Goldfinger in review

The third film in any long-running series is usually the point at which the franchise becomes acutely self-aware. Having settled comfortably into a formula but needing to up the ante a bit to keep things fresh and lively, the producers of most big film franchises will typically feed the audience a heaping, smirking dose of what it expects from an entry in the series and trade engaging storytelling for bigger set pieces and less-than-subtle winks to the loyal fans. The filmmakers rest on their laurels, the actors ham it up and coast through the all-too familiar motions, and the viewer gets a sub par effort that cost more, took longer, and accomplished less. In most cases, this results in both the third entry and the series as a whole losing their edge and a large portion of their audience.

But every now and then, a third chapter comes along that uses its unavoidable self-awareness to its narrative and stylistic advantage. Once in a great while, a Part 3 manages to combine larger portions of everything that was good about Parts 1 and 2 with a liberal sprinkling of in-jokes and cheeky asides to create true cinematic magic. In these exceedingly rare instances, trilogies become enduring institutions, stories blossom into full-fledged mythos, and iconic classics are born. I give you GOLDFINGER.

007 (Sean Connery) must charm his way past femme fatales, escape a dank dungeon, win a rigged, high-stakes golf game, survive a fight in a depressurized airplane cabin, and even protect his very manhood from the searing heat of a deadly laser beam.

As that plot synopsis indicates, everything about GOLDFINGER is larger than life. In an early scene, a beautiful girl (Shirley Eaton) lured from the villain´s employ by Bond´s charms is suffocated to death with a coat of gold paint over every inch of her nude body. The mountainous Oddjob (Harold Sakata) can crush golf balls to powder with his bare hands, but his primary weapon is a bowler hat with a steel brim, an instrument capable of literally taking a man´s head off from 50 yards away. Key to Goldfinger´s (Gert Frobe) grandiose scheme is an entire squadron of curvaceous female stunt pilots in skintight flight suits, lead by a gorgeous lesbian named Pussy Galore (Honor Blackman). The James Bond universe is not known for its subtlety, and GOLDFINGER was really the Big Bang which fully formed that fictional cosmos.

Of course, the shift from straightforward espionage stories to outlandish action spectacles inevitably means sacrificing some logic and credibility. Every 007 leading lady since the early 60s has proclaimed their character stronger, smarter, tougher, and more independent than all of the other Bond girls, but Blackman´s Pussy Galore truly lives up to the traditional press conference puffery. Why, then, does this intelligent, self-assured woman toss aside both her moral and sexual inclinations after just one tumble in the hay with Bond?

But to quibble about such matters is to miss the point of GOLDFINGER. It isn´t a Cold War spy thriller at all; it´s a fantasy, a contemporary, libidinous, Earthbound BUCK ROGERS aimed not at realism but escaping reality. GOLDFINGER is a grand and glorious foray into a world that all of us wish we could inhabit, a forerunner to the slick summer epics of today but without any of the cynicism or cold dispassion that makes most trips to the multiplex so forgettable and dreary. It´s a lively, colorful reminder that once in a great while the third time really is the charm.

(John Floyd)

Post your Goldfinger reviews in here. :D

Goldfinger (1964)
Directed: Guy Hamilton
Starring: Sean Connery (James Bond)

The third official Bond film, Goldfinger, has our favourite martini-sipping British spy up against a man who has the midas touch!

Well, he just really likes gold ... but midas touch sounded better.

Goldfinger (1964) - 10/10
Goldfinger is pure, classic Bond and memorable scenes are countless. The film has an immensely strong supporting cast with Gert Frobe as Goldfinger (one of the series’ best villains), Honor Blackman as Pussy Galore (one of the series’ best girls) and Harold Sakata as Oddjob (the series’ best henchman). And then there’s Sean Connery. What a Bond he was; the best, that’s for sure. What Goldfinger also had that some other Bond films botched was the exact right amount of camp. Yes, it’s preposterous that Oddjob can withstand a gold brick to the chest and Bond wears a tuxedo under a wetsuit, but it’s all in the film’s personality. Some Bond films (like Diamonds Are Forever or Moonraker) pushed camp into self parody, but for some reason Goldfinger’s camp is stylish to me. (The film’s personality is similar to that of Raiders of the Lost Ark). Accompanied by the franchise’s best score, that incredible Aston Martin, brisk pacing, and some of the best one liners in film (“No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!”) Goldfinger is not only the best classic Bond film, but one of the greatest films of all time.

how did Oddjob and Goldfinger knew Bond was involved at the Miami Fountainbleu Hotel?

j7wild wrote:

how did Oddjob and Goldfinger knew Bond was involved at the Miami Fountainbleu Hotel?

