Join in our weekly Bond watch
Barbel
ScotlandPosts: 41,846Chief of Staff
CoolHandBond and I have been talking and we're going to watch a Bond movie once a week starting on Monday ie day after tomorrow.
Remember when we did a watchalong a few years back? The difference is that rather than co-ordinate a set time we have a whole week to accommodate different time zones and schedules. Also I'm too lazy to work out the times necessary like @Higgins did.
So, from this Monday we have a week to watch DN in all it's glory then report back here in this thread before we move on to FRWL. If it turns out to be only CHB and me then so be it, but it'll be more fun if others pitch in.
Comments
Good to have you along, N24.
I dunno, I'm being unhelpful but wouldn't it be better to watch Calvin Dyson's lengthy reviews of the Bond movies, starting with Dr No?
Roger Moore 1927-2017
No, it certainly wouldn’t be better. I find Dyson’s reviews tedious, but this new watchalong is for AJB members to have another look at the movies and give their own views, not discuss Dyson’s views. Hopefully some new insights will be found along the way with some interesting points of view. Your views are far more important than Dyson’s, @Napoleon Plural
I enjoy Calvin Dyson's videos, but us doing his videos doesn't appeal. It feels like online navel gazing, this "we react to the reaction of" stuff.
'Sir, you are a Dyson activist and not a proper Bond fan, you have no business being on this thread, in fact you should be ashamed of yourself...'
😀
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I'll join in as well. It's been way too long since I've watched most of the Bond films so this is as good an opportunity as any to do it. I did say I was going to watch them all again this year so this thread is fortuitous in that sense.
Looks like I'm first.
DR NO 1962 Terence Young
You know the credits, I won’t say more about them.
Is it dated? Does it show its age? Yes of course, despite all the remastering etc and it doesn’t matter at all in that those are not valid reasons to not watch this or any other film. For me personally it especially doesn’t matter since I first saw this in the 1960s – no, not on release, I’m not that old – so it has a fixed place in my memory. All right, and in my heart as well.
The Jamaican sun and beaches look beautiful, as does Ursula Andress. Sean Connery isn’t quite James Bond yet, there are still a few rough edges to get filed off, but it won’t be long before that happens. Bernard Lee and Lois Maxwell are just fine even without the warm familiarity they will develop (as of course will Desmond Llewelyn slightly later). Joseph Wiseman is a classic Bond villain before there was such a thing in the movies.
Familiarity with the novel shows that the structure roughly follows this pattern: scene from Fleming (eg Strangways & Trueblood being killed), original scene (Bond meets Sylvia in a casino), Fleming scene (M gives Bond his instructions and Boothroyd gives him the PPK), original scene (Bond finds Sylvia in his apartment) and so on. Roughly 50% actual Fleming until we reach Crab Key, from where it’s nearly all Fleming (bar the decontamination scene) until Bond emerges from the duct when it departs from the novel altogether.
“Under The Mango Tree” is a pleasant little ditty which is perhaps overused (in various forms), while the “James Bond Theme” is awesome in its initial appearance.
Newcomers to the franchise (I speak of my children and grandchildren, of course) are often surprised at how simple and basic it is. No helicopters, no space rockets, no ejector seats in cars, no submarines, and so on. That often puts them off, but I thoroughly enjoyed yet another viewing. I’d have got around to it soon enough anyway, even without this excuse.
Your reviews will be most welcome @Silhouette Man
Nice review @Barbel I will watch DN soon.
DR. NO (1962)
Unlike @Barbel I am that old, and I saw this in 1962 at the cinema, aged 6. Only thing I remember is the spider scene from that first viewing. I next saw it in 1965 on a double bill with FRWL, and many times since, of course.
On this latest viewing I noticed that it was seven minutes before we get to see JB and eight minutes before the very first Bond, James Bond. More tropes that we see are the throwing of his hat onto the stand, the M, Moneypenny, Q (Boothroyd) scene where the films plot is explained, and the first Bond girl is bedded (although it must have been a quickie with the time restraints that M told Bond at the briefing until he caught his flight).
The movie clips along at a good rate which makes it lean and exciting. The casting is good all round. The sets are excellent, making the budget seem much larger than it actually was. The music is not that brilliant (aside from the JB theme) which we need to thank John Barry’s superb arrangement. It’s not surprising that he replaced Monty Norman on FRWL.
This was a solid start to the franchise, the locations were a world away from the kitchen-sink dramas that the UK were producing, no wonder that DN was a huge success - action, exotic locations and lovely ladies for the men and oh so handsome Sean for the women. The world didn’t know it then, but the greatest cinematic hero in history was born.
