# "Goldfinger" blu ray review



## Richard W. Haines (Jul 9, 2007)

"Goldfinger" looks identical to the last Ultimate Edition DVD release in that it was mastered
directly from the camera negative and looks sensational. It's even better here from the same
source master because of the added pixels. The re-mixed 5.1 sound is fine too. Of course
in high definition, some of the rear screen shots look more artificial but overall it has the
"Glorious Technicolor" look of the era with vibrant primary colors and saturated tan fleshtones.

I covered the rest in my previous review of it so you can refer back to that for more details 
about the production itself and where it fit into the series thematically and stylistically.
This is the first Bond film where Connery wore a hairpiece but it looks convincing. 

If you wanted to nitpit on ratios, the film was shown in two formats back in 1965. In the US
it was shown in 1.85 and in Britain it was shown in 1.66. I'm sure they accomodated both
ratios when shooting the movie and it looks fine in 16:9.

So if you like Bond movies, rush out and get this blu ray. You won't be disappointed.


----------



## deacongreg (Jul 29, 2008)

Richard W. Haines said:


> "Goldfinger" looks identical to the last Ultimate Edition DVD release in that it was mastered
> directly from the camera negative and looks sensational. It's even better here from the same
> source master because of the added pixels. The re-mixed 5.1 sound is fine too. Of course
> in high definition, some of the rear screen shots look more artificial but overall it has the
> ...




Hey Richard,

I do not know how I missed this review. But, once I do get my Blu-Ray, Goldfinger being one of my favorites, along with Thunderball, I will surely go pick this up.


----------



## Richard W. Haines (Jul 9, 2007)

I still can't get over the fact that what we are watching is not a first generation
Technicolor print or a first generation Eastmancolor print but the actual negative 
that was exposed in the camera during principal photography back in 1964 (color
corrected with the colors reversed into a positive). You cannot get better than that.
It actually looks sharper than a 35mm Technicolor print...although in some cases that
causes some problems when you see the pock marks and blemishes on Connery's face
and obvious grain in the rear screen projection.


----------



## deacongreg (Jul 29, 2008)

Richard W. Haines said:


> I still can't get over the fact that what we are watching is not a first generation
> Technicolor print or a first generation Eastmancolor print but the actual negative
> that was exposed in the camera during principal photography back in 1964 (color
> corrected with the colors reversed into a positive). You cannot get better than that.
> ...


Your in such a unique position, in that you have seen all this stuff. I would love to see it myself, just to see the differences, and how things have changed, moving to today, and for history sake. 
You know, if they gave classes, people would appreciate it more. I`ve always loved music, but its been proven that children who played an instrument ( I played clarinet, then alto and tenor saxophones) have a much greater appreciation for all music. 
I`m sure that helped my development.


----------



## Richard W. Haines (Jul 9, 2007)

Most of the surviving Technicolor prints for comparison are in film collector
hands or in archives. The studios didn't save them but they do have the
negatives in many cases and in the best scenarios, they aren't too faded
or damaged and can be fully restored for DVD and blu ray release. On a home
sized screen of 10 foot wide, they look fantastic. However, I don't think they
would hold up on a theatrical sized screen that they were originally shown in
which was about 40 feet wide for the large screen cinemas of the sixties. A
DVD would shart showing the pixels when enlarged to that degree. That's
where 35mm Technicolor really shows it's superiority. The ability to enlarge a
postage sized image onto huge screens while still retaining it's fine grain sharpness 
and vividness. But that's irrelevant for home theaters. The blu rays look great 
and represent the filmmaker's intentions from a visual standpoint.

I come from a music background myself. Both my parents were music teachers.


----------



## deacongreg (Jul 29, 2008)

Richard W. Haines said:


> Most of the surviving Technicolor prints for comparison are in film collector
> hands or in archives. The studios didn't save them but they do have the
> negatives in many cases and in the best scenarios, they aren't too faded
> or damaged and can be fully restored for DVD and blu ray release. On a home
> ...


That is cool. Music is big for both of us, excellent.. Good to know that Blu-Ray will bring out the best, in these as well. So, you did not mention where you got Jekyll and Scream??


----------



## Richard W. Haines (Jul 9, 2007)

Best Buy in Cordlandt but it was the only copy on the shelf.


----------



## deacongreg (Jul 29, 2008)

Richard W. Haines said:


> Best Buy in Cordlandt but it was the only copy on the shelf.


Hmmmm..My Best Buy is in no way as diverse. mostly new releases, current blockbusters, and some oldies, Rambo, Officer and a Gentleman, you get the picture!!


----------

