The Battle for 'Dr. NO' | A Fan Debate
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 сер 2021
- Blind mice? Hairy spiders? Screwballs? Calvin Dyson and I discuss all that and more in our fan debate of Sean Connery's first outing, Dr. NO! Join us as we release the fire breathing Dragon Tanks and prepare the blue terry cloth robes!!!
For more of Calvin, head to his UA-cam channel: / @calvindyson
#notimetodie #bond25 #jamesbond #007 #danielcraig #seanconnery #thebondexperience
_________________________________________________________________________________
When David is not running an advertising and marketing company, his hobby is The Bond Experience which is primarily a video blog where he discusses Bond experiences and the people and brands that help to create those experiences...
The mantra of living like Bond, one moment at a time emanates from a concept of experiencing the joy of collecting small moments in life that add up to amazing journeys and stories....whether it's through style, locations, literature, fitness, and the movies themselves the world of Bond is explored through its people and their stories.
Ultimately though, The Bond Experience channel is a celebration of the James Bond franchise and the many people that form a true community. Our core mission is to create a strong connection in the Bond community amongst all the fans, regardless of interest or demographic.
_
The Bond Experience is not affiliated with any James Bond copyright holder and is an unofficial entity. - Навчання та стиль
I'm more or less Calvin's age (born in 91, grew up with Brosnan as my Bond) but I'm totally team David here. There's nothing "vanilla" about that film to me. I actually loved how small-scaled it is, it gives more rooms to the characters to breathe, and I think most of them do a lot with very little - Connery in particular, who is just magnificent here. I agree on Terence Young's films being a bit rough and dated in their presentation at times (and yes, the editing was mostly there to cover up his negligence as a visual storyteller, I agree) but as far as telling a story about characters and fleshing them out just by their actions, the way they move, interact, dress, etc, he is second to none, and that makes him one of the greatest Bond directors in my opinion. This film in particular doesn't beat you over the head with information, it just tells a story in a very economical manner, and you learn so much about the characters by them just going along, in a way. I don't know, there's something particularly smooth about Dr No as a film, it's certainly not the most blood-pumping entry in the series, but it's neither boring nor mundane either.
I agree, Terence Young was great.
I was born 2004 and this film is a top 5 for me :)
@@AlmightyBruce I’m doing me next bond rewatch next week. My last one was last summer and it landed at number 11. Hopefully it can bring the top ten 😁
Calvins 33
@@supersaiyanjack9233 u f
Dr No is pure pleasure from beginning to end. It's not just a great Bond film, it's a great film.
Didn’t like it, the gap between that and from Russia with love is huge. Dr no doesn’t hold up at all
I agree with you so much
@@johndoe-fq7ez For me it is the exact opposite. Frome Russia with Love is a big let down following Dr. No.
One of the things I’ve always liked about the introduction of Bond in Dr. No is that when 007 says “Bond, James Bond’” to Trench he’s mocking her previous line “Trench, Sylvia Trench” which gives it an extra edge.
That's true. He's responding exactly as she introduced herself. As this is a wonderful way for his introduction, I think by turning it into a trope takes away from it. That's why we all turn back to the original introduction, because he was introducing US to him.
He's not really mocking her
The strange thing is that even though it IS a mocking of Sylvia Trench in the movie, it is how Bond introduces himself, without any mockery, at one point in Casino Royale. I will have to keep an eye out when I get to Dr. No on my book marathon to see if the Sylvia Trench moment is there.
@@ericjohnson9623 Silvia is a film only character as is Miss Taro [Bond is usually a one woman per mission man in the books while the films wanted 3 love interests per film until the Dalton era].
@@jamesatkinsonja Trench had a cameo in the 2nd Bond film .
Keeping in mind, that this is the first Bond movie with a limited budget, Dr No is a classic and one of my favorites. The casting is spot-on, Bond, M, Sylvia, Honey, Leiter, Miss Taro, Quarrel, Doctor. No are all excellent. The introduction of Bond, James Bond is perfect. I loved the spy procedural stuff and the little Bond moments. Also, like that the film is relatively violent and sexual. I will give you that the soundtrack is weak. I disagree on the sleeping when arriving on the island. He has been up all-night, probably 24-hours straight and has a long day ahead. Getting "some rest" is probably appropriate. Listening to your discussions, I can tell I will likely agree with David's opinions on the Bond films.
The scene in the casino where Bond introduces himself is for me absolutely perfect in every way. They way he says his name combined with the lighter closing is just a masterpiece. Perfect... absolutely Perfect
Even with the cigarette moving?
Agreed! It is still an outstanding introduction.
@@angusmaxim3450 That ruined the entire movie! Actually, it ruined the entire Bond series!
I agree 100%!!! That line was NEVER delivered better by any other Bond..... Or even by Sean Connery himself.
@@angusmaxim3450 cigarette moving?
The fact that dr. No is the first official film of the franchise and it’s still good, shocks me
If it hadn't been good, there probably wouldn't have been a franchise.
