|
Post by ant-mac on Nov 7, 2018 15:14:41 GMT
GOLDFINGER (1964) 5/5.
A British spy film and the third instalment in the JAMES BOND film series produced by Eon Productions. The screenplay is by Paul Dehn. Richard Maibaum and Berkely Mather, which is based upon a story by Johanna Harwood and Berkely Mather, which in turn is based upon the novel GOLDFINGER by Ian Fleming. The film soundtrack is by John Barry, it’s produced by Albert R Broccoli and Harry Saltzman and it’s directed by Guy Hamilton.
GOLDFINGER stars Sean Connery as James Bond, Honor Blackman as Pussy Galore, Cec Linder as Felix Leiter, Shirley Eaton as Jill Masterson, Tania Mallet as Tilly Masterson, Bernard Lee as M, Desmond Llewelyn as Q, Lois Maxwell as Miss Moneypenny, Harold Sakata as Oddjob and Gert Fröbe as Auric Goldfinger. It also features Richard Vernon, Burt Kwouk, Martin Benson, Austin Willis, Margaret Nolan and Gerry Duggan as Bond's golf caddy, Hawker.
The plot has James Bond investigating gold smuggling by gold magnate Auric Goldfinger and eventually uncovering his plans to contaminate the United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox with nuclear radiation. This was the first blockbuster in the JAMES BOND film franchise, with a budget equal to the first two films combined. Despite some major changes in the plot from the novel, it’s still an extremely entertaining film. However, the one thing I personally noticed is there’s not as many lesbians in the film as there were in the novel.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Nov 7, 2018 15:24:50 GMT
8/10. Pretty entertaining and quite well made. Though I don't exactly love it as everyone else does.
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Nov 7, 2018 15:37:35 GMT
8/10. Pretty entertaining and quite well made. Though I don't exactly love it as everyone else does. I enjoy it and think it's very well-made, but it's certainly not my absolute favourite.
However, I do tend to enjoy films from this era more than from other eras simply because they have a closer connection to the source material.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 7, 2018 16:05:29 GMT
I really like Goldfinger, but I think this is the first one where the series became a bit too full of itself and self-parodic. Unlike the first two, it doesn’t take itself seriously and, especially in the end, turns into goofiness—the “James Bond formula” most people know—gadgets, gizmos, and girls—almost presaging the Moore films. Now that’s fine, but I like it where Bond himself has a bit more edge and grit—though not too much, or he’d become Daniel Craig! There was a movie review site I used to read, and the reviewer summed up the differences between the Bonds nicely, I thought (he’s reviewing For Your Eyes Only): The right balance between the light comedy that can descend into goofiness and the “bullet-in-her-skull” dark, modern, and broody Craig approach is where I like Bond the best. (So it’s no surprise my favorite Bonds are Connery and Tim Dalton!) Anyway, Goldfinger is fun, definitely, but you can see it’s not taking itself seriously—and when a movie, even a silly movie, doesn’t believe in the events on the screen, why should we? Wait—that comes off as way more critical than I mean. I’d probably give Goldfinger a 4/5 on a 5-point scale, if I did those things. But it’s just a turning point in the series, away from the genuine heroics, action, and adventure of Dr. No and especially From Russia with Love.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Nov 7, 2018 16:46:16 GMT
10/10, the "Gold Standard" for James Bond and super spy films in general.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Nov 7, 2018 16:51:40 GMT
I should note Goldfinger’s one of the few Bond movies better than the book. (Several of them are equal to the books on which they’re based, I think, but few of them are better than their books—Goldfinger and Thunderball are.) A guy I used to work with thought Fleming wrote the book as a parody of his series up to that point, with which I’m not sure I agree but which may be what I see in the movie. But the book’s lesbianism and plot are pretty silly, and Goldfinger-the-character is not the great villain that Mr. Big, Dr. No, and (yet to come) Blofeld were—though Gert Fröbe and Michael Collins brought him to life in the movie.
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Nov 8, 2018 9:30:18 GMT
I should note Goldfinger’s one of the few Bond movies better than the book. (Several of them are equal to the books on which they’re based, I think, but few of them are better than their books— Goldfinger and Thunderball are.) A guy I used to work with thought Fleming wrote the book as a parody of his series up to that point, with which I’m not sure I agree but which may be what I see in the movie. But the book’s lesbianism and plot are pretty silly, and Goldfinger-the-character is not the great villain that Mr. Big, Dr. No, and (yet to come) Blofeld were—though Gert Fröbe and Michael Collins brought him to life in the movie. For me, none of the films have ever been able to come close to the original novels.
They're simply not in the same class.
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Nov 12, 2018 6:10:19 GMT
10/10 Third time is a charm. A great Bond classic!
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Nov 12, 2018 13:17:24 GMT
Definitely one of the stronger entries in the film series.
|
|