I wondered this very thing when I watched GF a short while back. Perhaps Auric just put two and two together.

It's a big hotel, Goldfinger never saw Bond.

the only explanation I have is Goldfinger asked the Hotel Management to tell him who was in his room;

but still, the only person who saw Bond was that maid who couldn't have known what room he was in or whether Bond was a guest there.

The Fountainbleau has 554 rooms in more than 1 building in 1963 and being the most luxurious and expensive Hotel in Miami Beach, I don't think anyone anyone on the Hotel Management and Staff will divulge information on their guests to another guest.

True. And the maids probably wouldn't have allowed a stranger to snag the keys and enter the private room of an incredibly wealthy and powerful guest either. Sometimes we have to suspend disbelief. But requiring the viewer to do so too often diminishes the film.

Meh I think the maid was initially overwhelmed by Bond's confidence and charm but later felt compelled to come clean (heh) and GF's no doubt anger at his privacy being invaded possibly also put her on the spot before her line manager...I think it works without too much of a stretch.

Oh and yeah great film 9/10 and easy top 5 Bond imo!

I thought that Bond slept over at the woman's hotel room, which is how Oddjob found them, cause he knew what room she was staying in.

But if it's Bond's room, than that changes things.

He did sleep in the woman's room. As the maid says, "that's Mr Goldfinger's suite!" Why did Bond stay in that room? Because Goldfinger needed to win back his money which bought Bond time with Jill. How did Oddjob find Bond? Because "that's Mr Goldfinger's suite!"

Odd that Monsieur Khan didn't pick that up.

Why didn't Bond take the woman to his own suite though?  I mean didn't he think that Goldfinger, being  a rich man with connections, might try to retaliate?

As for Goldfinger, I feel the movie is one of the better bonds, and in my top 10 for sure.  But I don't know quite why so many say it's the best.  I mean it's really good, but feels like an introductory movie compared to some of the better ones that follow it.  One of the reasons that maybe keep it from being the best for me, is Bond is captured for pretty much half the movie and doesn't have as much to do, compared to others.

Plus, I feel Bond has no character arc in this one much. Even in some of my favorite ones, such as The Spy Who Loved Me, Licence to Kill, The World is Not Enough, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Casino Royale, and Goldeneye, he still had arcs in each one of those.

Some of them small, but they were still there. Here it's just another mission, that he does not have as much investment in. Sure the two Masterson sisters are killed, but he quickly forgets about that it seems.

Mood killer perhaps? Even Bond thought that he might not be able to hold his load with Jill. Turns out he could, but it got him into trouble. 

The Bond films don't need a character arc for Bond. This is his job. It's better to have a straight forward mission than a shoehorned journey a la CR. Why should it be personal? And why should it be personal every time?

Yeah I guess, that's a good point.  But even if it's just him doing his job, I just feel Bond never really gets to be gritty or bad ass much in Goldfinger though.

I mean even Moore had more bad ass moments in The Spy Who Loved Me, like when he knocks the guy off the building who was gripping his tie, or when he shot Stromberg several times.  A good movie doesn't need these moments necessarily, but I'm surprised Goldfinger is often considered the very best, when it doesn't have any though.

I'm more interested in seeing Bond vulnerable than "gritty". Bond about to get his plums severed by laser with nothing but his wits about him is much more gripping than seeing Craig-Bond storming an embassy and smacking an innocent man's head against a statue. I'm more interested to see Bond outsmart a cheating Goldfinger (either at the hotel or on the golf course) than see Craig-Bond ramming a plane up a car to protect a girl who sits in the back seat of said car. 

Any attempt at Bond being "gritty" has so far been a laughable attempt.

Well it's good to have Bond being vulnerable and using his wits too, I just thought you could have both. I felt a few of the other movies, capture both worlds.

