SirHenryLeeChaChing's For Original Fans - Favorite Moments In NTTD (spoilers)

12829313334224

Comments

  • edited May 2013 Posts: 3,494
    Nice review @BeatlesSansEarmuffs, FRWL is still my favourite Bond - for the reasons you mention. I think the piece of music you are referring to is just called '007' , though as you say I'm sure @SirHenry will say what it is.
    This has to be my most watched Bond film and I hope that every new Bond will live up to it - the closest has to be OHMSS, and because of the way films are made these days I don't think we'll ever have anything quite as good again. For shame.
    Looking forward to Goldfinger…

    @BeatlesSansEarmuffs- regarding your musical question, and props to Lancaster for getting most of the answer, it's a variation of the 007 theme called "007 Takes The Lektor" playing both during the Lektor heist and gypsy camp battle. "007" would go on to be known as the "unofficial" Bond theme and be heard during Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, Diamonds Are Forever, and for the last time in Moonraker. On an interesting side note, when I was a kid I remembered the local NBC affiliate in Philly used to open their newscasts with the 007 theme, and later on I've read that other Group W (Westinghouse) stations in Boston, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and San Francisco also used the theme for their newscasts. Does anyone else here remember this little known piece of trivia?

    As to your thought that the Monro version not being used during the main titles was a mistake, I'd disagree and here's why. I feel the instrumental version is more lively and for me it fits the energetic belly dancing much better than the slower, lusher Monro version which goes nicely with the romantic ending of Bond and Tania floating away down a Venice canal. I feel pretty sure the producers had the same idea. I also have to add that the instrumental also includes the Bond theme, multiple dramatic gong strikes, and the famous staccato notes that also open the theme (interestingly and pleasantly reprised during the TND PTS acknowledging the Russian border location) psych me up every time. It really screams "Bond" to me much more and has an intensity the Monro version simply lacks. Now I realize that I coined the "lounge lizard" sentiment but that's not to say that I loathe the song- it just feels very dated and lacks the pizazz of Barry's later themes starting in 1964. To me, the much bigger mistake was made in TND by pushing a hot artist's generally blase and very Beatleish orchestrated effort over the vastly superior Lang effort penned by Arnold.

    I also noticed the debate over who is the chief FRWL baddie raising it's head yet again. Obviously SPECTRE #1 a.k.a Blofeld is the decision maker, but the field general is undoubtedly Klebb. Some like to think Grant is the chief adversary, but he reports to Klebb "have him report to me in Istanbul" and everything he does is at her behest. I wish I knew where people came up with these ideas. The only thing Grant controls is how he decides to execute Bond, the rest is planned according to Kronsteen.

    I don't see this film as the series' best as others do, but I wouldn't argue with the view. It was my Dad's and my late wife's favorite but I feel the series progressed into other moments and movies where Connery himself was even better than he was here, no small feat. FRWL ranks #4 for me and is undeniably a classic not just in the series, but the train and gypsy fights are indelibly etched in Hollywood legend and ahead of their time.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    I only take exception to the term "Beatleish" in your above comments. ;)
    Otherwise, I quite agree.

    Although I also feel Grant for me is the main villain. Probably because he has a slightly stronger role than Klebb. I was not basing "main villain" on who was controlling the action, but rather more on screen time along with impact on the overall enjoyment of the film. Both Klebb and Grant are sadistic and memorable. Yes, SPECTRE/Blofeld was the hidden director.
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 3,494
    @4Ever- in the main verse of Crow's effort, the strings remind me of the "Eleanor Rigby" orchestration hence my "Beatleish" quip. Any other comparison of that song or Crow in general to the Fab 4 and their magnificent catalog ends there, I assure you.

    We'll have to agree to disagree regarding Klebb versus Grant. I thought Klebb was creepier and more loathsome, in short more effective. Shaw was a fantastic actor in his own right, but Klebb's characterization just goes way deeper than a psychotic hit man.

