104 replies to this topic

[tdalton]

I like all the discussion scenes in this film.

Dent looks suspicious from the beginning and you can almost feel him shaking nervously when he tells Bond that rocks coming from Crab Key are "not geologically possible".

That's a great scene. Bond was visibly enjoying catching Dent in a lie. Connery's sinister grin said it all.

Agreed. That was a great scene, as were most of the scenes with Dent in the film.

[Harmsway]

And I can't imagine Bond just sitting around with Strangways' card-playing buddies to interview them or the many times he sits down with Pleydell-Smith. I think a better scene instead of visiting Dent about the rocks, Bond should have broken into Dent's lab and left, having Dent see him leave and then setting up the tarantula scene.

[Major Tallon]

But why would Bond have done this at that point? Dent was a member of Strangways' bridge foursome, but there was nothing suspicious in that, nor was there anything unusual about the fact that Strangways should have asked the geologist he knew to test some samples for him. It was only Dent's obvious lie in an attempt to shift Bond's attention away from Crab Key that made him a suspect. Bond had no reason to break into Dent's lab before that.

Edited by Major Tallon, 29 September 2008 - 09:40 AM.

[Harmsway]

But why would Bond have done this at that point?

Surely a simple rewrite could have provided a reason.

[double o ego]

No, it was fine as it is. Bond breaking in is so Brosnan. Here, we see the more intelligent side to Bond, using his wits and his skills as an investigator. Sometimes talking to people even if they're lying can be much more effective than beating them up or breaking and entering only to find nothing.

[Harmsway]

No, it was fine as it is. Bond breaking in is so Brosnan.

Well, Connery and Laz did plenty of it first. So I'd say it's actually well rooted in so-called "classic" Bond.

[double o ego]

They only broke into places where it was necessary. Bond breaking into Dent labs would have been pointless because 1) He needed validation of the receipt he had regarding the rocks and 2) Asking dent on a social level would have and did give him more answers than he had hoped for.

[Harmsway]

They only broke into places where it was necessary. Bond breaking into Dent labs would have been pointless because 1) He needed validation of the receipt he had regarding the rocks and 2) Asking dent on a social level would have and did give him more answers than he had hoped for.

Irrelevant, though, since I'm sure a rewrite could have restructured how Bond's entire investigation falls into place and thereby made a break-in a natural choice.

[manfromjapan]

A five-star classic. One of the great Bond films, an excellent adaptation, and a superb thriller in it's own right. Connery's Bond was never so animalistic, and it presents a rougher, less glamorous espionage world. They got everything so right with the first film. My fave after CR, OHMSS and FRWL. (Yes! I like it better than GF!)

[sharpshooter]

No, it was fine as it is. Bond breaking in is so Brosnan.

Well, Connery and Laz did plenty of it first. So I'd say it's actually well rooted in so-called "classic" Bond.

Yep, it is, for sure. I see nothing 'Brosnan Bond' about it at all.

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

My review of Doctor No:
Although Dr. No was the first "official" Bond movie, I was kind of confused. Let's start from the beginning.
Great intro to James Bond with the first gunbarrel. The title sequence is okay up to the point where the Bond theme ends (at least for me).
Connery makes a great debut as 007!! His fight scenes are great! I loved the scene between Bond and the spider. The only complaint I have with Connery was the death of Dent (but that was supposed to show just how ruthless Bond is). But, IMO, the second bullet was unnecessary.
When I think of Dr. No, two words come to mind: URSULA ANDRESS. Who could forget the rising out of the beach scene? Most memorable moment in a Bond movie, EVER!!!
I loved the scene between Bond and Ms. Taro where Bond plays her and sends her away! I always got a big chuckle out of that.
It may just be me, but I never understood what the whole plot of this film was. I watched it over and over and over again, and I still never got the plot point of sabotaging missiles with radio waves (although I assume that people in the 60s went into the film having read the book and knowing the whole story). I just remember getting confused the minute they talked about nuclear radiation with Felix and Quarrel (the Geiger counter scene).
Overall, solid Bond movie, great introduction to the character of James Bond, but I was left with a strange feeling at the end of the film
6/10
*As a side note, I was watching Dr. No once on AMC, and something popped up during the film. It said that, for the film, Dr. No was originally supposed to be a monkey. Can anyone else confirm this?

[Mr. Purple]

This is my first post on these forums

I recently decided to watch all the Bond films and now having finished I thought I'd just give my two-cents on them.

I certainly don't doubt that Connery is your classic, definitive James Bond and he certainly left a lasting -- no I'd say eternally lasting -- impression. Connery (besides Dalton and perhaps Craig too) seems to be the only actor to truly understand who this character is and what drives him. A ruthless assassin but yet not just a faceless, mindless murderer. I could truly believe Connery would be not afraid to slap a woman in the face and yet he could be just as charming and suave at the same time. Connery's Bond was brutish, graceful, cold-hearted, fierce and compelling.

