I personally don't get why Goldfinger is considered better than From Russia with Love. I guess because it's more "fun", and it might be easier to enjoy a movie where the hero and villain are actively interacting the whole film. And when the villain and henchman are a little more cartoony, it makes for better escapism. I just feel FRWL is just a better written film. For me, it always lands at about my fifth or sixth favorite Bond movie. It's a classic movie and very rewatchable, just not nearly as tense and grounded as Russia.
Agree with your assessment of the barn scene It’s such a shame as the lead up to the final shot was great as it shows Galore standing up to Bond How a screenwriter wasn’t able to write a scene where Connery uses his sex appeal rather than force beggars belief. They didn’t have to do much to make women in the audience accept Galore’s turn as it’s freaking Connery as Bond in his prime
Goldfinger is my favorite by far. I suppose that me being a boomer and alive during these times has something to do with it. This had high expectations and it exceeded them. Unfortunately the expectations for follow ons were just unrealistic, and therefore by comparison, felt less good. Three of my other favorites also had realistic goals. Spy Who Loved Me surprised everyone by being so good, beating the point spread. Likewise Goldeneye had people looking forward to it, and it delivers. Casino Royale was a wild card and wow…reset things in a great way. Bond 26 will come out I think similar concerns as the last two actor debuts. If it’s an A List one, it will have to be a Goldeneye result. If it’s an unknown, then it has to be of Casino quality. Anything less will be a disaster. But to my mid 60s self, nothing beats Goldfinger.
Boy is it refreshing to hear someone else share my opinion that this movie isn't the glorious masterpiece that everyone claims it to be. It's a fine movie, but it's far from my favorite Bond film.
You're not alone. In my opinion, it is a backwards step following FRWL. It's also the first instance of Connery starting to play himself rather than Bond. And most importantly, Bond doesn't actually do much in the movie. He's really just an observer, and spends most of the time being captured.
Very happy to have caught this at last! Thanks for the heads-up yesterday. I haven't read the book recently, but I thought I remembered it dealing with some of the practical issues surrounding the robbing of Fort Knox? He wasn't going to take everything, only what he had time for, no? As wild as Connery makes such a scheme sound in their mint-juleps-on-the-front-porch sit-down, it nevertheless makes more sense (to me) than Goldfinger's plot in the movie, because... if Goldfinger isn't only motivated by increasing his wealth (although the smuggling operation helps in this regard), but also by his simple love of gold (see his long speech in the novel, some of which remains in the film), then wouldn't irradiating a large stash of his beloved metal mean polluting it, spoiling it in some way? I could never see him acting so destructively towards a substance that he so loves, even though it would massively increase the value of what he already owns. I agree with most of your other points, though, and I'm enjoying your reviews far more than many others out there: I'm happy to join in with a bit of fan-boy nerding-out (especially about Bond!), but your serious film criticism approach (with actual analysis!) REALLY elevates your work.
With these last three reviews, I've actually had them up as unlisted videos since last Thursday. That way, the copyright bots would have quite some time to run through them. I initially planned for Goldfinger to come out Tuesday, but it got flagged Sunday night, so I had to re-edit it. Here's hoping as well.
Seeing the AM on the big screen was something else! It is THE Bond car. Great theme song sung by the fabulous Shirley Bassey. FRWL, Goldfinger, Thunderball - 3 great films in a row that the Bond series has never equaled since.
Goldfinger is great because Bond and the title character draw each other into this fantastic battle of egos, tit-for-tat, and one-upmanship that feels so personal
4th best overall for me, 2nd best Connery. There is something that this film does for the series that was foundational and far-reaching - it introduces a level of absurdity to the action. Whilst it may seem strange that I cite this as a good thing, the fact is that the popular charm of the Bond film series for most of the subsequent 30 years was that Bond did it "bigger and better" than anyone else. And the absurdity factor plays into that - we have the precredits sequence where Bond has a perfectly-tailored dinner suit under his wetsuit, we have the gadget-laden Aston Martin, we have Odd Job's hat, we have more. It takes the film (and the series) beyond action, adventure and spying, and adds fantasy. We also have a lot more wit and quipping than in the previous two films. So with the style and tenor of this film, we get the style and tenor of the series (up until Licence to Kill, probably). Thanks again for presenting your review (and why is all your commentary familiar? - did I see one of your earlier, copyright-struck, uploads?)
