truthfully, I've always been a fan of Dr. No, I wouldn't call it the vanilla of the series like most people do. Right away you knew Bond was gonna be huge and Connery was born to play him.
So I’ve only just discovered your channel this morning, and already I’ve burned through three videos, and am itching to watch more. Your style of in-depth analysis is exactly what I hope to find from fellow fans who also get obsessed with this subject. I just rewatched Dr. No last week for the first since first seeing it as a teenager, some twenty+ years ago… this was around the time Tomorrow Never Dies Came Out. I’m sure it’s an origin story like many of the other Bond fans my age: having first fallen in love with the Goldeneye 007 game for the N64, and which subsequently led to adoring the movie, I was all-too-eager to take advantage of the Bond marathon the TBS channel was doing to hype up TND’s upcoming theatrical release. I seem to recall my teenage self only half paying attention to Dr. No, and only really perking up once the titular character finally entered the story in-person, which thus left my young self with the impression that the movie was meandering and kind of convoluted in a way that I had supposed would have worked well in the ‘60s, but would have presumably felt chintzy and dated by my totally radical, way-past-cool ‘90s sensibilities (I am sighing at the notion now). Instead, I was very amazed when I watched it last week to discover just how confidently no-frills it is! Clearly my younger wasn’t paying attention for beans, because it does the exact opposite of meander: it’s concise, to-the-point, and thanks to Connery, has truck-loads of swagger. Considering that prior to last week’s viewing, I had been exploring all of the Roger Moore movies (all but one of which had been a blind spot for me), and often finding many of their more indulgent moments exasperating, Dr. No felt like a breath of fresh air, a nice ocean breeze after a muggy season. I’ve been waiting for a proper time window to continue on to From Russia With Love, which if you can believe it, I still have somehow not seen! I know I will be very eager to watch your video analysis as soon as I have, though. Keep up the great work!
Great channel man! Few minutes in and I am already highly enjoying your content. And by the looks of it, your channel is packed with much more! Great stuff! 😄
One thing I always loved about Bond's introduction is the way Connery alters his performance when interacting with other characters. With Miss Trench he's suave and confident. With Moneypenny he's relaxed and playful. But with M he's docile and somewhat ill at ease. It appears James Bond would rather battle wits with Dr.No than face his crusty superior officer. A smart, incisive, and skillfully edited review! Looks like I'll be busy with your take on Bond for a while.
One thing I enjoy about this review and your other videos is how you touch on production design, like the film score and costumes. I feel like those aspects of the franchise (and many movies in general) go rather underappreciated
I've taught theatrical design at a university level, so I tend to notice them a bit more than a casual viewer (sometimes to the annoyance of my wife). This series is so wonderfully lavish with high production values a lot of the time, and since any design work (production, sound, music, costume, etc) is a part of the piece as an intentional creative choice, it only makes sense that they can be as important as a story or cast when reviewing a film's perceived successes and failures.
@stephenjarvis534 Wholeheartedly agree, every aspect of that filmmaking process comes together to make the movies we appreciate today. Excellent video, one of several great ones you've made. 👏
What's funny is that Fleming wasn't sure if he wanted to continue the series or not, so he wrote that as an ending in case he didn't. Which would've made a very anti-climatic end to the character, gun jamming and he gets poisoned and dies.
Yep. I'll be taking a break from Bond by doing another franchise retrospective, and then the one after that will be either the Russia review or Bond Henchmen.
You're not wrong. I mixed these in a soundproof studio, and they sounded OK there. I've been trying to do better, and I think several of the later reviews (Live and Let Die, Golden Gun) came out much better.
@@stephenjarvis534I know, just giving you a hard time haha!! I have an unreasonable love for that movie. I legitimately watch 1-2 times a year. It’s my “sick day” movie. Definitely agree it’s no Raiders of the Lost Ark though!
Here's a suggestion for a ranking: rank every movie and actor portraying the fictional detective Philip Marlowe. Alternatively, rank every movie/film/actor's interpretation of the Zorro character.
