Why I love GOLDFINGER

124

Comments

  • Posts: 1,883
    It's noteworthy looking over this thread is that even nearly a decade ago that the discussion at hand gets sidetracked into the merits or lack of in other films in comparison and what's considered a classic. SF would likely figure into these now, but this was months before its release.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,526
    I feel like one of the main complaints people have with Goldfinger is that Bond doesn't really do anything in it and the events happen without much input from Bond... but to me, the plot of Goldfinger is peak espionage: he embeds himself in the criminal organization, and gets key information out to his allies at a key time, that allow them to intervene and foil the plot.
    For that reason I love Goldfinger.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    I feel like one of the main complaints people have with Goldfinger is that Bond doesn't really do anything in it and the events happen without much input from Bond... but to me, the plot of Goldfinger is peak espionage: he embeds himself in the criminal organization, and gets key information out to his allies at a key time, that allow them to intervene and foil the plot.
    For that reason I love Goldfinger.

    Yes, that was before blowing s**t up was Bond's main mission. ;)
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited December 2021 Posts: 7,526
    Goldfinger seems to illustrate well how dangerous it would actually be to be a spy. Maybe more in the novel.

    It also has this:
    ..."A clumsy cable, but it will serve for the short period I require your services (It won't, thought Bond, unless you included in the text one of the innocent phrases that would tell M. that the cable was authentic. By now, the Service would know he was working under enemy control. Wheels would be turning very fast indeed)."

    From Chapter 16, The Last And The Biggest

    Espionage tradecraft technology before technology. :)
  • Posts: 3,279
    bondsum wrote: »
    Good review, Acton Steve, and I agree that it is necessary that you create a fresh thread for the "younger crowd" to study, who just don't "get" or "understand" the fact that GF is and always will be the true template for a Bond film and not that boring parody named after Ian Fleming's house, which was literally named after a duck. Rather apt when you think about it!!

    Goldeneye was named after an operation in Gibraltar in WW2. I only know this because I have bought a place in Gib, and know the place very well.
  • Posts: 3,279
    R1s1ngs0n wrote: »
    FRWL and OHMSS are better overall movies but GF will forever remain my favorite Bond movie.
    The Kentucky portion may seem pedestrian (which doesn’t mean it’s bad) compared to what came before but that’s only because the first hour is as perfect as a Bond film can be, with one iconic sequence following another.
    Best villain/henchman combo by far, unforgettable score, wittiest dialogue and peak Connery - not to mention the movie breezes through due to its excellent pacing and relatively short running time.
    It’s pure, unadulterated Bond bliss.

    I second this. GF is the ultimate Bond movie, that appeals to the cinematic fans and Fleming fans alike. Fleming wrote the movie template with this one. It ticks all the boxes that you expect from a Bond film.

    Exciting PTS, Connery at his coolest, hit song, menacing villain and side kick, gadget laden car, brilliant Barry score, Bond playing golf against the villain, ticking time bomb ending, and then the last trick when you think the film is over, on the plane.

    And throughout all this, it remains as faithful to the Fleming novel as FRWL or OHMSS.

    I would say CR has become the modern day equivalent. This will be the one that all modern day Bond films will be set against. EON hit the jackpot with CR again, but I'll let them into a little secret that they seem unaware of. It's because you went back to the novels. Fleming in his sleep was a far better writer than P&W will ever be.

    You don't need to invent Blofeld being Bond's brother, Bond having a daughter in tow, or Bond getting killed to invent drama. Fleming did all of this far better in his books.
  • chrisisall wrote: »
    I feel like one of the main complaints people have with Goldfinger is that Bond doesn't really do anything in it and the events happen without much input from Bond... but to me, the plot of Goldfinger is peak espionage: he embeds himself in the criminal organization, and gets key information out to his allies at a key time, that allow them to intervene and foil the plot.
    For that reason I love Goldfinger.

    Yes, that was before blowing s**t up was Bond's main mission. ;)

    Bond blows stuff up quite nicely in the PTS of GF, before Shirley Bassey has even sung a single note. "Heroin-flavored bananas" & so forth...
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I feel like one of the main complaints people have with Goldfinger is that Bond doesn't really do anything in it and the events happen without much input from Bond... but to me, the plot of Goldfinger is peak espionage: he embeds himself in the criminal organization, and gets key information out to his allies at a key time, that allow them to intervene and foil the plot.
    For that reason I love Goldfinger.