  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Klebb is more creepy and psychotic, yes.
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 4,622
    Klebb is a creep-fest. She's even creepier in the Fleming novel I think, especially that scene where she puts on a little dress and poses for Tania, trying to be sexy, causing poor Tania to run screaming from the room. Fleming could not get enough of describing how hideous she was. He goes on for almost two pages. :))
    I think another reason that FRWL opens with an instrumental theme is that the Bond series was still quite nascent. They hadn't yet discovered the power of an opening vocal track, but that would sure change with the next film.
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 3,494
    Updated ratings from the originals after 23 films, as of 6:00PM U.S EST-


    1. Casino Royale- 4.33
    2. From Russia With Love- 4.26
    3. Goldfinger- 4.23
    4. Skyfall (4/7 reviews)- 4.15
    5. The Living Daylights- 4.12
    6. Thunderball- 4.10
    7. Licence To Kill- 4.06
    8. The Spy Who Loved Me- 4.05
    9. On Her Majesty's Secret Service- 4.00
    10. You Only Live Twice- 3.92
    11. For Your Eyes Only- 3.90
    12. Live And Let Die- 3.83
    13. GoldenEye- 3.75
    14. Octopussy- 3.73
    15. Tomorrow Never Dies- 3.63
    16. Dr. No- 3.57
    17. Quantum Of Solace- 3.42
    18. A View To A Kill- 3.28
    19. The World Is Not Enough- 3.17
    20. The Man With The Golden Gun- 3.13
    21. Diamonds Are Forever- 3.02
    22. Moonraker- 2.97
    23. Die Another Day- 2.70


    Below is the updated list of missing reviews-

    SKYFALL- No votes from OHMSS and NicNac

    Since 4Ever's wonderful review of Skyfall came in this week, all 23 official films are on the board. It's been quite the journey and most gratifying to see many of my favorites in the top 10, but we have more reviews to come that will affect the order of placement. @BeatlesSansEarmuffs has reviewed FRWL and again stimulated some good conversation while launching the film past Goldfinger and into the #2 position for the moment.

    Have a great weekend everyone!
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited May 2013 Posts: 17,700
    Trying to be objective here: DN is a little low, isn't it? Just for pure out-of-nowhere creativity, Young's film direction, Adam's art direction & Connery's performance I'd think it'd be a little higher up... :-?
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Oh this rating score won't fit our personal ratings, certainly not mine, because we are using the categories - but it is interesting how this collective rating adds up. For example, I had to rate License to Kill high in sadism, and that affected the score to make it higher, but I really do not like the film.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,352
    I agree, it sticks out like a saw thumb. Far too low. Apart from that, it's a very good listing.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    I like Dr. No a lot personally.
  • Posts: 5,634
    Worth asking, how can Skyfall be for 'original fans' or even some of the most previous Bond releases before that ?

    When this thread was first started, it was supposed to cover only the Connery years up until 1971, but then just continued with each subsequent release, and now up to the present day ? Not sure what occured to this at some point in time
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,700
    Samuel001 wrote:
    I agree, it sticks out like a saw thumb.
    As in, cut off? b-(
    I like Dr. No a lot personally.
    I see it as the most Fleming Bond ever made, actually. The amount of the fantastic mixed with the era (well, pretty darn close) that it was written in... Ken Adam art direction (SO sadly missing in from FRWL), and before the silly began to take hold.
  • @Baltimore- This thread was ALWAYS about reviewing ALL the official films, and yet to cater to and give a home to original fans and their views. Connery and the brief interlude with Lazenby were the Bond we first saw. I never intended to imply otherwise and don't feel I did, what do you say fellow originals, did you ever get that impression?
    Oh this rating score won't fit our personal ratings, certainly not mine, because we are using the categories - but it is interesting how this collective rating adds up. For example, I had to rate License to Kill high in sadism, and that affected the score to make it higher, but I really do not like the film.

    This is correct. We all have our own specific views on the films just like everyone else, so it is interesting to come up with a collective thought based on certain criteria that forces us to look at everything a particular film does and doesn't do well. That said, I commented many times and especially in the last 10 days that it is beyond my personal view that Dr. No is not a top ten film. But when you look at the collective scores it is what it is. It is very much Fleming as Chris notes, but it suffers in comparison to the films 1963-1967 during which the phenomenon began to really grow and then explode. Music, gadgets, multiple exotic locations, etc are missing and later entries would see the advent of those things plus increasing budgets that let them happen, which would drive their scores higher. I love TSWLM and YOLT, but I wouldn't have them in my top ten. Some of us would. And thus far, 4 out of 6 of us love LTK and that has a lot to do with why it sits at #7, I have it at #3 but that's how it is.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,700
    Connery and the brief interlude with Lazenby were the Bond we first saw. I never intended to imply otherwise and don't feel I did, what do you say fellow originals, did you ever get that impression?