Positively shocking
Same! It is a great movie
I don't really understand why that would be surprising. The first films in countless franchises are considered to be the best.
@@cookiesontoast9981 Because the first film is a work in progress for this franchise. I think some of it hasn't held up with age of a great deal of it is entertaining.
I am a very young bond fan, but i absolutely LOVE this film.
I enjoyed Dr. No, I loved it, it was the first full Bond Movie I ever saw, and I honestly loved it, it was fun and entertaining.
I too remember being confused about the Bond theme in the airport. I was told by an older person that the average Brit in 1962 had as much chance of going to Jamaica as they did of going to the moon. So the theme was blaring out that this was a Biggie as they were in Jamaica.
This explanation makes sense to me.
It was cool how Leiter ruffling his newspaper was in sync with the Bond theme.
I'm 43 and can't believe how good this film looks for only a million from my reading that was low budget even back in the day it was made and it was shot on location .
Even Terence Young said that this was a $1,1million film but it looked like a $5million film thanks to Ken Adam! Beautiful film!
I would have loved about 10-15 minutes more of Dr No himself! Thought he was an interesting villain, but didn’t get enough screen time! Goldfinger was the best film because it had the best, and most interaction between Bond and the Villain!
I thought that Dr. No was a MUCH better villain than Goldfinger. Goldfinger sounds mysterious and compelling in the old Shirley Bassey song, but then you see him and he's just like this corpulent red-headed guy who's not really all that impressive in any way....Dr. No was the epitome of cool, and class, and understated menace. So, yeah, I think the film could very well have been improved with a bit more screen time for the doctor...However, I wouldn't OVERDO it....I think they were wise to keep him out of sight until late in the film, to build an aura around him and to increase a sense of anticipation...
@@tgriffin3059 Dr. No is a great theatrical villain. He is built up excellently and doesn't disappoint. However, I think he is a tad shallow. I think Auric Goldfinger is a more intriguing character. Why? Because his grotesque nature in terms of appearance and his petty nature. He wants to win at any cost and, being well aware of his ugliness, he will pay for women to be seen with him. Also, his antagonism towards Bond is very personal. He is clearly jealous of 007 and that rivalry is more interesting than just being in the way of the scheme. Lastly, his gold fixation is darkly perverse. I am sure that painting Jill in gold paint made him excited and in the novel, he had sex with women painted gold. So, No is a great cloak and dagger baddie but Auric is a better villain because he has more humanity.
@@ricardocantoral7672 Well said. I agree with pretty much each individual sentiment, yet still hold to my original position. It is refreshing to get a response from someone who is intelligent, and who has actually given the matter some thought. In this day and age, even DISAGREEING with someone who can express himself with clarity is just such a nice change of pace from what I've grown accustomed to!!!
I love Dr No...I love that we actually see James Bond do investigation work and it is shown to us in a way that is easy to follow. I feel like this is the only Bond film to do this.
only watched this for the first time recently, and it quickly became my favourite Connery. I love the procedural spy stuff, the more engaged performance from Connery, and the little self-contained adventure feel of it
When I was 17, I was lucky enough to see this film for the first time in 1980 on the big screen during a Bond film festival along with “From Russia with Love” and “Goldfinger”. I was blown away by the story, Connery (of course) and the brilliant colors of Jamaica. It immediately became one of my favorites and remains there to this day.
As this was the debut 007 feature, the producers were experimenting & feeling their way. The formula was not established until 'Goldfinger' was a mega-blockbuster!
It's really odd going from the Brosnan and Craig eras where Bond is a one-man army gunning down mercenaries to Dr No where he's basically just playing detective for most of the movie. The scene where he kills the patrol in the swamp is treated as a shocking moment. It's one of those movies where I'm never really in the mood to watch it but once it's on I'm totally into it.
Dr. No is my favorite James Bond film. Even if it's one film in an expansive universe, it has a classic Hollywood style that I gravitate towards. I like to think of it as The Maltese Falcon with espionage.
Dr. No is one of the few movies that if I see it on TV, I will probably stop what I am doing to watch it. Going out on an unpopular limb, and there probably is a lot of nostalgia built in, but Dr No is probably my favorite James Bond film. That is not to say that it is the best, but I love it. The music, the graphic design, and Jack Lord (come-one he's great).
If Dr No is your favorite, what is my 2nd favorite? Might be Skyfall, then back to most of the Sean Connery early films (not YOLT and DAF). Ending with Lazenby's OHMSS, which has grown on me within the last 10 years after first seeing it as a teenager on VHS in the mid to early 80s.
Great conversation guys, I had a lot of fun listening to this, so thank you! I little defense of the "scrub down" shower scene. They weren't rinsing them of radiation. Bond and Honey were covered in radioactive contamination they picked up from being in the swamp, which are particles that can be scrubbed away. They got it right, and all the more reason to love Dr. No. This movie has always won me over, ever since I was a Bond loving kid.