Interesting. I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit that I don't have much experience with Raymond Chandler and his stories, whereas I have some experience with Zorro. I'd have to brush up on some incarnations (it's been a while since I've seen some interpretations), but that could be fun.
@@stephenjarvis534 Well then, it sounds like this is a good excuse to brush up on Raymond Chandler and shoot, throw in Dashiell Hammett for good measure!
I know GOLDFINGER was the most popular, but it's long bugged me that ABC started running the films with that, then the 2 previous ones later (and I forget in which order, but I suspect they ran RUSSIA before NO). I actually read the novel first, so I enjoyed the parts that followed the book, and am STILL annoyed where they deviated from it. I've heard they didn't have the budget for the giant octopus, so why start with this film other than that it was originally conceived as a FILM project before Fleming wrote the novel? (And, of course, THUNDERBALL was under a lawsuit at the time.) I kinda wish they'd started with MOONRAKER, back when building a nuclear missile to level London would have not seemed out-of-date. And Honor Blackman would have made a perfect "Gala Brand", with H. Marion Crawford being the perfect "Sir Hugo Drax". Joseph Wiseman did a fine job; it's only a slight shame they didn't get Christopher Lee, as that's who Fleming had in mind when he wrote the unproduced screenplay. I like Ursula Andress in other films, but her "Honey" NEVER reminded me of the girl in the book who was such a favorite of mine. And I really wish they'd gotten David Hedison to play Felix in all the films. When I watch the 1st season of "VOYAGE", I keep thinking he would have been the best Felix. He's got WAY more personality than Jack Lord. One of my big gripes about the movie is how M blows the plot before Bond leaves his office, so there's NO MYSTERY. Another fan online once helped me assemble a far-better soundtrack album than the official one. It's ironic that most of the music on the LP is not in the film, and most of the music in the film is not on the LP! I put all the movie music together in sequence, and all the unused tracks at the end as bonuses. It gave me a much-improved appreciation for Norman's score. It's not great... but it's pretty good for what it was. Of course, Barry's RUSSIA score remains among my top faves. Something that never occured to me until just recently... if they'd ever had any interest in actually doing Fleming's version of Bond onscreen, Edward DeSouza would have been perfect as the book version of Bond. (It's funny that he has a cameo in THE SPY WHO LOVED ME.) He's in both the 1962 PHANTOM OF THE OPERA and KISS OF THE VAMPIRE.
My first Bond film was Goldfinger and I went backward so I was a bit disappointed with Dr. No. Since Bond was already threatened with a laser between his legs, a tarantula seemed incredibly lame.
There's little I find more annoying than the general rough concept of 'make the sequel bigger and MORE." Which then means every subsequent film has to outdo this. It's why I think the sequels to the first Lord of The Rings film are inferior-- because they need to have more epicness. It's also why I think the Hobbit films were pretty mediocre at best, because they once again had to replicate the first three adaptions but be 'more'. I know the stakes raise considerably in say You Only Live Twice, but I'm talking more about how the film is made from a cinematography point of view. It's larger yes, but not to the point of silliness and it does calm down in later films again.
As I explained on another video, I'm sorry it's distracting for you, but it's not going away until I feel differently. I have my reasons for having it currently, though I'm not ruling it out permanently. Is it the volume of the music that is the problem, or is it something else?
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
truthfully, I've always been a fan of Dr. No, I wouldn't call it the vanilla of the series like most people do. Right away you knew Bond was gonna be huge and Connery was born to play him.
So I’ve only just discovered your channel this morning, and already I’ve burned through three videos, and am itching to watch more. Your style of in-depth analysis is exactly what I hope to find from fellow fans who also get obsessed with this subject.
I just rewatched Dr. No last week for the first since first seeing it as a teenager, some twenty+ years ago… this was around the time Tomorrow Never Dies Came Out. I’m sure it’s an origin story like many of the other Bond fans my age: having first fallen in love with the Goldeneye 007 game for the N64, and which subsequently led to adoring the movie, I was all-too-eager to take advantage of the Bond marathon the TBS channel was doing to hype up TND’s upcoming theatrical release. I seem to recall my teenage self only half paying attention to Dr. No, and only really perking up once the titular character finally entered the story in-person, which thus left my young self with the impression that the movie was meandering and kind of convoluted in a way that I had supposed would have worked well in the ‘60s, but would have presumably felt chintzy and dated by my totally radical, way-past-cool ‘90s sensibilities (I am sighing at the notion now).