Easily I find the most memorable scene in Dr. No is at the Le Cercle casino where we find Bond playing European Bacarat, yet we don't see Bond until that perfectly precise moment when Eunice Gayson utters her first line of dialogue, "I admire your luck, Mr. ...?" and then finally the big reveal of the film's star lighting a cigarette and uttering those immortal lines "Bond. James Bond."

I implore the film for it's simple yet effective story which makes it more enjoyable to watch than that of later films in the franchise such as Octopussy, The Man With the Golden Gun, Tomorrow Never Dies or Die Another Day. The story is purely character driven and the constant use of suspense and mystery feels far more refreshing than some of the mindless action that later plagues the series.

Ursula Andress is of course at the very top of the Bond Girl's list in my book. Incredibly beautiful and has the most memorable entry into a Bond film which a big plus. Ursula is not as much of a helpless, damsel-in-distress as later Bond girls which is very refreshing and her strong-willed nature and beauty is incredibly satisfying.

Dr. No is a wonderful first Bond villain and definitely one of - if not the most creepy Bond villain. Joseph Wiseman's performance as the half-german/half-chinese megalomaniac with metal hands is very fun to watch. Delicate, well-spoken, and even charming in his own way but with a deadly-looking glint in his eyes and face that looks dark yet dauntingly neutral. Wiseman's Dr. No set a benchmark for later villains yet many do not measure up -- Stromberg, Gustav Graves, Hugo Drax and Aristotle Kristatos chief among them in my opinion.

For a film that's over forty years old I feel the production values hold up rather well. The interior sets stick out fresh in my memory as being very impressive. The film is dated but I and I am sure everyone else looks at that way, the actions scenes sometimes make me chuckle and some of the props are rather funny, but the film holds up better than a lot of the later installments.

Dr. No is a truly magnificent achievement and truly spawned a legacy that thankfully continues to this day. With it's simple yet effective plot that is easy to follow and can be taken seriously to it's wonderful performances is why Dr. No ranks up high in my list.

8/10

Edited by Mr. Purple, 24 May 2009 - 05:56 AM.

[DR76]

I certainly don't doubt that Connery is your classic, definitive James Bond and he certainly left a lasting -- no I'd say eternally lasting -- impression. Connery (besides Dalton and perhaps Craig too) seems to be the only actor to truly understand who this character is and what drives him.

I don't agree. I think that each actor has portrayed Bond in his own style . . . which I find satisfying. I see no need for every actor to portray Bond in a particular fashion.

I could truly believe Connery would be not afraid to slap a woman in the face and yet he could be just as charming and suave at the same time.

Connery, Lazenby and Moore have all done this.

Ursula Andress is of course at the very top of the Bond Girl's list in my book. Incredibly beautiful and has the most memorable entry into a Bond film which a big plus.

Andress looked good and she was charming. And I could see that she could act. However . . . her character seemed irrevelant to the story. Honey Ryder had not emotional tie to the villain. Aside from finding a place for Bond and Quarrel to briefly hide on the island, she wasn't exactly a satisfying ally. Nor did she have an emotional tie to Bond. Basically, she seemed irrevelant to me.

Dr. No is a truly magnificent achievement and truly spawned a legacy that thankfully continues to this day.

For me, Dr. No was successful in spawning a film franchise. But did I find it magnificent? No. Its story was too flawed for my taste. Some of the acting in this film seemed rather bad. Even Connery seemed wooden in some scenes.

[Mr. Purple]

I certainly don't doubt that Connery is your classic, definitive James Bond and he certainly left a lasting -- no I'd say eternally lasting -- impression. Connery (besides Dalton and perhaps Craig too) seems to be the only actor to truly understand who this character is and what drives him.

I don't agree. I think that each actor has portrayed Bond in his own style . . . which I find satisfying. I see no need for every actor to portray Bond in a particular fashion.

I could truly believe Connery would be not afraid to slap a woman in the face and yet he could be just as charming and suave at the same time.

Connery, Lazenby and Moore have all done this.

Ursula Andress is of course at the very top of the Bond Girl's list in my book. Incredibly beautiful and has the most memorable entry into a Bond film which a big plus.

Andress looked good and she was charming. And I could see that she could act. However . . . her character seemed irrevelant to the story. Honey Ryder had not emotional tie to the villain. Aside from finding a place for Bond and Quarrel to briefly hide on the island, she wasn't exactly a satisfying ally. Nor did she have an emotional tie to Bond. Basically, she seemed irrevelant to me.

Dr. No is a truly magnificent achievement and truly spawned a legacy that thankfully continues to this day.

For me, Dr. No was successful in spawning a film franchise. But did I find it magnificent? No. Its story was too flawed for my taste. Some of the acting in this film seemed rather bad. Even Connery seemed wooden in some scenes.

Yes, looking back on this review, perhaps I was bit to heavy on the praise. Magnificent is perhaps too strong a word isn't it? So I'll agree with you there. As for Honey Ryder I don't think I ever alluded to her 'usefullness' merely praising the acting she did in the film and her looks -- as for the irrelevency I am not gonna go since there are too many Bond girls to count who were irrevelent. Moore was perfectly charming and suave but I only recall him slapping a woman once (was it The Man With the Golden Gun?) and he didn't look believable doing it. I'll agree Lazenby was believable doing it though but I can't speak much more praise for his 'style' as Bond, who I found rather faceless most of the time with little to no charisma and I don't even remember seeing emotion and/or expression on the man's face.

