124 replies to this topic

[graric]

Goldfinger is overrated in the same way The Beatles are overrated, or the Godfather for that matter. When something goes beyond being just a film or a piece of music to be an icon in it's own right it becomes nearly impossible to judge it objectively anymore: it is more than just the sum of its parts. When you try and break these works down they tend not to live up to your expectations of what such an iconic work should be, if Goldfinger is one of the last Bond films you see for the first time rather than one of the first it will be natural to expect something more from such an iconic film.
And in any case there should be a separation between a film that is over-rated and a film that is over-hyped, is the film still enjoyable even if it does not live up to your expectations of what it could be? (over-hyped) Or is it genuinely a low ranking film in the series that you can't understand the praise for? (overrated.)
There is a huge difference between those who say it is overrated, but still call it one of their favourites, and those who say it is overrated and don't like it.

[Peckinpah1976]

Goldeneye is the most overrated Bond movie by a country mile; utterly dreadful film in any wider (non-Bond) context.

As for Goldfinger, it's my personal least favourite of the 1960's films but that isn't necessarily the same thing as it being overrated or bad and it certainly deserves it's place in film history not only for it's impact on subsequent Bond films but on popular, escapist cinema in general.

Edited by Peckinpah1976, 26 November 2012 - 01:00 PM.

[plankattack]

I do like GF. I don't think it's a bad film in any way, but (in the eyes of the great unwashed, rather than us fans) it's continually held up as the "best" Bond film, and by that standard I think it is overrated.

Obviously so much of this is both subjective and semantic, so maybe I should say this. If the media etc were refer to GF as the "quintessential" Bond film, I wouldn't disagree, but continually call it the "best" which is a little different, no?

[Major Tallon]

I do like GF. I don't think it's a bad film in any way, but (in the eyes of the great unwashed, rather than us fans) it's continually held up as the "best" Bond film, and by that standard I think it is overrated.

Obviously so much of this is both subjective and semantic, so maybe I should say this. If the media etc were refer to GF as the "quintessential" Bond film, I wouldn't disagree, but continually call it the "best" which is a little different, no?

Well, I've scrubbed up a bit today, but I hope I'll be permitted to say a few positive things about "Goldfinger," a film I saw on its initial theatrical release when I was a teen and believed at the time to have been the best movie I'd ever seen.

Even those who believe GF overrated appear to concede that it has anywhere from five to ten Iconic moments, something that cannot be said about many films, and certainly not many Bond films, so I'm amazed to find that those same folks tend to regard it as a middle-of-the road Bond film. I honestly find that astonishing. "Goldfinger," you see, did more than establish the formula. It vaulted James Bond into the heights of popular culture. Suddenly, Bond was everywhere, being discussed on TV and radio, featured in magazines and newspapers (the Wall Street Journal actually advertised for subscribers, citing that it had discussed the movie's impact on the entertainment industry), widely parodied, and being seen by moviegoers again and again. Look again at the number of US tickets sold for "Goldfinger." I can tell you, at least on an anecdotal basis, that it sold that number of tickets because people who'd seen it once were going back to see it again. This did not all take place because GF is a middle-of-the-road action movie.

So let's turn to some of the complaints leveled against the movie. First, there's criticism of the plot. Now, Fleming fan that I am, I think that Bond movies, and especially Bond movies that adapt Fleming novels, work best when they adhere to the story that Fleming created. "Goldfinger" does that, and goes Fleming some better by substituting an aerial gas attack for the poisoned water supply that Fleming used, and substituting irradiated gold for an impracticable attempt to steal the US reserves. Plus, having Bond take on Oddjob deep in the vaults of the gold depository sets up one of the most classic battles (with an electifying conclusion!) in movie history. Yes, Goldfinger's act of gassing the gangsters after revealing the plan is a bit of a plot hole, and the whole thing is over-the-top, but overall this plot passes as more credible than a good many of the Bond films. And criticism of the movie because the soldiers don't look credible when they collapse from the gas strikes me as worthy of an honored place in the nit-pickers hall of fame.

