Choose your next witticism carefully Mr. Bond, it may be your last.

No 166 - Goldfinger

Director - Guy Hamilton

I have been following the excellent Blogalongabond since its inception, and now as they reach their third month, they have finally come to a Bond film which makes my list... therefore I can jump onto The Incredible Suit's coat-tails and try to explain why Goldfinger is such an important film for the Bond canon; why it's the film in which Bond finally seems to find his voice...

The first two films in the Bond canon create a world of action and adventure - but they are still very much spy films, not necessarily obvious 'Bond films' compared to the structure which becomes so key to future episodes. And many of the elements which are now famous and integral to Bond tradition stem from this film.

This is the film where Bond becomes a lot wittier, dropping one liners and innuendo all over the place (though it would be 35 years before the undisputed peak of Bond's smutty rubbish puns). It is the film where we finally meet Q branch - a circus of destruction and organised chaos, overseen by the arch-eyebrowed genius of Desmond Llewelyn's Q - which is barely even hinted at when Q delivers a suitcase in From Russia with Love. Not only that, but a suitcase (even one with gas and hidden money) is nothing compared to the gadgets and gizmos which creep out of Q branch post-Goldfinger. The film's big toy is another Bond staple - The Aston Martin DB5; a car which will forever be linked to the Bond franchise.

Goldfinger secures the Bond tradition so tightly that it is still, after all these years, the go-to film for Bond parodies (You Only Live Twice being perhaps the only competition).

It is also so confident that it manages to give us the entirety of the new Bond structure in a mini adventure before the opening credits.

We don't get to see all of Bond's missions here. After all, they're not all as dramatic and dangerous as those that make it to film. So instead, we get to see one of Bond's missions which seems to go effortlessly. It is also here that we see how dangerous and how efficient Bond is as he whizzes through a series of events which include fights, visual humour, explosions, women, one liners and generally looking suave as hell. Everything that makes Bond Bond. Everything that is set up throughout the film. Everything which is now synonymous with Bond. It's all there in the 4 or 5 minutes before the credits roll and the film begins...

It is incredible... and yet before you have time to really appreciate it, you're hit by something else. Something all the more incredible:

Goldfinger is one of the most incredible songs. Not just an incredible Bond theme - one that has never been matched (though I do love Live and Let Die and would rank it a strong #2) - but an incredible song, a pinnacle of not just Bassey, but British pop. Full stop.

The following instalments have all tried to capture the passion, romance, seduction and danger which trembles so effortlessly throughout it. If the marvellous Bond film doesn't give you goosebumps, this song alone will.

It is just brilliant. A faultless bit of music.

Now I realise that I've spoken LOADS about this film without even getting into the main story, but hopefully what's clear is that to discuss Goldfinger, you discuss everything that is right about the Bond franchise - creating a unique entity in the spy genre but keeping it restrained enough that it doesn't ever become parody.

There are further elements of the film which I wish to discuss, but first:

An Intermission

Erno Goldfinger was an architect, a founding member of the modernist movement. He created a lot of cuboid concrete buildings. Those ugly buildings that are characteristic of 60's architecture. I appreciate design, but these aren't the nicest or most exciting buildings.

The issue arose when he wanted to create his own home, 2 Willow Road. In order to do so Goldfinger had to demolish some old cottages which stood on the grounds.

There were a lot of protesters who were against this. One of these people was none other than Ian Fleming. He was so outraged that he named his villain after the architect as a mark of his displeasure. Erno successfully sued and was paid damages and given six free books. As a final mark of anger, Fleming threatened to rename the character Goldprick...

You can still visit 2 Willow Road as it is owned by the National Trust. The perfect place for a Blogalongabond family day out.

End Of Intermission

The reason I gave Goldfinger such an excellent intermission is that, in the film, he isn't that great a villain. He isn't a terrifying physical presence (though he is a big man) and he isn't the Machiavellian plotter of say Blofeld... He is just an utterly ruthless and very intelligent businessman.

No, there is but one real star when it comes to the villains:

Oddjob has a lot of useful characteristics. Of course the main one is that if he is kneeling, most people can't see him in multi-player Goldeneye... but believe it or not, his skills go even further than that.

Firstly he is super iconic, mainly due to his weaponised bowler. Now, I like a villain to stay sharply dressed - but considering that his bowler hat is weighted enough to chop the heads off marble statues, it must be fucking heavy.

Oddjob must have one hell of a sore neck.

Overall, he's just cool - he's a cracking butler and a fabulous villain. But his main triumph is being instantly recognisable; a sharp suited Korean who can kill you with a bowler hat. A smaller angry Jeeves.

Goldfinger manages to produce a lot of iconic images. Whether with Villains or with Bond girls, they are recognisable and immediately linked to Bond.

All in all, there are a fine variety of women on offer here. But I'm not going to talk about the Mastersons (after all, there is nothing more to add to Jill's character that hasn't been said in the above picture, and Tilly is hardly exciting) - instead we're going to talk about one of the most famous Bondgirls, and the first to really start the trend of ridiculously sexual, barely double-entendre names. Pussy Galore (seriously, who would name their child Pussy Galore?!)

Pussy is an interesting character for several reasons. Firstly, she is in a position of power, armed with her own air force of sexy jump-suited blondes. Secondly (and most importantly) - she has the weakest character arc ever.

Watch the sequence in the barn. This is the turning point, where Pussy goes from assisting Goldfinger in his villainous schemes to helping Bond.

