Dr. No: Review By slysnide

Sep 15th, 2011 by slysnide
Bond. James Bond.
  • OVERALL
    4.0
    GREAT
  • Story
  • Acting
  • Directing
  • Visuals
Producers Albert Romolo 'Cubby' Broccoli & Harry Saltzman sought to create an Empire around one name: James Bond. While few had faith in the project, the resulting list of 'B' grade movies produced grade 'A' entertainment for generations to come. Based on Ian Fleming's sixth James Bond novel, "Dr. No" became cinema's first in a line of now twenty-two films belonging in a class all their own under one number: 007.

When Saltzman initially refused to sell the film rights of the books to Cubby, he instead brokered a partnership which spawned two companies: "Danjaq" to own the film rights, and "EON Productions" to produce the films. "United Artists" was the only film company of many the duo took the project to which agreed to produce the first Bond adventure, as all the other studios accused it of being too sexual and british for American Audiences.

The screenplay however would go through many alterations, some so lucrative that the titular villain was to be a monkey in the first draft, causing an obvious rift in creative juices. Why they couldn't just agree to follow the book as a template is beyond comprehension. A monkey for a villain? Really? Screenwriter Wolf Mankowitz left the project after that idea was rejected. So eventually Richard Maibaum's script was settled on with help from Berkely Mather and script doctor Johanna Harwood who sought to ensure that Bond was written as a true brit. By the time early dailies came in, Mankowitz had his name removed from the credits fearing it would be a flop. Though it was probably for the best, as he left the project coincidentally right after the monkey idea was rejected.

As for the hunt for James Bond, Roger Moore was thought too young and pretty by Cubby to play the role, while the first choice Cary Grant refused to sign a contract for multiple films. Even a contest was set up to find the right actor--resulting with six finalists--but the winning twenty-eight year old actor reportedly "couldn't cope with the role." Finally, thirty year old Sean Connery was chosen, but first, he needed a taste of the high life, and director Terrance Young took Connery to his personal tailor and hairdresser, followed by trips to classy casinos, restaurants, and places flooded with the classy women of London in all the places you'd expect to find the real James Bond spending his English vacation. So in short, Connery was not only cast as Bond, he became Bond in his spare time so slipping into Bond's shoes would be no strange thing.

Then the casting of Bond's allies began, resulting with Lois Maxwell signing a fourteen film contract--which she fulfilled--as Moneypenny, because Fleming thought she fit the character to perfection. Bernard Lee signed a ten film contract--which he also fulfilled--as Bond's boss M; the head of MI6. And even Bond's most beloved ally 'Q' was cast in the film. Though he was played by Peter Burton and called Major Boothroyd. His unavailability for the sequel, and his replacement's popularity secured his successor as the new 'Q.'

In his first adventure, British Secret Double 'O' Agent James Bond is sent to Jamaica to investigate the assassination of an SIS agent. While there, he uncovers a web of mystery involving a mysterious island with a fire breathing dragon where a mysterious doctor--or mad scientist--mines bauxite and seems to be intentionally jamming radio transmissions from American Rockets fired in the Jamaican vicinity. Along the way he meets new allies, including CIA Agent Felix Leiter (Jack Lord)--who returns nine more times--and a jumpy fisherman named Quarrel (John Fitzmiller).

The first outing unfolds rather nicely overall, not jumping from one scenario to another. Over half the film focuses on this simple investigation, and in a way, the whole film is about developing the character of James Bond. And veteran Bond director Terrance Young did a damn good job at it. It remains classy, dangerous, yet innocent with its childish attraction. A mainstream wonder by yesteryear's standards that would be repeated a few more times in the Connery Era.