You did leave a comment on the version I originally uploaded, so it's no wonder the commentary seems familiar. As much as I enjoyed the Craig outings (for the most part), I would welcome a return to the classic style of Goldfinger's irreverence. It's a lot of fun.
It's really very simple. Goldfinger has the best script, the best villains, the best women, the best theme song and Connery (the one and only James Bond) gives his best performance. If I you can't understand that, I can't help you.I suggest the negative comments are what you might call "Stairway to heaven" syndrome. We're all so familiar and jaded with something we take for granted, it's only when you actually sit through it again that you appreciate how truly excellent it all is. If there is a problem with the film, then I'll admit that Bond probably spends too much time as a helpless prisoner. Oh, and some of the back projection and process shots look pretty tacky.
I have a take on the barn scene with Pussy Galore which causes you and many others so much discomfort. Is Bond forcing himself on her without consent and his actions tantamount to forcible compulsion which would give rise to a sexual assault/rape charge under the criminal law? Yes, absolutely, under normal circumstances. However, this is not a normal circumstance. Pussy Galore is an enemy agent, an accomplice of the villain and Bond is justified in using whatever means necessary to thwart Goldfinger's plan which would involve mass murder (via the nerve gas and subsequent atomic explosion), and the virtual theft of the gold reserve of the United States. This is not Bond getting his jollies in a casual situation. His rape of Galore is done as he referred to his relationship with Fiona Volpe in Thunderball, not for enjoyment, but for King and Country. I'll admit that the notion that once Galore experiences the Bond sexual magic, by however means, she'll flip on Goldfinger (Volpe again: hear heavenly choirs, repent and come over to the side of good) and agree to aid the authorities is a farfetched plot point, but, within the story, Bond is in a desperate situation and must use any means necessary to avert the catastrophe and is thus justified in his behavior toward Galore. That's the way I have always viewed it and I think that is the way a couple of generations of audiences thought about it too.
Oh, I totally agree that it is both in Bond's character to bang a woman over to the side of good and that he had little choice. My problem is how it is depicted; I think there is a way to have this story point happen without it coming across as rape. Of course, I'm not an "ends justifies the means" person, and so rape is not a viable option to me, so it might be personal ethics getting in the way of entertainment, but I don't know how to completely divorce myself/my viewpoints from viewing media and not make judgment calls. In essence, it's how we critique films and decide how much we love/hate them. It's just a personal problem I have with it, but I don't think less of anyone if Goldfinger is their absolute favorite.
Surely Bond forcing himself on her would have the opposite effect. The scene is badly done but audiences at the time lapped up Bond being an out and out bad boy
That time I saw GOLDFINGER on the big screen in 1980, it suddenly bugged me that Bond was a prisoner for at least half the film, while in the book, only the last 1/3rd, and in there, crazy enough, Goldfinger never found out Bond was a British agent, but believed he was just some "adventurer"-- as Kamal Khan did in OCTOPUSSY! Speaking of which, ever notice OCTOPUSSY is basically a heavily-disguised remake of GOLDFINGER from start to finish, even as NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN was remaking THUNDERBALL ? Solo's death is ridiculous. In the book, Goldfinger ushered him out into the next room, then returned announcing Solo had accidentally slipped and fallen down a stairway and broken his neck. That got the point across-- NOBODY walks out of this deal. This was paid tribute to in A VIEW TO A KILL, when the one dissenter is walking down a stairway, which suddenly flattens out, and he falls to his death when he find out the meeting was taking place inside an airship. Zorin's line is hilarious: "Anyone else care to DROP OUT?" (There, he's acting innocent when he says it, not threatening.) Cathy Gale has grown on me consistently since I first saw her AVENGERS episodes in the 1990s (it took that long for them to be seen in the US). Pussy... I don't like much at all. I also preferred her as Hera in JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS! She was the only version of that character who was ever likeable. I also prefer the idea that Pussy switched sides when Bond convinced her the gas was not to knock out the soldiers, but to KILL them. Stealing is one thing-- but MASS MURDER?? Having her switch sides simply because of rape is just wrong no matter how you look at it. Fleming made a joke about her attitude in the book, though. When asked, "I thought you only liked women." she replied... "I never met a MAN before." What a great line to have left out of the movie. When reading the newspaper comic-strip adaptations of the novels, it hit me, Honor Blackman would have been PERFECT to play "Gala Brand" in an authentic adaptation of MOONRAKER. What a shame they didn't start the film series with THAT story!!
