124 replies to this topic

[Dustin]

-The golf game was in the novel, and established Bond meeting Goldfinger and Oddjob face to face. But it seems to go on forever. We’ve seen Goldfinger cheat at cards and know he’s smuggling gold. Do we need to see him cheat at golf numerous times to confirm he’s bad and Bond is clever? Bond could have just gone to the club, found the Rolls, planted the homer and waited for Goldfinger to leave to track him.

Oh, I think I have to step in there. There is an - often overlooked - element in the golf game that helps giving the film a particular twist: Bond drops the gold bar on the lawn, with the Nazi eagle and swastika shining brightly, and mentions a Nazi hoard at the bottom of the Toplitz lake. This serves two causes at once, adding a mysterious and creepy Nazi element popular at the time - the headlines time and again mentioned speculations about secret Nazi hideaways with loot and treasures in the region of the 'Alpine Fortress'. And it actually provides Bond with a cover he didn't really bother with in the novel, that of a young shady and not-entirely-honest adventurer looking for a deal with Goldfinger.

-Tilly Masterson’s presence did nothing for the story. In the novel she and Bond were captured together and figured later in the story after it was established she was seeking revenge for Jill. Here, Bond shows poor judgment by pursuing her in the first place for no other reason than he fancies her, and could have potentially killed her in the process. It sort of serves just to show one of the Aston Martin’s cool gadgets. Besides that, how did she know where in Switzerland Goldfinger would be? Did she also plant a homer? Bond could have gotten himself captured while spying on Auric Enterprises, it was just more convenient to have her be the cause. Also add in he basically allows her to run, which leads to her death.

Masterson's raison d'être is primarily to throw the audience off-balance. She gives the impression of a potentially useful ally, sharing a similar goal with Bond. She's dedicated enough to try and get at Goldfinger twice, and on top of it she's enjoying herself during the chase sequence. Seeing the film for the first time it's easy enough to identify with her - not a 'professional' herself, yet stranded by fate in Bond's world - and root for the girl. Her sudden death - right from the middle of an almost comical chase sequence that had audiences cheering with every switch Bond touched in the Aston - set the whole film back to square one, with audiences unsure how this was going to turn out. In later films the trick lost some of it's impact - and of course we know exactly how it will end by now - but it still works if used with the necessary finesse as SKYFALL proves.

Edited by Dustin, 16 December 2012 - 10:00 PM.

[Turn]

Interesting thoughts, Dustin. I would much rather look at different takes on scenes as it adds to stimulating conversation. I just thought I'd challenge Glidrose's points with similar examples since he chose to take that direction.

 

In the golf scene, for example., I like when he just casually tosses the bar on the ground and how it breaks Goldfinger's concentration. Pure Bond. And I've always enjoyed when Bond toys with a villain just to annoy him.

[glidrose]

 

 

 

Where do I begin? The gypsy camp sequence. Doesn't add to the plot one iota. Eliminate everything from Kerim's office getting bombed until Bond finds Tatiana in his suite and the story loses nothing. Except padding.

The gypsy camp serves in that it brings up the play-one-adversary-against-the-other theme of Spectre in that Grant actually guards Bond. And it helps in having a - tame - girl-wrestling scene and some 'exotic' gypsy backdrop courtesy of Pinewood studio. I'd argue that's at least responsible for a quarter of the film's allure.

 

 

Fair enough... but it's still padding. Bond doesn't advance the action. And it is a good chunk of the film.

 

If you want to go by that type of criteria, I can find similar examples in Goldfinger.

 

-The entire precredits sequence has nothing to do with the plot, other than to get Bond conveniently to Miami. M could’ve easily just sent him there no matter where Bond was at the time.

 

-The golf game was in the novel, and established Bond meeting Goldfinger and Oddjob face to face. But it seems to go on forever. We’ve seen Goldfinger cheat at cards and know he’s smuggling gold. Do we need to see him cheat at golf numerous times to confirm he’s bad and Bond is clever?  Bond could have just gone to the club, found the Rolls, planted the homer and waited for Goldfinger to leave to track him.  

 

-Tilly Masterson’s presence did nothing for the story. In the novel she and Bond were captured together and figured later in the story after it was established she was seeking revenge for Jill. Here, Bond shows poor judgment by pursuing her in the first place for no other reason than he fancies her, and could have potentially killed her in the process. It sort of serves just to show one of the Aston Martin’s cool gadgets. Besides that, how did she know where in Switzerland Goldfinger would be? Did she also plant a homer? Bond could have gotten himself captured while spying on Auric Enterprises, it was just more convenient to have her be the cause. Also add in he basically allows her to run, which leads to her death.

 

-Many fans have pointed to the hoods convention as a story flaw. Goldfinger could easily have just called Bond to the room to brag about his plot and show off his cool gadgets. I always thought it was stupid of Goldfinger to murder these leading crime bosses and think there would be no retribution, even if his plot had succeeded.

 

-The flying circus sequence where they spray the gas also seems padded. They could easily have just shown the planes take off and begin spraying then cut to motionless troops, rather than the many awkward and poorly timed shots of the soldiers falling.