Another staple of the franchise is the overly sexualized 'Bond Girl.' They frequently are nice breaks from danger for Bond, are mostly incapable of defending themselves, and if they're not considered the leading lady, but are kissed by Bond, then they die. Or at least that's the formula followed in the early films. The first is seashell collector Honey Ryder (Ursula Andress)--who was voiced by Nikki van der Zyl--whom is very hostile towards Bond, as in the words of future M, he is after all a "sexist misogynist dinosaur" who preys on hot chicks under mango trees. The shot of Honey walking out of the water sells it, with Bond secretly gazing on with envious eyes. How's this sarcastic futurist flashback take going for you? Yeah, well it was pretty true for quite a long time. Not that I care, it's a grand staple which works well for the franchise. Bet you anything the changing times is why today's Bond girls all either are agents themselves, or have dirty secrets. Anyhow, cinematographer Ted Moore's famous shot of Ryder walking ashore was by far the most well received introduction to a Bond girl, and was even reenacted by Halle Berry in "Die Another Day" (2002), and in an odd fashion by Daniel Craig in "Casino Royale" (2006). Needless to say, they won't be pulling that stunt again. The only thing Honey Ryder really has going for her as a character is that she doesn't give into Bond easily like many of her successors.

As the titular villain was Broadway veteran Joseph Wiseman. Unlike everyone else who found profit from this film, Wiseman was the only exception. He considered that this would only go down as a "B grade 'Charlie Chan' mystery." He never dreamt he'd be remembered for this role solely upon his deathbed in 2009. And true to the times, the Canadian born Jewish boy received makeup and hairdressing to make him look more Asian even though he had barely any Asian heritage. He was the villain after all. And it was 1962. Though of all the villains in the Connery Era, I must say Wiseman was the most classy.

Filming commenced on 16 January 1962 in Jamaica mere yards from Fleming's 'Goldeneye Estate' where he wrote the novels, and ended after fifty-eight days of filming on 30 March 1962 with Pinewood Studios in Buckinghamshire, England serving as the primary studio for the franchise's legendary production designer Ken Adam. His triumphs here includes Julius No's complete secret base which became the first of many super villain strongholds in the franchise. It was also the most realistic, without becoming gaudy or too extravagant. Still great for his first Bond film.

As James Bond himself, Sean Connery was by far the classiest of them all. He walked the walk, talked the talk, and lived the high life of a British superhero. He had the catchiest one liners, the cleverest of quips, and the best of drinks. He could smooth talk the ladies into almost anything, and his transformation from ladies man to a kickass secret agent was seamless. A class all his own which makes him still reign supreme as the best Bond in an era where such 'B' grade spy films involving super villains with gargantuan secret bases and delectably malicious plots could be taken seriously. It's almost sad that this era has gone in its own franchise, with the Bonds of today being more realistic and 'intelligence' based rather than old world. For while many of the Bond films revolve around the Cold War, their plots don't all require it to work. Bond was a Cold War hero. And Connery played him like he was straight from the Rat Pack. Never again would we see such a picture perfect cinema hero. So thank you Sean Connery for taking on this role. You practically created this franchise.

While the film far exceeded the expectations of Wiseman & Mankowitz, becoming the highest grossing franchise in cinema history, its power was best showcased by Joseph Wiseman, who's sixty-three year run on Broadway was remembered by not a soul when he died. Only that he got his fifteen minutes of fame as Bond's first villain, Doctor Julius No.

Do you like this review?

Comments (24)

  1. slysnide

    @skywise: Meh, he admitted he only took on the role to fund his own production company, so being in four films and quasi-decrying the saga makes him somewhat forgetful. :P

    8 months agoby @slysnideFlag

  2. skywise

    GAH oops

    1) Sean Connery
    2) Daniel Craig
    3) Pierce Brosnan
    4) Timothy Dalton
    5) Roger Moore
    6) George Lazenby

    Dont know how i over looked Brosnan.

    8 months agoby @skywiseFlag

  3. slysnide

    @skywise: Where's Pierce Brosnan? :P

    8 months agoby @slysnideFlag

  4. skywise

    @slysnide Judi Dench is just awesome in general but as M she is supreme.

    1) Sean Connery: The Definitive Bond
    2) Daniel Craig: As i have mentioned i love his bull dog approach...that is very similar to the original Fleming ideal
    3) Timothy Dalton: believe it or not i find him to be the most accurate to the writings of Fleming even down to the look.
    4) Roger Moore: most of his movie were silly with crazy gadgest and one aligator disguise.
    5: George Lazendy: He just never didit for me...he just wasnt Bond at all.