I actually love the titles sequence. It fits with the setting and flows well into the beginning of the story. Historically, the audience is getting exposed to the Jamaican Calypso & Ska of 1962 Jamaica in the year they won their independence from the UK.
Ya being half Jamaican myself I always loved how well Dr. No celebrates my culture.
I always thought that it looked a little tacky.
I´ve gone out of my way to listen to and watch all of your debates TWICE, while cooking and consuming my meals at home. In one of the debates (I forgot which), Calvin mentioned in passing that he has a liking to Diamonds Are Forever, which definitely perked my attention, so I'm a bit surprised you guys haven't had a debate about this. I think it'd be great if you guys could do a debate on Connery's 1971 film and I'd love to see Calvin try to defend this one.
I don’t think Dr. No is a masterpiece, but undoubtedly it is a bonafide classic. The film is still in my top 10 Bond Film Rankings. Now its follow up-From Russia With Love, that is a masterpiece!
From Russia with Love is my favorite Connery Bond. It has its own unique flavor that is different from his other movies.
My first Bond film was From Russia With Love. And then in the winter of 1964 I saw Goldfinger in the first week of its NYC premiere engagement at the DeMille Theatre. It was my first "downtown" movie. I had missed Dr. No.on its initial run but in the summer of 1965 United Artists did something brilliant. They released Dr. No and From Russia With Love on a double bill with the tagline: "James Bond is back... to back," It was the first of the many double bills that would follow over the years. This was long before home video entertainment. That particular double bill was one of the great saturday afternoons I've ever spent at the movies.
Eunice Gayson is also a great singer. She was The Barronness in The Original London production of The Sound Of Music and Jack's Mother in Into The Woods.
Ursula Andress in the bikini singing 'Underneath the Mango Tree' is still the top introduction to a Bond girl of all time.
Calvin missed some easy criticisms of the movie's bizarre treatment of firearms here: Bond's Walther PPK is a PP in the film, not a PPK. In the Dent execution scene Dent is using a Colt M1911A1, not a Smith and Wesson, which has a minimum capacity of 7 rounds, not 6. In the same scene Bond has switched his PP out for an FN Browning M1910 (with a clearly fake suppressor as he pulls it from the barrel when it should be threaded) and later when he's facing the Dragon Tank some firing scenes have a continuity error where his PP switches to a M1911A1, which you'd assume would mean that their PP wasn't a firing prop. Additionally the attack boat's Bren Gun also has it's magazine mounted backwards. Pretty minor gripes on the whole though, I love the film and have fond memories from the time my dad introduced me to the series in my childhood. I stumbled across your debate videos recently and really love what you guys are doing, so all the best wishes from this lifelong Bond fan!
Your American right?...
@@lloydjones11 Haha, not at all, I'm very much a Brit from North Lincolnshire, but one of my many passions is military history, so I know my firearms!
It feels like a 'standard' travelogue/spy film right up until Dent enters the Ken Adam room to pick up the spider. It then jumps from a 40's/50's film and suddenly becomes a 'modern' film. All the 'realistic' set up on locations suddenly goes sideways, and it's awesome. Love that moment where all film style for the future changes in front of your eyes. Daphne Oram's sound effects are used to fantastic effect, and are greatly under appreciated too. The tarantula is an actor playing the role of a much more deadly creature.
Love the use of screenshots and that fact we can see both David & Calvin throughout the entire debate. Well done. One of the best.
Hey guys, started watching both your channels in the aftermath of No Time To Die. Love this content and just wanted to say thank you for all the fun of hearing two Bond fans talking Bond
I felt the opening credits going from the gunbarrel to the dancing to the three blind mice was their way of giving you a jolt of:
Excitement & Exoticism before segueing into the story (three blind mice). It’s all the elements we’re used to seeing but in a very basic form.
Dr. No is suuuuuch a good movie!!!!
I'm about 10 years younger than Calvin but I'm 100% team David on this one
I absolutely LOVE Dr. No. It is one of the best Bond movies. Dr. No is iconic today. There isn't an inch of "extra fat" or wasted screen time in this movie. It is very economical in it's narrative style. Dr. No was so fundamentally revolutionary for it's time. The structure of the film is almost abstract it is so heavily stylized. Dr. No boasts many Bond bests: best Felix Leiter in Jack Lord, best all-time Bond girl in Ursula Andress, one of the best Bond locales in Jamaica, one of the best sidekicks in Quarrel, definitely one of the best Bond villains in Dr. No by Joseph Weisman, and everyone forgets that Dr. No's score by Monty Norman gave us the brilliant 007 Theme. Dr. No is a perfect film.
21:32 It was a trend at the time not to have an origin story to kick start the series [The first Star Trek episode for example, Kirk and Spock have clearly know each other for a while] but neither did shows/films have any finale story line until the massive success of the Fugitive finale in 1967 [which was watched by 78 million people in the USA.]
coming back to the beginning after rewatching craig/brosnan bonds is such a tonal whiplash, you go from action blockbusters and dramatic storytelling with meticulously crafted scenes to a supremely suave man just ACTING their way through the film and the film still ending up just as if not more entertaining than the aforementioned is almost shocking. granted the film lacks the grandiose feeling of adventure of some of the later films but it sets the precedent well i think.