    No, it was always clearly about impressions from those who were there for the most original movies in the theatre. And our reactions from the following films. :)>-
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,066
    chrisisall wrote:
    Connery and the brief interlude with Lazenby were the Bond we first saw. I never intended to imply otherwise and don't feel I did, what do you say fellow originals, did you ever get that impression?

    No, it was always clearly about impressions from those who were there for the most original movies in the theatre. And our reactions from the following films. :)>-

    Obviously not beeing an original myself, but this is exactly why this thread is so interesting. If you have the Connery years as your first experience, you're bound to have a different view then those who, i.e. saw Bond for the first time on the silver screen in GE (me! me! ;-) )

    (must say though I find the list very close to what I'd come up with)
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 3,494
    chrisisall wrote:
    Connery and the brief interlude with Lazenby were the Bond we first saw. I never intended to imply otherwise and don't feel I did, what do you say fellow originals, did you ever get that impression?

    No, it was always clearly about impressions from those who were there for the most original movies in the theatre. And our reactions from the following films. :)>-

    Obviously not being an original myself, but this is exactly why this thread is so interesting. If you have the Connery years as your first experience, you're bound to have a different view then those who, i.e. saw Bond for the first time on the silver screen in GE (me! me! ;-) )

    (must say though I find the list very close to what I'd come up with)

    That's because you are a very intelligent man full of good taste :)

    And you've hit the proverbial nail head regarding Connery. We've never had the experience you describe, our ideal was Connery before anyone else. We've had to adjust with the times and of course comparisons to Connery are inevitable. Other than the period between 1968-1970 when I had to wait for the films 1962-1964 and YOLT to come back for a theatrical run, I didn't know another Bond and Lazenby back then pretty much didn't count for much of anything as I think everyone here would understand having lived during that period. I absolutely love it when any new fan realizes how great all the Connery classics of 1962-1965 truly were, and I also appreciate that YOLT has gotten some love as well.

    Looking again at the list, I'm mostly very pleased with what I've read from my fellow originals and how the ratings have shaped up, Dr. No of course being the lone placement which I'd disagree with. 4 of my personal top 5 are in our collective top 5, and LTK has at least mostly gotten enough respect to earn it a guaranteed top 10 placement. I'd have DN and FYEO in the top 10 overall and TSWLM and YOLT out, but to see 8 of my top 10 in the top 10 is a beautiful thing and shows that we're mostly on the same page in this exercise :)



  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,066
    Well thank you @SirHenry. I don't try to make lists like that anymore as I change my mind according to the mood I'm in. AVTAK though I rate higher, but that's just my guilty pleasure. I don't know why I like that film so much. And indeed Dr. No should be higher, and the one film that for me is still nr. 1 is Thunderball. But all in all I find it a very respectible, and may I say so, quality-ordered list. Can't wait for the next reviews though, especially as @BeatlesSans I hope will guide us through the summer months ;-)
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 3,564
    GOLDFINGER

    This is probably the most praised of all the Bond films…and for some people, it’s hard to see how any film could live up to the amount of acclaim this one has received. “Iconic” is perhaps the single adjective most used to describe Goldfinger, and “set the standard” or “established the template” among the most utilized phrases. Let me try a new one phrase, then: this film represented a paradigm shift in movie making. Before Goldfinger, “spectacle” in the movie industry was defined by Cleopatra -- essentially, an expensive, highly-promoted flop -- or Lawrence of Arabia, a critically-praised, Academy Award winning stand-alone film. After Goldfinger, “spectacle” was defined by the latest entry in the Bond series, and people were lining up around the block to see one film after another. The Bond phenomenon went unmatched in the cinematic world for at least a decade, until Star Wars again redefined the popular notion of what a special-effects film series could be.

    BOND 5/5 Connery has settled comfortably into the role by now, and totally made it his own. His performance seems almost effortless (except when he’s battling an inhuman Korean or strapped to a table awaiting the unwelcome arrival of a laser beam.) Equally adept at a bon mot or a brawl, Connery’s charm, suavity, and physicality defined the character of James Bond completely; his seduction of individual women or entire audiences of theatre patrons is never more complete than in this offering.