    Our lists are almost the same.

    8 months agoby @skywiseFlag

  5. slysnide

    @skywise: "Goldeneye" was both the first Bond film and spy film I ever saw. For that, it always remains near the top of my favorites list. The new M is great too. And by that I mean all of Judi Dench's appearances. She visibly doesn't like Bond and isn't shy about it. My favorite Bonds?

    1) Sean Connery: the perfect definition of 007
    2) Daniel Craig: the realistic version of 007
    3) Pierce Brosnan: the suave overconfident 007
    4) Roger Moore: the most colorful of the films to his namesake
    5) Timothy Dalton: too obvious that he was 'acting' like 007
    6) George Lazenby: I just never liked him

    8 months agoby @slysnideFlag

  6. skywise

    @slysnide I know that QoS gets a lot of hate but i really enjoyed the story. And as i said it was a direct continuation of the previous Bond film which is sort of historic. I also love how we see M's confidence in Bond deteriorate in QoS to the point where she cuts him off from everything. I think that as sequels they go together well and their differences make them a more complete whole. But Die Another Day was a little over the top and as much as i love Bond and absolutly cherish Goldeneye ("I'm invincible!") I wasnt to much a fan of the perfect suave Bond that Brosnan portrayed. That is not to say that i did not like those movies, but Brosnan is my 2nd least favorite Bond. What about you?

    Whats is your fav and least fav Bond?

    8 months agoby @skywiseFlag

  7. slysnide

    @skywise: haha, no man. I mean that the story was more complex than CR to the point where it seemed it should've been told with more storytelling (like CR) than action (like QoS is). Typically fans like complexity, as the Brosnan Era presented a new type of Bond with new plots and challenges being the first films out of the Cold War. But it seems that the producers listened to all the fans who bitched after all the action from "Die Another Day" was excluded from "Casino Royale," and that's why "Quantum of Solace" was so overloaded with action sequences. It was also the shortest installment, by like, 10 minutes or so. Hopefully the producers come to a happy medium of the previous two films for #23.

    8 months agoby @slysnideFlag

  8. skywise

    but ya that car chase at the opening sequence for QoS wsa pretty elaborate. But then again so wsa the free running opening of CR.

    8 months agoby @skywiseFlag

  9. skywise

    @slysnide Oh i see what you mean. Maybe the complex storytelling over action is what turned so many away from this installment. I loved this one because not only do i adore Gemma Arterton but i also love Olga Kurylenko (a guy thing...i am sure you understand). I really like CR better for its simplicity and like i said...his bull dogish ways.

    8 months agoby @skywiseFlag

  10. slysnide

    @skywise: I meant that the plot of QoS was more complex, not the action scenes. Though those probably were too. It just lacked in storytelling over action. For it pretty much was a straight out action movie.

    8 months agoby @slysnideFlag

  11. skywise

    @slysnide Great points. The interesting thing about QoS is that it picks up only a few hours after CR. I loved CR and i agree that while QoS had more complex action sequences i missed the simplicity and bull-dogish way Bond plowed thru every situation. In QoS he is more the cool calm killer which i understand. Bond is growing. I think that CR really shows why he wont let himself get close to women.

    8 months agoby @skywiseFlag

  12. slysnide

    @meeeeeeeeeee12: What the hell are you talking about?

    8 months agoby @slysnideFlag

  13. meeeeeeeeeee12

    REMEMBER MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE?

    8 months agoby @meeeeeeeeeee12Flag

  14. meeeeeeeeeee12

    IM 6 NOW!

    8 months agoby @meeeeeeeeeee12Flag

  15. Bawnian©-Dexeus

    @slysnide Gotcha. I agree on resembling Jason Bourne. When my dad and I saw CR, that's the first thing that he blurted "Damn! Bourne took over MI6" But he preferred it because now in this new age, he didn't have to subject to a perfect Bond that almost never tires, and now can find himself in a high octane danger position, like the interrogation where he get's tortured, ans so on. He loves the Sean Connery, and only liked Golden Eye simply because 007 got an update, but once Die Another Day came out, it was like sitting with a time bomb.