I’m sorry, but Dr. No is NOT VANILLA! Think about how daring the film was when it came out and how parts of it are today! Of course it isn’t flawless, but it is still a crackling thriller. Bond’s character is really interesting and the danger factor that influences his being is fascinating. Just rewatched it last week and LOVED IT! My appreciation for it grows each time!
He doesn't mean that it's bad when he says it's vanilla, he means that in comparison to every other Bond film he thinks it feels basic, uneventful that type of thing. But only in comparison to the other Bond films that have a lot more going on!
I agree with Calvin AND David on this film. I do think in comparison to other Bonds it feels a little vanilla but I also think it's an incredibly entertaining film in its own right and should never be skipped.
@@cookiesontoast9981 I really only see the vanilla judgement supported by Dr. No's banal subordinates. The execution of the film however is well done. There are draggy bits and No isn't as impressive as here as he is in the novel but I think this film leaves a majority of the series in the dust.
@@cookiesontoast9981 i appreciate your reply. I think you’re right. I still tended to side more with David on this debate. But I must say Calvin & David made some really good points. I suppose there are a few fairly bland moments, but what a jumping point to begin the series!
Watched it this morning, yes a tad slower than other Bond movies, but still a cracking good thriller. Love watching this on a double bill with FRWL
Both with the same director, with a more realistic, grittier Bond, subtle adult humor and, rather surprisingly, considering the reputation of Bond films, both feature strong independent women. Tatiana, maybe not so much, but, she does save Bond's life by not being a useless damsel in distress at the end of FRWL. Come to think of it, Terence Young also directed Thunderball, another film where the Bond girl saves Bond's life at the end.
@@varanid9 both in my top ten Bond films. FRWL is a superior film for me due to its mixture of double crosses and espionage. Dr No is a good introduction to the character and series, but it falls short compared to FRWL. As for Thunderball, one of my very worst… a Bond film has to be many things, but dull isn’t one of them.
I always remembered it as a kid with the weird song at the begining 😂 now I see it as unique and a master piece
I always get so excited for the debates absolutely love these good job Calvin and David. James Bond is my guilty pleasure I’ve seen all the movies way too many times. It’s even what I put on for background noise when study because I’ve watched them so many times haha. As I said love the debates gonna be so sad when it’s done
Dr No is in my top 10 Bond films. It is just so good - I mean, it's the first one for goodness sake. It established an entirely new template for gripping entertainment that succeeded for decades to come that is still with us today. And the theme isn't overused, they are establishing it and its connection to the main character. It may be somewhat low key compared to others that followed, but this film had nothing to follow!
I do think Dr. No these days is an underrated Bond film. I actually think the understated elements, such as the lack of gadgets, the lack of fantastical situations and more grounded nature of the film is quite refreshing in the series. Dr No himself is a very chilling villain played both brilliantly and respectfully by Joseph Wiseman. I much prefer this film compared to the likes of Diamonds are Forever or even You Only Live Twice in the Connery Canon. I would rank it around the high middle of my Bond film list.
For me, it's number five. Still one of the best the series despite the not altogether perfect story construction.
@@ricardocantoral7672 Number 5 is a pretty good placement. I know for me that Goldeneye, Casino Royale, Licence to Kill, The Living Daylights and From Russia With Love are in my Top 5. Then there is Thunderball, Goldfinger, For Your Eyes Only, Live and Let Die... Dr No may actually be in my Top 10, perhaps 11 or 12, or even No. 9. Will definitely have to think about my list.
@@adamhickey396 My Top Five:
1. From Russia With Love
2. Goldfinger
3. On Her Majesty's Secret Service
4. The Spy Who Loved Me
5. Dr. No
My top five bond movies are
From Russia with Love
Goldfinger
Casino Royale (2006)
Skyfall
Dr. No
I think that Dr. No is one the best because it establishes the foundation that the rest of the series is built upon. Yes there will be future films that improve upon it, like the next two for instance, but that foundation was so strong that many elements in Dr. No can be found in bond films made almost sixty years later. That's why it is a top five for me.
You guys debating is great and you make some points that I've thought of myself but also some things that I missed during the viewing. It's been a while since I've watched many of the Bond films so I'm going to watch right from the beginning then check your debates after viewing :D
I found it sets up everything brilliantly. The formula is being generated in front of our eyes.It's not the best Bond film but it needs love.
I'm commenting before the debate goes live but: Dr No is one of my go to Bond films, it's brilliant though not perfect. As the film that started it all, can anyone really dislike Dr No at all?
You'll see...but love your early comment!
Agree.
Being the first doesn’t make a boring movie good, is my opinion.