Instead, I was very amazed when I watched it last week to discover just how confidently no-frills it is! Clearly my younger wasn’t paying attention for beans, because it does the exact opposite of meander: it’s concise, to-the-point, and thanks to Connery, has truck-loads of swagger.
Considering that prior to last week’s viewing, I had been exploring all of the Roger Moore movies (all but one of which had been a blind spot for me), and often finding many of their more indulgent moments exasperating, Dr. No felt like a breath of fresh air, a nice ocean breeze after a muggy season. I’ve been waiting for a proper time window to continue on to From Russia With Love, which if you can believe it, I still have somehow not seen! I know I will be very eager to watch your video analysis as soon as I have, though. Keep up the great work!
I’ve watched this, I’m going to watch your review of from Russia with love and all subsequent reviews. Keep it up
Great channel man! Few minutes in and I am already highly enjoying your content. And by the looks of it, your channel is packed with much more! Great stuff! 😄
One thing I always loved about Bond's introduction is the way Connery alters his performance when interacting with other characters. With Miss Trench he's suave and confident. With Moneypenny he's relaxed and playful. But with M he's docile and somewhat ill at ease. It appears James Bond would rather battle wits with Dr.No than face his crusty superior officer.
A smart, incisive, and skillfully edited review! Looks like I'll be busy with your take on Bond for a while.
I think this is a Fleming trait that the filmmakers and Sean wisely like picked up on.
Later films he becomes cocky no matter who it is even his boss
Great point about how Dr. No is like the pilot for the whole series, also a great adventure in its own right. Light, fantastic, and beachy
One thing I enjoy about this review and your other videos is how you touch on production design, like the film score and costumes. I feel like those aspects of the franchise (and many movies in general) go rather underappreciated
I've taught theatrical design at a university level, so I tend to notice them a bit more than a casual viewer (sometimes to the annoyance of my wife). This series is so wonderfully lavish with high production values a lot of the time, and since any design work (production, sound, music, costume, etc) is a part of the piece as an intentional creative choice, it only makes sense that they can be as important as a story or cast when reviewing a film's perceived successes and failures.
@stephenjarvis534 Wholeheartedly agree, every aspect of that filmmaking process comes together to make the movies we appreciate today. Excellent video, one of several great ones you've made. 👏
Excellent, Stephen!
Really looking forward to following this series! Off to a great start.
Intresting Retrospective! Should do a retrospective of the original Superman films (1978-1987) would be a treat!
Funny enough, I just finished rewatching some of them. Should I include Superman Returns?
@@stephenjarvis534why not? Superman Returns is a homage! Also should the Mission Impossible
Mate, I'm loving your videos! Great takes on Bond, even if i don't agree with all of them. Looking forward to seeing your channel grow :)
Bond’s Beretta 418 jammed in the From Russia With Love novel.
What's funny is that Fleming wasn't sure if he wanted to continue the series or not, so he wrote that as an ending in case he didn't. Which would've made a very anti-climatic end to the character, gun jamming and he gets poisoned and dies.
nice, will u review all james bond movies like this now ?
Yep. I'll be taking a break from Bond by doing another franchise retrospective, and then the one after that will be either the Russia review or Bond Henchmen.
Great! Will this turn into a new series ?
Indeed it will.
Great vid
When are we getting doctor yes *crying
Jack Lord wanted to play Leiter again I heard, but wanted equal pay and film time to Connery which killed that idea.
Music again is so high in the mix on these reviews.
You're not wrong. I mixed these in a soundproof studio, and they sounded OK there. I've been trying to do better, and I think several of the later reviews (Live and Let Die, Golden Gun) came out much better.
I WILL NOT stand for even slight criticism of National Treasure good sir!!!!!!! Haha great video though!
Thanks. I said it was successful to a degree. I have a soft spot for it and its sequel as well.