    8 months agoby @bawnian-dexeusFlag

  16. slysnide

    @bawnian-dexeus: Oh I like the new ones too. It's just that they could soon resemble Jason Bourne flicks and decades from now they'll outnumber the oldies to the point where they're regarded as ancient classics. Given that Michael Wilson chose to take a few years off after "QoS" because he was "exhausted," then we'll have to wait out his retirement before the slurry of one film every 2-3yrs becomes a regularity again.

    8 months agoby @slysnideFlag

  17. Bawnian©-Dexeus

    @slysnide I like the new Bond. We needed a more modern and down to earth spy with believable crisis, and I'll always be surprised at how many power hungry figures are in the Bond world. Like someone is breeding warlords and stuff. And of course I agree, that the view on the bond girls have evolved for the better. Now the majority handle themselves, but alas, in the end Bond in for the rescue

    8 months agoby @bawnian-dexeusFlag

  18. slysnide

    Thanks @bawnian-dexeus & @ejk1. Yeah, the "Goldfinger" phenomenon. Much better than the "Thunderball" phenomenon for me.

    @moviegeek: WHAT?! Well you gotta rent it RIGHT NOW!!! :P

    @dan1: It's because of how I'd explain that history that I've been delaying writing this review for ages. I'll be reviewing the following 19 Bond films in sequential order btw. See, now I'll be held to it for saying it. :P There's a long enough drought between films I wanna see to a lot the amount of time it'll take, which'll also alot for whether or not I'm in a reviewing mood.

    @skywise: I laugh all the time at those moments. That's why I thought Dench's M's line in "Goldeneye" about being a sexist misogynist dinosaur was hilarious. It was like she thought of supervising him as a demotion. :P Yeah, but I still bet most future Bond girls will either be agents themselves, or have some kinda job in law enforcement to continue avoiding that archetype. Jon Favreau even mentioned how the newer Bond films are almost getting too realistic for the saga's own good. And considering that MGM's bankruptcy came after "QoS" then it seemed even more poetic for the saga to die then. For I doubt we'll be seeing simple framed Bond films like this in the future. "Casino Royale" was the closest to resembling this simplicity, but the hordes of fans who missed the action from "Die Another Day" bitched enough to get the overly action packed "QoS" which oddly enough was a more complex story than "CR," but less story oriented.

    8 months agoby @slysnideFlag

  19. skywise

    Another great review @slysnide with a lot of interesting facts and insight into the making of this film and what it has become over time.

    All time favorite Bond line came from Goldfinger :

    BOND: Run along dear, man talk (slaps womans bottom.)

    Its classic Bond and hard to imagine something like that being written for todays audiences. Is it degrading, yes it is and thats the funny thing about Sean Connery's Bond. He was a womanizing chauvanist who kills people for a living. Not really the kind of guy you want to know. I like that about the Connery era, he was a bad ass no doubt but a flawed bad ass (Unlike the pretty boy Brosnan) who seemed to be able to do no wrong.

    8 months agoby @skywiseFlag

  20. moviegeek

    Never seen this Bond. One of four or five that I haven't. Terrific review as always.

    8 months agoby @moviegeekFlag

  21. Bawnian©-Dexeus

    Where the bloody hell is that stamp?

    8 months agoby @bawnian-dexeusFlag

  22. Dan

    Loved how you explained the history leading up to the film, the film itself, and Connery's stamp on the character.

    8 months agoby @dan1Flag

  23. ejk1

    Great job, @slysnide. Bond is one of my favorites. I think I'd rank Dr. No as my 3rd or 4th favorite film in the series, behind Goldfinger, From Russia With Love, and possibly The Spy Who Loved Me.

    8 months agoby @ejk1Flag

  24. Bawnian©-Dexeus

    Great review @slysnide

    8 months agoby @bawnian-dexeusFlag