn't convince the other girls not to release the gas, she switched the tanks.

[elizabeth]

How can there be ANY haters of GF? I don't know whether to think you're schizo or offering constructive criticism...I'm siding with the former.

[Lachesis]

GF was the Bond series hitting its stride, while it may not feature as an absolute favourite for many it probably sits very high in most cases (in my case it lies just behind OHMSS and FRWL alongside TB).

Ironically its own success and achievment seems to have eroded its reputation in terms of originality and style over time but imo its entirely unfair to burden it with the failings of those it inspired... GF wasn't designed as a template, it was just so good, so assured, so iconic and so balanced that later installments looked at it as an object lesson in how to do Bond (and indeed adventure films in general) right.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

How can there be ANY haters of GF?

In all honesty I can understand if people don't like GF, horses for courses and all that. But what I don't understand is how any serious Bond fan doesn't get what GF did for the series and for cinema as a medium.

[The Shark]

How can there be ANY haters of GF? I don't know whether to think you're schizo or offering constructive criticism...I'm siding with the former.

De-constructive criticism.

And yes, I'm fully aware of the implosive effect Goldfinger had on the Bond series, and the wealth of third rate spy capers that followed.