Goldfinger

Goldfinger, 1964
Goldfinger [Blu-ray]



Alright, I'm going to give the James Bond series a second go. A lot of people commented on the first James Bond movie that I watched, GoldenEye, and recommended that I try again with this James Bond movie. I'm not ready to give up on the series as a whole just yet; although there is a lot this movie might have to make up for.

In hindsight though, I'm really starting to wonder if I should have watched this movie in place of GoldenEye earlier in the challenge.

After having watched the movie:
(Possible spoilers below)

When I took a day trip with The Boyfriend to St. Augustine the other day one of my favorite things that we got to do was exploring inside the Spanish built fort. We also got to hear one of the rangers give this amazing demonstration and speech about the life and times of the people who lived and built the fort. He explained to us, and for me it was one of the first times that this idea that has really stuck with me, how truly intelligent these people were. A lot of us tend to look at their world without realizing they didn't have the knowledge and technologies that we had in the world we live in today. Another key point that he shared with us, was the idea that the Spanish continued to look back in history for ways to create and enhance older ideas and technology. I know to some people these points may seem rather elementary, but for so long in my history classes I never felt as though I really understood the people I was spending so much time reading and learning about.

As far as the blog and the 365 Movie Challenge, I've tried to account for these things as I'm watching some of these movies. For example, Metropolis was made in the very early years of filmmaking before we understood how to manipulate and record sound in order to play it back and in sync with moving pictures. It hardly stands up to Avatar and the billion of effects in the movie, until you consider which technologies were around at the time. The movie is actually amazing.

The same principles kind of apply to the two James Bond movies that I've seen now. The first James Bond movie I saw was, GoldenEye which frankly I found to be a little disappointing. Today I gave the Bond series another shot when I watched Goldfinger. 

I think before I really get into though I just need to put my cards out on the table, this is what I need and expect James Bond to be: James Bond at the bare minimum should be a super hero with out any particular super powers. He should continue to find himself in situations where he get himself into a bit of trouble at times, and Bond should be capable of some pretty amazing, yet reasonably achievable stunts. However when he's unable to physically remove himself from his latest predicament he should be able to rely on his dashing good looks and great charm to get himself out of any situation.

I absolutely loved Goldfinger. I got everything I wanted and needed from James Bond this time around, and I think it's because in the instance it was able to deliver in a different way than GoldenEye did. I don't need all of the over-the-top action sequences and effects that GoldenEye delivers, that just become too much. I feel like the story was written around boxes of TNT because we were capable of doing more effect wise, rather than it being done because the script and story needed it. I think there's more of a punch when the only real technology that Bond has and needs at the time are a few car modifications: oil slick capabilities, fog or dust bombs, an ejecting passenger seat, a piece in a tire that comes forward to shred a passing cars tires, machine guns built into the finders, bulletproof glass, and tracking device. I kind of feel like these are really the only thing Bond needs to be really equipped with; otherwise it takes away from the illusion that he could be just any random guy on the street. After all, isn't that one of the biggest appealing factors in action and super hero movies?

I also feel like I should mention that I thought Sean Connery made a better James Bond than Pierce Brosnan. I can't help but to feel as though on the screen Brosnan's charm as Agent 007 reads as a much more arrogant and cocky. Whenever Brosnan's Bond slips up and land himself in a sticky situation, I kind of felt like, "yeah well, you kind of deserved that." Where as with Sean Connery the characteristic Bond charm isn't really perceived as cocky and arrogant to me. I don't know how key this is little bit is in the whole scheme of things; although everyone does seem to have a favorite Bond. Perhaps it's really just an unfair advantage to Brosnan, after all it is Sean Connery.

Final thoughts: In this instance though I don't think we need to take careful consideration as to what technologies were available in 1964 when the movie was made, but instead we need to be able to reinterpret why James Bond worked so well in 1964 for 1995's GoldenEye. Yes, I completely understand that all of the effects and action sequences from the '95 Bond film were cutting edge and "amazing." However I think there comes a point when the action sequences become too over the top. I can't help but to feel like this cheapens the whole series and the character of Bond, in a way that now he doesn't feel like he could be anyone walking down the street.

OFFICIAL COUNT 30 DOWN 335 TO GO

Next up: Sunset Blvd