I get a bit 'praise-worthy' with the Connery-era Bond films and I seem to have neglected pointing out the flaws, I won't do that in any future reviews lol.

But that's varying opinions for ya

Edited by Mr. Purple, 24 May 2009 - 07:24 AM.

[chrisno1]

In 2008 I watched all the Bond movies in order and wrote a series of reviews for another site.
The aim was to watch them in order in the run up to the premiere of QOS. I succeeded and the reviews were well received.
However, subsequently, I have re-read my reviews and re-watched a number of the movies (the BFI had a whole 007 season earlier this year and I saw quite a few on the big screen again!).
This is my updated review for DR. NO

DR NO
REVISED REVIEW 23/12/09

Sean Connery, in the guise of our hero James Bond, leans forward slightly. He takes a cigarette, lights it and says the now immortal words: “Bond. James Bond.” As introductions go, it is still one of the most impressive in film-dom. The movie that surrounds it is fascinating, not so much for its own worth, which has dated some what over time, but for the worth of everything that follows. If there are better Bond films, then Dr No is still the standard bearer of the series, the father of them all, to which every subsequent episode owes its charm, its sophistication, its menace and its attitude.

The film is born and bred in the 1960’s, unlike its writer, a product of the post war class system. Dr No itself is an action packed novel; a tribute to McNeile’s Bulldog Drummond and Rhomer’s Fu-Manchu. Full of energy, the book has sex, violence, torture, murder, death and destruction. The characters are caricatures and the plot, for what it is, pales into insignificance as Fleming describes in detail a centipede crawling across a man’s torso, the naked form of beautiful orphan woman, the burning of a loyal Cayman Islander and a fight to death with a squid. The novel is nasty. And so is James Bond.

Thankfully the film and the character are not nearly so nasty. There are touches of ruthlessness: Bond kills the hapless Professor Dent in cold blood - treating death with the same distain he has for the turn of a card at chemin de fer. He is tough and it shows.

At times Connery’s delivery is a little over the top and his performance displays no subtlety. He barks sentences, like orders and treats other’s property with scant respect. Even when flirting with Eunice Gayson’s Sylvia, you always sense his ultimate prize is to take the lady to bed. In contrast Jack Lord and John Kitzmiller, as his aides Leiter and Quarrel, are calm and composed.

It is thanks however to the excellent dialogue by Richard Maibaum that Connery’s inexperience can be glossed over. This is no more evident than in the scenes at Dr No’s cavernous living quarters where the two adversaries joust sentences backwards and forwards. Joseph Wiseman is a wonderfully creepy villain, his eyes as black as his metal hands, and his delivery of the villain’s lines at the dinner table is both authoritive and menacing. Coupled with the scenes in London, where Bond drily asserts to his equally authoritarian boss that he never sleeps on the firm’s time, these provide Connery’s best scenes.

It may seem unfair to saddle Connery with a bulk of criticism, but he does feature in almost every scene. He isn’t alone with his troubles. Anthony Dawson’s Dent is a nervous failure of a villain and much of the background characters are as black and white and insignificant as in the book. Curiously, for such a macho film, it is the two female leads that succeed the best. Zena Marshall’s complicit Miss Taro is both sexy and sly, setting an early benchmark for the Bond villainess. Ursula Andress looks gorgeous in a white bikini emerging from the Caribbean surf and she has a fine range of expressions and mannerisms, giving her a girl-lost-in-a-man’s-world appeal. Fleming’s description of his heroine as looking like Botticelli’s Venus could hardly have been better interpreted.

Amongst the corpses and the girls we have a well constructed spy yarn. Director Terence Young is careful to incorporate the things we expect to see: point of view shots through telephone booths, people in sunglasses, hidden fortresses and suspicious disappearances. He is even careful to have Bond security proof his room and later on he walks the last yards to Miss Taro’s house so she doesn’t hear his car arrive. His direction is loose and not too serious, slightly at odds with the earnestness of the acting. He moves through the action seamlessly, although some script editing could have shaved a few more minutes off the running time: Bond spends a long time in Kingston doing very little.

Over the passage of time it is hard to realise how much of an impact Dr No had in 1962. It is a success on many levels, but a failure in others. You can almost feel the cast and crew striving to make this a landmark film; while some have their finger on the pulse of James Bond from the outset, others are playing catch up.

This is never more evident than with Monty Norman’s music score. The film opens with a blaze of colour and The James Bond Theme thumping over the credits, but this signature piece of music is soon swallowed up by first one then a second Jamaican samba. Yet during the movie Norman has an over-reliance on the main theme which borders on the obsessive and becomes at best repetitive, at worst down right silly -Bond approaches Miss Taro’s house to the theme, he enters the hotel to the theme; I can go on, but I won’t. Towards the climax, Norman is relinquished of his musical duties and a series of atmospheric sound effects brilliantly accompany Bond on his scramble through the Tunnel of Death.

