Dr. No was the first James Bond film and was released in 1962, starring Sean Connery, who was an unknown at the time. Now in full disclosure,I have never seen a Sean Connery Bond film from beginning to end, only in bits over the years. The first Bond movie I remember seeing was Goldeneye (and one of my top three Bond films at this time) and obviously films in the 60's were very different from what they are today but what I have to say is that this film is excruciatingly boring. Looking back, it's the first film of a long running franchise and this is where they had to prove themselves. I can see how it would have succeeded in the 60's but watching it for the first time in 2015 I just came to it too late. While It's so far a low bar for me, I did walk away with some positives.
Firstly, I can easily see how Sean Connery can be someone's favorite Bond. He's great in the role, even in this first outing. Now I'm moe accustomed to the more modern era of film and obviously there's the point of Bond's womanizing to point out. In these early films (I've watched a few at the time of this writing) it's incredibly egregious as to how much disrespect women in these films receive. This is probably the last time I'm going to say this unless it comes up in a more specific capacity, but I'll just say it's a reflection of the times but Bond is kind of a dick guys. I guess this also makes Connery a great choice though because he too was kind of a famous dick towards women. Other than the misogyny, Connery is completely believable as Bond and is pretty much what I pictured when I read the novels. The actual spy part though is forced at best. The story failed to grab me in any respect, and the pacing is tedious at best. One thing however that I was unaware of is how much SPECTRE is featured in so many of the early films. I was under the idea that all of the Bond movies are stand alone, and they kind of are, but they all contribute to the overall organization SPECTRE which is taking place of SMERSH from the Ian Fleming novels. That is the one part of the movie I clung to was the SPECTRE aspect so I could follow it through the rest of the films.
One thing that always bugged me about my perception of some of the older Bond films was the campiness to the acting and just the silliness of the gadgets, which I know a lot of people love about the franchise. I was surprised to find little camp in this film. I know that was more in the Roger Moore era, but I still expected some camp just from the era of film making. Dr. No is actually a very serious movie for the era. with racial stereotypes aside. The Jamaican side kick was just awful. Not even in the 60's would I believe a moving car spitting out flames is a dragon, but the "stupid woman" and Jamaican believe it even by looking right at the car that clearly has treads.Classic 60's film making. The villain feels very cheap and his mechanical hands are explained with a single line instead of any real character development. His plan also just makes no sense and seems to have little gain for anyone. Overall I felt little reason to care about the villain or his plan and was just more interested in Connery being Bond.
This was the first James Bond film and with it came some of the staples of the series. First, we have the bullet chamber opening shot. It's worth noting though that Sean Connery is not the man in this (he didn't do it until the fourth movie I believe) and instead is the stunt man. Never the less it is there and opens the movie which would happen for a majority of the franchise. Second, we have the classic James Bond theme. Still as amazing in the 60's as it is today but it gets used in really weird ways. The bond theme, which is normally remembered for appearing in big action scenes, literally gets used while Bond walks across a hotel and enters an elevator and proceeds to inspect his room. Honestly it's a scene meant to build tension as he does his spy work but it just seems awkward We have a Q character but it's not the same actor that would make the role iconic. We also have a Moneypenny that we will see in many movies to come, and the beautiful Bond girl Ursula Andress, who is still beautiful by today's standards. The biggest thing absent from this film is the lack of gadgets which is something I'm personally a fan of. I like the more realistic approach to the gadgetry aspect of Bond like we get in the latter films (and some early ones) so that wasn't anything I missed in this first outing.
There were some major issues with this movie. There were plenty of stereotype performances, though there were plenty of solid performances as well. Connery is great. Ursula Andress is fine, though many women in the first few movies were dubbed which is off putting a little. There was some really poor ADR, particularly in the one scene where Bond and his crew are on the beach and a man is yelling at them through a megaphone from a boat, and then he moves the megaphone to talk to the other men on the boat and his voice still sounds like it's coming out of the megaphone. Just poor editing. However the set design is well executed and since the film takes place centrally in Jamaica, it doesn't have to pull off anything that is too much of a stretch.
So my outing with the very first Bond movie was pretty much what I expected of these early movies, and probably how I am expecting to feel about a lot of these early films. Film making was a very different beast back then than it is now so it's safe to assume that not all of these will grab me. What I did take out of this first film is that not all of them are as campy as I thought and that Sean Connery is an incredible Bond. I look forward to seeing what happens with the higher budget films but for Dr. No I just don't think I could sit through it again. I would rate this movie a two out of five stars.
One thing that always bugged me about my perception of some of the older Bond films was the campiness to the acting and just the silliness of the gadgets, which I know a lot of people love about the franchise. I was surprised to find little camp in this film. I know that was more in the Roger Moore era, but I still expected some camp just from the era of film making. Dr. No is actually a very serious movie for the era. with racial stereotypes aside. The Jamaican side kick was just awful. Not even in the 60's would I believe a moving car spitting out flames is a dragon, but the "stupid woman" and Jamaican believe it even by looking right at the car that clearly has treads.Classic 60's film making. The villain feels very cheap and his mechanical hands are explained with a single line instead of any real character development. His plan also just makes no sense and seems to have little gain for anyone. Overall I felt little reason to care about the villain or his plan and was just more interested in Connery being Bond.
This was the first James Bond film and with it came some of the staples of the series. First, we have the bullet chamber opening shot. It's worth noting though that Sean Connery is not the man in this (he didn't do it until the fourth movie I believe) and instead is the stunt man. Never the less it is there and opens the movie which would happen for a majority of the franchise. Second, we have the classic James Bond theme. Still as amazing in the 60's as it is today but it gets used in really weird ways. The bond theme, which is normally remembered for appearing in big action scenes, literally gets used while Bond walks across a hotel and enters an elevator and proceeds to inspect his room. Honestly it's a scene meant to build tension as he does his spy work but it just seems awkward We have a Q character but it's not the same actor that would make the role iconic. We also have a Moneypenny that we will see in many movies to come, and the beautiful Bond girl Ursula Andress, who is still beautiful by today's standards. The biggest thing absent from this film is the lack of gadgets which is something I'm personally a fan of. I like the more realistic approach to the gadgetry aspect of Bond like we get in the latter films (and some early ones) so that wasn't anything I missed in this first outing.
There were some major issues with this movie. There were plenty of stereotype performances, though there were plenty of solid performances as well. Connery is great. Ursula Andress is fine, though many women in the first few movies were dubbed which is off putting a little. There was some really poor ADR, particularly in the one scene where Bond and his crew are on the beach and a man is yelling at them through a megaphone from a boat, and then he moves the megaphone to talk to the other men on the boat and his voice still sounds like it's coming out of the megaphone. Just poor editing. However the set design is well executed and since the film takes place centrally in Jamaica, it doesn't have to pull off anything that is too much of a stretch.
So my outing with the very first Bond movie was pretty much what I expected of these early movies, and probably how I am expecting to feel about a lot of these early films. Film making was a very different beast back then than it is now so it's safe to assume that not all of these will grab me. What I did take out of this first film is that not all of them are as campy as I thought and that Sean Connery is an incredible Bond. I look forward to seeing what happens with the higher budget films but for Dr. No I just don't think I could sit through it again. I would rate this movie a two out of five stars.
No comments:
Post a Comment