That is still not as long as we get to see Bond in Live And Let Die, regarded by some as a loose remake of Dr No - once you factor in the pre-credits and Macca's song. I think these are the only two examples if you don't count FRWL which as a fake Bond in the pre-credits.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I find the striking thing about Dr No is that Bond isn't quite there yet: he's quite rude, abrupt, somewhat prickly and uncharacteristically (for the 007 we come to know) serious at a lot of points; they haven't fully found his voice yet. There's obviously the flashes of lightness, and they clearly thought that worked more and adjusted him really quickly for FRWL.
Very true. And Bond's later lightness is kind of predicated on a notion that the raw, tough OO7 of DN remains, somehow, at the character's essence.
Yeah, he's definitely still in there, just smoothed off a bit. It's funny though, the 'you've had your six' bit is rightly lauded, but I kind of can't imagine the Bond of Goldfinger doing that... ?
TMWTGG?
I was really indicating how long into DN it was before we first saw JB onscreen for the first time ever (discounting the CR TV prog) rather than intimating it was the longest in the canon.
I'd forgotten about TMWTGG! That is certainly a contender.
I wan't arguing with you CHB, just following thru on your observation. I can't get the old DVD player to connect with my other old Panasonic Viera so can't join in with all this in the same way.
I think early scenes with Connery were set in Jamaica where he is quite brusque, then they move to interiors back in the UK and there's been a rethink where he is a bit lighter and more jocular.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I think early scenes with Connery were set in Jamaica where he is quite brusque, then they move to interiors back in the UK and there's been a rethink where he is a bit lighter and more jocular.
That's an interesting thought, yeah you may well be right there. I think maybe the most extreme for it is that scene in the bar where he's sitting with Felix & Quarrel and interrogating the photographer girl; he probably is much lighter in the UK shot scenes. He's still pretty brusque in the embassy but maybe not as bad.
The brusqueness is very much the same as Connery’s character in his previous film, The Frightened City, where he plays a money collector in gangland London.
BTW, what is a Panasonic Viera @Napoleon Plural and why does it need to be connected to a DVD player? Probably a silly question but I’m not too clever with technology 😂
Erm, I don't have a smart TV. My TV is 10 years old - but while it's only 40in it has a nice picture. So, if I want to play my DVD of Dr No, I need to connect the player to the TV, for some reason it worked on the 32in version of the same telly but I don't have the correct leads to this one.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Ok, I now understand that the Panasonic Viera is a television set - I thought he used to play for Arsenal 😉
Arsenal - that's a football team, isn't it? 🙂
Hooray!! Thr watchalongs are back!
I can't do Mondays or Tuesdays.
But its good these things are back!
There's a window of a week, @Thunderbird 2 , see the first post. Tomorrow is the last chance to watch Dr No and comment on it; from Monday (or Wednesday for you) we're on to FRWL.
My favourite James Bond film.
I love the simplicity and elegance of Dr. No.
William Foster Davis did a fine job portraying Superintendent Duff in the film.
An excellent James Bond film.
I finally re-watched DN. What do I think? It's a good movie and both Connery and Andress look great in it. also the sets make the movie look much grander than the budget would suggest. The stunts are unimpressed compared to what we're used to in Bond movies and there is only one location, even though it's a an exotic one. I'd say DN is a Bond movie I enjoy, ut I don't watch it every year. Other Bond movies has done it better and grander.
By the way, it’s FRWL this week 😁
That all said, somebody suggested that Never Say Never Again doesn't seem so bad if you watch it after Dr No and imagine all the other Bond movies in the interim never happened. I'm not sure about that but somebody might want to test that theory.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE 1963 Terence Young
Again we’re of course all familiar with this so I’m going to cover it in sections as I watch.
The PTS
The first time we see the gunbarrel proper (ie briefly, accompanied by the Theme, then opening out (hopefully- I always prefer that to a direct cut) to somewhere in the world) and the first PTS. It’s well done and intriguing, and introduces us to Red Grant who will make other short appearances until he (pretending to be Captain Nash) and Bond officially meet.
As with all good ideas, more than one person has claimed credit for Bond movies having a PTS inc Peter Hunt and Terence Young – although Young had a habit of claiming others’ ideas to be his, even when those ideas were in Fleming’s books.
The Music
After his work on the Theme, John Barry was a shoo-in for the score but someone on the team (again, accounts vary) wanted a more established songwriter to come up with the main title song so Lionel Bart was selected and did an excellent job. After the PTS we hear Barry’s arrangement of Bart’s song as well as his own …er… Monty Norman’s Bond Theme. It still sets up the film perfectly after all these years, aided by the credits on the nubile body of Leila.