Perhaps Dr No’s ultimate success and legacy is in the design. The novel is squalid for the most part and the producer’s wisely take Bond into the realm of high class casinos and high tech hide-aways. For that we have to thank Ken Adam and Syd Cain who create a glitzy prison house (“Mink lined with first class service” quips Bond), an underground living quarters complete with a floor to ceiling aquarium and a huge glittering atomic control room for the finale. These sets are fabulous and it wasn’t long before the producers realised where their bread was buttered.

RATING - 7 from 10

[TCK]

Eight years after the adaptation of Casino Royale (first Ian Fleming's novel) for the American television, the cinematic history of James Bond can start with Dr No, sixth Ian Fleming's novel. So it's done in 1962. From the first seconds of the film, two recurrent elements of the James Bond films are already here, they are of course the gunbarrel (which will be the most symbolic element, for it'll be at the beginning of each film... the forty first years at least) and the James Bond theme, which it is played during the titles sequence. This apparition of the James Bond theme brings about a mythical and fantastic feeling. Something is going on. As it's the first film, the Bond elements are built up. Some will stay during forty years (the shaken not stirred vodka martini, the « my name is Bond, James Bond » line, or the casino scenes), while others will vanish inch by inch (like Sylvia Trench, who was created to be a recurrent character).

We also enjoy the job done both on the main characters and on the second fiddles. Of course there's James Bond, interpreted by Sean Connery, who already represents the male phantasm par excellence, a kind of secret agent hero who is able to do everything and knows everything (even Strangways's new secretary's blood group !). His introduction uses only one thing : charisma. After having introduced himself with his famous sentence (my name's Bond, James Bond) while he was smoking a cigarette and playing cards, he suggests to have dinner next day to a woman he didn't know ten minutes before, and for it, he lets her his card with his number on and recovers his earnings. Just mythical. His cynicism and his refinement will come during the movie. We'll remember for instance his sentence after the car chase (I think they were on their way to a funeral), his way he fights (with a white pocket-handkerchief), or the way he behaves with women, at Taro's for instance, or the « Are you looking for shells ? No... I'm just looking » line. His sexuality, his libertine side and his hedonism form the character, and those aspects were often utilized by Fleming. So it's a pleasure to see them used in the movie.

Apart from Bond, we have the introductions of many characters who will come again, like M, chief of MI6, miss Moneypenny, his personal secretary, the armourer, Sylvia Trench, who will be back in the next movie, and of course Felix Leiter, a CIA agent and Bond's best friend. In the novels, they meet each other in Casino Royale, but for the good of the film, the meeting has been reworked. By the way, perhaps Bond's introduction was made of that sort in homage to Casino Royale. Jack Lord interprets without any doubt the best Leiter. He likes Bond, and he's faithful to the character of the novels, both physically and with his behavior with Bond.

The first James Bond girl was Sylvia Trench (even if to be precise we would say that it was Linda Christian), but the scene everybody remembers is Honey Rider fishing out of water. In all honesty, I think it's a good scene, but I find it overrated. One hour before, we had had Bond on bended knee (unusual !) in front of Sylvia, while she was playing golf... and to me this scene is better than the beach scene. But let's not be so severe.

The soundtrack is to me the best. Those few melodies returning all the movie long on different ways (suspense, danger) institute a remarkable singular atmosphere.

Of course, some defects remain. The false metal dragon and the fear he gets to Quarrel and Honey are laughable, especially with a twenty-oneth century view. We also notice Dr No's short presence, and his death is too much rapid too, even if the vision of these steel powerless hands which slide, while they had destroyed a Buddha statue five minutes before, is memorable. But the thing we regret the most is Bond ordering Quarrel to get him his shoes. But this is a tiny detail. We'll also leave aside a couple of incoherence, like Bond and Rider surviving radiations, or the CIA incompetence, which will become a Bond leitmotiv in the saga (in Goldfinger for instance).

The movie has become outdated. It's now unshakable. He has become outdated as a James Bond movie (the James Bond theme wich appears every two minutes seems to be very dated) but also as a movie (the moving background during the car chase, Dr No's base with all those dials and machines), but the one-million budget is surely the reason of that.

But Dr No is above all a very Bondian film. Indeed, the setting and the atmosphere of the movie is inspired by Fleming's novels : this tropical island where, after the second world war, some militaries, diplomatics or war men search for peace among friends and enjoy good time, this sweet and friendly atmosphere is recurring in Fleming's novels. Some scenes like the card game at the beginning of the film or the party at Pussfeller emphasize this sensation. Other Bondian thing, the balance between mystery and adventures halfway through espionage. Until the two-thirds of the film, Bond holds an investigation, and then the last third looks more like an adventure film. And as soon as Bond and Quarrel arrive to Crab Key, this mysterious island property of a Chinese, tension and suspense come too. We also notice Dent's death, one of the best scenes of the film, where Bond kills by cold blood a man, and the process will be reuse a couple of times (Kaufman, Dryden).