    Yes, that was before blowing s**t up was Bond's main mission. ;)

    Bond blows stuff up quite nicely in the PTS of GF, before Shirley Bassey has even sung a single note. "Heroin-flavored bananas" & so forth...

    That was a small explosion in the PTS, and he didn't destroy Fort Knox. ;)
  • chrisisall wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I feel like one of the main complaints people have with Goldfinger is that Bond doesn't really do anything in it and the events happen without much input from Bond... but to me, the plot of Goldfinger is peak espionage: he embeds himself in the criminal organization, and gets key information out to his allies at a key time, that allow them to intervene and foil the plot.
    For that reason I love Goldfinger.

    Yes, that was before blowing s**t up was Bond's main mission. ;)

    Bond blows stuff up quite nicely in the PTS of GF, before Shirley Bassey has even sung a single note. "Heroin-flavored bananas" & so forth...

    That was a small explosion in the PTS, and he didn't destroy Fort Knox. ;)

    No, he was too busy seeing the reflection of a hood approaching him from behind in the eyes of a beautiful babe. I know I'm always looking for reflections in the eyes of every woman I've ever kissed...

    Everything I know I learned by watching James Bond movies!
  • Posts: 1,707
    I feel so lucky to have seen Goldfinger first run as a kid and to have it introduce me to Bond and the world of cinema and TV secret agents. It CHANGED my entire life.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    I like Goldfinger very much, but I've always preferred Thunderball.

    Don't know why, it just happened.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    I like Goldfinger very much, but I've always preferred Thunderball.

    Don't know why, it just happened.

    I think Thunderball's main problem is the speeded up footage at the end- kinda robs it of a visually pleasing climax.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    Posts: 2,161
    As a kid, at the drive-in, TB didn't get to me the way GF and YOLT did. I was actually bored through much of it.
  • Posts: 12,265
    Birdleson wrote: »
    As a kid, at the drive-in, TB didn't get to me the way GF and YOLT did. I was actually bored through much of it.

    TB was the very first Bond film I ever watched, and I found myself bored through half of it or so. Took years and years of me being a Bond fan for it to significantly rise, and now it's been in my Top 5 for a while.
  • Posts: 1,314
    I find thunderball a bit of a drag. Also some of the scenes at shrublands don’t make much sense or grab me. Parts of it are great though. And It has the best looking women in the series.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    Posts: 2,161
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    As a kid, at the drive-in, TB didn't get to me the way GF and YOLT did. I was actually bored through much of it.

    TB was the very first Bond film I ever watched, and I found myself bored through half of it or so. Took years and years of me being a Bond fan for it to significantly rise, and now it's been in my Top 5 for a while.

    It's now at number 8 for me, so I was eventually able to get into it. I now find it to have some of the best dialogue of the entire series.
  • Posts: 1,883
    chrisisall wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    I like Goldfinger very much, but I've always preferred Thunderball.

    Don't know why, it just happened.

    I think Thunderball's main problem is the speeded up footage at the end- kinda robs it of a visually pleasing climax.
    But I could say the same of the plainly visible wires and the obvious model work on Goldfinger's jet at the climax of that film.

    Now if you want to talk about that goofy thing with the little blimp hoisting him and Domino into the sky to catch the plane, I'm there too. Just too much, kinda' like John Travolta and Olivia Newton John flying into the sky at the end of Grease. It's just like, what???
  • I tend to lean toward the newer films. But Goldfinger is my favorite of the classics. Just a great movie that I can watch over and over again.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    BT3366 wrote: »
    Now if you want to talk about that goofy thing with the little blimp hoisting him and Domino into the sky to catch the plane, I'm there too.
    Assuming no whiplash, wouldn't they be freezing?
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited December 2021 Posts: 3,497
    chrisisall wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    I like Goldfinger very much, but I've always preferred Thunderball.

    Don't know why, it just happened.

    I think Thunderball's main problem is the speeded up footage at the end- kinda robs it of a visually pleasing climax.

    Connery for some reason looks "sharper" in TB.

    The speeded up footage is a bit of a bummer.
  • Posts: 3,279
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    I like Goldfinger very much, but I've always preferred Thunderball.

    Don't know why, it just happened.

    I think Thunderball's main problem is the speeded up footage at the end- kinda robs it of a visually pleasing climax.

    Connery for some reason looks "sharper" in TB.

    The speeded up footage is a bit of a bummer.