Barry’s score sets the scene wonderfully (Venice just after the titles; Istanbul later) and includes the first version of “007” – but far from the last. There’s an unnecessary inclusion or two of the Theme but that was down to Peter Hunt rather than Barry.
(Film paused while I wrote all that!)
The Cast
A colourful bunch of bad guys who we’re introduced to straight after the titles starting with Kronsteen and Klebb, who are marvellously embodied by Vladek Sheybal and Lotte Lenya. I’d read the book first and wasn’t let down by the casting here, nor by Grant who Robert Shaw makes a formidable adversary. Morzeny doesn’t make much of an impact though as we know now Walter Gotell will be back in a more important part later.
And our first look (well, sort of) at Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Creepy voice- check. White cat- check. Ruthlessness- check. Face – not so much… yet.
Eunice Gayson in her second and last appearance as Sylvia. Not much impact, certainly not as much as in her first turn. Daniela Bianchi is gorgeous and conveys Tatiana’s lack of understanding of the situation well. As with so many other early Bond females, she’s dubbed, in this case by Barbara Jefford. I guess Nikki van der Zyl must have been busy that day.
Pedro Armendariz is delightful as Kerim, evoking the book’s character very well.
The Story
This clings very closely to Fleming’s novel, with two major changes. The first is to introduce SPECTRE and avoid having the Russians be the villains, which complicates the plot without being a problem. Richard Maibaum was pleased with the result.
The second is to add two outdoor chase scenes, one with helicopter and one with boats, towards the end of the film.
Bond. James Bond.
Sean Connery’s characterisation has been refined since DN. His clothes look more expensive and he wears the suits well (although in DN there was less opportunity for suit-wearing). His eyebrows have been trimmed and his hair (yes, it’s still his; the toupee makes its debut in the next movie) better cut. He’s less blunt than before and seems to be enjoying himself more.
Overall
Like DN, it has naturally dated. In over 60 years, how could it not? For example, Bond’s car phone we see in his first scene now looks unbelievably clunky while at the time it was state-of-the-art. Does it matter? Well, it depends on what you’re expecting, I suppose. If the viewer has been introduced to Bond via MR and TSWLM or maybe TND and TWINE, it will appear slow-moving and dull. The gadgets are played well down, we’re given too much time with the airport and hotel stuff (cliched now, not then), the action scenes come late, etc. It was never meant to be that kind of film and is a fair representation of Fleming’s book, and that was what was wanted at the time. It was also a good move to have it be a contrast to DN instead of more of the same. The series would fall into the “more of the same” trap later but at this early point it was a good move to do something different.
How about just imagining that ONE previous Bond movie never happened? If there was no TB then NSNA might seem a lot better.
FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE (1963)
As in the novel it takes some time before we get to see JB - 18 minutes this time, but those 18 minutes are full of detail as the elaborate plan by SPECTRE to get Bond to steal a decoding machine for them while embarrassing MI6 is explained.
Desmond Llewelyn replaces Peter Burton as Boothroyd (Q) and a legend is born, although this debut performance mirrors Burton’s straight matter-of-fact delivery before we get into the bantering repartee that comes later. The attaché case is the first in a long line of gadgets to be given to Bond and which help him in the course of the movie.
The reference of the plot being like a chess game is displayed a few times throughout, most obviously in the chess tournament but continuing with the black and white squared floor at the hotel, and with assassin Red Grant making sure that the King (Bond) is protected until the final moves of the game (plot).
The casting is superb, as it mainly was during the 60’s, and a special mention to Pedro Armendariz as Kerim Bey, Bond’s greatest ally, and whom we feel genuine sadness at his demise on the train. Lotte Lenya is a revelation as Klebb.
The spy stuff is really well done, creating tension and intrigue.
John Barry’s score is many notches higher than the rather pedestrian score for DN, the theme song by Matt Monro is lovely and the 007 theme is pacy and exciting and works better in the action sequences than the actual James Bond Theme which is better suited to scenes where Bond is checking rooms for bugs.
It’s one hour and six minutes until we get to the Orient Express and for the next half hour we are treated to the best part of the movie as Bond faces down against arguably the most lethal henchman he will ever meet. The fight is wonderful, still the best realistic fight ever seen on screen, it’s a marvel of editing and excitement as Bond and Grant trade vicious punches. We also get an early look into Bond’s wine snobbery with the red wine with fish comment and the champagne temperature when he’s romancing Sylvia from the first movie.
Sean plays it a little less harshly this time around but the menacing brutality is still in evidence.
It’s different from most sequels in that it doesn’t repeat the formula as so many sequels do.
I can never tire of watching this one, it’s right up there as one of the best of the series.