Goldfinger explains his whole heist scheme to his gangster suppliers under the pretense of paying those who still want in 10 times the agreed amount. One of the gangsters refuses to participate and leaves with his one million. Of course he's then killed off. But then it turns out Goldfinger kills off the rest of the gangsters anyway, which makes the whole car-crushing business wholly unnecessary, not to mention the 10-million offer and the entire exposition scene. Especially when it's later revealed that holding up Fort Knox was never even the plan to begin with, which means that Goldfinger had an entire elaborate exposition room built and disguised as a pool hall so he could sell his fake plans to people he was never going to pay only to immediately kill all of them. The closest thing to making sense this could possibly be would be that he originally did plan for things to go as he explains and then had the room built, only to change his mind later and figuring hey, the room's built anyway, might as well give it a spin just for giggles.
One possible explanation is that Goldfinger is just vain enough to rub his criminal genius in his rivals' faces before he kills them.
His speech to the gangsters is an excuse to get them all together, let them drop their guards with promises of riches, and then kill them all to tie up loose ends that could be traced back to him. Chances are he was probably planning on killing Pussy and her pilots after they outlived their usefulness for the same reason.
There's always the possibility that Goldfinger actually was NOT planning on killing the gangsters until one of them gangster refused to wait. After that, they all became expendable. Since his plan -if it succeeded- would've left him with riches beyond anybody's imagination, pay wasn't really an issue: he could've easily paid what he said he was going to.
Also possible is that the gangsters could still have caused trouble if they dispersed too quickly; he had to have SOMETHING flashy to keep all or most of them around so he could conveniently kill them. It's not like the car crusher trick would've been practical to do 10 times. It's explicitly stated that the gangsters' contacts helped with logistics, so it's plausible they could've potentially caused too much trouble if they left.
Movie Bond rattles off a list of statistics to Goldfinger regarding how moving the gold from Fort Knox would be logistically impossible. This is actually fan criticism of Fleming's original, where that was exactly what Goldfinger was trying to do.
In the book, mind, Goldfinger's plan was pure Refuge in Audacity; it was 50% theft and 50% psychological warfare.
Why do the soldiers fall down? Couldn't they just attack Goldfinger as he approaches, rather than allowing him to bring a nuclear device into Fort Knox?
Explained in the movie. Goldfinger specifically told Bond that, if his plan was thwarted, he would take his bomb and set it off in a major city. They had to trap both Goldfinger and the bomb with no hope of escape.
But why did the vehicles come nicely to a stop? I mean, they probably wouldn't suddenly accelerate, but they would coast and then continue rolling at an idle until they bumped into something (perhaps even a foot soldier who'd fallen down). Guess it's something they felt they needed to do for safety, and hoped the bad guys (and the audience) wouldn't notice.
It's been a while since I've watched the movie, but was Goldfinger closely watching? They may have stopped, counting on the fact that a person up in a moving airplane probably couldn't really tell fine details such as if a car stopped immediately. And if it was the Flying Circus that was watching, they were working for the good side, so they likely wouldn't report such discrepancies, simply telling Goldfinger and his men that "The baby is asleep."
There's a scene where Bond attaches a magnetic tracking device to Goldfinger's car. Later, it's shown that the car body is made out of gold. But gold isn't magnetic.
Well, gold is soft. The car must have steel to strengthen it, otherwise the whole body would start to bend hither and thither.
The car isn't literally made out of gold, just gutted internally and loaded down with it.
The gold is in the body panels, but the framework is still steel. Remember, that's an old model car; it still uses steel-frame construction.
After Oddjob kills the gangster, why doesn't he take the gold out of the trunk of the car before crushing it? Wouldn't that be easier than extracting it later?
Plot-wise, the tracker had to be disabled before Felix spotted Oddjob. Also, Oddjob had to dispose of the body and bring the gold, which the movie shows is very heavy, back to Goldfinger. Two birds with one stone I suppose.
This has long bugged me. Goldfinger's plan is to irradiate the US's gold supply, thereby affecting its value and destabilizing our economy. This would require the U.S. Government to acknowledge that their gold had been contaminated. But the gold in Fort Knox is never handled or even seen by outside entities. Wouldn't this effect be neutralized by the Army and the Treasury Department denying this or covering it up?
It is * RARELY* handled, but it is occasionally handled. The ruse would only work until some creditor comes knocking demanding bullion or the Treasury decides to release gold to the public but there is no gold to release.
How was it supposed to work, anyway? Gold repels radiation.
By coating it in radioactive fallout from the nuclear explosion, or blowing it to smithereens. There's also the part where any attempted cover-up would face the problem of explaining why a tactical nuke went off on the grounds of Fort Knox.
The gold itself may be fine, but the gold's surroundings — including the city it's based in — are now radioactive and toxic for any living thing to enter. Which is is a bit of a problem if, as mentioned above, you need to get inside to access the gold.
The real problem with the plan is that it effectively accomplishes nothing for Goldfinger. So his gold is worth 10x as much. That's just due to inflation. Everything would cost 10x as much. Not only that, but ruining the U.S. economy would severely damage most of Europe as well (acknowledged in the film). That means Goldfinger's other businesses would probably be harmed as well.
Oddly, the plan might have worked better if it would have caused slightly less catastrophic damage to the economy - gold tends to increase in cost somewhat faster than the average level of the economy (that was, as it happened, one reason why the Bretton Woods system became harder and harder to maintain as its end approached - the US gold reserve was being steadily drained to keep the price of gold in terms of dollars steady, as the 'natural' price kept rising and more and more gold had to be sold to keep the supply/demand ratio steady), so if his plan had somehow 'just' broken Bretton Woods and removed the gold in Fort Knox from the equation (thus bringing the potential supply down), the price of gold might very well have gone up relative to the rest of economy. Of course, his plan *wouldn't* just have done that, it'd have caused a global severe economic crisis... which would heavily depress demand for non-essentials, like gold.