Finally, Dr No is an excellent exotic thriller. It looks like an illustrated postcard, but it honours the saga, and its introduction is perfect. The film lays the foundations but Fleming's atmosphere is not forgotten, for the adventurer and exotic sides are into the eponym novel.

8/10

[Capsule in Space]

TCK, I had an intuition to hold off discussing The World is Not Enough until I read your Dr. No commentary first. After seeing your review I am going to postpone my comments for The World is Not Enough.

The thoroughness of your review makes for a great conversation. I think it will be more fun to discuss one Bond film at a time anyway, so might as well start with the first one, and then we can go from there if we so choose.

So, I say let's discuss Dr. No first, and use your latest review as the basis of our conversation. I hope that sound alright with you.

[Capsule in Space]

It's hard picking a place to start! There are so many ways to go about this, but looking at the title helps me make a decisions. Let's start with Dr. No - the character:

We also notice Dr No's short presence, and his death is too much rapid too, even if the vision of these steel powerless hands which slide, while they had destroyed a Buddha statue five minutes before, is memorable.

I do wonder what effect it would have had on the film if Dr. No was introduced to us earlier. Would this film had been better if we had been given introductions similar to the one Red Grant given in From Russia With Love, Auric Goldfinger in Goldfinger? These introductions establish effectively how formidable those foes are to Bond that it allows their presence to be felt throughout the films, even when they are not in the scene.

I think the film does a good job portraying the threat of Dr. No through the use of other characters. This kind of builds up the suspense and intrigue that one would expect to follow a character such as No. However, could that threat have been even stronger if we had seen Dr. No from the very beginning?

I hope I have chose a sufficient starting point for our discussion.

[TCK]

When I talk about Dr No's short presence I mean the short presence as soon as Bond meets him. There's only two scenes between Bond and No, they are of course the dinner and the final fight. I don't mean they should have added more scenes during the movie with Dr No, but perhaps it would have been better if the dinner had been prolonged for a couple of minutes.

But as you said, the mentions of Dr No by, for instance, his case file which is stolen at the beginning of the film, Quarrel's fear, or, the best to me, his resonating booming voice when Dent comes to visit him, all of them are effective and they direct Dr No's mystery. If Dr No would have been introduced earlier, those dramatic tensions would have been less effective.

The scene Dent has a discussion with Dr No is, as I said, to me at least the best moment of Dr No's mystery. It reminds me Blofeld in Thunderball. A man who runs an organisation, but a man we don't know, except from a screen voice.

To draw a conclusion, I would say that Dr No's mentions (from the beginning of the film to the dinner scene) are effective and suit me, but I would have enjoyed a couple of minutes addition during the dinner scene.

[Capsule in Space]

When I talk about Dr No's short presence I mean the short presence as soon as Bond meets him. There's only two scenes between Bond and No, they are of course the dinner and the final fight. I don't mean they should have added more scenes during the movie with Dr No, but perhaps it would have been better if the dinner had been prolonged for a couple of minutes.

But as you said, the mentions of Dr No by, for instance, his case file which is stolen at the beginning of the film, Quarrel's fear, or, the best to me, his resonating booming voice when Dent comes to visit him, all of them are effective and they direct Dr No's mystery. If Dr No would have been introduced earlier, those dramatic tensions would have been less effective.

The scene Dent has a discussion with Dr No is, as I said, to me at least the best moment of Dr No's mystery. It reminds me Blofeld in Thunderball. A man who runs an organisation, but a man we don't know, except from a screen voice.

To draw a conclusion, I would say that Dr No's mentions (from the beginning of the film to the dinner scene) are effective and suit me, but I would have enjoyed a couple of minutes addition during the dinner scene.

The film left me with wanting more Dr. No. It sounds like you have that same feeling too. How the EON team could of gone about doing that is hard to figure out. It could have been done by lengthening the dinner scene, but perhaps the conversation between No and Bond could have been carried out in other settings within No's facility. Perhaps a few scenes like in The Man with the Golden Gun, where we have Scaramanga given Bond a guided tour throughout his facility before he has dinner with him, and before ultimately trying to kill our hero.

I see two problems arising that would have prevented such scenes from happening. One, EON probably didn't have the budget. The second problem is the film's primary objective, and that being introducing the world to James Bond. Perhaps focusing more on Dr. No would have taken away from establishing the Bond character. Since Connery was so good in the role the film doesn't suffer from such attention.

Any follow up on this, or can I move on to the next item of discussion regarding your review?

[Miles Miservy]

When I talk about Dr No's short presence I mean the short presence as soon as Bond meets him. There's only two scenes between Bond and No, they are of course the dinner and the final fight. I don't mean they should have added more scenes during the movie with Dr No, but perhaps it would have been better if the dinner had been prolonged for a couple of minutes.

But as you said, the mentions of Dr No by, for instance, his case file which is stolen at the beginning of the film, Quarrel's fear, or, the best to me, his resonating booming voice when Dent comes to visit him, all of them are effective and they direct Dr No's mystery. If Dr No would have been introduced earlier, those dramatic tensions would have been less effective.

