Review of Goldfinger (1964) by Cameron J — 03 Jan 2012

Of course they were going to make a third one, because these films make so much money that they really could make a finger of gold. Well, I'm sure this will be it, because, seriously, how many of these films can they make? Will people in 2006 seriously be taking their hover cars down to the Holograph cinema to see the 21st Bond film with some guy with a name like Craig Daniels, or something? Ah, people probably won't even be interested in the movies anymore, because by that time, they'll probably have run out of gimmicks, because I certainly can't see this whole 3D stuff from "The Mask" going anywhere. Ah, the 1960s; it was a simpler time, it was a... boring time. Yeah, I don't know why I came up with a joke like that either; but hey, at least it makes more sense than a lot of the gadgets in this film, which is why I'm sure they'll tone down the sci-fi, before they do something as crazy as sending Bond to space. Okay, that's enough cheesy "speaking from the past" jokes; but you have to admit, those jokes are still not quite as cheesy as this film gets.

This is most certainly not the cheesiest "Bond" film, but it does still get pretty cornball at points, and if Bond killing a random bad guy by electrocuting him in the tub in the opening, then saying, "Shocking" isn't enough to tell you that this isn't going to be as subtle as the last two films, just wait until you here the main Bond girl's name. Still, cheesy spots are the least of this film's problems. Editing has always been spotty in..., well, the '60s, but that includes "Dr. No" and "From Russia with Love", but here, I don't know if the editing is so much the problem, but the writing, because the story structure to this gets pretty messy, a fact made painfully obvious by what I call an "Indy On a Mission Opening", which I coined after watching the "Indiana Jones" films that... came out well after "Goldfinger" did. Well, Bond may have been an early founder of the flaw, but Indy" did this more, and it's not any smoother back here, in the '60s, because the film opens up with a mission that has absolutely nothing to do with the main storyline and is just used to pump you up, when really, it just throws you off. Well, the story layout never gets that messily-written again in the film, but many a moment feels rather forced and offputting, particularly when we get to the cop-out. The film's storyline is spotty in its structure, and with that storyline being so surprisingly small, the film is rendered incapable of surpassing the predecessors. However, much like "From Russia with Love", in spite of a deal of missteps that keep this film from being on par with the previous films, it does enough things right, if not better than the predecessors to at least put this film on par with them; and not only does the film step things up in some places, it seems to take this series in an almost entirely different direction.

I thought Terence Young did a good job with the series, but Guy Hamilton makes Young look like nothing. Granted, Hamilton is no Guy Ritchie; he's not even a Chris Nolan, but the guy still knows style, and while he can't fully grasp the scope of the story, he knows how to get enough life and energy out of it that, unlike Young's films, are rarely, if ever boring. There's certainly no snoozing when action comes into play, because this is where Hamilton steps up and says, "Forget limitations, it's time to bring the '60s to a new, more dynamic action era." Choreography is made slicker, staging is made grander, editing is made tighter and camerawork is made sharper, thus creating relatively near-groundbreaking action dynamism that surpasses the sharp action of the last two films, and really adds to the excitement of this film. Hamilton has certainly brought this series to new lights, yet there is more of the same, such as a great score, lush locations and, of course, Sean Connery's being just too darn charismatic. With his expected aura of charisma, as well as humanity to break up Bond's perfections, Connery further proves that no matter how many new turns this series takes, he'll always be there, fully emobodying a true icon, which is why there's absolutely no possible way they could ever replace him. Okay, now that's "really" enough "speaking from the '60s" jokes; it's time to wrap this thing up, because I don't want this review to go on so long that by the time you're done reading it, you'll feel like the '70s just went by.

In the end, the occasional cheesiness is there, but not nearly as big of a flaw as the messy story structure, but with refreshing sensibilities by director Guy Hamilton - particularly in the action departments -, as well as the always delightful return of the solid score, fine locations and, of course, Sean Connery's strong performance, "Goldfinger" stands equal with its predecessors, but still serves as a change in this series' direction.

3/5 - Good.