Goldfinger

The third and, as far as the later development of the series is concerned, also the most important 007 movie adventure. All the aspects that come to mind under the term Bond movie were established right here by Guy Hamilton. Above all, the entire plot is presented with significant hyperbole and completely diverted from the books the movies were based on. And this is where he killed the whole series of movies for me. I found the more realistic style of From Russia with Love much more pleasing. What has to be praised is the brilliant opening song. Connery’s charisma and overall entertainment are both there. Just that after this movie Bond will never be the same again. For some just what they want, for me a huge disappointment. (01/13/2008)

Three times is enough. I revived the slogan of uncompromising morality followers who, after the 3rd crime, are willing to send pickpockets to life imprisonment, and applied it to a series of classic Bond films. I told myself that if any old Bond title has a chance of success with me, it will be Goldfinger, which features a truly charismatic villain and is based on a book that I read as a teenager, so I should feel at least some nostalgia for it. However, I definitively verified the fact that the phenomenon of Bond films only started to become at least partially interesting to me with GoldenEye. This is unattractive, and outdated, with a long-expired warranty, but surprisingly still has a great reputation. The power of the brand does a lot. Overall impression: 40%. (12/03/2013)

Although a memorable film, Goldfinger, and indeed the entire Bond franchise with it, reflects very subtly, and sometimes to its detriment, how film trends change at breakneck speed, with the genre greats of yesteryear becoming films that tempt the rather benevolent outlook of contemporary audiences. That said, Goldfinger is not only permeated with a dynamic story that leaves no room for directorial routine under its flood of car chases, shootouts, and the cleavages of several sexy Bondgirls, but it also carries the fresh charm of a recently bursting genre and has so many great and unseen ideas that you cannot be angry with it as a work that in some of the twists and turns succumbs to its age far more noticeably than, for example, some equally old conversational dramas. A nostalgic and humorous movie that more than deserves its high rating as a classic of all spy classics, even if it is sometimes too "off the rails"... :) 75% (09/07/2015)

Among all the Bond movies of the era of the first three actors, this one is my favorite. Connery was in his best form and dealt with the most devilish villain, who even stole the title of the movie for himself, following the example of Dr. No. The best thing about it is, of course, that even sixty years after its creation, it would easily stand up to today's competition, even though the passage of time has started to leave its mark on the more extravagant scenes as well. (03/17/2007)

Goldfinger’s caption could be "Macho Strikes Again". I guess only Bond can turn a lesbian into a heterosexual by the sheer force of his masculinity. Compared to the previous two films, there is less of the espionage atmosphere but more of the gadgets and one-liners. Bond films have taken on a new direction. (08/03/2016)