Goldfinger (1964)


Dave’s 3-Word Review:
Yeah! Not bad.

A lot of them old farts that grew up with James Bond have a different idea than I do of who 007 is. There’s a set image in my mind, and no it’s not Daniel Craig, or Pierce Brosnan, or even Sean Connery. Who it is doesn’t matter if they can pull of the character. I see James Bond as the spy of spies. Technically, he doesn’t even need gadgets if they do it right, but they definitely help. He’s this guy who can go into any dangerous situation, but still apparently pick up any girl he ever wants to at the same time. He’s smart, dangerous, cool, and investigates some of the strangest and most difficult cases out there. Goldfinger is the first time in the series (chronological order) that I have been on the edge of my seat. This one finally got me invested in the story, which is the most important aspect of a 007 flick.

Alright, so while he’s off in Florida, James Bond is asked to pay close attention to a man named Goldfinger who is a gold smuggler and Bond must find out how he manages to smuggle the stuff in the first place. Turns out, this guy really loves gold, and practically everything on him is gold, to which he sells to his buyers, but his real mission is to freakin’ rob Fort Knox in Kentucky, paying off his minions with $10 million each. James Bond overheard the message, but being held captive by Goldfinger stopped Bond from relaying the message, so he had to take matters into his own hands.

Yes. This is what I have been waiting for, I knew an oldie had to be a goody. I knew as soon as they painted that Bond girl gold that we had a winner. Of course, that’s a waste of gold, and I can barely accept the notion that Goldfinger randomly kills his victims with gold paint as a calling card. It’s too obvious, for one, and a waste of money. It’s pretty, but unnecessary. Anyways, it felt more like a James Bond story to me. It was interesting that they took the setting of the film over to the U.S., but that’s not really why I like it.

I liked it because I could follow the story really well, which told me that there was an improvement in the writing room. I liked James Bond’s vulnerability in Skyfall, but there’s just something about his unbreakable stature that is also admirable. While Skyfall made Bond look more human, Sean Connery’s Bond made him look like a hero, maybe even superhero that we could wish to someday be similar. But we’re getting off topic.

This film introduced us to the spy car. I recognized it right off bat, it was the same car in the most recent 007 film, same exact car with the same features.  I loved it. Of course, it was given to him by Q, which I practically jumped for joy when I saw him as well, because he’s the gadget guy. We’ve seen him in the previous film, but this time he had his own…office of sorts that we’ve never seen before. His “testing arena” if you’d like to call it that. The gadgets he gave to Bond raised the bar for the “cool” factor, and once more I continue to feel the pieces coming together for what makes James Bond James Bond. You can disagree with me on that if you wish.

For the most part, Goldfinger is a good example of what’s to come. Bond feels like a complete spy now with an interesting enough story that you can easily follow, yet wonder how it will all end. As a whole, Goldfinger will have you sitting on the edge of your seat – a happy camper.

10 thoughts on “Goldfinger (1964)

Comment here, guys!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.