@@steelbear4887 Dr. No isn't boring
@@thebadfella5296 : That’s YOUR opinion, I mentioned MY opinion - if you can read.
First saw it in the cinema in the 1960s - still love it as much today. Has a 1950s look and feel to it and, of course, a freshness and originality, despite Monty's 'score'!
I like how you put 'score' in parentheses, heheh.
I'm going to disagree, just a little bit. Considering the time in which it was filmed, & the budget. Sure, Monty's score could have benefited by having a good sound engineer, but the music was very much of the day. Harry Belafonte's Calypso music was very popular with my parents' generation. They were the original audience. Yes, the back projection was clumsy & disproportionate, but at that time, few cared. You people who were born after the first Star Wars film need to realize, really good special effects are a modern invention., however, I must admit that even I was disappointed with the "dragon." I do think that could have been shot in a way as not to be so underwhelming. Loved the beginning with the "Three Blind Mice." Did not expect them to be cold assassins. That beginning hooked me in. Seeing From Russia with Love as the second half of the double feature sealed the deal.
@@patrickburns9850 I kinda liked the dragon. Seemed it was meant to look kinda cool but ridiculous at the same time, drawing attention to its banal nature.
@@patrickburns9850 The Bond double-bills in the 1960s at the cinema were simply awesome!
Im on your side with this one David. Sure it has some minor problems but I think it's one of the best. Connery had amazing screen presence he lifts it to masterpiece level. It's my second or third favourite bond film.
I doubt the series would have lasted had they gone with Moore first what say you.
I'm sure it's been mentioned already, but while the Dent scene does (very effectively) show a lot of Bond's character, shooting him twice isn't an act of malice, but rather professionalism. It's called "double tapping."
Dr.No has a very Hitchcock vibe to it.
I love this movie. it's not my favorite of connery, is the third one, but this movie is awesome. the simplicity, location, dr no is in my opinion a great villain, in a hiding place below the sea,i love see the locations in 1962... great bond movie.
Dr. No, being a 1962 movie, is nothing short of amazing. It's so far ahead its time, by estabilishing so many tropes that still hold up today... Connery gives a performance for the ages... The whole movie, even if only filmed in Jamaica, it has a wordly feeling. It's amazing!
I can't see how Calvin doesn't like this one! So vibey
I’d guess David will love it, but it won’t have enough gadgets, wacky stunts and camp humour for Calvin!
But respect to both these guys either way. Personally I love Dr No for Bonds introduction alone, Connery in that moment is the coolest any man has ever been EVER.
And when he waits for and kills dent, one of the most badass scenes of the franchise for me
@@mike91mdk45 “you’ve had your six”
Absolutely iconic, that’s what made him the best, he has the right balance of everything. Charm, charisma, humour, the looks and you could also believe he would be a cold blooded killer too.
@@kjek1 100% spot on
Did you know Sean Connery didnt do the gun barrel sequence till Thunderball. It was done by a guy called Bob Simmons
He was Sean Connery’s stunt double. Connery’s first gun barrel wasn’t until Thunderball, I think.
Surely anyone who has watched Dr No, FRWL or Goldfinder would know this as the person in the Gun barrel is clearly not Sean Connery 🤣
@@lloydjones11 If it’s so obvious, how is it that so many people have no idea that it isn’t Sean Connery?
@@richardvinsen2385 they don't pay enough attention 🤷
@@lloydjones11 I’ve watched every bond movie countless times over the last 50 years and I don’t think I knew that wasn’t Connery until maybe last year.
I was surprised by your statements regarding the shower scene, since this is the standard procedure to get rid of external radiation.
Yup. I'm often surprised at peoples' ignorance about radiation, but, since I work at a nuclear plant, I suppose that's on me. I read a review that was criticizing Doctor No's "costume" in the climax because, in the opinion of the reviewer, it looked "silly". What he didn't understand was that that was a real contamination suit used at nuclear plants, I believe to this day, though its been at least a decade since I've seen one.
I liked Jack Lord as Felix, later he would be Gene Roddenberry's 1st choice for Captain Kirk but he was too expensive.
He is still the best Felix.
Shatner was brilliant as Captain Kirk. Better choice actually the 3rd, than Jack Lord and Jeffrey Hunter.
Hey you guys are great !
I fall on the side that "Dr. No" is a very good Bond film. Imo, much better than some of the later films.
I agree!
This was the very first Bond film for me. I was entirely too young, 9 or 10. It was the first of a double-feature, followed by From Russia With Love. Have loved it ever since. David, yes, liking a flash bulb was a thing. It was thought to make a better electrical connection.
That should read "licking" a flash bulb. Was very common in the 60s.
I love the escapism atmosphere of Dr No. My least favorite part is the the hidden base, but it's kinda retro sci-fi fun at that point
It's so interesting for me to hear that the lack of fantastical elements is a problem for Calvin, because as a kid who started watching the series on VHS with this one, it was super fantastical to me! I mean, I believed it had a freaking dragon! Turns out that wasn't the case, but I think there is still enough fantastical stuff there.
