I don’t envy Steven Knight. The talented writer behind “Peaky Blinders” has been tasked by Amazon/MGM to reboot the James Bond franchise with a fresh take for the 2020s and introduce a new incarnation of 007. Reportedly his first draft of the screenplay of what is still just known as “Bond 26” did not pass muster with the powers that be and he’s gone back to the drawing board. It’s not surprising as the international political situation is more volatile than at any time since the days of 9/11 and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Bond movies have to reflect their times. It’s part of the brand. It must be a nightmare for any writer to keep up with.

In the light of the uncertainty around the future of James Bond (and world peace), my wife and I settled down to a rewatch of the film that, for many, defines the series, “Goldfinger”. Released in 1964 it ushered in what became known as “Bondmania” – “Beatlemania” for grown-ups if you will. It dominated the UK and US box office, the theme song by Shirley Bassey became a worldwide hit single, it won Bond’s first Academy Award (Sound Editing) and a ton of merchandise flooded into stores including the famous Corgi Toys Aston Martin DB5 with working ejector seat. It remains for me a fun film, but it’s not top tier Bond, more a solid “work in progress” that lacks many of the classic tropes. However, it is oddly prescient and could provide a clue to Bond’s future on the screen. Why? Because the story feels more about today than 1964: it’s 007 against Donald Trump.

Millions of people love “Goldfinger”, that’s true. It always polls high in those Bond ranking surveys and there is plenty to enjoy. Connery is at his lightest and most relaxed in the role, he rocks a grey 3-piece suit and has a lovely new wig, there are some of the series’ most classic, GIF-friendly quips, from “Shocking, positively shocking” and “I expect you to die”  to “I must be dreaming” and the Aston is a terrific little motor that would stay with the series for decades. You’ve also got a bombastic John Barry score, that stunning song, and the definitive opening sequence, pre-credits mini-movie. BUT, what’s missing from the movie is a sense of style. It lacks the glamorous locations of the first two entries “Dr No” and “From Russia with Love”, the Miami sequence relies on back projection (Connery never went there) and despite a few beautiful scenes shot in the Swiss Alps, everywhere else (including a few scenes in Kentucky) looks like Stoke Poges. Which it mostly was. There is no casino scene, the only vodka martini is served suspiciously quickly in a cheap looking goblet on a private plane and none of the Bond girls get to wear anything approaching a party dress. If they get to wear anything at all.

It’s functional Bond, cloudy day at the golf-club Bond, even at times, dull Bond. And the main reason I think is that director Guy Hamilton does not share Ian Fleming’s fascination with women. Compared to the original novel both Masterson sisters’ roles have been cut to the bone and there is no sense of Bond having much of a relationship with either. Shirley Eaton’s Jill has about 3 lines before iconically being murdered by gold paint, whilst the stunning Tania Mallett as Tilly could’ve been given loads of screen time out for revenge (see “For Your Eyes Only” as a great example of this plot), but gets whacked by Oddjob’s hat in no time. Honor Blackman’s Pussy Galore gets to share quips and a haystack with Connery, but similarly there is very little depth to her. Compared to the three Bonds that surround “Goldfinger”, all directed by Terence Young, none of the women here have many lines or much agency at all. When Hamilton returned to the franchise in the early 70s, the trilogy of films he directed “Diamonds Are Forever”, “Live And Let Die” and “The Man With The Golden Gun” are marked by an even more flagrant misogyny at odds with Fleming. Smart and confident women are punched, shot or chucked out of windows, while the ditzy ones get patronised, objectified and finally get to bed a Bond around 20 years older than they are. How nice for them.

So “Goldfinger” may have dated badly in some respects, but in 2026 one saving grace is that it reflects our world in a very surprising way: Gert Frobe’s elephantine, yet oddly charming Auric Goldfinger himself. Overweight, insanely rich with ginger hair and a German name, he has absurdly glamorous women working for him, seems obsessed with North Koreans, loves gold (obviously), likes a cheeky quip or two, is a liar and a cheat and, oh yes, adores golf. Remind you of anyone? Not to mention he has a plan that will bring the world’s economy to its knees. But in Goldfinger’s case, a much brighter man than the repellent, demented idiot who runs the USA today, he is doing this on purpose. Irradiating the gold of Fort Knox seems playground stuff compared to confecting a war that (at the time of writing) has killed thousands of civilians, threatens the Middle East tourist industry and is holding the world’s supply of oil and fertiliser to ransom. It won’t be until Roger Moore’s tenure as Bond in the late 1970s that we would see a true Trumpian level of megalomania from a villain.

I don’t know if Donald Trump is a James Bond fan. He doesn’t strike me as the kind of guy who would read a book or sit through a 2 hour movie (unless it features his wife), but 007 is so ubiquitous in Western culture today, surely someone in his circle has woken up to the fact that we are living in a world being shaped by the kind of evil man that Ian Fleming warned us about decades ago. The sad truth is that there is no Connery around to humiliate today’s Goldfinger on the golf course or to seduce a woman in his inner circle to bring his evil plans to its knees. There is no “pussy” to grab him back after that grotesque boast, no James Bond to save us all from his insanity. Maybe Steven Knight’s script will be able to address the horrific state of the world today, but perhaps we have to face up to being at the mercy of a lunatic who is beyond parody, beyond Stromberg, Drax or even Max Zorin, so utterly at odds with reality and morality that no film could do justice to him. In past decades Bond movies would give us a fun, exaggerated spin on modern events, but in such exaggerated times today, where even truth can be manipulated with AI videos convincingly faking news stories daily, it’s hard to know how far fiction can go. Where can a hero like James Bond fit in when faced with such odds? In 1964 Bond defeated Goldfinger, whereas in 2026 a new Goldfinger, one accused of crimes beyond the imagination of Ian Fleming, threatens to defeat Bond. Good luck, Mr Knight.