@@stephenjarvis534I know, just giving you a hard time haha!! I have an unreasonable love for that movie. I legitimately watch 1-2 times a year. It’s my “sick day” movie. Definitely agree it’s no Raiders of the Lost Ark though!
Here's a suggestion for a ranking: rank every movie and actor portraying the fictional detective Philip Marlowe. Alternatively, rank every movie/film/actor's interpretation of the Zorro character.
Interesting. I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit that I don't have much experience with Raymond Chandler and his stories, whereas I have some experience with Zorro. I'd have to brush up on some incarnations (it's been a while since I've seen some interpretations), but that could be fun.
@@stephenjarvis534 Well then, it sounds like this is a good excuse to brush up on Raymond Chandler and shoot, throw in Dashiell Hammett for good measure!
I know GOLDFINGER was the most popular, but it's long bugged me that ABC started running the films with that, then the 2 previous ones later (and I forget in which order, but I suspect they ran RUSSIA before NO).
I actually read the novel first, so I enjoyed the parts that followed the book, and am STILL annoyed where they deviated from it. I've heard they didn't have the budget for the giant octopus, so why start with this film other than that it was originally conceived as a FILM project before Fleming wrote the novel? (And, of course, THUNDERBALL was under a lawsuit at the time.) I kinda wish they'd started with MOONRAKER, back when building a nuclear missile to level London would have not seemed out-of-date. And Honor Blackman would have made a perfect "Gala Brand", with H. Marion Crawford being the perfect "Sir Hugo Drax".
Joseph Wiseman did a fine job; it's only a slight shame they didn't get Christopher Lee, as that's who Fleming had in mind when he wrote the unproduced screenplay. I like Ursula Andress in other films, but her "Honey" NEVER reminded me of the girl in the book who was such a favorite of mine. And I really wish they'd gotten David Hedison to play Felix in all the films. When I watch the 1st season of "VOYAGE", I keep thinking he would have been the best Felix. He's got WAY more personality than Jack Lord.
One of my big gripes about the movie is how M blows the plot before Bond leaves his office, so there's NO MYSTERY.
Another fan online once helped me assemble a far-better soundtrack album than the official one. It's ironic that most of the music on the LP is not in the film, and most of the music in the film is not on the LP! I put all the movie music together in sequence, and all the unused tracks at the end as bonuses. It gave me a much-improved appreciation for Norman's score. It's not great... but it's pretty good for what it was. Of course, Barry's RUSSIA score remains among my top faves.
Something that never occured to me until just recently... if they'd ever had any interest in actually doing Fleming's version of Bond onscreen, Edward DeSouza would have been perfect as the book version of Bond. (It's funny that he has a cameo in THE SPY WHO LOVED ME.) He's in both the 1962 PHANTOM OF THE OPERA and KISS OF THE VAMPIRE.
Dent’s death is NOT a cold kill, FCS!
My first Bond film was Goldfinger and I went backward so I was a bit disappointed with Dr. No. Since Bond was already threatened with a laser between his legs, a tarantula seemed incredibly lame.
Fair enough. I honestly can't remember which was my first Connery film, but it was probably Goldfinger.
There's little I find more annoying than the general rough concept of 'make the sequel bigger and MORE." Which then means every subsequent film has to outdo this. It's why I think the sequels to the first Lord of The Rings film are inferior-- because they need to have more epicness. It's also why I think the Hobbit films were pretty mediocre at best, because they once again had to replicate the first three adaptions but be 'more'.
I know the stakes raise considerably in say You Only Live Twice, but I'm talking more about how the film is made from a cinematography point of view. It's larger yes, but not to the point of silliness and it does calm down in later films again.
Loose the friggin’ annoying, unneeded, and distracting background music. It’s difficult to hear you. Thank you.
As I explained on another video, I'm sorry it's distracting for you, but it's not going away until I feel differently. I have my reasons for having it currently, though I'm not ruling it out permanently. Is it the volume of the music that is the problem, or is it something else?
Nahhh, for me it works perfectly for this format. And, though I‘m friggin old, I have no problems hearing the commentary.