Its great to watch you slowly deflate Calvin and Squash him in these debates.
"He's got his own hair." I was under the impression that Connery wore a toupee in every Bond film, including Dr. No.
Its always amazing when you meet guys who know more about Bond than you ever will. Glad they are out there.
Dr. No is like the pilot movie for James Bond 007.
I absolutely adore Dr. No! I've watched it about ten times over the years, and I love it more with each viewing.
My favorite Bond movie. Bond is not superhero. Story is grounded facing towards s-f but s-f is only the spice. It’s associated with bigger than life villain and its mystery. Loving It.
A terrific first outing…great location, but Dr No himself was better represented in the actual novel, and I thought the ending was a little rushed.
Well the ending was actually rushed, as far as I understand it. Budgetary reasons or something to that effect.
Yeah, none of the Bonds were perfect. But I still believe Dr No & From Russia with Love were the top two
Dr. No is one of my all time favorites. Dr.No is fast paced. No boring long scenes. It has a documentary style to it.
I don't know why Dr. No doesn't rank higher with Bond fans. It's been my favourite Connery film for years.
I know I’ve already written quite an essay about this but there is something that always struck me as odd and it’s at the very start! The three blind mice, first as silhouettes then coming into colour along with the song, always bothered me! The way they walk, knowing that they’re not blind at all, must have taken them hours to get to the Queens Club and just as they arrive, Strangways walks out to his car! Perfect timing! Then a second later the hearse comes along to pick the up! Why didn’t the hearse just drop them off in the first place and they would have hung around behind the trees for Strangways to appear since they obviously knew what time was would come out of the club because it was a daily thing! Why ramble all over Kingston when it would have been much easier to just come with the hearse?
David and Calvin seem uncomfortable with the fact that Marguerite LeWars who plays Annabel Chung the photographer licks the light bulb at the airport! The story behind that is that Terence Young asked her to do it! She was reluctant saying it was yucky and evil to which Young answered, “but you ARE evil” in the part of course! And she was, in fact, a desk hostess for the airline and when Young came through for the first time he spotted her and offered her a role! She was also the reigning Miss Jamaica! Another interesting fact was that her brother in Law Reggie Carter was a known Jamaican stage actor, though born in Panama and he’s the one who plays Mr. Jones Bond’s driver at the airport! We was married to Marguerite LeWars’ sister Barbara LeWars!
Talking about Joanna Harwood’s idea of putting the Wellington Goya painting in Dr. No’s lair, take a closer look at Pleidell-Smith’s office on the far wall! Isn’t that also the Wellington painting? Well it looks like it anyway!
Incidentally, Anthony Dawson who plays Professor Dent was a good friend of Terence Young who’d filmed him many times! He will also be the hidden Blofeld in From Russia With Love and Thunderball! But Blofeld’s voice will be dubbed by Eric Pohlmann! Another interesting fact is that Anthony Dawson will play Bond in the Bridal suite scene for testing the different actresses who apply to play Tatiana!
As far as Jack Lord goes as Felix Leiter, David says he was cast in Hawaii Five-0 à couple of years later! Sorry to disagree with you David but Lord became Steve McGarrett 6 years later in 1968! He could therefore have played Felix Leiter in both Goldfinger and Thunderball and they would have found someone else for Diamonds and the rest!
There is one point that is brought up and that is the late appearance of Dr. No although we do hear his voice when Professor Dent goes to see him and picks up the tarantula we don’t actually see Dr. No until, first he enters Bond’s room while asleep - I suppose he and Honey are put to bed by henchman since they’re knocked unconscious by the drugged coffee - then the dinner scene and finally in the control room; but to my mind all this is really voluntary and in the dinner scene we do hear about SPECTRE for the first time and this is important with regards to films to come!
On the question of saving Honey, David and Calvin say that Bond just turns up and saves her but he does look for her first! Firstly in the bedroom, which incidentally always scares me when he opens the door and rushes in without thinking for a moment that the door could slide closed again and he would be jammed! I would have put a shoe or something in the doorway to stop it closing again while I was inside! Then he hits a bloke to get answers and finally finds Sister Rose or the other one - can’t quite remember - to show him where Honey is hidden!
Then in the final scene when Bond and Honey are stranded at sea and Leiter comes along with his Marines, if you look carefully there’s a buoy a little beyond their boat which means that land is not far away. In fact it’s probably behind the camera filming them so they are not really stranded out at see! But nobody really notices it at this point, one minute before the end of the film! Still, it’s visible and they could filmed the boat from another angle and in another direction!
Incidentally, one last question! How many Bond films finish with a boat scene? Count them, you’ll be surprised!