    The underwater scenes really drag the film down for me. Its those moments I tend to skip past when watching TB.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,539
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    I like Goldfinger very much, but I've always preferred Thunderball.

    Don't know why, it just happened.

    I think Thunderball's main problem is the speeded up footage at the end- kinda robs it of a visually pleasing climax.

    Connery for some reason looks "sharper" in TB.

    The speeded up footage is a bit of a bummer.

    The underwater scenes really drag the film down for me. Its those moments I tend to skip past when watching TB.

    That's odd. Those scenes are an example of state-fo-the-art underwater photography.
  • Posts: 207
    I thought the underwater scenes went on for too long the first couple of times I watched Thunderball, but don’t mind them anymore.
  • JamesCraig wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    JamesCraig wrote: »
    I like Goldfinger very much, but I've always preferred Thunderball.

    Don't know why, it just happened.

    I think Thunderball's main problem is the speeded up footage at the end- kinda robs it of a visually pleasing climax.

    Connery for some reason looks "sharper" in TB.

    The speeded up footage is a bit of a bummer.

    The underwater scenes really drag the film down for me. Its those moments I tend to skip past when watching TB.

    I agree, in fact I think I prefer the other underwater scenes from different films in the series like FYEO, LTK, etc
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    Posts: 2,161
    The underwater scenes can effect me differently (mesmerizing to tedious and everything in-between) with each viewing.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited December 2021 Posts: 17,691
    Birdleson wrote: »
    The underwater scenes can effect me differently (mesmerizing to tedious and everything in-between) with each viewing.

    Bonds' mask colour-changing thing distracts me. I didn't know they had those back in the Sixties, actually, do they even have them now? ;)

    Okay, seriously, Goldfinger was lightning in a bottle. On almost every level. As young kids we laughingly yelled "fake" at Goldfinger's jet shots, but we enjoyed every single second of it.
    As I do now.
  • Posts: 1,883
    People claiming boredom with the underwater scenes in TB has been a longtime complaint. I like them as the underwater world feels like a character or a different world all its own, sort of how the snowy landscape does in OHMSS or Japan does in YOLT.

    On the flip side, I tend to feel sluggish when Bond is prisoner on Goldfinger's stud farm. Except for Sean looking cool in that suit, I just don't get much out of his frequent escape attempts, hiding under models and listening to some of the worst gangster accents and acting out there, and scenes of the series' worst version of Leiter eating KFC and being too bushed to follow up on Bond and crunching a car for no other reason than to crush a car. It just drags till we get to Fort Knox.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    BT3366 wrote: »
    I tend to feel sluggish when Bond is prisoner on Goldfinger's stud farm. Except for Sean looking cool in that suit, I just don't get much out of his frequent escape attempts, hiding under models and listening to some of the worst gangster accents and acting out there, and scenes of the series' worst version of Leiter eating KFC and being too bushed to follow up on Bond and crunching a car for no other reason than to crush a car. It just drags till we get to Fort Knox.
    So here I am playing the age card again:
    In MY day, a film was not judged by its narrative momentum, but by its content.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson Moderator
    edited December 2021 Posts: 2,161
    Being your age, or within a year or two, I think it was varied. Depending on the type of film, or the intent of the Director, or producers, you could go either way, or partially. Bond films were made to be seen in the theater. Period. They were supposed to be an immediate experience, attention was not paid to small details. The films didn’t even appear on television until after a decade past the release of the first one. There was no home video until FYEO was released. The idea that people were going to watch these repeatedly, or people would be able to stop the film and inspect the details, or spend time dissecting these plots that were made for an explosive two hours of entertainment, never cross their minds.

    Yet those first ones still remain at or near the top of most rankings. And I think that’s a testament to their durability, in the end, their continued influence. Had the Brosnan or Craig films been the first films I don’t think we’d still be getting them 50 years hence.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Being your age, or within a year or two, I think it was varied. Depending on the type of film, or the intent of the Director, or producers, you could go either way, or partially. Bond films were made to be seen in the theater. Period. They were supposed to be an immediate experience, attention was not paid to small details. The films didn’t even appear on television until after a decade past the release of the first one. There was no home video until FYEO was released. The idea that people were going to watch these repeatedly, or people would be able to stop the film and inspect the details, or spend time dissecting these plots that were made for an explosive two hours of entertainment, never cross their minds.

    Thanks Jay. You made my case for me eloquently.
Sign In or Register to comment.