The scene Dent has a discussion with Dr No is, as I said, to me at least the best moment of Dr No's mystery. It reminds me Blofeld in Thunderball. A man who runs an organisation, but a man we don't know, except from a screen voice.

To draw a conclusion, I would say that Dr No's mentions (from the beginning of the film to the dinner scene) are effective and suit me, but I would have enjoyed a couple of minutes addition during the dinner scene.

The film left me with wanting more Dr. No. It sounds like you have that same feeling too. How the EON team could of gone about doing that is hard to figure out. It could have been done by lengthening the dinner scene, but perhaps the conversation between No and Bond could have been carried out in other settings within No's facility. Perhaps a few scenes like in The Man with the Golden Gun, where we have Scaramanga given Bond a guided tour throughout his facility before he has dinner with him, and before ultimately trying to kill our hero.

I see two problems arising that would have prevented such scenes from happening. One, EON probably didn't have the budget. The second problem is the film's primary objective, and that being introducing the world to James Bond. Perhaps focusing more on Dr. No would have taken away from establishing the Bond character. Since Connery was so good in the role the film doesn't suffer from such attention.

Any follow up on this, or can I move on to the next item of discussion regarding your review?

I felt that the scene w/Dr. No coming up on them while they slept was adequately creepy in converying his capability of menace without overstating the fact too much. You knew right then that this villain could kill the hero at will.

[DR76]

Not one of my favorites. Most of the acting sucks and the movie's style is inconsistent and rough. And the movie's last 20 to 30 movies bore me senseless.

[Major Tallon]

When I talk about Dr No's short presence I mean the short presence as soon as Bond meets him. There's only two scenes between Bond and No, they are of course the dinner and the final fight. I don't mean they should have added more scenes during the movie with Dr No, but perhaps it would have been better if the dinner had been prolonged for a couple of minutes.

But as you said, the mentions of Dr No by, for instance, his case file which is stolen at the beginning of the film, Quarrel's fear, or, the best to me, his resonating booming voice when Dent comes to visit him, all of them are effective and they direct Dr No's mystery. If Dr No would have been introduced earlier, those dramatic tensions would have been less effective.

The scene Dent has a discussion with Dr No is, as I said, to me at least the best moment of Dr No's mystery. It reminds me Blofeld in Thunderball. A man who runs an organisation, but a man we don't know, except from a screen voice.

To draw a conclusion, I would say that Dr No's mentions (from the beginning of the film to the dinner scene) are effective and suit me, but I would have enjoyed a couple of minutes addition during the dinner scene.

I don't know if you've read the wonderful novel on which the film is based, but it solves your problem. Specifically, it adds to the dinner scene Dr. No's announcement that he has constructed an obstacle course designed to measure the human body's ability to tolerate pain and overcome various physical challenges. The announcement of the challenge would have fleshed out the dinner scene and given us further insight into Dr. No's psyche. It would also have avoided one of the most frequently noted logical gaffes in the film: why is a sudden flood of water surging through a ventilator shaft?

Perhaps there were reasons why the obstacle course concept was never mentioned. Perhaps the filmmakers feared that it would add too great a dose of sadism to an already violent film. Perhaps the inability to conceptualize a suitable final obstacle (dropping Sean Connery into a pen with a giant squid presumably exceeded both the budget and the margins of safety) forced them to abandon the concept. Still, for those who would wish for a more expansively villainous villain, and for those of us who just regret that a truly thrilling concept was never developed, it woud have been marvelous.

[TCK]

I don't know if you've read the wonderful novel on which the film is based, but it solves your problem. Specifically, it adds to the dinner scene Dr. No's announcement that he has constructed an obstacle course designed to measure the human body's ability to tolerate pain and overcome various physical challenges. The announcement of the challenge would have fleshed out the dinner scene and given us further insight into Dr. No's psyche. It would also have avoided one of the most frequently noted logical gaffes in the film: why is a sudden flood of water surging through a ventilator shaft?

Perhaps there were reasons why the obstacle course concept was never mentioned. Perhaps the filmmakers feared that it would add too great a dose of sadism to an already violent film. Perhaps the inability to conceptualize a suitable final obstacle (dropping Sean Connery into a pen with a giant squid presumably exceeded both the budget and the margins of safety) forced them to abandon the concept. Still, for those who would wish for a more expansively villainous villain, and for those of us who just regret that a truly thrilling concept was never developed, it woud have been marvelous.

Yes I've read Dr No (novel), and I enjoyed it although it's not my favourite. I don't think it's because of the violence of Dr No (movie) they didn't do the squid scene and the obstacle course. One year later the filmmakers made From Russia with love, which is more violent (to me at least). I think it's more because of the budget, as you said. But, even though the squid scene would have been wonderful, I also regret another thing. In the novel, after Quarrel's death, Bond takes sand and pours it at Quarrel's reduced to ashes eyes (from memory). It's an endearment and a strong act. Well, nevermind.

[double o ego]

It's hard picking a place to start! There are so many ways to go about this, but looking at the title helps me make a decisions. Let's start with Dr. No - the character:

We also notice Dr No's short presence, and his death is too much rapid too, even if the vision of these steel powerless hands which slide, while they had destroyed a Buddha statue five minutes before, is memorable.