Then there's criticism of the casting. Now, I concede that Cec Linder isn't my idea of Felix Leiter, but otherwise "Goldfinger" has what I veiw as the best ensemble cast of any Bond film. Honor Blackman was too plain? As a tough, good looking, sexually ambiguous, and opportunistic woman of the world, I think she was perfect. As the chief henchman, Harold Sakata was perfect as Oddjob. Gert Frobe wasn't exactly the character Fleming wrote, but he embodied the essence of the character, a gold-obsessed plotmaster. He wasn't supposed to be a physical threat to Bond, and I think it's a mistake to view that as a necessary qualification for a Bond villain. He was the man who put the plot in motion, who pulled the strings, around whose machinations the entire story centered. Forgive me for using the word "perfect" yet again, but I can't imagine the role having been better brought to life.

I don't understand the criticism of the locations. They're the ones Fleming wrote in the story. Switzerland was beautiful, as it always is on film, and Fort Knox was, well, Fort Knox. If the villain is obsessed with gold, what else would his target be, apart from the most fabled gold depository in the world? Fort Knox was placed on an American military base (home of the US Army Armor Center) for the very reason that this placement affords it the protection of thousands of soldiers and tanks. It may not be the most cinematic location in the world, but placing the gold depository elsewhere (Fort Knox, Grand Cayman, anyone?) would have been ludicrous and would have earned the film all the derision it would surely have received.

Then there's that old complaint, and it's certainly wearing out its welcome with me, that the movie is dull because Bond was a prisoner for the central part. Apart from the fact that Bond's captivity was adapted from Fleming's novel, it hardly was dull. Maibaum and Hamilton kept things moving during this section (the death of Mr. Solo, for example), and the movie offered us an opportunity to see Bond working out ways to counter the villain's scheme even when a prisoner. I find nothing, literally nothing, boring or disinteresting about this section. I'm glad they didn't throw in a trivial action set piece just for the sake of filling the screen.

We all have our favorite Bond movies. (For the record, "From Russia With Love" is mine.) I understand that many members here will disagree with my defense of "Goldfinger," but it was time for me to speak up on behalf of a film that was both so groundbreaking and so entertaining that, at least insofar as the realm of entertainment is concerned, James Bond conquered the world.

[SecretAgentFan]

Goldfinger is overrated in the same way The Beatles are overrated, or the Godfather for that matter. When something goes beyond being just a film or a piece of music to be an icon in it's own right it becomes nearly impossible to judge it objectively anymore: it is more than just the sum of its parts. When you try and break these works down they tend not to live up to your expectations of what such an iconic work should be, if Goldfinger is one of the last Bond films you see for the first time rather than one of the first it will be natural to expect something more from such an iconic film.
And in any case there should be a separation between a film that is over-rated and a film that is over-hyped, is the film still enjoyable even if it does not live up to your expectations of what it could be? (over-hyped) Or is it genuinely a low ranking film in the series that you can't understand the praise for? (overrated.)
There is a huge difference between those who say it is overrated, but still call it one of their favourites, and those who say it is overrated and don't like it.

Perfect statement, summing it all up.

[tdalton]

I can't say that I necessarily agree that it's impossible to judge GOLDFINGER without having expectations of an iconic work getting in the way. I've simply watched the film a few times and have never really gotten any enjoyment out of it. The first time was when I was fairly young, and I remember not liking the film much, but much like I came to like FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE as I got older, I decided at some point to revisit GOLDFINGER, but did not have those same results. Sure, it's an iconic film, but those few bits of iconography are simply littered throughout what is otherwise a very, very dull movie.

[Double-0-Seven]

I quite literally made this same thread four days ago:

http://debrief.comma...-in-goldfinger/

It's only a couple topics down! For shame, for shame.

Well, that's more a critique of the movie. I'm specifically addressing the issue of it being completely overrated. That word/idea didn't even come up in that topic, so I made it the focal point of this one.

But I see from that thread that you most likely agree that Goldfinger is overrated.

I know, I was just teasing. You're right - I do agree. I recognize all the iconic elements of the film, but find From Russia With Love and Thunderball to be more compelling and overall, more entertaining films. In other words, Goldfinger is good, but there's better Bond films. I think a lot of Bond fans share that view, but critically speaking, it's definitely overrated.

[Aisforauric]

I think this is a thread already somewhere but I'll say it again, CASINO ROYALE is the most overrated Bond film. It takes a big man to walk though drywall.