    WOMEN 5/5 Honor Blackman had already achieved a measure of fame in England with her portrayal of Cathy Gale in BBC TV’s The Avengers. Now she leapt to world-wide stardom as the improbably-named Pussy Galore. Astonishingly, Miss Galore may not even be the most memorable woman in this film! That “honor” probably goes to Shirley Eaton as Jill Masterson, the famous “golden girl” referred to in the film’s hit theme song. With Tania Mallet as Jill’s equally ill-fated sister Tilly, and the reappearance in this series of Nadia Regin (so memorable in FRWL as Kerim Bey‘s mistress, here she portrays Bonita the dancer with an aggressive carnality that fairly leaps from the screen) -- the film proper serves up a nearly endless array of beguiling females beginning with Margaret Nolan as Dink, and culminating with the mesmerizing members of Pussy Galore’s Flying Circus. I only wish I could award this category a 10/5! Since I can’t, those who are too young to have seen these films in their original releases are asked to please consider this: prior to the release of Goldfinger, proper roles for women in the workplace consisted largely of positions such as secretaries, school teachers, librarians, clerks, and nurses. In the main, women were not considered appropriate candidates for the position of doctor, lawyer, police officer…or pilot. At home, women were expected to be mothers, sisters, girlfriends …or invisible. In the world of sports, women were confined to competing in tennis and golf. They were certainly not expected to be proficient in judo! And after the release of Goldfinger? Well, a few short years after the studio seriously considered renaming Pussy Galore as Kitty, the San Francisco Bay Area had a late-night DJ on an FM radio station who went by the nom-de-air of Magnolia Thunderpussy. I seriously doubt Miss Thunderpussy could have existed without Honor Blackman’s trailblazing work in Goldfinger!

    VILLAINS 5/5 If you were to ask the average (non-fan) moviegoer to name a Bond villain, the response would almost certainly NOT be Blofeld, Le Chifre or Silva. It might be Dr. No…but in all probability, our average “civilian” would respond: “Goldfinger.” Gert Frobe embodies the gold-obsessed madman perfectly; switching from calm and charming to manic and ferocious in a heartbeat. His plan (and therefore our movie’s plot) evolves quite naturally from his character. He loves gold; he wants to possess as much of it as he can…and that which he cannot possess he must destroy! Harold Sakata as Oddjob embodies another staple element of the true classic Bond film: the menacing, almost supernatural henchman. Sakata’s casting in this supposedly secondary role is just one more touch that elevates this movie from a rating of merely “Great” to, yes, “Iconic.”

    HUMOR 5/5 “An ejector seat? You must be joking!” “I NEVER joke about my work, 007!” This movie is filled with humor that never breaks the mood, but only enhances it. More Bond films (or perhaps that should be Moore Bond films) should take Goldfinger’s approach as a model. I suppose at this point I should address the off-hand witticism Bond utters while going to the refrigerator for a properly-chilled bottle of champagne, from which I have of course taken my name for use on this site. When I first heard the line, “like listening to the Beatles without earmuffs,” I wondered if there was some sort of feud going on between the folk behind the Bond movies and the Beatles. Was I going to be expected to takes sides in some fashion? Of course not -- nothing could be further from the truth! Bond and the Beatles were the two biggest things going in the entertainment world at that point in time, and both of them being British, it was nothing more than a good-natured joke between pals. John Lennon was once quoted as saying that their first movie, A Hard Day’s Night was “not as good as James Bond,” and their second movie, Help! has snippets of the James Bond theme sprinkled liberally throughout the soundtrack. With Paul McCartney eventually being tapped to supply the theme song for Live And Let Die, I think it’s safe to say that these two powerhouses of popularity had nothing but respect and fond regards for one another.

