The trouble with Bond, as a rule, is Ian Fleming. Whatever strengths he has as a writer, and they are formidable, his flaws as a man tend to infect his work, like a parasite that gnaws away at the prose. The embodiment of everything wrong with the British Empire, the racism and sexism that define him tend to taint the novels in hindsight.

The trouble with Goldfinger specifically is that the film version is fairly faithful and every deviation from the original work is the correct choice. As a story goes, it's not bad, though there are plenty of tiny flaws which the scriptwriters on the adaptation thought through. Bond's presence in the final act actually makes sense in the film. The logistics of the heist are more thoroughly thought through. The golf scene is brief and doesn't make you want to die a little. All worthy improvements.

But the main improvement of the film is that no screen time is dedicated to being shockingly racist towards Koreans - referred to as apes, subhuman and unnaturally cruel at various points - and there isn't a single scene where we are subjected to Fleming, via Bond, theorizing that giving women the right to vote is making everyone gay. Fans might argue that it's a product of its time, but it was also entirely possible to avoid being racist without harming the content at all. The racism adds nothing but cringe.

Reading the whitest man who has ever lived try to explain Karate is a unique joy, however.

But if you can look past the flaws Fleming inevitably brings you are still faced with this being a first draft for a much better retelling, that of the film.