I agree with Stephen's assessment and think his solution would have been better but at the same time, I really never intellectually had a problem with it, maybe just a slight discomfort that I couldn't verbalize. Maybe this is due to being a Gen Xer, born in 1969, who didn't grow up in an over sensitive world where people get easily offended and where you wouldn't think too hard about such a scene. I'm not criticizing Stephen's valid take on the scene or dismissing his concerns. I'm just pointing out the danger of applying current day values to a film made in the past. If we were to apply this scrutiny to every so-called classic of the past, I feel that few would measure up to today's standards. I have seen this type of argument applied to what is considered to be arguably the best or one of the best serials of Classic Doctor Who, Talons of Weng Chiang, where both the attitudes toward the Chinese displayed in a mid 70's tv show set in Victorian London is questioned along with the casting of a Caucasian actor in yellow face in the titular role when the attitudes displayed were definitely of the time portrayed and existed somewhat in England at the time of filming plus there were few Asian actors available at the time to pull off that part. Many people who point out these issues use them to try to totally dismiss the overwise brilliant story written by Robert Holmes, which I think is a mistake. Again, Stephen isn't trying to.use.this one issue to totally discount the quality of this film, he just brings up a valid concern so I appreciate his measured criticism.
Okay, I have to respond to this video. I feel like I'm young again listening to you. First off, I am one of those poor fools who saw "Goldfinger" well after the other Connery offerings and half of Moore's. I didn't have a VHS player early days, and "Goldfinger" strangely enough was never on television when I was able to watch. My father once chuckled at me that I slept through it because I thought another movie was going to be on. That means that this movie didn't influence me before the book did, and the book has flaws. Ugh. So when I saw it, I noticed every [insert Anglo-Saxon expletive adjective] thing wrong with this film. The logic holes are distracting to me, and I listen to my older brothers wax emotionally about "Goldfinger" and think, "You guys aren't very smart, are you?" We got a lot of tropes from this movie, both good and bad, or the tropes were tweaked from the previous offerings. Yes, we got: "Cool car as gadget" - Aston Martin "Henchman has a wicked weapon" - Oddjob's hat "Silent henchman" - Oddjob becomes the template for Vargas, Hans, Grunther, Whisper, etc. But we also got: "Unnecessary villain monologuing" - Goldfinger explains his scheme and then kills all the investors anyway, like that makes any sense. "Hero rescued from certain death because of plot armor" - We know that Goldfinger being overly cautious and saving Bond doesn't make a lick of sense. The one that makes me want to fire Oddjob because he's clearly too stupid to do his job correctly is when he leaves the gold in the car with Mr. Solo and crushes the car and *then* takes that nearly two ton cube and places it in a truck bed like it wouldn't cause all four tires to flatten right there. It's beyond idiotic. Hey Oddjob! First you pillage, and then you burn! Good luck getting the gold out of the cube with that whole Operation Grand Slam schedule. Hard to get good help these days. Thank you for having the stomach to call out the barn scene for what it is. I agree with your analysis completely. Last mention is about the soundtrack. My best friend (still) gave me the soundtrack because he didn't like it. Why? Because, Stephen, he found it too repetitive. Oh, the main title is iconic, but the rest of the soundtrack doesn't have the variety of FRWL or OHMSS. It's a serviceable Barry score, but ultimately shows as a bit rushed and derivative. Happy Thanksgiving, Stephen, and thank you for this.
