AMC has been running a super-marathon of James Bond movies recently, as many as five or six in a row. It's even included "Never Say Never Again," the 1982 remake of "Thunderball" starring an aging Sean Connery and running opposite Roger Moore's "For Your Eyes Only." (The story behind "Never Say Never Again" is actually an interesting legal one that had repercussions into the early 2000s, and one that I had a very marginal connection to from my time at Munger Tolles; I'll blog about it at some point.)
Anyway, "Goldfinger" was on the other night, and I was sort of excited to rewatch it, as I've always considered it to be the best "pure" Bond movie. It had the souped up Aston Martin, it had the strong femme fatale who ends up helping Bond, and it had the freakish henchman to the head bad guy -- Oddjob, the guy who threw the razor-brimmed hat with deadly accuracy.
And I was soooo disappointed. I'll cut the movie some slack for less than impressive production values, since it's over 40 years old at this point.
But the scheme was ludricrous: do you really think you could fly a bunch of planes directly over Fort Knox without being intercepted or shot down? and do you really think that you could disperse knock-out gas from a small plane at an altitude of about 100 feet and have it taken instant effect on people on the ground?
And the movie was largely misogynistic, from the absurd names for the women (Pussy Galore?!?), a trend only compounded by subsequent movies such as "You Only Live Twice," in which a Japanese male agent gets Bond's approval over the fact that in Japan, men come first, women second -- delivered while both men are getting bathed by three women each.
Going back to "Goldfinger," the height of utter lameness was near the end, when Bond is in the plane with his nemesis, Auric Goldfinger. Goldfinger shoots a gun in a plane cabin, and the plane depressurizes. And then Goldfinger gets sucked into the hole and a moment later, pops out the hole to plummet to his death. Hey, I realize there's a degree of fantasy in the whole series, but is this even remotely plausible?!? The gunshot blows a person-sized hole? Actually, it's a little smaller than Goldfinger; somehow there's enough suction to squeeze him through. Yet, that amount of force isn't enough to dislodge Bond from his feet. . . .
I'm sorry, but the Brosnan movies have more realistic (?) stories, and they aren't nearly so Neanderthal in their views of women. With one exception ("The World is Not Enough"), they just hold my interest more than the earlier movies.
You dare question Connery's portrayal of Bond? BLASPHEMER!!!!!!
Posted by: Lugosi | January 11, 2006 at 05:47 PM
Now now; "is this even remotely plausible?" is not a phrase you wish to bandy about as a criteria for judging ANY of the Bond films. See, for example, the space weapons at issue in Goldeneye and Die Another Day.
Posted by: Dan G | January 12, 2006 at 11:19 AM
There is no James Bond other than Sean. "Plausible" and "less Neanderthal" simply do not enter in as factors.
Posted by: Cyndi | January 16, 2006 at 02:45 PM
Given your utter lack of appreciation for the greatness of "Goldfinger" (though all the true Sean Connery movies deserve a rewatching), I recommend you keep you day job as a law school professor.
Posted by: Michael Guttentag | January 16, 2006 at 03:36 PM
Professor, I suggest you watch the original Airport. The Petroni character explains Explosive Decompression quite nicely. Also, there was a real incident when a jet suffered the same type of tragedy over the Hawaiian islands. I forget the name of the airline, but a stewardess was sucked out of the cabin to her death.
Professor, as with your pontifications on how Republican Caucuses are run, do you regularly pontificate without doing any research or bloviate on hearsay?
Posted by: Dan Mehlhorn | January 17, 2006 at 08:53 AM
Michael -- As I noted in the blog post, I used to think that "Goldfinger" was the best Bond movie. I just think it hasn't aged very well.
Dan -- Does the movie "Airport" count as research?!? The explosive decompression myth was tested in Discovery Channel's MythBusters (summary of the episode here) and debunked. With regard to the flight attendant who was sucked out of the plane, that was the result of an "18-foot section" of the plane that was ripped off; that's less surprising that a person would be sucked out.
Posted by: Tung Yin | January 17, 2006 at 11:14 AM
http://www.babycare.net.in
baby care is not the meaning of only physical care of baby but also think about the Perception
and sensory development,Communication and languagedevelopment,Cognitive development,Emotional
Development ,Social Development.
Posted by: baby care | March 21, 2007 at 09:53 PM
http://www.moviesmania.org
movies mania is website for a pop-culture website covering movies,
television, music, pro-wrestling, politics, sports, video games, and more........
Posted by: moviesmania | March 21, 2007 at 09:56 PM
http://www.computers-guide.co.in
In the developed world, virtually every profession makes use of computers.
However, certain professional and academic disciplines have evolved that
specialize in techniques to construct, program, and use computers.
Terminology for different professional disciplines is still somewhat fluid and
new fields emerge from time to time
Posted by: Computers | March 21, 2007 at 09:59 PM