Yeah...not to mention the studs and noggings ;-)

[Emma]

While I don't think any of the Connery films are terribly over-rated, I do feel that a lot of people tend to overrate some of his films simply because Connery is in them..

I 100% agree.

[Mr_Wint]

It's either GE, CR or SF.

As for most underrated: DAF.

[SecretAgentFan]

I agree with the underrated opinion of DAF. Such an entertaining movie!

What I really like about Goldfinger is that here Bond has one of his best adversaries. The whole film works for me because of their cat-and-mouse-game. Add to that a terrific Bond girl, a fantastic score, a scary henchman, tight direction, great cinematography...

Yes, I admit: I love GOLDFINGER.

THUNDERBALL, for me, pales in comparison - despite the ace cinematography. But Largo never really seemed so threatening to me.

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 26 November 2012 - 05:55 PM.

[Guy Haines]

...IMO has to be Goldfinger.

Bond doesn't do much except to get caught and go along for the ride. He has to be rescued by others and someone else saves the day at the end. Add to that some rather drab and boring settings and a horribly miscast Felix Leiter and Goldfinger isn't nearly as good as most of the other films in the series.

What it does have going for it are some iconic scenes ("Do you expect me to talk?" "No, I expect you to die!"), a good performance from Connery, one of the more memorable henchmen (Oddjob), the infamous Pussy Galore, and the iconic Aston Martin. And maybe you could say one of the more iconic bad guys in the series, but that's mostly due to the, "I expect you do die," line.

But overall this is an overrated movie. I really don't get the Goldfinger love that many Bond fans have. It's good, but not great. Most Bond movies are better...

That said, it is an improvement in some ways on the book. I've recently listened to the new audio version. It's full of what one reviewer called the "Fleming sweep", but when we get to the explanation of how the villains are going to get into Fort Knox and take all the gold, well as Fleming plots go it is quite incredible. The atom bomb to break down the gates. The train and truck loads of gold to be shifted. The Soviet cruiser which just happens to be on a "goodwill visit" to the US, on which all the gold will be loaded - under the nose of the US port authorities? And the playing dead by all the Fort Knox residents just so the Goldfinger and his allies can be caught in the act.

However, I still thoroughly enjoyed both the book and film. Just leave logic to one side when you read the final third.

[saint mark]

QoS as it is far more a Jason Bourne movie than a 007 movie.

[SecretAgentFan]

Who is this Jason Bourne?

[peejnyc007]

Thunderball. Try as I may, I just cannot get into this movie!

[00 Brosnan]

Goldfinger. Outside of the dreadful DAF, it's my least liked Connery film.

[Turn]

Are some of these responses clear on the meaning of overrated, it's spelled OVER in the subject line? Some seem to be blurring the lines between overrated and dislike.

[SecretAgentFan]

Well, if someone considers something overrated he/she does not seem to like it too much - or at least feels that it is too much liked by others.

[tdalton]

Well, if someone considers something overrated he/she does not seem to like it too much - or at least feels that it is too much liked by others.

Agreed.

If I liked Goldfinger, I'm not sure that I'd find it overrated. Since I dislike the film, I don't think that it deserves the rating that it gets from both the fan community and the general public, so therefore I find it to be overrated.

[Judo chop]

As a couple post above suggest, the question implies that there is a known objective rating for each film to which we should compare our opinions. The problem is that this supposed ‘objective list’ is so incalcuable, it is probably just as subject to opinion as the opinions we’re supposed to compare against it.

For example, is GOLDFINGER overrated? Well, first I have to know how it IS rated, and then I can tell you if I believe that rating to be high, low or about fair. Since the OP didn’t provide us with an objective list, I will present one. This is how I suppose the public pool (consisting of all thinking creatures, including movie critics, Bond aficionados, and (predominantly) Joe and Jill Schmos of all ages) would rank the films. Feel free to modify as you see fit.