I mean the book's "plot armor" is infinitely worse: "Goldfinger, I'll work for you as your secretary". I love Fleming but this was a case he couldn't come up with and idea for getting Bond out of that situation. I buy Goldfinger's caution, it makes a ton of sense. He worked on this plan for many years, and imagine it all ending so close to its execution due to killing an agent. Later when the CIA is spying on the ranch Goldfinger uses Bond to make them think all is good and that his cover wasn't totally blown. Frobe's performance is just perfect anyway. When he murders the gangsters sure it doesn't "make sense", but I buy that he just wanted to shine his ego and present his plan to an audience. When Bond says he overheard the Grand Slam speech, Goldfinger just says he enjoyed it. He's purely full of himself and it contrasts w/Connery's Bond so well. He's as much an oaf as he is a genius.
I am a Goldfinger guy but great video! Totally straight with the praise and valid criticism. And 100% on the barn scene. If anything it's worse than you say since it not only seduces her but converts her from lesbian!
Hey, my family roots are in South Central and Central Kentucky and I've lived here for over 36 years since age 16 when my dad retired from the Air Force and we moved near my maternal grandparents, so I take offense with your comment about Kentucky...lol Actually, I don't think they actually filmed anything much here. The exterior and interior of the depository were sets at Pinewood. A side note: I have a friend who grew up nearby that now is a producer/writer in Hollywood who did a tv script that took place at Fort Knox for the CBS series Scorpion. His production group also made the series Fubar for Netflix and Reacher for Prime. His name is Scott Sullivan if you're interested in looking at some of his produced scripts. He starred out in tv drama writing for shows like NCIS:LA.
I used to be a massive fan of this film but as I've got older I feel it's a film of two halves. The first half is hugely satisfying but the second half is so full of plot holes that's hard to ignore and Bond doesn't do a lot. It's Pussy who saves the day.
I was shocked last night to realize that the copy of a rental a friend made for me back in the mid-80s was running at the wrong speed. That means TWO different copies I had of this film over the years were both running fast, which you could really tell by the voices. Broccoli SUED CBS/Fox Home Video over this crap! I am never watching this movie again, until I get it on Blu-Ray. (Which won't be for some time yet.)
Those fan based discussions you are referring to must be though ones since a large portion, of the otherwise quite good review, is spent on defending your opinion about the movie. With that said, thanks for pointing out few things that I had missed about my favorite Bond.
Well, Brosnan had it in three of his films, so there was precedent before Craig. The only one I kind of have an issue with its use is Spectre. Casino Royale is a bit gratuitous, but fun. Skyfall's wouldn't have had the same impact with it. And the opening of No Time to Die was the first time we got a gadget laden chase with it since Goldfinger.
For Goldfinger think you have to just overlook the numerous plot holes and enjoy the film as escapism. The plot holes result from story changes from book to the movie. For instance the scene where Goldfinger goes through a long and detailed explanation of his plan to get the help from the gangsters, with elaborate props and sets - and then kills them all immediately. In the book he still needs them and they die much later. Another implausible scene involves the female pilots dropping gas from hundreds of feet above, and the troops instantly collapse to the ground. Presumably dead or unconscious. Also some of the sexism of the era wears badly (pussy galore for instance). As far as her consent to Bond is concerned remember that in the book she was supposed to a lesbian (what other woman could resist Bond?)
I just preferred Honors cooler relationship as Cathy Gale to Patrick Macnees John Steed in The Avengers, so after the judo throw, in GF the kiss jars me. (Yes I know about The little Wonders episode but that was to save her ) I like the film a lot but hey, what you gonna do?
Edit. It's been a while since I saw the film, and I commented before, I saw it the video reaction, so to see the push and struggle before the kiss, jars even more.
I personally don't get why Goldfinger is considered better than From Russia with Love. I guess because it's more "fun", and it might be easier to enjoy a movie where the hero and villain are actively interacting the whole film. And when the villain and henchman are a little more cartoony, it makes for better escapism. I just feel FRWL is just a better written film.
For me, it always lands at about my fifth or sixth favorite Bond movie. It's a classic movie and very rewatchable, just not nearly as tense and grounded as Russia.
Couldn't agree more. It's a fine film, but there are several others I'd rather watch and think are better.
Thank you. I agree with most of this and I loved hearing your thoughts. It’s nice not to be alone. 😅
Take a shot every time the narrator says “Heck!”