I kinda side with Calvin on this one, Dr No is fine. It's perfectly enjoyable to watch, it's a nice Sunday afternoon viewing - but it's very obvious in the context of what follows that this movie is really just establishing the series and has yet to really get into the swing of what it's about. It does great at establishing characters and the rough "Bond formula", and it doesn't particularly feel like it's necessarily missing anything, but it definitely feels like a rough diamond. There's a lot to love and respect about the movie for what it does, but the rest of the series obviously builds off it and does a better job in terms of action, music etc. It's not a Bond movie I feel the urge to revisit often, but when I do it feels like a pilgrimage to a sacred place, and one that is always worthy of reverence.
I can't object to these criticisms but I still place Dr.No above many Bonds because the vulnerability James displayed and the gritty, pulpish nature of the story.
I think the introduction of Bond at the casino table is the coolest scene in movie history!
@@francisdashwood1760 this scene is definitely an absolutely iconic scene, and the movie is worth watching for it alone!
@@ricardocantoral7672 I can appreciate that sentiment, I do often have a preference for the more vulnerable and gritty Bond movies.
Thanks again guys. please keep doing these videos and keep up the great work :)
Hey, guys, “Dr. No” wasn’t produced in a vacuum. It was right at the beginning of the Sixties when dancing the Twist was THE thing. So of course the titles with girls doing the twist had a big effect along with all those colours changing when dancers cross each other, something that hadn’t been done before. I was 12 then, too young to be allowed to a proper movie theatre viewing. But not too young to dance the twist, which my friends and I were enthusiastically doing in each other’s parents’ places as often as we could.
Until Daniel Craig, Dr. No was my favourite Bond movie. Remember: James Bond was the first movie featuring a paid assassin working for the good guys. Moreover HE was the hero. We discover how cold he can be when he’s waiting for Dr. No’s own killer. Then he just says dispassionately“You had your six” and he shoots the killer once. Then twice. He’s an assassin indeed. All new in 1962!
I love the hard boiled edge to the cast even if indicative of the 60s. It compliments the entertainment depiction of tradecraft and at least emotionally ups the stakes of the characters for the audience. The reporter didn’t even hesitate to shatter her camera bulb and scratch Quarrel, only wipes then looks at the blood and asks “Do you want me to break her arm, Captain?” Moments of resolve like that are sublime but are then juxtaposed by Quarrel losing his nerve over time to the rumor of the dragon and getting drunk on watch then being caught on fire by the flamethrower. Reminder, you don’t “almost” see anything. It’s just like Conan The Destroyer. Rerun on television to even on the DVD of Dr No: during the decontamination shower scene, the production/the editor relied on the distance from the long shot and brief shot to shot scene composition to be enough censorship. Ursula Andress has a full body wax and only Sean Connery’s torso was shaved to be appealing. A superstar, perhaps, by the end of the 70s she’s female lead of “Mountain of the Cannibal God” co-starring with healthy young Stacy Keach. People knock the sound effects of the suppressors-which is the best for the six shots of .45 “Smith & Wesson”.
This, more than any Bond film, feels more like a serial condensed to feature length. Bond himself isn't quite there yet, he is more of a cop or a P.I. in this one. Still, I enjoy going back to this movie because the lack of polish seems charming now and there is definitely an underlying grit to it all despite the silly plot. Dr. No is number five on my list of Bond movies.
Just watched Dr No for the first time yesterday! Love watching these debates right after I watch a new bond movie. I was pleasantly surprised with how gritty some parts of Dr No were. Loved when Bond takes out Professor Dent! What a good setup to that scene.
Stripping off and showering is a standard treatment for radiation exposure, and is still used today. It's purpose is to remove any radioactive particles from the around and on the body. It doesn't do anything for the radiation that has already entered the body, but it stops further exposure.
I still say you two have got to debate Diamonds Are Forever
I love this film. It's a great intro to the series. Sean's intro is iconic. As is Honey's. It's a tough and violent (for its time) and taut thriller. Bond's killing of Dent is one of the greatest kills in the series. It was so Fleming. The cast is great. Jack Lord is the still best Felix Leiter. Dr. No could have used more time but that's a minor complaint. The story works well. Sure it's not action packed but you have to look at it context of being the first. The only criticism I have is the overly dramatic score.
Absolutely. It's got a seriousness of tone which we won't see again until Licence to Kill. There's no winking at the audience and it's all the better for that.
Overly dramatic music like when Brees smashes the tarantula. The syncopated strikes crack me up every time.
LOVE NTTDs REFERENCE BACK TO THIS OPENING CREDITS!
Trivia: Eon itself did a Dr. No parody in the Bob Hope movie Call Me Bwana. The tarantula (supposedly) was going up Hope's arm.
Is that the movie whose poster is used in FRWL?
@@NH1973 That's correct.
@@billkoenig1552 she has a lovely mouth, that Anita
this is the one that started it all for me and the franchise....i saw this when it was released, when dialogue was more important than action, and this was the first time we got to see all this, the first time we got to see bond period, so there was no comparing it to goldfinger or anything else (and yes, licking a bulb was common back then...and...back then, baskin robbins actually had a bubble gum flavor with pink bubble gum 'chicklets in it...)...but simply put, dr.no is a really cool 'spy' movie in the days when shows like i spy, the saint, the avengers, the man from uncle, or even films like the maltese falcon or double indemnity, etc, were the types of things we were watching on tv and at the movies....and sean was just so cool (and it made me so excited when connery came back for never say never again, which i still love)....another great film...another exceptional debate...peace to you both...rocky
I saw it originally at a drive in(Jacksonville, Fl)1962 or 63, still enjoying each time seen.