You don't even need to watch the scene. Just look at the freezeframe Youtube provides. Bond's powers of seductions are, um, RAPE. It doesn't matter that Pussy learns to love it, and that they later have more willing parachute sex. This is just not a good set up.

I'm sorry to say this, and I know Bond has always been famed for his misogynistic views, but here he is frankly a borderline rapist....

Which kind of ends the blog on a sour note.

So let's lighten the mood, eh James?

Three measures of Gordon's; one of vodka; half a measure of Kina Lillet. Shake it over ice, and add a thin slice of lemon peel.

No 56 - Casino Royale
Director - Martin Campbell

Bond is a bit of a mixed bag. After all, the films can be fantastic. A staple of a family get together, the quintessential Sunday evening film as you digest your big old roasty roast. They're full of action and adventure and silliness - they were fun for all the family.
It may be true that the franchise had a tendency to go off track and become too bonkers, but they remained good clean fun for all the family (even grannies love Goldfinger).

Not any more. Casino Royale doesn't flinch in letting you know where you stand. You're standing in more grit than the Wu Tang Clan's gravel pit. This is adult, this is serious... we know because we're in black and white. For it takes two kills to become a 'Double O' agent and we alternate between Bond's two kills - one in clean crisp and classy 'Schindler's List' grey scale and the other in a far more frenzied dirty Pi-style black and white. Daniel Craig's Bond is almost a shark. Dead eyed and deadly. He will beat the crap out of you with a savagery impossible to see in Roger Moore.

Casino Royale is a bit of a strange one because for the first time we're rebooting rather than continuing the story... So we start again with a new Bond. A rough and angry chauvinistic bastard of a man, far more in keeping with Fleming's descriptions in the book.

I am going to talk about how this film has differed from Classic Bond and about what I think works and what I think is too Bourne in this re-incarnation. However, firstly I want to geek out about the titles. The song may be a bit non-descript (whilst keeping the arrogance and horns of a Bond Theme) but the visuals are beautiful. It captures the feel of 1960's cinema and the feel of a classic Bond intro but it moves it forward, it makes it more interesting than merely having bikini-clad women dancing around. Not many films still have the big epic title sequences and theme songs, so it is nice to see it...

There are a few other little touches which appear, tying the 're-boot' to the main franchise, mainly through tongue in cheek nods.

For example:

• The 1964 Silver Aston Martin
• Bond emerges from the water in an amusing little reversal of Honey Ryder's entrance
• Whilst working undercover, Bond gives Vesper a typically innuendo laden alias - Miss Stephanie Broadchest
• And of course we get the origin story of the Vesper Martini... shaken, not stirred.

There is only one big integral thing which has remained from the old films to this film, the casting of Dame Judi Dench as M (whilst Q and Moneypenny didn't make it to the screen); she is brilliant and Martin Campell obviously agrees as he was the man who originally cast her when he relaunched Bond for the first time.

Besides the odd subtle nod and the wonderful Dame Dench, the film tries to distance itself from the cliches of old Bond, and especially the tone of old Bond - we lose the jokey feel and instead focus on the action. Everything in this film is a catalyst for a big action sequence (or a sequence in which Daniel Craig gets his shirt off - clearly he is part of team Jacob) and whilst it does have the obligatory Parkour scene (which all films seemed to do a few years ago) it has the decency to do it well, and to get Sébastien Foucan, one of the founders of the sport, involved. The film even manages to make a massive game of poker interesting to watch - admittedly it mixes in some big and ridiculous action sequences - at one point Bond stops himself from having a heart attack using a defribillator in his car... for all the gritty realism this is still Bond after all, no savage emergency tracheotomies her, it is still far more glam than Bourne's world. I am also pleasantly distracted from cards by having Tyrone (you silly fat bastard) as one of the card players. I mean he doesn't say anything, but is he there? 'Course he is.

There are two major characters that I've yet to mention. Firstly Vesper Lynd - important for being one of only two women Bond has ever fallen in Love with (to the best of my knowledge), both of whom succumb to similar fates - played by the fabulous Eva Green (who is in the sexiest screen moment ever when she pretends to be the Venus de Milo during The Dreamers). Her character is wonderful in this, a perfect foil to Bond in that she is almost exactly the same. She is also a fluctuating contradiction of passion and aloof-ness. She just can't handle the killings. Sadly, I find her story very weird (especially Bond's cold detachment from her towards the end) and I find that as the story moves to Venice after the Casino Royale Poker Extravaganza, the story starts to lose its way. It never completely does it, but it begins to threaten unravelling. I think a neater edgier story could have been made if the final couple of acts had been tightened.

And on to the final character I wish to discuss - LeChiffre. Mad Mikkelsen plays to the character's weaknesses. Emphasising his slight frame, his slimy cowardice, his asthma and his iconic tear duct which causes him to occasional cry blood. This is in every way a Bond Villain, with a mildly cartoony physical deformity but a keen and plotting mind, and utterly dangerous. You could argue that the scene in which LeChiffre tortures Bond shows the sheer horrors he is willing to impose on people; and you could say it is either evidence of the darker and more realistic tone the film has taken, or that it is just another reason for Daniel Craig to get his kit off. You're probably right regardless of which one you choose.

So, a conclusion. Really, it is an excellent action film. It is tense, it is gripping and it whizzes along at a breakneck speed. But both the film and Daniel Craig's Bond lack the charm and comfort of classic Bond. A move which I know was deliberate and which has helped the franchise. But a move which is still regrettable.

Maybe if they had managed to squeeze in David Niven and Peter Sellers it would have been better.