Bond, James Bond
- Thread starter bearfan
- Start date
SixesAlltheway
Ancient Mariner
I don't think I have much new to say about Dr.No but I can say what I've already said once more 
Who knows? SMX might bring a totally new perspective to it.
SixesAlltheway
Ancient Mariner
Roger that! I'm glad this thread has been resurrected. We have a lot of people here who knows an awful lot about Bond, including yourself @Brigantium! And I thought we were off to a good start the last time... it just kinda subsided for whatever reason.
None of us had the DVDs, I think. And let's not have any rogering, please...or are you referring to Roger Moore?
SixesAlltheway
Ancient Mariner
That might be it. But everyone has the DVDs now right?! 
It was right in the middle of Christmas vacations the last time too...
It was right in the middle of Christmas vacations the last time too...
SixesAlltheway
Ancient Mariner
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Haven't watched it (will do after I have watched all the Bond movies), but I thought this could be entertaining:
50 Years of James Bond: The Movie
(from 2012)
Approximately five minutes from each of the 22 Eon produced James Bond films have been cut together, in order and in sequence, beginning with the first five minutes of DR. NO (1962) followed by minutes 5-10 of FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE (1963), minutes 10-15 of GOLDFINGER (1964), minutes 15-20 of THUNDERBALL (1965), continuing on through each of the remaining 18 Bond features (accounting for variables in each title's running time) culminating with the final five minutes of 2008's QUANTUM OF SOLACE.
This fresh look at the "James Bond Formula" provides a new exploration of the evolution of the series into a filmmaking genre uniquely its own. With few exceptions, each title's transition into the picture that follows it is nearly seamless, creating a viewing experience that at first might serve to remind us "if you've seen one Bond film, you've seen them all," but looking more closely it is in fact an endearing homage to a character who single-handedly shaped modern cinema's action/adventure formula and who continues to leave an indelible mark on generations worldwide.
(from 2012)
Approximately five minutes from each of the 22 Eon produced James Bond films have been cut together, in order and in sequence, beginning with the first five minutes of DR. NO (1962) followed by minutes 5-10 of FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE (1963), minutes 10-15 of GOLDFINGER (1964), minutes 15-20 of THUNDERBALL (1965), continuing on through each of the remaining 18 Bond features (accounting for variables in each title's running time) culminating with the final five minutes of 2008's QUANTUM OF SOLACE.
This fresh look at the "James Bond Formula" provides a new exploration of the evolution of the series into a filmmaking genre uniquely its own. With few exceptions, each title's transition into the picture that follows it is nearly seamless, creating a viewing experience that at first might serve to remind us "if you've seen one Bond film, you've seen them all," but looking more closely it is in fact an endearing homage to a character who single-handedly shaped modern cinema's action/adventure formula and who continues to leave an indelible mark on generations worldwide.
Dr. No is a fun little movie, but somewhat disappointing overall. Connery is very good, in fact better than I expected. However, Dr. No is a boring villain. A freak with a reactor from out of nowhere, with no motivation better than fucking shit up. First he wants to kill Bond, then he invites him to dinner. Emotionless and boring.
The action sequences were also disappointing. This may be, in part, being spoiled by the 50 years of movies since. But not entirely. When Bond killed the driver, it's one punch and one flip. Sure it's supposed to show how good Bond is, but it's too easy. Hard to root for a hero who has no chance of losing. Dr. No's death is almost ignored; he falls in the pool and Bond just walks off. Not even a one-liner. They got the Bond character perfect, but not the action.
Ursula Andress was much better than expected. She can actually act! There's actually a real woman in that bikini!
Has anyone here read the books? I'd be interested to know how closely the movie followed it. The plot was very good; I never knew who to trust, and I still don't trust the CIA guy. He did leave Bond floating in the Carribean...
The action sequences were also disappointing. This may be, in part, being spoiled by the 50 years of movies since. But not entirely. When Bond killed the driver, it's one punch and one flip. Sure it's supposed to show how good Bond is, but it's too easy. Hard to root for a hero who has no chance of losing. Dr. No's death is almost ignored; he falls in the pool and Bond just walks off. Not even a one-liner. They got the Bond character perfect, but not the action.
Ursula Andress was much better than expected. She can actually act! There's actually a real woman in that bikini!