Nobody ever said that Goldfinger's plan would have actually worked; he IS stated by Bond to be completely mad, after all.
Perhaps it's the classic "If I can't have it, neither can you!"
If Pussy Galore was really bisexual (and not a lesbian as the book stated and the movie implied) why didn't they have at least one scene where she is shown being attracted to Bond prior to him "turning her.?" As it was, it looks like Bond raped her and THEN she "turned straight." I know that 60's weren't about subtlety...but come on...
And this is really what keeps me from considering Goldfinger one of the best Bond movies. Bond saves Fort Knox by sexually assaulting Pussy Galore into submission.
Of course in typical YMMV TV Tropes fashion this exact reason is why I consider this to be one of the best Bond flicks because that is exactly how a real agent would behave. The ends justify the means is how every single intelligence service works when it comes to protecting your country - its the same way the early Bonds used to slap women about or Roger Moore essentially raping Solitaire. Later incarnations of Bond made him whiter than white until Daniel Craig and even he hasn't gone so far as to assault women yet.
But it isn't portrayed as morally ambiguous "ends justify the means" or anything. It's portrayed as him being heroic and macho by "turning" the frigid lesbian. The Connery Bond is meant to be cool and someone that all men want to be, and his sexual assault and hitting women is presented as manly "boys will be boys" stuff. That's the reason this aspect of the character was phased out (well, until Skyfall at least), not due to any attempt to make the hero "whiter than white".
Ultimately, it's Values Dissonance. The original James Bond novels and films were never among the most politically correct works of fiction to begin with, even by 1960s standards, liberalizing attitudes to homosexuality and gender roles haven't helped any, and ultimately they have to be watched with this in mind. They're products of their time.
Exactly! Watching this and being confused about why it doesn't hold to modern sensibilities is like reading 'Le Morte d'Arthur' and wondering why it has such a huge boner for Christianity. There are so many more forces in effect on these works, political, economic and cultural, that have shifted since their creation, that it is easier to view them as artefacts of history than moral stories.
Why exactly did Bond interfere with Goldfinger's game at the start of the movie? It got him nothing, alerted Goldfinger to his existence and (indirectly) led to the deaths of two women.
Bond doesn't like cheaters. Plus he (and, seemingly, Jill) seriously underestimated just how much of a sore loser Goldfinger was. He probably knew he'd be pissed but he didn't know he'd be that pissed.
How exactly is somebody supposed to suffocate through their skin, I have heard that this was an urban legend but just about anybody who has done something like diving can tell you that is bs unless you are a frog. True you might overheat but that would take a much longer time.
It's fictional. It's not an actual medical effect.
Why is this considered one of the best bond movies, in my opinion it is one of the weaker entries. The villains plot makes no common sense the gold is already of the market so irradiating it will not really affect the price. Bond sleeps with villainesses who turn on their master without reason (in all other movies I have seen bad women he slept with and turned wear either unaware of or were unwilling participants in the big bads schemes) . The science of this world douses not fallow any laws of physics or biology that I have seen in any place even other bond films. And that is just scratching the surface and not getting into things like the possible rape of a lesbian. I am not complaining about this film or trolling I just want to know what other people see in it that I can not which will hopefully clear things up for me
FWIW, he doesn't rape her. He's not exactly a paragon of virtue, but she's clearly consenting just a few seconds into the kiss and there is nothing whatsoever to supporting that anything after that was forced on her.
He definitely sexually assaults her though. And many real life victims do "consent" when they realise that they can't overpower the rapist because they think they will be less likely to be hurt if they don't resist. The Pussy Galore scene is dodgy no matter how you slice it.
There is a difference between "consent" and "non-resistence". It seems pretty clear from the scene that Pussy Galore isn't just rolling over and letting Bond have his way with her for fear of being hurt. She stopped resisting because she was enjoying it and wanted to keep making out with the hunky secret agent. The scene is still sketchy, just not for the reasons you just said.
It’s entirely true that James Bond muddle’s through the entire movie and barely influences the outcome. Auric Goldfinger is always one step ahead of our hapless hero – and that’s what makes it awesome. Goldfinger’s plan isn’t particularly less common sense than most Bond Villain plots. . .
It's the broad scale, not the details. A lot of things are dated due to Values Dissonance and a lot more things have the problem of being seen as cliche when this movie was in fact the Trope Codifier. But this movie is really a spy movie done right; it has a villain with a great plot that is debatably insane (and thus larger-than-life) and isn't as cliche as 'rule the world' or something. It has a villain that is actually dangerous and carries out their operation quite intelligently. It has the hero getting by on his intelligence and talents, rather than taking advantage of the villain holding the Idiot Ball (even most Bond movies don't get this right!). And so on.
It's also chock full of classic scenes, like the laser between the legs, the Aston Martin, the gold paint, and the whole Fort Knox sequence. Goldfinger is also an awesome villain.
One can also argue that Bond, since this movie, became a something of a Boring Invincible Hero, or at the very least a ridiculously hyper-competent, untouchable, unflappable super spy who easily triumphed over adversity. Goldfinger is interesting because, although Bond is still roughly the same character but he's a lot more flawed.
In the movie (no idea if it happens this way in the novel) when the US Army stop playing dead and start shooting Goldfinger's men, Goldfinger changes into what looks like an Army General's uniform, then runs out and starts giving orders to the American soldiers. And this trick actually works. They turn their back on him long enough for Goldfinger to grab a machine gun and shoot them all to death. Why were none of these soldiers put off by this strange man dressed as an officer shouting orders at them in a pronounced German accent?