    ACTION 4/5 Some reviewers feel that Goldfinger doesn’t have enough “happening” until late in the film. I think that this viewpoint takes an inaccurate definition of the term “action” to shape their evaluations. The word does not necessarily mean “How violent is this movie?” but rather, “What HAPPENS in this movie? Is it exciting? Does it hold your interest?” By the first definition, oh, Goldfinger is interminable. Not much happens at all for the first third of the movie. This definition is incorrect. Bond discovers Goldfinger cheating at cards in a Miami Beach hotel, investigates, and finds his beautiful accomplice, Jill Masterson. He humiliates Goldfinger by forcing him to lose a significant sum of money at the rigged card game, then bedding his lovely assistant. Oddjob exacts Goldfinger’s revenge by killing Jill, painting her entire body gold in the process. Bond is assigned to investigate Goldfinger‘s operations, as he is suspected of smuggling vast amounts of gold out of his factory in England. He receives a specially-equipped Aston Martin to aid in his mission, then engages Goldfinger in the most suspenseful golf game ever filmed, with a bar of gold from a Nazi hoard as the prize. He beats Goldfinger at the golf game -- and is formally introduced to Oddjob, whose deadly bowler hat is capable of decapitating a marble statue. He then trails Goldfinger to Geneva…only to be shot at by a beautiful, mysterious girl. Bond then engages her in a thrilling car chase, utilizing a few of the sensational gadgets in his fabulous Aston Martin. It sounds to me as if quite a bit has been happening in this movie -- and yet some critics claim to find it boring! Takes all kinds, I guess…me, I’m not bored in the slightest, and I pity anyone who is! By the end of the movie, though, I defy even the most jaded soul not to be shaken AND stirred! Bond’s fight with Oddjob in the gold vault, while the bomb is ticking down to its’ inevitable disarming just at the count of 007, is one of the most exciting scenes in all of cinema! Finally, Goldfinger’s death by decompression, set up by Bond’s science lecture to Pussy earlier in the movie, is a satisfying demise for one of the series’ most memorable villains.

    SADISM 5/5 As with my review of FRWL, I’m going to have to expand on the definition of “sadism” here in order to discuss some of the things I find notable about this movie, especially for the time. Sure, there is plenty of cruelty to be found in Goldfinger…we have Jill’s death by golden asphyxiation, plus Tilly’s death by flying bowler…Bond is bound to a table with a laser aimed at his most sensitive equipment, and the interestingly-named Mr. Solo (maybe somebody should name a good guy after this fellow!) has “a pressing engagement” while all Goldfinger really cares about is retrieving his gold. Goldfinger’s master plan will involve killing some 60,000 people (not to mention throwing the western world into economic chaos) but hey! Let’s get down to the important stuff here: Pussy Galore’s Flying Circus! Once again, the subject of lesbianism is fairly subtly glossed over… Pussy declares herself “immune” to Bond’s charm, and she freezes Goldfinger’s sly attempt at petting the Pussy with nothing more than a glance. But her Flying Circus, a squadron of gorgeous blonde aviatrixes clad in form-fitting black uniforms with white trim and boots, pretty much gives the show away. By releasing a deadly nerve gas over Fort Knox, the squadron serves a vital part of Goldfinger’s plot, and supplies an even-more potent serving of Kink to these proceedings. “The Baby is Asleep,” one member of the Circus announces via the radio. It is a code-phrase, both to Goldfinger and to the audience: “Your expectations of femininity are no longer safe. Women can be dangerous. We are not just your mothers anymore. We can also be your killers.” Luckily, James Bond is on hand to save the day: after going a few falls in the hay with Pussy Galore, she too proves susceptible to his charms…but she looks awfully hot tossing him around for a few minutes there!

    MUSIC 5/5 Shirley Bassey’s rendition of the titular theme song supplies the final element needed in the Bond formula…but the score throughout the film has definitely stepped up their game by several notches. From the entrance to Miami, to the variations on the Goldfinger theme throughtout the film…from the wolf-whistle on the horns at the introduction of the girls in Pussy’s Flying Circus, to the military strains in the raid on Fort Knox…John Barry’s score is first-class throughout this offering.

    LOCATIONS 3.5/5 As an American, I found nothing special in the Miami or Kentucky locations. The roads outside Geneva were pretty enough, but nothing terribly spectacular. Ken Adams’ sets at Goldinger’s foundry in England, his hideout in Kentucky, and the gold vault at Fort Knox were quite impressive…but he has even better waiting on hand for future offerings. Locations are not this film’s strong suit; they are serviceable but not too much more.