Agree with your assessment of the barn scene
It’s such a shame as the lead up to the final shot was great as it shows Galore standing up to Bond
How a screenwriter wasn’t able to write a scene where Connery uses his sex appeal rather than force beggars belief. They didn’t have to do much to make women in the audience accept Galore’s turn as it’s freaking Connery as Bond in his prime
Saw it in 64.turned me into a lifelong Bond fan
Goldfinger is my favorite by far. I suppose that me being a boomer and alive during these times has something to do with it.
This had high expectations and it exceeded them. Unfortunately the expectations for follow ons were just unrealistic, and therefore by comparison, felt less good.
Three of my other favorites also had realistic goals. Spy Who Loved Me surprised everyone by being so good, beating the point spread. Likewise Goldeneye had people looking forward to it, and it delivers. Casino Royale was a wild card and wow…reset things in a great way.
Bond 26 will come out I think similar concerns as the last two actor debuts. If it’s an A List one, it will have to be a Goldeneye result. If it’s an unknown, then it has to be of Casino quality. Anything less will be a disaster.
But to my mid 60s self, nothing beats Goldfinger.
Sad Fleming passed before it's release He would have loved it
Boy is it refreshing to hear someone else share my opinion that this movie isn't the glorious masterpiece that everyone claims it to be. It's a fine movie, but it's far from my favorite Bond film.
You're not alone. In my opinion, it is a backwards step following FRWL. It's also the first instance of Connery starting to play himself rather than Bond. And most importantly, Bond doesn't actually do much in the movie. He's really just an observer, and spends most of the time being captured.
Very happy to have caught this at last! Thanks for the heads-up yesterday.
I haven't read the book recently, but I thought I remembered it dealing with some of the practical issues surrounding the robbing of Fort Knox? He wasn't going to take everything, only what he had time for, no? As wild as Connery makes such a scheme sound in their mint-juleps-on-the-front-porch sit-down, it nevertheless makes more sense (to me) than Goldfinger's plot in the movie, because... if Goldfinger isn't only motivated by increasing his wealth (although the smuggling operation helps in this regard), but also by his simple love of gold (see his long speech in the novel, some of which remains in the film), then wouldn't irradiating a large stash of his beloved metal mean polluting it, spoiling it in some way? I could never see him acting so destructively towards a substance that he so loves, even though it would massively increase the value of what he already owns.
I agree with most of your other points, though, and I'm enjoying your reviews far more than many others out there: I'm happy to join in with a bit of fan-boy nerding-out (especially about Bond!), but your serious film criticism approach (with actual analysis!) REALLY elevates your work.
Nice to see the video back-up. Hopefully this one stays up.
With these last three reviews, I've actually had them up as unlisted videos since last Thursday. That way, the copyright bots would have quite some time to run through them. I initially planned for Goldfinger to come out Tuesday, but it got flagged Sunday night, so I had to re-edit it. Here's hoping as well.
Seeing the AM on the big screen was something else! It is THE Bond car. Great theme song sung by the fabulous Shirley Bassey. FRWL, Goldfinger, Thunderball - 3 great films in a row that the Bond series has never equaled since.
Goldfinger is great because Bond and the title character draw each other into this fantastic battle of egos, tit-for-tat, and one-upmanship that feels so personal
I love the bomb disposal scene in Goldfinger
4th best overall for me, 2nd best Connery. There is something that this film does for the series that was foundational and far-reaching - it introduces a level of absurdity to the action. Whilst it may seem strange that I cite this as a good thing, the fact is that the popular charm of the Bond film series for most of the subsequent 30 years was that Bond did it "bigger and better" than anyone else. And the absurdity factor plays into that - we have the precredits sequence where Bond has a perfectly-tailored dinner suit under his wetsuit, we have the gadget-laden Aston Martin, we have Odd Job's hat, we have more. It takes the film (and the series) beyond action, adventure and spying, and adds fantasy. We also have a lot more wit and quipping than in the previous two films. So with the style and tenor of this film, we get the style and tenor of the series (up until Licence to Kill, probably). Thanks again for presenting your review (and why is all your commentary familiar? - did I see one of your earlier, copyright-struck, uploads?)
You did leave a comment on the version I originally uploaded, so it's no wonder the commentary seems familiar.
