Review of Dr. No (1962) by Cameron J — 02 Jan 2012

Man, if they had their say, Sean Connery would James Bond to this day, he does it so well, but lord know they can't start up the "New Adventures of Old Bond" now, partially because his natural accent has gotten way too thick. No, the problem isn't that he's not English enough for us to buy him as Bond, but because we couldn't buy Dr. No, because there's no way you can say "no" to Sean Connery with that voice. Seriously, it was hard enough for people to say "no" to him when he was young, handsome and English, let alone when he... is a chunky, 81-year-old Scot. Okay, maybe that kind of slowed down the number of people who agree with me, but hey, to me, his voice has gotten even cooler, and the only way you could say "no" to old Bond is if you were saying, "No, Mr. Bond, we're not going to pick up beautiful women on the beach; the nursing home is looking for you", and even then, you better watch your tongue, because we've all seen "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen". Okay, maybe a lot of us (*cough*not*cough*me*cough*) wish we didn't, but at least it told us that the Conman has still got it. Well, eitherway, the point is that his voice has gotten even cooler, so much so that it's even harder to say "no" to him now. However, I'm going back to 1962, where there was a chance you could say "no" to Mr. Bond, like, "No, Mr. Bond, you're not quite enough to make us forget about the flaws in your first film.".

As with many films of the '60s, editing is loose, and yes, I know that they had limitations back then, but the fact of the matter is... I don't care. You don't look at a fixable weak spot on a ship and say, "Oh, that's just a limitation"; it's a flaw, just like the loose editing in this is a flaw, for it can be tightened up, but they don't put in the extra effort to make the tightening. Now, the editing isn't terribly problematic, but there are some overlong, as well as throw-away scenes. This causes steam loss and leaves the film to become periodically unengaging, a situation exacerbated by a deal quiet scenes that, of course, dull down the film. Still, when you're unengaged, it's not like you're missing a whole lot, or at least it doesn't feel that way, because there are a deal of jarring situation changes that stop tension cold. This film is no more of an absolute mess than any other film of its type or era, but you're still just drifting along, going and in and out of the film. However, no matter how many times you get knocked out, it's hard resist jumping back in for another taste, because through all its faults, this film still delivers strongly enough to be the generally satisfying debut for the icon that it ultimately is.

The locations of the film are lush and lively, perhaps not enough so to really grab your attention, but enough so to set the tone and, to a degree, the isolation of Bond's battlefield. The thing that they use to attract your attention is, of course, the classic score, which is beaten as an attention-grabber, only by Ursula Andress looking so darn good, but even then, it's hard to stay with her, becuase, holy cow, she is an absolutely terrible actress. Of course, the score is never that, being consistently grippingly inventive and so sharply fitting, being not only entertaining, but another supporter of the film's tone. That tone comes into particularly sharp play druing the action sequences, which, for their time, are pretty solid, being slickly choregraphed and staged with a strong aura of tension. For a lot of these strengths, I have to give credit to director Terence Young; but really, the real force behind this film that sells it is, of course, leading man Sean Connery, who's slick, firecracker charisma and dashingly stylish presence embodies the essence and perfections of the James Bond character, yet is still a good enough performer to reflect the "imperfections" of his icon, because no matter how iconic of a manly figure he is, James Bond is only human. To me, the most tense moment of the film is the taranchula scene, which is staged well by Terence Young, but really carried by the expressions on Connery's face, which is racked with anxiety and tension, yet Bond's struggle to keep his cool and figure out the situation is so sartingly palpable, and in that glowing moment, carried by Connery's acting that is just too good for a film like this, you get a real sense of danger and suspense, knowing that Bond "doesn't" always have the answers to everything right away. Just like that, Connery has not just created an icon with his powerful presence, but set the tone for "the entire series", making him "the" key factor to this film's success as a satisfying launch to a now iconic franchise.

In the end of the beginning, slowness and editing looseness to a sometimes unengaging extent plagues this film like it does many other films of its era, and Andress' embarassing, beauty-over-ability performance isn't helping, but the lush locations, slick score, relatively strong action and, well, Andress' good looks aren't enough to keep you going, then Sean Connery is, delivering explosive charisma, as well as the tension-setting humanity to make James Bond the icon he is today and make "Dr. No" a satisfying debut for that icon, as well as a generally enjoyable thriller, by its own right.

3/5 - Good.