    GADGETS 5/5 The Aston Martin DB-5 is probably Bond’s most famous vehicle overall, and this film uses it quite well. I only wonder how Q retrieves it from Goldfinger’s factory when Bond finally crashes it there; as the DB-5 will appear again in Thunderball! Goldfinger’s laser also serves double duty, both to threaten Bond’s manhood and in opening the doors to Fort Knox. Sadly, his famous briefcase is only referred to in passing: “Black attache case damaged when examined. So sorry!” Once all is said and done, though, this is a very good film for gadgets!

    SUPPORTING CAST 4.5/5 Desmond Llewellyn, fairly bland in FRWL, returns here as Q -- and nails the portrayal once and for all, after being given the line referenced above, concerning “joking about his work.” At this point, our returning supporting cast is fully established, each of them doing a dependably splendid job. Cec Linder brings the bland in Desmond’s stead, however, setting a status quo for Felix Leiters that is only occasionally surpassed by a constantly rotating group of nondescript nonentities. One wonders at the casting philosophy at work in the continued re-casting of this one character. Did Eon think that a stronger Felix would detract from their powerful leading man? Scant chance there -- not for a few more entries, at any rate…

    OVERALL SCORE AND RECOLLECTIONS 47/50 Perhaps fifteen years ago, a friend of mine developed a sudden yen to watch a James Bond movie…and she gave me a call. Did I happen to have a copy of Goldfinger on hand that she could borrow? At that time, the VHS tape was the leading medium of choice for watching prerecorded movies...and yes, I did indeed have a copy available. At the same time, I pressed upon her a copy of From Russia With Love as well, informing her that many Bond aficionados actually preferred that film to Goldfinger. She took them both…and upon returning them a week or so later, acknowledged that while she actually found FRWL a stronger story, she had preferred watching Goldfinger. It just pushed all the buttons. In short, it was the Bond film she had wanted to watch, and the one that she most enjoyed.

    And so it is: other Bond films may be preferred by each of us for our varied reasons, but to the world at large, Goldfinger IS Bond Film #1. There’s no arguing over matters of taste…and the film-going public has definitely developed a taste for Goldfinger!

    Beatles San Earmuffs will Return (in a few weeks) to review: Thunderball!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I think today's viewing public wouldn't react the same way to Goldfinger as those from the 60s would. I have a feeling Casino Royale would be more impressive to them and take GF out of that top spot, if they have even heard of the film. You would obviously have the hipsters who have no idea what Goldfinger is about at large besides a golden girl, sharp hat or laser table, but since everyone else finds it iconic for these reasons and that, they will also agree. I still think Royale would be the most popular amongst the movie-viewers of today.
  • I think there might be enough new viewers who prefer Skyfall over Casino Royale to split the vote. Older viewers are largely united in their preference for Goldfinger. Still, there's no getting total agreement on much of anything, is there?
  • Casino Royale wouldn't exist without Goldfinger on multiple levels, so I think Goldfinger gets the nod anyway.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Fantastic review, @BeatlesSansEarmuffs! Thanks for all the details and nuances. You captured many things perfectly. It IS the first truly iconic Bond film in many ways.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Casino Royale wouldn't exist without Goldfinger on multiple levels, so I think Goldfinger gets the nod anyway.

    I'd say that credit goes to Dr. No, but in my eyes it still stands that Casino Royale is a largely superior Bond film to Goldfinger.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,066
    I think there might be enough new viewers who prefer Skyfall over Casino Royale to split the vote. Older viewers are largely united in their preference for Goldfinger. Still, there's no getting total agreement on much of anything, is there?
    Personally GF is not my favorite, TB still is. But I'll have to admit that GF was the first 'full' Bond and as such became iconic. However much I might want it not to be ( I find GF a bit bland and with too many senseless errors) I know most people find it the essential Bond. Also, indeed, I can imagine GF must have been something when seen first on the silver screen with nothing to compare. Thanks again for your fantastic review! You sure know how to tell a story!
  • Thanks for the kind words, @4EverBonded and @CommanderRoss. I was actually a bit intimidated by the notion of even REVIEWING Goldfinger -- and then by the need to find something new to say about a film that's been dissected endlessly over the decades! I'm glad you've enjoyed my efforts...TB is up next!
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 3,494
    @ Beatles- as Goldfinger remains my personal favorite since I witnessed it in 1970 on yet another theatrical run, I couldn't agree more with your overall assessment. Much as I adore Dr. No, TB, YOLT, and OHMSS, the only film of the classic 60's era that I feel could be better than the icon is FRWL. And many do and it's real close, I just don't happen to be one of them. Goldfinger did something the first two films didn't, establish the "superspy" with the grandiose adventure led by the first genuine, larger than life "megavillain" that Blofeld had not yet become. Those who aren't fans of this film and go out of their way to disrespect it in favor of more action based entries simply don't see the pure spectacle you and the good Commander mention, but then they grew up in a different time and can't understand these concepts and how radically fresh this type of adventure was. The pacing here is up a notch from what Terence Young's notion of action was, different director and all, but the action quotient compared to the plot and subplots remains the same. There was a much bigger emphasis on telling a story back then as opposed to covering the weaknesses of a simple script with loads of explosions and fisticuffs, and while the story of GF isn't as complex or necessarily as tense as the likes of FRWL, it is different in a way that movie audiences never expected nor experienced and should always be lauded highly for that alone.