 

I like Goldfinger, but feel it too often gets more of a free pass based more on its iconic status. FRWL has a Cold War feel, more exotic locations and much more tension and suspense.

 

 

And none of your examples compares to my example. The pre-credit sequence is just that: a pre-credit sequence. The plot hasn't begun yet so we don't need it to connect to the plot. Beside Craig Arthur wrote a brilliant piece explaining how thematically it relates to the rest of the film, in particular the film's ending.

 

The golf game does not go on forever. It takes little time. Bond's job is to keep tabs on Goldfinger which he does. And its one thing to cheat at cards, how's he going to cheat at golf? And since Goldfinger is the chief villain, it doesn't hurt to put him onscreen as much as possible. In the world of movie logic you're complaining too much about nothing. As for those gypsies and Bulgars in FRWL were they the main villain? Nope.

 

Tilly doesn't move the story forward but she doesn't impede it either. The sequence shows two things: Bond has human feelings, Oddjob doesn't. Again, it gives Oddjob a chance to show off his thing. Other than Red Grant keeping Bond alive the bomb/gypsy/Krilencu sequence does none of this.

 

Yeah okay, Goldfinger killing off the crime bosses is dumb and a major plot hole. So is Bond taking the Orient express which screams safety hazard.

 

The flying circus sequence has much horrible second-unit work. But it doesn't tie up half an hour of footage. Less than a minute of footage I think. A minute isn't really padding. Twenty minutes of digressions bloody well is.

 

Can't agree with you about FRWL's exotic locations. So much of this film looks dowdy. And as for tension, what tension? The Fort Knox sequence has more tension than anything to be found in the meandering FRWL.

Edited by glidrose, 18 December 2012 - 09:28 PM.

[The Shark]

The Fort Knox sequence has more tension than anything to be found in the meandering FRWL.

 

Grant holding Bond at gunpoint wipes the floor with that.

[Matt_13]

I totally disagree that Goldfinger is overrated. But then again, the Bond film that is going to be discussed as overrated is naturally going to be the one that is considered by most people the best one to start out with (does anyone call AVTAK overrated?).

Goldfinger was only the 3^rd film in the series and yet it invented all the clichés. It was the first Bond film to have so many elements that would be utilized in the films preceding it:

First movie to have an opening teaser action sequence that works on it’s own.
First movie to have the gimmicked up car.
First movie to have the big, mad super villain.
First movie to have the indestructible henchman (Oddjob).
First movie to have the bomb ticking countdown.
First movie to have the big climactic shootout.
First movie to have a female lead to stand up to Bond.
First movie to have a sense of humor.
First movie to have the big glamorous Ken Adam sets.

Goldfinger perfected this formula and every Bond film has more or less repeated it only bigger. This is why people who have seen the films out of order don’t see how original it was. It’s like watching the Rocky sequels before the original Rocky.

 

I was going to write "Goldfinger" as my pick until I read this. Very good post. In retrospect, I feel as though I've been a bit harsh on it in recent years. While I do maintain that it does feel a bit sluggish at times, the sense that I'm watching a groundbreaking piece of blockbuster entertainment never really flees my mind. It is a monumental work that set a new precedent for heightened reality in the spy genre, and practically set into stone the winning formula that has enabled the franchise to last 50 years. I will always have my qualms about Goldfinger as a film, but without it, I do not believe we'd still be talking about Bond today.

 

This is an interesting question, and one, upon further thought, that I'm surprised has garnered so many responses. Is it possible for anyone to declare a Bond film to be "overrated?" I realize that the bar for such a gauging is dependent on individual tastes, but really, there are now 23 films that have come out over the last 50 years. We have our favorites and our least favorites, and the films that we can't believe others enjoy or don't enjoy, but is there really any entry whose success we can bemoan? Take Goldeneye, for example, the next film I was going to lay down as "overrated." Here is a film that proved, at least in 1995, that the James Bond character was still relevant in a post-Cold War world. The same goes for Casino Royale and the terror state. Sure, in the case of Goldeneye, it hasn't aged particularly well as far as I'm concerned, and Casino Royale is still too new to appreciate how it has aged, but does that matter to the millions of others who see these films and think "This is what James Bond is supposed to be?" Is that what all of this comes down to anyway, what variation of the formula we like best? The fact that we've managed to enjoy 23 of these adventures with only the occasional hiccup is extraordinary, and when it comes right down to it, without one of them, we never would have been able to see any of the rest. Yes, complacency has plagued the franchise from time to time, with popular perception molding the take on the formula the filmmakers decide on for better or worse (the entire Pierce Brosnan series for worse, as far as I'm concerned, while the Daniel Craig era has made intriguing twists to many of the old cliches), but catering to a fan base that has had 50 years to form an opinion on such matters is no small task. The fact that ALL of these movies have their redeeming qualities and that they have each enjoyed a certain degree of success speaks volumes about the durability of the formula, the character, and the skill of those producing these pictures. Therefore, I argue that there can be no such thing as an "overrated" Bond movie, as we can't have one film without the other, and while I respect personal preference and ripping apart one film while hailing another, when you say that any film has enjoyed an undeserved level of praise, you miss the point of the enduring legend. IMO.