I do wonder what effect it would have had on the film if Dr. No was introduced to us earlier. Would this film had been better if we had been given introductions similar to the one Red Grant given in From Russia With Love, Auric Goldfinger in Goldfinger? These introductions establish effectively how formidable those foes are to Bond that it allows their presence to be felt throughout the films, even when they are not in the scene.

I think the film does a good job portraying the threat of Dr. No through the use of other characters. This kind of builds up the suspense and intrigue that one would expect to follow a character such as No. However, could that threat have been even stronger if we had seen Dr. No from the very beginning?

I hope I have chose a sufficient starting point for our discussion.

I for one am extremely happy with the way Dr.No was actually introduced. His character was built up through out the movie and when we did see him, he did not dissapoint. I believe TWINE tried something similar with Renard and as good an actor as Carlyle is, Renard was such an underwhelming character and his character essentially destroys any fearful impact the suicide of the cigar girl tried to convey.
Dr.No as a movie isn't the best in the series but it's a damn good foundation that set the series up for it to last as long as it has. It's a beautiful film, that takes a very human character and puts him in situations that force him to be resourceful and utilise his wits and his own human strength.

Sean Connery is a beast of a man in every conceivable way. The man is swagger personified. From the way he walks, talks, inflects, gestures, his mannerisms the chivalry and the projection of his mild air of snobbishness; it's all full of cool swagger that has never ever been replicated by any other actor. Period. Connery carries this film and I'd go as far as to say even elevates the film to be slightly better than it actually is. He has great chemistry with all the supporting actors and a captivating charisma that has often been emulated but not quite to the natural and balanced effect of Connery.

This film is set in a great location by way of Jamaica, it has atmosphere, beautiful women, glamour and essentially planted the seeds for the traditional and recognised hallmarks of not just the series but in popular culture. If the Bond films of today and the future focused more on using films like Dr.No or FRWL as a serious template, we'd have much better movies.

Dr.No gets a 8.5/10 from me.

[Capsule in Space]

When I talk about Dr No's short presence I mean the short presence as soon as Bond meets him. There's only two scenes between Bond and No, they are of course the dinner and the final fight. I don't mean they should have added more scenes during the movie with Dr No, but perhaps it would have been better if the dinner had been prolonged for a couple of minutes.

But as you said, the mentions of Dr No by, for instance, his case file which is stolen at the beginning of the film, Quarrel's fear, or, the best to me, his resonating booming voice when Dent comes to visit him, all of them are effective and they direct Dr No's mystery. If Dr No would have been introduced earlier, those dramatic tensions would have been less effective.

The scene Dent has a discussion with Dr No is, as I said, to me at least the best moment of Dr No's mystery. It reminds me Blofeld in Thunderball. A man who runs an organisation, but a man we don't know, except from a screen voice.

To draw a conclusion, I would say that Dr No's mentions (from the beginning of the film to the dinner scene) are effective and suit me, but I would have enjoyed a couple of minutes addition during the dinner scene.

The film left me with wanting more Dr. No. It sounds like you have that same feeling too. How the EON team could of gone about doing that is hard to figure out. It could have been done by lengthening the dinner scene, but perhaps the conversation between No and Bond could have been carried out in other settings within No's facility. Perhaps a few scenes like in The Man with the Golden Gun, where we have Scaramanga given Bond a guided tour throughout his facility before he has dinner with him, and before ultimately trying to kill our hero.

I see two problems arising that would have prevented such scenes from happening. One, EON probably didn't have the budget. The second problem is the film's primary objective, and that being introducing the world to James Bond. Perhaps focusing more on Dr. No would have taken away from establishing the Bond character. Since Connery was so good in the role the film doesn't suffer from such attention.

Any follow up on this, or can I move on to the next item of discussion regarding your review?

I felt that the scene w/Dr. No coming up on them while they slept was adequately creepy in converying his capability of menace without overstating the fact too much. You knew right then that this villain could kill the hero at will.

This is a good point, and it is an example of the tact the creators took with the film.

Not one of my favorites. Most of the acting sucks and the movie's style is inconsistent and rough. And the movie's last 20 to 30 movies bore me senseless.

Dr. No isn't on my list of favorites, either. However, it does have its moments, and Connery does enough to keep me interested.

[Capsule in Space]

I don't know if you've read the wonderful novel on which the film is based, but it solves your problem. Specifically, it adds to the dinner scene Dr. No's announcement that he has constructed an obstacle course designed to measure the human body's ability to tolerate pain and overcome various physical challenges. The announcement of the challenge would have fleshed out the dinner scene and given us further insight into Dr. No's psyche. It would also have avoided one of the most frequently noted logical gaffes in the film: why is a sudden flood of water surging through a ventilator shaft?

Perhaps there were reasons why the obstacle course concept was never mentioned. Perhaps the filmmakers feared that it would add too great a dose of sadism to an already violent film. Perhaps the inability to conceptualize a suitable final obstacle (dropping Sean Connery into a pen with a giant squid presumably exceeded both the budget and the margins of safety) forced them to abandon the concept. Still, for those who would wish for a more expansively villainous villain, and for those of us who just regret that a truly thrilling concept was never developed, it woud have been marvelous.