GOLDFINGER
CASINO ROYALE
FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE
THUNDERBALL
YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE
GOLDENEYE
THE SPY WHO LOVED ME
DR NO
TOMORROW NEVER DIES
FOR YOUR EYES ONLY
DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER
OCTOPUSSY
LIVE AND LET DIE
A VIEW TO A KILL
DIE ANOTHER DAY
THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH
QUANTUM OF SOLACE
ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE
LICENSE TO KILL
THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS
MOONRAKER
THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN

Based on this best guess of popular opinion, I think the heart of the general public still dreamily flutters a bit for Pierce Brosnan, so his films are overrated, particularly TND and TWINE.

On the other side of that coin, I think the general public is unfairly down on Dalton, and so his films are slightly underrated, particularly TLD.

I think DAF and YOLT are overrated, whereas DN, FRWL, GF and TB are about fair, give or take a few slots. Yes, GOLDFINGER is overrated at #1, or even at #3, but is nowhere near as overrated as YOLT, which probably is viewed as being at least 12 notches above where I feel it belongs, which is below everything but TWINE.

I’m going to guess that LALD isn’t viewed as fondly as it once might have been for political reasons, so it is somewhat underrated.

I think TMWTGG has always been somewhat underrated.

I think MR is terribly, unforgivably underrated.

I figure since nobody knows who George Lazenby is, OHMSS is missing votes from about 80% of the population, dragging its average score down to a position well below what its fair market value should be.

But, my answer, in short, I think, is YOLT. Most overrated.

[freemo]

Great list Judo Chop, looks right to me, though I always felt LIVE AND LET DIE was a little more popular than that among the wider, wider "public pool". Is there really anyone hung up about the film for "political reasons" (the book, on the other hand...)? Can't say I've come across this.

I guess rated by whom is other questions. As rated by Mr. and Mrs. Schmo, perhaps GOLDFINGER is a touch overrated, but as rated by people in this thread, I'd say GOLDFINGER is rather underrated. The films third-quarter, which Bond spends captured, seems to be a bugbear for many (the portion of the film where Bond a) doesn't panic or lose his cool despite his situation, b.) crafty escapes from his prison cell, c) overhears Goldfinger's epic speech, d) makes an attempt to get word to the CIA through Mr. Solo but fails, and has to reassess his options, e) finesses the full details of Goldfinger's plan out from him, and f) "turns" Pussy Galore - most films would kill for a "weak" portion this good, if films were beings capable of murder that is)

GOLDENEYE has a huge following I'm still not convinced it deserves, but I'd say TWINE is the most overrated, on the basis that I once heard someone say that they "kind of liked it". Even if they're the only one, that's still overrated. FOR YOUR EYES ONLY is another one that I think people like more for it's mission statement, "to bring Bond back down to earth", than for anything it actually does.

[Safari Suit]

How overrated can GOLDFINGER be if everyone thinks it's overrated?

Was anyone surprised by the film named when they clicked on the thread?

[Iceskater101]

I agree with the underrated opinion of DAF. Such an entertaining movie!

Well I definitely disagree with this statement I mean I guess we can agree to disagree.

I get it Goldfinger is overrated, but I still enjoy watching it.

[Judo chop]

I always felt LIVE AND LET DIE was a little more popular than that among the wider, wider "public pool". Is there really anyone hung up about the film for "political reasons" (the book, on the other hand...)? Can't say I've come across this.

Agreed. I was totally making headlines for the sake of headlines. I have no evidence to support the theory. I would be comfortable pushing LALD up a few slots. Perhaps switching places with TND, which, on a second glance, may not be as generally beloved as I may have supposed?

I guess rated by whom is other questions.

Agreed. There's no point in asking "is [X] overrated" until "according to whom" is first defined.

as rated by people in this thread, I'd say GOLDFINGER is rather underrated. The films third-quarter, which Bond spends captured, seems to be a bugbear for many (the portion of the film where Bond a) doesn't panic or lose his cool despite his situation, b.) crafty escapes from his prison cell, c) overhears Goldfinger's epic speech, d) makes an attempt to get word to the CIA through Mr. Solo but fails, and has to reassess his options, e) finesses the full details of Goldfinger's plan out from him, and f) "turns" Pussy Galore - most films would kill for a "weak" portion this good, if films were beings capable of murder that is)

Agreed. My problem with GOLDFINGER's last 1/3 is entirely due to its austere setting.