And that's exactly what happens in Goldfinger. It doesn't look like Bond has a way out of the restraints on the table, so he talks his way out of it. 

Bond shooting Stromberg isn't using his wits.

I watched this on BBC America a few weeks ago, drunk, of course.

This is not a very well-written movie. Some of the dialogue is downright stupid and/or sloppy.

Hamilton, DP Ted Moore, John Barry and Ken Adam make up for it with their contributions, however. The film also benefits from Hunt's editing. Can't say I care much about the characters, though. Oddjob and Goldfinger may be the most interesting. Bond was fine but was probably more complex in DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, if I'm being honest.

It's an acceptable Bond film, but hardly the best of all.

Control wrote:

Bond was fine but was probably more complex in DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, if I'm being honest.

In what way?

Don't know about complex, but there definitely seemed to be a level of intimacy in the scenes with Tiffany Case that was missing in Goldfinger. In the latter, he seems mildly annoyed by Jill's death for a brief period, but then spends most of the movie being a hapless smartarse.

Control wrote:

This is not a very well-written movie. Some of the dialogue is downright stupid and/or sloppy.

That makes no sense to me. The one thing I can never criticize in GF is the dialogue nor the quality of Dehn and Maibaum's writing.

I once taught a bit on screenwriting and noted that Paul Dehn was connected with the two of the all-time best solutions to problems in screenwriting-1. changing the raid on Fort Knox to the detonation of the bomb to irradiate the gold. And 2. Coming up with a sequel idea after the conclusion of Beneath the Planet of the Apes.

hegottheboot wrote:

Control wrote:

This is not a very well-written movie. Some of the dialogue is downright stupid and/or sloppy.

That makes no sense to me. The one thing I can never criticize in GF is the dialogue nor the quality of Dehn and Maibaum's writing.

Yep, though an incarcerated Bond slows down the second half, demonstrating a structural issue with the film. But it's a mild one, in my eyes, in that it's peppered with great moments anyway - anything with Pussy, Goldfinger's spiel, scenes at Fort Knox and Pussy Galore's Pilots.

ironpony wrote:

Why didn't Bond take the woman to his own suite though?  I mean didn't he think that Goldfinger, being  a rich man with connections, might try to retaliate?

Oh, for Heaven's sake.

Didin't any of you wonder how Felix managed to track Bond down on the phone? ("James isn't in his room, so I'll try Goldfinger's suite. If he's not there, perhaps he's in another room with someone I don't even know about. I'll just call all 554 rooms and hope I hit on him.")

Bond did take Jill to his room ("I know the best place in town"), with his fridge full of hamburger patties and 'passion juice' (the '53, of course, for all you Beatles fans). It would have been a small matter for Mr. Auric Moneybags to track him - or, rather, Jill - down.

And true, Goldfinger never saw Bond in Miami, but he heard him, in his earpiece while being threatened with an investigation by the Miami Beach Police - the same voice that greeted him in the golf club pro shop. And Oddjob obviously saw him.

I agree, though - Goldfinger is the first of the slick fantasy fulfillment Bond films, although Thunderball edges it out in my estimation - possibly because they spent more time on actual location (did any of you notice that only Cec Linder was actually  in Miami? The rest of the poolside scenes were shot in the Pinewood studio).

Goldfinger is vastly overrated yet does manage to improve on the novel in some respects. The irradiation of the gold has already been mentioned and Fleming's idea of Bond leaving a message beneath the lavatory seat should never have got past his editor.

In the end, though, Goldfinger has a central fault line that no script can eradicate: no one wants to see James Bond held captive for any length of time.

Erica Ambler wrote:

In the end, though, Goldfinger has a central fault line that no script can eradicate: no one wants to see James Bond held captive for any length of time.

...and yet, a lot of critical fans complain that DAD would have been better it we'd seen more of Bond dirty, hairy and bedraggled, suffering in the N Korean prison (for me, his clean-up scene came just when I was starting to wonder, "how much longer is this going to go on?").

I didn't care for the whole torture thing when DAD first came out. The character still had a superman lustre for me back then.

In hindsight, they should've either gone hard or left it out completely. I'd lean towards the latter because no one watches Bond for deep grittiness.