As much as I enjoyed the Craig outings (for the most part), I would welcome a return to the classic style of Goldfinger's irreverence. It's a lot of fun.
It's really very simple. Goldfinger has the best script, the best villains, the best women, the best theme song and Connery (the one and only James Bond) gives his best performance. If I you can't understand that, I can't help you.I suggest the negative comments are what you might call "Stairway to heaven" syndrome. We're all so familiar and jaded with something we take for granted, it's only when you actually sit through it again that you appreciate how truly excellent it all is. If there is a problem with the film, then I'll admit that Bond probably spends too much time as a helpless prisoner. Oh, and some of the back projection and process shots look pretty tacky.
M; “What do you know about (box office) gold 007?” Bond; “Well, I know it when I see it...”
I have a take on the barn scene with Pussy Galore which causes you and many others so much discomfort. Is Bond forcing himself on her without consent and his actions tantamount to forcible compulsion which would give rise to a sexual assault/rape charge under the criminal law? Yes, absolutely, under normal circumstances. However, this is not a normal circumstance. Pussy Galore is an enemy agent, an accomplice of the villain and Bond is justified in using whatever means necessary to thwart Goldfinger's plan which would involve mass murder (via the nerve gas and subsequent atomic explosion), and the virtual theft of the gold reserve of the United States. This is not Bond getting his jollies in a casual situation. His rape of Galore is done as he referred to his relationship with Fiona Volpe in Thunderball, not for enjoyment, but for King and Country. I'll admit that the notion that once Galore experiences the Bond sexual magic, by however means, she'll flip on Goldfinger (Volpe again: hear heavenly choirs, repent and come over to the side of good) and agree to aid the authorities is a farfetched plot point, but, within the story, Bond is in a desperate situation and must use any means necessary to avert the catastrophe and is thus justified in his behavior toward Galore. That's the way I have always viewed it and I think that is the way a couple of generations of audiences thought about it too.
Oh, I totally agree that it is both in Bond's character to bang a woman over to the side of good and that he had little choice. My problem is how it is depicted; I think there is a way to have this story point happen without it coming across as rape. Of course, I'm not an "ends justifies the means" person, and so rape is not a viable option to me, so it might be personal ethics getting in the way of entertainment, but I don't know how to completely divorce myself/my viewpoints from viewing media and not make judgment calls. In essence, it's how we critique films and decide how much we love/hate them. It's just a personal problem I have with it, but I don't think less of anyone if Goldfinger is their absolute favorite.
Surely Bond forcing himself on her would have the opposite effect. The scene is badly done but audiences at the time lapped up Bond being an out and out bad boy
That time I saw GOLDFINGER on the big screen in 1980, it suddenly bugged me that Bond was a prisoner for at least half the film, while in the book, only the last 1/3rd, and in there, crazy enough, Goldfinger never found out Bond was a British agent, but believed he was just some "adventurer"-- as Kamal Khan did in OCTOPUSSY! Speaking of which, ever notice OCTOPUSSY is basically a heavily-disguised remake of GOLDFINGER from start to finish, even as NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN was remaking THUNDERBALL ?
Solo's death is ridiculous. In the book, Goldfinger ushered him out into the next room, then returned announcing Solo had accidentally slipped and fallen down a stairway and broken his neck. That got the point across-- NOBODY walks out of this deal. This was paid tribute to in A VIEW TO A KILL, when the one dissenter is walking down a stairway, which suddenly flattens out, and he falls to his death when he find out the meeting was taking place inside an airship. Zorin's line is hilarious: "Anyone else care to DROP OUT?" (There, he's acting innocent when he says it, not threatening.)
Cathy Gale has grown on me consistently since I first saw her AVENGERS episodes in the 1990s (it took that long for them to be seen in the US). Pussy... I don't like much at all. I also preferred her as Hera in JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS! She was the only version of that character who was ever likeable. I also prefer the idea that Pussy switched sides when Bond convinced her the gas was not to knock out the soldiers, but to KILL them. Stealing is one thing-- but MASS MURDER?? Having her switch sides simply because of rape is just wrong no matter how you look at it. Fleming made a joke about her attitude in the book, though. When asked, "I thought you only liked women." she replied... "I never met a MAN before." What a great line to have left out of the movie. When reading the newspaper comic-strip adaptations of the novels, it hit me, Honor Blackman would have been PERFECT to play "Gala Brand" in an authentic adaptation of MOONRAKER. What a shame they didn't start the film series with THAT story!!