    On a side note to this, last summer there was a college film festival in Bethlehem (about an hour away) featuring a different Bond on the big screen each week. As it was a hour's drive and all the showings were generally on Mondays or Tuesdays, GF was on a Sunday and I was able to make that one. I was told by someone there in the know that the house for GF was the biggest one and I noticed a healthy representation of all ages. My son was not the youngest nor was I the oldest, and everyone there laughed at the funny parts and all seemed to be having a great time.

    Magnolia Thunderpussy? That person I'd never heard of, and it's an awesome name showing a great sense of humor. I assume she was a pretty funny personality.
    Casino Royale wouldn't exist without Goldfinger on multiple levels, so I think Goldfinger gets the nod anyway.

    I'd say that credit goes to Dr. No, but in my eyes it still stands that Casino Royale is a largely superior Bond film to Goldfinger.

    An honest review of DN and FRWL shows how the groundwork for GF was laid, but again GF to me exceeded both in taking Bond to superspy. GF laid the groundwork for both YOLT and DAF as well as the Moore era in many visible ways regarding the unflappable qualities as well as the gadgets and even a bit more of the globe hopping. Your second remark regarding CR would be typical of the occasional divide between the original generation and the newest one. Now, while it's fair to say that CR has captured the hearts of many representing both spectrums and those in between, mine included, I see it as a different film than GF and don't see a whole lot of similarities where a fair comparison can be made. Yes, it's a genuine Fleming story that mostly is true to the novel, but I can see the point of those who look at a Bond with very rough edges, no Q or Moneypenny, and feel that it doesn't feel like a classic film at times. CR established itself as a classic in different ways than the norm. Aside from the whole "getting Bond back into shape" angle, I find Skyfall more comparable to the classics than either CR or QOS, many of the character traits established during the classic era are much more present.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    @BeatlesSansEarmuffs, another excellent review. Although GF is not my favourite Bond (that's FRWL), it was the first Bond I saw and as such has a special place in my heart. I too just can't understand the opinion that nothing happens in the first two thirds, it seems some people don't put much store in things like plot development and story, I much prefer this to a bunch of action sequences joined by some weak plotting! Goldfinger is iconic - there is no other word for it. Connery is so into the character that he almost doesn't have to act, just like putting on a well-fitting tuxedo. Class.
    I can't wait for your Thunderball review.
  • Thanks, @Lancaster007. After watching a few "modern" action movies over the last couple of days, I have come to the conclusion that much of today's audience is simply over-saturated with explosions and carnage...and little details like mood and plot just aren't all that appreciated anymore in some circles! Not so here, of course, and thank you one and all for that welcome circumstance...
  • DB5DB5
    Posts: 408
    It's the MTV generation. There constantly has to be something going on, or they get bored and change the channel. In our day in order to do this you had to get off the sofa, walk five or six feet, and turn a knob. And in most places there were only three channels. So you learned to be patient regarding story lines.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    DB5 wrote:
    It's the MTV generation. There constantly has to be something going on, or they get bored and change the channel. In our day in order to do this you had to get off the sofa, walk five or six feet, and turn a knob. And in most places there were only three channels. So you learned to be patient regarding story lines.
    We aren't all like that. I enjoy all decades of film since its inception and respect the various talents that have been involved in cinema since the very beginning. I even dress myself most mornings. ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.