[Richard W. Haines]

"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.

 

[Richard W. Haines]

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.

 

[Richard W. Haines]

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.

 

[Richard W. Haines]

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