Was that the one who would say (on the commercials), ‘You in a heap o’ trouble, boy. Y’heah?’
To balance it out the other way:
I loved Dalton as Bond. He’s more of the ‘blunt instrument’ Flemming described. I think TLD is one of my favorites. It’s an old-school spy movie, rather than a world-saving mega movie. I like it all, except for the gun-totin’ Oxford-educated Taliban who crash the formal party at the end (what-did they ride their horses all the way to London? Did they come on a plane dressed like that?). I hated License to Kill the first time I saw it, but that was mostly for the dismembered Felix Leiter and the semi truck doing a wheelie. Upon rewatch it isn’t so bad. Even with Wayne Newton.
I hated every Brosnan Bond except* Die Another Day*. Brosnan made a good Bond, but the stories were by far the weakest. I can’t get past the stupid use of a radio telescope as a satellite control antenna, when in real life you only need something the size of a DirecTV dish. And Dr. Christmas Jones, babe nuclear physicist? Please! “The World Is Not Enough” doesn’t sound like a hero’s family motto but a warning from a super villain.
The Brosnan plots equal in stupidity the worst of the Moore movies. (And yet, I like DAD, even with the invisible car. Go figure!)
And anybody that thinks Connery can do no wrong as Bond needs to rewatch Diamonds Are Forever. (and Never Say Never Again. That’s exactly what I said when I finished watching it - Never Again.)
But the beauty of Bond movies is even the worst one (by anyone’s criteria) has good stuff. There’s something for everyone.
Actually, it’s one of my favorite films- but yes, it is a mess.
I liked the idea that 007 wasn’t a single agent but a number they assigned to their best.
David Niven was great and Ursula Andress- wow!
From MAD:
Ursula Andress
Sounds better in Latin: Orbis non sufficit.
One thing that makes me scratch my head…when they tried a return to Fleming-type roots with Timothy Dalton, they didn’t do so well. Yet when they did the same with Daniel Craig, they succeeded admirably. I wonder what made the difference? It’s not as if Tim’s any worse of an actor than Dan.
I think it might be because Dalton’s films weren’t the right movie for the time. The most recent Bonds were with Moore’s foppish, wink-wink interpretation. Perhaps the world wasn’t ready for a gritty, reality-based interpretation back then. The effects of Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns had not yet permeated into the public. People wanted their Bond over the top. Bond should not be “celibate”, as he was billed at the time. So the backlash went against the actor.
I prefer the more spy-based Bonds myself - TLD, From Russia With Love, For Your Eyes Only, Casino Royale (2006, not the Royale with cheese from 1967), even Octopussy, but I also can enjoy the save the world ones as well.
However, even during Moore’s run, they went from the “how can we literally top this” spectacle of Moonraker (50 shuttles taking off simultaneously! Space marines (with laser backpacks!)) to the more reality-based (and down to earth) For Your Eyes Only, so I’m not sure that completely explains it.
The first Bond I showed my young son was Goldfinger. Connery is great, and the Sixties setting is now retro-cool, but as my son said, “For a superspy, Bond sure gets captured a lot, doesn’t he?”
I’m almost certain I told this yarn before, but my son (teenager at the time) and I saw a rescreening of Live and Let Die at a neighborhood theater with maybe a dozen others in the matinee audience. We were sitting near a little old lady who commented on this scene by saying loudly enough for the whole crowd to hear, “Bullshit!”
Perhaps this clip might explain why she felt that way.
I’ve been giving thought to the idea of which Bond movie I would rate the highest at this point. It might even make for a fun poll. But I’m partial to Goldfinger for some reason.
Of all the outrageous stuff in that movie (and in all Bond movies, for that matter) THAT is what she cried BS on?
Not Kananga getting inflated? Not Solitaire’s genuine psychic powers? Not the easy-open doubledecker bus? Not that literally every car on the NY freeway scene was a 1972 Caprice? Not that Mr Big’s organization has intelligence gathering powers better than anyone in the world? But something that was actually done as portrayed (albeit after many takes)?
Thanks for the outtake video link - I had always thought the scene was staged with dummy crocs. Never figured it was done “live”, as it were.
At least that came from the novel.
That is amazing 
I always just assumed that they were fake crocs!
Goldfinger is kinda funny in that way; Bond does almost nothing right. He gets two women killed, gets himself captured (and recaptured twice) and fails in his attempt to get a warning to Leiter. He seduces Pussy, and that’s about it. Still one of the best Bond films, though.
Considering her orientation, that’s a pretty good accomplishment.
Fleming on women’s rights… :smack:
“Bond came to the conclusion that Tilly Masterton was one of those girls whose hormones had got mixed up. He knew the type well and thought they and their male counterparts were a direct consequence of giving votes to women and ‘sex equality’. As a result of fifty years of emancipation, feminine qualities were dying out or being transferred to the males. Pansies of both sexes were everywhere, not yet completely homosexual, but confused, not knowing what they were. The result was a herd of unhappy sexual misfits - barren and full of frustrations, the women wanting to dominate and the men to be nannied. He was sorry for them, but he had no time for them.”
Yeah, but you don’t usually think of the balance of the global economy resting on something like that.
Berkoff also played Victor Maitland in Beverly Hills Cop (released the following year). Took me years to notice they were the same actor.
No kidding! Whoever thought that was a good idea for a new film franchise?
I can’t accept the plan to “let” Goldfinger rob (nuke) Ft. Knox. First, you have to get everyone to play dead when gassed, and in a believable manner (right off the bat I have trouble with that - they all keel over in unison as soon as the plane passes overhead. No time for the gas to even spread out and reach them.) Not one of them is a joker who refuses to play along?
Then the cunningly brilliant plan involves letting Goldfinger bring a nuclear weapon into a US base, where it nearly explodes. Way to control the situation! If I were in charge, several high ranking people would lose their jobs over than, even allowing for the way it came out as a “win”. They should have just rounded everyone up as soon as the entered the fort.
I’ll politely disagree. 
Although I can still enjoy it, on the whole it feels more like a Bond parody, which should be impossible after only two other Bond movies.
To be fair, that passage described Bond’s feelings, not necessarily (but I admit, probably) Fleming’s.
It’s not even the worst example - other books have characters, some female, opining that women love rape, or at least rough Ayn Randian sex.
The problem I noticed was in Goldfinger’s motivation for the Fort Knox attack. He says early on that he loves gold itself (“its brilliance, its divine heaviness”, something like that), not what he can buy with the gold, and he welcomes any endeavor that will increase his holdings. But irradiating Fort Knox won’t bring Goldfinger any more gold, it will just make the gold he has more valuable (and make it that much more costly for him to get more).
Still a good movie.The theme song alone puts it in the upper echelons of Bond films.
Holy **** that is awesome. If anything that shows that it isn’t that unrealistic. Also, I want to watch all the Bond movies too now.
Bond himself was apparently confused. From Casino Royale:
“As a woman, Bond wanted to make love to her, but only when the job was finished.”