Yes I've read Dr No (novel), and I enjoyed it although it's not my favourite. I don't think it's because of the violence of Dr No (movie) they didn't do the squid scene and the obstacle course. One year later the filmmakers made From Russia with love, which is more violent (to me at least). I think it's more because of the budget, as you said. But, even though the squid scene would have been wonderful, I also regret another thing. In the novel, after Quarrel's death, Bond takes sand and pours it at Quarrel's reduced to ashes eyes (from memory). It's an endearment and a strong act. Well, nevermind.

I'm with you on the budget theory. The film holds up despite the smaller budget. The sets, in particular, are magnificent.

I for one am extremely happy with the way Dr.No was actually introduced. His character was built up through out the movie and when we did see him, he did not dissapoint.

I think Young did a good job given us glimpses of the character, and this tact is effective, I just wish there was some way that I could see more Dr. No. That's a testament to Wiseman's portrayal and the production team's development of the character.

[Capsule in Space]

TCK, continuing with the use of your review as the basis for this conversation, my next question is what are the factors that keep you from giving Dr. No a 10 out of 10?

I will explain my rating of 6 out of 10 in due course, and perhaps others will explain why they don't consider this film a "perfect Bond film", if they gave it a rating that is less than 10.

[TCK]

TCK, continuing with the use of your review as the basis for this conversation, my next question is what are the factors that keep you from giving Dr. No a 10 out of 10?

I will explain my rating of 6 out of 10 in due course, and perhaps others will explain why they don't consider this film a "perfect Bond film", if they gave it a rating that is less than 10.

Hello Capsule. Sorry for having a bit forgotten this topic.

I gave an 8 to Dr No, which is an excellent mark, sure everybody agrees. However, what are the factors that keep me from giving the best mark to it ? Well, as I said, first, the film is outdated. The James Bond theme which appears each time James Bond is on screen, the car chase, Dr No's base, the false metal dragon etc... Is it necessarily a bad thing ? Perhaps we could discuss about the charm of each appearence of the James Bond theme. It's a way to represent "the" hero, but what about the others things I referred to ? They make this film look older, but to be honest it's not the main reason of my non-10-mark. The main reason is that, while the rest of the movie holds me spellbound, I lightly switch off the movie as soon as Bond escapes of his jail. The end at Dr No's base looks a bit expedited too. However, I never switch off the rest of the movie. It's really well-led, with suspense and charm (casino, Sylvia, Jamaica, tarantula, Crab Key, Quarrel's death, Dr No mystery...). I don't mean action is necessary to do a great end, but it reminds me this expedited feeling, and it leaves me a bit disappointed.

And, by the way, if I give a 10 out of 10 to Dr No, what will be the mark of From Russia with love or The living daylights for instance ?

[Capsule in Space]

I gave an 8 to Dr No, which is an excellent mark, sure everybody agrees. However, what are the factors that keep me from giving the best mark to it ? Well, as I said, first, the film is outdated. The James Bond theme which appears each time James Bond is on screen, the car chase, Dr No's base, the false metal dragon etc... Is it necessarily a bad thing ? Perhaps we could discuss about the charm of each appearence of the James Bond theme. It's a way to represent "the" hero, but what about the others things I referred to ? They make this film look older, but to be honest it's not the main reason of my non-10-mark. The main reason is that, while the rest of the movie holds me spellbound, I lightly switch off the movie as soon as Bond escapes of his jail. The end at Dr No's base looks a bit expedited too. However, I never switch off the rest of the movie. It's really well-led, with suspense and charm (casino, Sylvia, Jamaica, tarantula, Crab Key, Quarrel's death, Dr No mystery...). I don't mean action is necessary to do a great end, but it reminds me this expedited feeling, and it leaves me a bit disappointed.

And, by the way, if I give a 10 out of 10 to Dr No, what will be the mark of From Russia with love or The living daylights for instance ?

Again, I rated the film 6 out of 10, and for many of the same reasons you mentioned. The music is one the biggest problems for me, so I guess we disagree on that point. I am fond of the title theme, but the rest of the soundtrack did not age well. It was a good idea to turn the music over completely to John Barry for the next film, because it is from there that he was able to master the Bond sound. Not only did he master it, but he kept the music up to date throughout his time with the franchise. Music plays a very important role in a Bond film, and when the music for a Bond film isn't up to par it hurts the overall quality of the film. This is the case for Dr. No.

The biggest problem for me is the pacing. It has very slow moments, and you mentioned some of them, where I get bored
pretty quickly.

Overall, it's a rudimentary film by Bond standards. The story is a fine one, and I think EON maximized most of its potential with the limited resources they had.

The positives that earn it "6" are the cast (I agree with you that Jack Lord is the best Leiter), the locales, the set pieces, and the story.


Well, is there anything else you would like to discuss regarding this film? Do you have another review in the works?

Edited by Capsule in Space, 30 June 2011 - 02:49 AM.