Eh, that scene in the barn never bothered me. But I can definitely see your point and would actually prefer your version.
Nobody batted an eye when it came out in 1964. Like every film it was a product of its time.
I agree with Stephen's assessment and think his solution would have been better but at the same time, I really never intellectually had a problem with it, maybe just a slight discomfort that I couldn't verbalize. Maybe this is due to being a Gen Xer, born in 1969, who didn't grow up in an over sensitive world where people get easily offended and where you wouldn't think too hard about such a scene. I'm not criticizing Stephen's valid take on the scene or dismissing his concerns. I'm just pointing out the danger of applying current day values to a film made in the past. If we were to apply this scrutiny to every so-called classic of the past, I feel that few would measure up to today's standards. I have seen this type of argument applied to what is considered to be arguably the best or one of the best serials of Classic Doctor Who, Talons of Weng Chiang, where both the attitudes toward the Chinese displayed in a mid 70's tv show set in Victorian London is questioned along with the casting of a Caucasian actor in yellow face in the titular role when the attitudes displayed were definitely of the time portrayed and existed somewhat in England at the time of filming plus there were few Asian actors available at the time to pull off that part. Many people who point out these issues use them to try to totally dismiss the overwise brilliant story written by Robert Holmes, which I think is a mistake. Again, Stephen isn't trying to.use.this one issue to totally discount the quality of this film, he just brings up a valid concern so I appreciate his measured criticism.
Okay, I have to respond to this video. I feel like I'm young again listening to you.
First off, I am one of those poor fools who saw "Goldfinger" well after the other Connery offerings and half of Moore's. I didn't have a VHS player early days, and "Goldfinger" strangely enough was never on television when I was able to watch. My father once chuckled at me that I slept through it because I thought another movie was going to be on.
That means that this movie didn't influence me before the book did, and the book has flaws. Ugh. So when I saw it, I noticed every [insert Anglo-Saxon expletive adjective] thing wrong with this film. The logic holes are distracting to me, and I listen to my older brothers wax emotionally about "Goldfinger" and think, "You guys aren't very smart, are you?" We got a lot of tropes from this movie, both good and bad, or the tropes were tweaked from the previous offerings. Yes, we got:
"Cool car as gadget" - Aston Martin
"Henchman has a wicked weapon" - Oddjob's hat
"Silent henchman" - Oddjob becomes the template for Vargas, Hans, Grunther, Whisper, etc.
But we also got:
"Unnecessary villain monologuing" - Goldfinger explains his scheme and then kills all the investors anyway, like that makes any sense.
"Hero rescued from certain death because of plot armor" - We know that Goldfinger being overly cautious and saving Bond doesn't make a lick of sense.
The one that makes me want to fire Oddjob because he's clearly too stupid to do his job correctly is when he leaves the gold in the car with Mr. Solo and crushes the car and *then* takes that nearly two ton cube and places it in a truck bed like it wouldn't cause all four tires to flatten right there. It's beyond idiotic. Hey Oddjob! First you pillage, and then you burn! Good luck getting the gold out of the cube with that whole Operation Grand Slam schedule. Hard to get good help these days.
Thank you for having the stomach to call out the barn scene for what it is. I agree with your analysis completely.
Last mention is about the soundtrack. My best friend (still) gave me the soundtrack because he didn't like it. Why? Because, Stephen, he found it too repetitive. Oh, the main title is iconic, but the rest of the soundtrack doesn't have the variety of FRWL or OHMSS. It's a serviceable Barry score, but ultimately shows as a bit rushed and derivative.
Happy Thanksgiving, Stephen, and thank you for this.
I mean the book's "plot armor" is infinitely worse: "Goldfinger, I'll work for you as your secretary". I love Fleming but this was a case he couldn't come up with and idea for getting Bond out of that situation.