GOLDENEYE has a huge following I'm still not convinced it deserves

Agreed. It deserves a little, but not as much as it gets. It's public average is severely skewed by the "It was my first Bond film!" and "FINALLY! BOND is BACK! I'LL TAKE WHATEVER YOU GIVE ME!!!" and "Oooh... he's so much more handsome than that last guy, what was his name, Jim Datsun?" high voter power demographics.

but I'd say TWINE is the most overrated, on the basis that I once heard someone say that they "kind of liked it". Even if they're the only one, that's still overrated.

Ha. Yes, I'm about ready to extradite TWINE to the "James Bond, but not really" category along with NSNA. And even in that much less competitive category, it still gets its ass handed to it.

FOR YOUR EYES ONLY is another one that I think people like more for it's mission statement, "to bring Bond back down to earth", than for anything it actually does.

Agreed. It's a film that is praised for not being MOONRAKER as often as (or more often than) it is praised for being what it is. (And all as if being MOONRAKER is a bad thing.)

[HellIsHere]

Licence to Kill... LOLOLOL Just kidding.

[Safari Suit]

FOR YOUR EYES ONLY is another one that I think people like more for it's mission statement, "to bring Bond back down to earth", than for anything it actually does.

I agree, but at the risk of seemingly needlessly provocative... I've always kind of felt that way about FRWL too. Not for its mission statement per say, but I often see it praised for the things it didn't do that many/most of the later films did, as much or more than what it actually is.

[R. Dittmar]

FOR YOUR EYES ONLY is another one that I think people like more for it's mission statement, "to bring Bond back down to earth", than for anything it actually does.

There's an interesting philosophical point here. If something is significant and important - even necessary - and yet it's not really all that good in and of itself, then is it therefore overrated? It was necessary to do FYEO just so the franchise didn't degenerate into Austin Powers-style silliness. The success of GE was critically important to the franchise continuing past that point. Viewed just as movies (or Bond movies) though, I'd have to say that FYEO isn't even my favorite Moore movie and GE just isn't very good.

Waxing philosphical in this way therefore, I'd argue that DN is the most over-rated of the bunch! Obviously it was the most important movie in the franchise just because it was the first. No Dr. No, then no Bond films. At the same time, I've just never really thought it to be all that good. They did so much better with FRWL and subsequent movies that Dr. No's really watched more out of curiosity nowadays than out of any cinematic greatness on it's part.

[Judo chop]

I agree, but at the risk of seemingly needlessly provocative... I've always kind of felt that way about FRWL too. Not for its mission statement per say, but I often see it praised for the things it didn't do that many/most of the later films did, as much or more than what it actually is.

This would be a totally different phenomenon from the FYEO example, in which a film is given praise, basically, for its location in the series, and then distance provides clarity. You are suggesting a kind of retrospective overestimation, where distance actually fogs the critical mind. I'm not sure if the theory holds water. If FRWL is today praised for not having certain excesses found in later films, it is because the excesses were bad and FRWL should be given full credit for not including them. It doesn't make sense to me to say that this is somehow empty credit.

Unless I'm not getting what you're getting at, which could very well be the case. TBH, I'm still trying to process your argument.

[Safari Suit]

I guess I just mostly subscribe to the line that films should be praised for what they are rather than what they aren't. I.E. if you want to argue FRWL is a brilliant film, an argument should hinge on what is in FRWL, rather than that FRWL isn't Moonraker or Tomorrow Never Dies or indeed Goldfinger. I have seen a fair few arguments which lean towards the later over the years.

[Judo chop]

I guess I just mostly subscribe to the line that films should be praised for what they are rather than what they aren't. I.E. if you want to argue FRWL is a brilliant film, an argument should hinge on what is in FRWL, rather than that FRWL isn't Moonraker or Tomorrow Never Dies or indeed Goldfinger. I have seen a fair few arguments which lean towards the later over the years.

Well, I can agree with that. Indeed, it seems rather obvious. From that line of argumentation, MANNEQUIN 2 deserves credit b/c it too shares very little with MOONRAKER. (If I recall.)

Probably the arguers in these cases are making their argument for the purpose of ranking the Bond films in the proper order, so going outside the Bond canon with my MANNEQUIN example isn’t appropriate/fair. To this end, it is understandably tempting to point to the badnesses in other films in order to justify the higher ranking of another.