37 replies to this topic

[bond 16.05.72]

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.

I'm perfectly aware of it's effect on the series, it turned Bond into daft gadget heavy films, I don't care that some think FRWL is supposedly an odd one out it far superior to GF in every way.

I'll take TB over it, at least Young was back in the driving seat again and Connery 10 x cooler in it than he was in GF, being captured for a good duration of the film and that Pussy Galore sequence in the barn well I'll say no more where that is concerned. Save that superb PTS the film bores me silly.

GF has always been the public's favourite and it's popularity hasn't eroded only amongst Bond fans who see it for being the film that sent Bond down the silly route.

Yes OHMSS thankfully had more about it but the series was just trying to replicate it's light weight feel ever since, I actually prefer SWLM to be honest.

[double o ego]

GF is a classic and to deny it's impact on popular culture is just asinine. However, as enjoyable as it is, I think the film is dizzyingly overrated and although the film is littered with iconography as a die-hard Bond fan there are other elements featured in other Bond films that are more appealing and are thus superior movies.

I find it interesting that there are many Bond fans in recent years that are gravitating towards acknowledging FRWL as the definitive Bond movie, which I agree with. FRWL alongside the first 5 Bond movies was saturated with so much atmosphere that it was just so hard to not feel engaged by such a compelling film. The music, the cast, the acting, the locations, the story itself; FRWL is the Bond movies for the big boys and none of that flabby crap that plagued the later Bond flicks.

I'm really considering pulling a sicky so I don't have to go into work tomorrow just to saty home and watch the first 4 Bond movies back to back.

[Carver]

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

Fairy nuff, TLD is one of my favourites but can't agree that it sets the standard for other Bond films over CR. For a reinvention of the series, it couldn't have been more fitting. Stuck to the original book as faithfully as possible, given the modern setting, had a lot of Fleming elements (apart from constant smoking and drinking) and was a pure, hard-edge spy film. It was intruiging, fast-paced without being too flashy, and engaging. I refuse to use "dark and gritty" in my analysis for it I'd personally rank it alongside the all-time great Bond films.

[TheREAL008]

Goldfinger may have set the standard, but Casino Royale re-set the bar.

In all honesty I'll enjoy all the films as they are be they flawed or perfect.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

GF has always been the public's favourite and it's popularity hasn't eroded only amongst Bond fans who see it for being the film that sent Bond down the silly route.

Down the silly route? Granted GF is more outlandish than its predecessors, but it's pure escapism for adults. If any film sent Bond silly then I think that accolade goes to YOLT.

[jaguar007]

I would dare to say that without Goldfinger, the Bond film series probably would not have made it almost 50 years. Had Bond #3 and #4 been similar in feel to FRWL, Bond probably would never caught on as big in the US and Bond mania as it existed in the 1960 would have never come to frutiation. The series probably would have died in 4 or 5 films.

[Colossus]

I would dare to say that without Goldfinger, the Bond film series probably would not have made it almost 50 years. Had Bond #3 and #4 been similar in feel to FRWL, Bond probably would never caught on as big in the US and Bond mania as it existed in the 1960 would have never come to frutiation. The series probably would have died in 4 or 5 films.

I agree with this, in a Eurospy book i have that talks about the hundreds of Bond knockoffs made that while Dr. No/FRWL were solid, it was nevertheless Goldfinger that struck that chord with European filmmakers.

[Lachesis]

I would dare to say that without Goldfinger, the Bond film series probably would not have made it almost 50 years. Had Bond #3 and #4 been similar in feel to FRWL, Bond probably would never caught on as big in the US and Bond mania as it existed in the 1960 would have never come to frutiation. The series probably would have died in 4 or 5 films.

I agree with this, in a Eurospy book i have that talks about the hundreds of Bond knockoffs made that while Dr. No/FRWL were solid, it was nevertheless Goldfinger that struck that chord with European filmmakers.

Absolutely, its no coincidence the Bond series survived in the wake of a torrent of false starts and wannabe spys in other franchises....and thats a direct result of what they were doing right in the midst of a bunch of overly light or overly serious or overly pretentious contemporaries (much like Fleming's novels had before them - ironic that GF is criticised in much the same form). Goldfinger defined the balance for the series and susbsequent films by and large attempted to recapture that balance recognising it for what it was.