I buy Goldfinger's caution, it makes a ton of sense. He worked on this plan for many years, and imagine it all ending so close to its execution due to killing an agent. Later when the CIA is spying on the ranch Goldfinger uses Bond to make them think all is good and that his cover wasn't totally blown.
Frobe's performance is just perfect anyway. When he murders the gangsters sure it doesn't "make sense", but I buy that he just wanted to shine his ego and present his plan to an audience. When Bond says he overheard the Grand Slam speech, Goldfinger just says he enjoyed it. He's purely full of himself and it contrasts w/Connery's Bond so well. He's as much an oaf as he is a genius.
Thank you.. a mastered response. Must be English. No disrespect, but an American couldn’t compose a coherent comment of this nature.
@@spizzenergi2292 Calling me English is a serious compliment. Thank you.
@@NealKlein a pleasure my friend, your comment encompasses everything beautiful about the English language.
I am a Goldfinger guy but great video! Totally straight with the praise and valid criticism.
And 100% on the barn scene. If anything it's worse than you say since it not only seduces her but converts her from lesbian!
Dr No..Thunderball..Goldfinger..From Russia with love..Diamonds are forever..You only live twice...(Never say never again)
From.Russia With Love (and Sean) is the best and then there's all of the rest
Hey, my family roots are in South Central and Central Kentucky and I've lived here for over 36 years since age 16 when my dad retired from the Air Force and we moved near my maternal grandparents, so I take offense with your comment about Kentucky...lol Actually, I don't think they actually filmed anything much here. The exterior and interior of the depository were sets at Pinewood. A side note: I have a friend who grew up nearby that now is a producer/writer in Hollywood who did a tv script that took place at Fort Knox for the CBS series Scorpion. His production group also made the series Fubar for Netflix and Reacher for Prime. His name is Scott Sullivan if you're interested in looking at some of his produced scripts. He starred out in tv drama writing for shows like NCIS:LA.
I used to be a massive fan of this film but as I've got older I feel it's a film of two halves. The first half is hugely satisfying but the second half is so full of plot holes that's hard to ignore and Bond doesn't do a lot. It's Pussy who saves the day.
Great review, interesting to watch. However, my favourite film is "From Russia..." and my favourite car is the Lotus Esprit from "The Spy..."
Brilliant Film Goldfinger
I was shocked last night to realize that the copy of a rental a friend made for me back in the mid-80s was running at the wrong speed. That means TWO different copies I had of this film over the years were both running fast, which you could really tell by the voices. Broccoli SUED CBS/Fox Home Video over this crap! I am never watching this movie again, until I get it on Blu-Ray. (Which won't be for some time yet.)
Those fan based discussions you are referring to must be though ones since a large portion, of the otherwise quite good review, is spent on defending your opinion about the movie. With that said, thanks for pointing out few things that I had missed about my favorite Bond.
I think they overused the Aston Martin DB5 in the Craig Bond films. They should have used it for only the Connery films.
Well, Brosnan had it in three of his films, so there was precedent before Craig. The only one I kind of have an issue with its use is Spectre. Casino Royale is a bit gratuitous, but fun. Skyfall's wouldn't have had the same impact with it. And the opening of No Time to Die was the first time we got a gadget laden chase with it since Goldfinger.
For Goldfinger think you have to just overlook the numerous plot holes and enjoy the film as escapism. The plot holes result from story changes from book to the movie. For instance the scene where Goldfinger goes through a long and detailed explanation of his plan to get the help from the gangsters, with elaborate props and sets - and then kills them all immediately. In the book he still needs them and they die much later.
Another implausible scene involves the female pilots dropping gas from hundreds of feet above, and the troops instantly collapse to the ground. Presumably dead or unconscious.
Also some of the sexism of the era wears badly (pussy galore for instance). As far as her consent to Bond is concerned remember that in the book she was supposed to a lesbian (what other woman could resist Bond?)
I just preferred Honors cooler relationship as Cathy Gale to Patrick Macnees John Steed in The Avengers, so after the judo throw, in GF the kiss jars me. (Yes I know about The little Wonders episode but that was to save her )
I like the film a lot but hey, what you gonna do?
Edit. It's been a while since I saw the film, and I commented before, I saw it the video reaction, so to see the push and struggle before the kiss, jars even more.