Dr. No

One of the biggest casualties of the bastard that is the Coronavirus was the newest James Bond film, No Time To Die. Sure there were others, including Black Widow, but I'd say the newest Bond - and Craig's last - was my most anticipated of the now-pushed films coming our way. 

This weekend would have been the time we'd all be watching it, in packed theaters, probably having a hell of a time. Obviously we're not, but thankfully Amazon Prime Video made the smart decision to put all the pre-Craig-era Bonds on their service for free. 

As someone who's woefully under-researched in most Bonds pre-Brosnan (I've caught bits of a few here and there on TV), I figured I'd take this quarantine time as an opportunity to watch through them. That's a lot of film and I'm not sure I have time to just power through them so perhaps some get Retro Reviews, perhaps some don't. We'll see. 

Either way, I wanted to go in order so we're starting appropriately with the first, Dr. No, with Sean Connery as our James Bond. 

When I go back to much older films, I try to remember that movies were just...different back then. Part of me wants to say worse, yes, but I also understand that it's the natural evolution of technology, techniques, etc. Dr. No, was made in 1962, nearly 60 years ago(!). And it shows...there's really no other way to say it. Watch this and then go watch the trailer for No Time to Die or hell even revisit Casino Royale to see my point. We're spoiled in this day and age of film with how exciting, visceral, and intense movies have become; how edge-of-your-seat thrilling they can be. And you know what? At some point in 1962 a film like this was probably the "it" film. Hell, only about a decade before had films transitioned into color instead of black and white. 

Don't drink and drive kids

All that to say: forgive me if I feel harsh against the film. I did my best to remember that it's quite old and instead judge the film for what it is. 

Truthfully, I didn't enjoy Dr. No as much as I thought I would given how much of a Bond fan I am. I still thought it was "good", but all in all this feels like a reserved iteration of the now-famous franchise. Had it not actually created a historic series after it, I'm not sure people would talk about it today. The plot lags (not all that much actually happens in the film), the finale is a bit anti-climactic, and I didn't find many characters other than Bond or Honey Ryder to be that memorable. Yes that includes the titular character who's barely in the film, and who's plan doesn't really...make sense?...but he can be interesting, there's just not much of him. In short, I was unimpressed by the story overall. It was fine for a spy film and to a certain extent its probably hard to impress when I've seen some great, modern ones throughout my lifetime. 

What I was most impressed with was the blueprint that it lays out and how pivotal it has been in nearly every Bond film since. There's a mission - obviously - but the smooth, womanizing, drinking Bond is very present here and the film captures the tone of the early 60s, much like other "era" Bonds do. That's not to be ignored because you literally created such a strong blueprint that even 40+ years later, it's still used and modernized. Even the Craig-era Bonds have this same general formula with a darker, post 9/11 world that's grittier. And if there's one element that's pure genius of this first Bond, it's the original score. Sure, it hits a little different when the intensity of the film is using 60s techniques (i.e. not all that intense by today's standards) but watch that No Time to Die trailer again and tell me it doesn't raise the hairs on your arm and it was music that was created nearly 60 years ago! It's about iconic as Hollywood music gets and the fact that it has remained nearly identical is unheard of. 

"Would you like me to hold your...seashells...for you?"

The stuff I'll call out that I'm not going to factor too much into my final score is just goofy film making stuff. This Bond is silly by 2020 standards and that gives it a certain charm. Bond driving on a clear green screen, conversation audio that's taken from too far away on the set they're using, awful nighttime filters, and staged/telegraphed combat...all are here and campy by today's standards. It's good fun and one has to remember that these films started off with more of that flair vs. the brutality we saw in some of the Brosnan and especially Craig-era films. 

With all of these films on Prime Video and the hurtful pang of Craig's last Bond (that's looking great) pushed until November, there's no better time to catch up on the Bonds of the past. Dr. No is old, but its got charm and you'll notice that the blueprint it lays out is nearly as iconic as the character itself. 

CONS

• Write down on paper what the plot is and you'll see there's a lot of padding. At nearly 2 hours, it feels long
• Given some of the iconic moments the series has delivered, there's only a handful of them here
• Titular character is rather underutilized 
• Not taking off many points here but boy, oh boy am I glad we have the movies of today. Some techniques and technology has come so far

PROS

• Sean Connery as Bond is the perfect blend of charisma, machismo, and humor without being sleazy
• Honey Ryder's entrance and character was iconic
• Entertaining despite being too long. Some fun action pieces that are now campy-fun
• Moments of really great cinematography for the time
• Holy hell is the Bond theme just genius. Has any other theme song stood the test of time that well?
• I was surprised to hear SPECTRE mentioned but it doesn't overly focus on it. So in that regard, it sets up sequels well

Retro Rath's Review Score | 7/10