Calvin likes comedy, campness, safari suits, Roger Moore, the 1970s the decade that style forgot, so obviously Connery is not his cup of tea. Fair enough. Incidentally you can imagine Connery killing someone but you can’t really imagine Moore doing so, too nice.
Very good analysis again gentlemen. A little technical background on the "atomic" shower sequence. I did go to several NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Warfare) schools. The showers are definitely correct with the purpose to wash off the contaminants. The radiation will continue to damage your cells and you must remove to prevent continued exposure. The point is to stop absorbing the radiation. If you have already absorbed a lot of radiation, or are standing in areas that is actively being radiated, like at Chernobyl, well you are a cooked goose and nothing is going to repair that. Happy scrubbing.
I pondered about Dr. No's merits and I think it's about what you are expecting. The film does not necessarily fill the shoes of a high octane thrill ride of the later films, but I think what makes this film special is it's comfyness. To me watching the film feels like watching an Agatha Christie adaptation or listening to a Bond radioplay. Something about the methodical pace makes the film really charming and inviting. Will I watch this if I want to watch an exciting Bond film, probably not but I will definitely watch this if I'm sick or even on a christmas morning.
Regarding the decontamination scene: is isn’t that stupid though as it is surprisingly accurate to some decontamination procedures depending on the kind of ‘nuclear situation’.
After coming in contact with nuclear fall-out or wandering around in a contaminated area (like Honey and Bond apparently were) , getting rid of your clothes (and the radiated dust) and have a shower is one accurate procedure. Most of the radiation is the dust or dirt that sticks on your outside including your clothes. In that case one hopefully does not have inhaled some of dust as it is most destructive when it enters the organism.
Usually people don’t get radiated by themselves, if the radiation is so strong that this happens though - you won’t live for long.
That is a great thumbnail. I trust you have the Dr No nuclear PPE
Enjoy these debates. I listen to both sides weigh everything up and then agree with Calvin. LOL I love Connery and his Bond films. I even enjoyed Never Say Never Again when I saw it at the cinema. He was the reason for watching and I think he was the reason for Bonds success. Dr.No is a cool film - has it aged as well as others ?
Good for you, 22:05, there's Calvin's sprinkle of flavor.
23:30, love this scene with Bond and M. Especially the intro to Bond's gun, the Walter PPK. The guy bringing the gun should have been Q, I'm just saying. But the almost argument in guns with Bond and M, top notch real. Bond can get injured and be in the hospital is told in exposition of his old reliable gun misfiring on Bond. Excellent writing!!
33:00, arghhh, it's lime!! If Felix was around he would have liked the fruit..."skip the fruit", Jeffrey Wright, Casino Royale.
Well, the Jamaica scene, the 3 blind mice song is actually, I call it, the real beginning all the way until they kill the scientist. Then, I say that would have been the pre title sequence. But being this is the FIRST James Bond movie, the filmmakers didn't know where to put it yet let alone know what a pre title sequence was, at the time.
I like Fleming’s original story a lot. Of all Bond novels, Dr. No reminds me most of old pulp stories. In my opinion Dr no is one the most fascinating villain in fleming's books
I like movie version too, but the main villain is not as strong character as in the novel
I love the soundtrack to this film, and fondly remember listening to it a lot when I visited Jamaica to get in the Bond spirit, however I agree it's one of the weaker scores when compared to other Bond films, much like GoldenEye (great soundtrack, but doesn't really fit the Bond music mould). In Dr No the music/sound when Bond is in the water tunnels is absolutely fantastic.
Dr No is obviously iconic due to its significance as an introduction, but FRWL and Goldfinger were far more refined. The type of films you'd go back to imo.
Agreed. Dr No is like the 'pilot' they needed to do to set up the character so FRWL and Goldfinger could really fly. The increased budget [FRWL's budget was double of Dr No] also helped.
I agree with Calvin that Dr. No is very vanilla. Plain vanilla is my favorite ice cream.
Gotta love a Screwball.
Dr. No, was reportedly made for around
One Million Dollars!
That was not much for a major studio even back in the early 60's.
and half of that went on caviar and champagne for the crew
Props for including that “master debater” joke at the beginning, despite being an older, distinguished gentleman 😂
I enjoyed Dr. No MUCH more than From Russia With Love.
Thanks for this guys, I really enjoyed it. I think it was you David who said Dr No set the standard for other Bond films, so to judge it better or worse than Dr No is to decide whether it's a 'good' or 'bad' Bond film.
have you noticed sean connery never directly killed the main villain in any of his films