Has anyone here read the books? I'd be interested to know how closely the movie followed it. The plot was very good; I never knew who to trust, and I still don't trust the CIA guy. He did leave Bond floating in the Carribean...
SixesAlltheway
Ancient Mariner
Check Brigantium's reply on the previous page!
Yes, I've read quite a few of the books, and Dr.No is one of the films closest to the books. It captured the period feel well, and several scenes are pretty close if not identical in plot and dialogue. Only On Her Majesty's Secret Service and From Russia With Love come as close to following the plots of the books. As a film it does look very dated now, although if you look at it in terms of a classic Cold War spy drama with more exotic locations and a bit of glamour than the rest of that particular genre, it works. The major departure from the book is Dr. No's reactor. I'm struggling to remember what the evil plot was now, but I'm sure there wasn't a reactor in the books.
As for the coldness and lack of emotion, I find it fairly typical of action films of the period, and also typical of the books. Bond in the books is actually quite an emotional character, but he rarely speaks of it or shows it. Very stiff upper lip. He's a relic of both the British Empire and the Second World War, and 'his' world is fast dying. He takes huge risks, quite simply because he doesn't have an awful lot of excitement to live for any more. He inevitably ends up a bit of a wreck when confronted with real life-threatening situations, and it reaffirms his will to live. Bond is frequently left emotionally and physically damaged at the end of the story in the books.
SixesAlltheway
Ancient Mariner
I agree they could have done more with Dr. No. I mean he is only in like what three or four scenes? The dinner scene is fantastic though I think. Great dialogue throughout.
What driver? The driver who picks up Bond at the airport who Bond finds out is a double agent? Bond doesn't kill him, they scuffle for a bit, Bond hits him and then interrogates him on the hood of the car. The driver then eats a cyanide pill hidden in a cigarette and dies instantly. Yes, the final fight scene is rather anti-climatic...I do like the fact though that Dr.No's bionic metal hands is the reason that he can't climb the ladder.
True. But this was also before the Bond movies became big mega blockbuster cinema stunt/gadget movies. But yes the movie certainly drags the first half (and is really more of a Bond character study) but picks up when they arrive at Crab Key island.
True I do like Sylvia Trench much better though as a Bond girl. But Ursula Andress became the first real bond girl I guess. That's also her only real reason for being in the movie. I mean her character is largely irrelevant for the plot.
SixesAlltheway
Ancient Mariner
Also a bit of a flaw in Dr. No's plan to use a tarantula to kill off Bond while he sleeps when Tarantulas and their bites are not lethal to humans....Unless the spider was supposed to be another species..but they clearly use a tarantula in the movie.
I can't remember. A black widow would make more sense, but I guess a tarantula looks better for the cameras!
SixesAlltheway
Ancient Mariner
What I found interesting in Dr.No that perhaps doesn't show as much in the later films is this portrayal of how Bond deals with his "trade" so to speak. In Dr.No I actually find him quite cold blooded, for example in how he shoots Prof. Dent and:
....Definitely also comes across in Dr.No several times. For example how he chooses to personally deal with the driver, even with a smirk on his face, like he enjoys inflicting pain and to seek excitement.
The character study is more in focus in Dr.No and earlier Bond movies than in later Bond films where the action takes first precedent.
I think that's definitely how Fleming saw the character, putting duty far ahead of conscience. I'm not so sure about him enjoying it. The parts he supposedly enjoys is the adrenaline rush of a brush with death. But as much as he'd like to think he's stone cold, Bond does have a conscience. Every now and then he does end up a physical or emotional wreck. You see more of this in the books than the films, but several of the films do allude to it. On Her Majesty's Secret Service, both book and film, is the best example.
New month, new movie!
I really enjoyed From Russia With Love. I watched it a few weeks ago when I got my Bond set, and I'll watch it again before I say much about it. Some great villains in this one.
I really enjoyed From Russia With Love. I watched it a few weeks ago when I got my Bond set, and I'll watch it again before I say much about it. Some great villains in this one.
SixesAlltheway
Ancient Mariner
Might watch this tonight or tomorrow!
Also I'd just like to say it's cool with a slow paced thread like this for the Bond movies
Also I'd just like to say it's cool with a slow paced thread like this for the Bond movies
I wouldn't mind seeing this again. From memory, it's another one in the stylish classic spy drama mould, so a much slower burn than the Roger Moore and more recent Bond eras. I seem to remember it's pretty long, too, and follows the book reasonably well.