Dr. No

No matter whether or not you like this film in the end...if you don't get some feeling of joy the first time Sean Connery says "Bond. James Bond." at the card table, I feel sorry for you.

This Bond film has a lot less stuff going in it than most, but for what it's worth, and what it has inspired, it's a classic.

People who can't tolerate and appreciate older cinema from the 60's might laugh at the action scenes, set and costume design of the movie, but if one considers the year in which this was made, it's all rather exquisite. The film is also full of things that would be considered politically incorrect, and the way Bond and Moneypenny flirt in the office would ensue mass sexual harassment lawsuits in this day and age.

The film has an underused villain in Dr. No. Joseph Wiseman sets the standard on how Bond villains, and the majority of how other movie villains, act. One of the things that I love about Bond films is that you will see things that you will never see in other movies. I mean where else but a Bond film would a half Chinese, half German man with metal hands and a compulsive paranoia about radiation, with metal hands live on an island with a "dragon-mobile"?

Dr. No is a definite good start to the Bond series. Ursula Andress as Honey Ryder may only be there for eye candy...but she's great eye candy. Sean Connery is Bond, and pure enjoyment while in this role. So if you are looking for a classic enjoyable movie, this is just what the doctor ordered.

Commenting on DR NO is a little like being asked to review 'Genesis" or "The Gospel According to Matthew." It IS what it is! Connery WAS Bond from the instant he appeared on screen and remember Ian Fleming, his creator was still alive at this stage. (Fleming in fact saw the first three Bonds but died before the release of THUNDERBALL)

DR NO set the standards, albeit with a limited budget, for the entire series. Action, pretty girls, one-liners and impossibly cashed-up enemies. My own father was a confirmed Bond addict (having worked in army intelligence during WW2) and had been greatly looking forward to the release of this film. Cruelly, he died just a couple of weeks before its premiere in London in 1962. I made up for it however by seeing it four days running. At the time, just about as exciting as films got, it was an enormous box office smash and vindicated the studio's decision to sign Connery. Fleming in fact had wanted Roger Moore for the role, who was then riding high with THE SAINT worldwide and was unavailable for filming. Connery, who's only claim to fame at the time was as a part time male model and bit-part actor, his biggest role having been as a truckie in HELL DRIVERS three years earlier.

Of course DR NO is dated now - its 40 years old! and deserves to be looked at from that standpoint The action sequences were raw in parts, pretty good in others. Sure the car chase scenes in Jamaica with the laughable back-projections are a cackfest now but none of this matters. The sets were imaginative, the fights good stuff, Ursula Andress enough for any young man's wet dream and Wiseman as DR No himself probably the best villain of them all, despite his very limited screentime. Very imaginative sets for the time and pyrotechnics to please.

When it came to my home-town I took several days off college and watched it with fellow students. This was way better than Latin and calculus!

"Dr. No" is not my favorite James Bond film. But I'm glad it succeeded, because it led to subsequent 007 films that were really very entertaining, especially "Goldfinger". Everything about "Dr. No": the story, the music, the special effects, the dialogue, even the acting is so ... tentative. The film lacks the self-confident flair and cinematic flamboyance that characterize later 007 films from the 1960s. That is not a criticism, given that "Dr. No" was the first Bond film, and was low-budget. No one knew how the film would be received.

Through the years Sean Connery is the only actor who has done justice to the James Bond character, in my opinion. Although his acting in "Dr. No" is probative at best, he still manages to convey an aura of intelligent charisma. And that charisma would become less restrained in later films.

The visuals in "Dr. No" are very dated. What seemed futuristic in 1962 seems stodgy now. All that engineering design, those clunky computers, and that modernistic interior decor, all included to wow viewers then, seem, half a century later, quaint, obsolete, even archaic. The film's story, about an evil genius out to scuttle the U.S. missile program and dominate the world, likewise seems dated. I must admit, however, that Joseph Wiseman, as the villain, is well cast, with his passive face and those eyes that seldom blink.

That the James Bond character and his adventures have survived all these years demonstrates the enduring appeal of cinematic heroes who, like superman, embody all that is good and strong, in their successful efforts to conquer evil. I just wish that contemporary 007 films had the cinematic credibility of those 1960's Bond films: "You Only Live Twice", "From Russia With Love", "Thunderball", and of course "Goldfinger", all of which owe their existence to the success of "Dr. No".

This was the second Bond film I think I saw, the first being the awesome "Casino Royale". I admittedly probably shouldn't have started with any of the Craig films, as it's harder to appreciate the older ones if you do. The older ones are a lot of fun, but they're more slowly paced, and the action sequences aren't as plentiful, or as advanced, by today's standards. But for the 60s and 70s, they were ahead of their time, and they're still a ton of fun for me, regardless of how well they hold up.

"Dr. No" is the first film in the franchise, released in 1962. It's the first film in the franchise, but it's based on the 6th book in the franchise (written by Ian Fleming), and one which received a lot of criticism as well. I haven't read the book, although I have read several Bond novels, but from what I've read review-wise, the film seems to mostly stick to the source material.

The plot: James Bond, agent 007 of the British secret service, is sent to find out what happened to a missing fellow agent, and the trail leads him to Jamaica, where he tangles with Dr. No, an evil scientist bent on disrupting an American space launch.

The story itself is interesting, though it probably could've moved along a little more quickly, but I did appreciate how much time was taken to really develop the story. That is an aspect of the earlier Bonds that's really nice, is how much story and layers of complexity there were to the plots, at least, the first few Connery films. The script was written by Richard Maibaum, Johanna Harwood, and Berkely Mather. Richard Maibaum became a veteran writer for the Bond films, doing the scripts for the majority of the earlier ones, and he really is gifted. This film, and the others, are very well thought out and imaginative, and Maibaum and the others adapt the original book well for the screen. The plot does seem to stall at times, but overall there's a lot of plot that builds, and makes the climax more anticipated. This film came before the "Bond Formula" was fully realized, and all the nuances of it aren't present here, but this is definitely where it started.

Terence Young had an excellent directorial showing here, capably and effectively handling the action scenes and the character development. His style was very influential on future films in the series, and he is definitely one of, if not the, best directors to handle a James Bond film.

There are a few action sequences in this film, though, if you're an action junkie this might not be for you. The action comes only when necessary, and only as a device to move the plot along. Unlike many of the later Bond films, there aren't any overblown, extended scenes, and much of the action happens quickly. There's a brief fight scene between Bond and an assassin, the metal dragon scene on the beach, and the final fight scene. In between are a few short moments, and the movie is surprisingly violent for a film in 1962. Bond kills a man with a knife offscreen, a man is set on fire and dies, Bond shoots a man several times in cold blood (which became one of the most infamous and memorable kills in the series), etc. The violence isn't shocking by today's standards, but I was surprised at some of the blood and brutality present for the time, but the Bond films again were very ahead of their time in terms of action and violence, and the violence portrayed here still doesn't quite reach the levels of gritty and at times graphic violence seen in Ian Fleming's novels.

The film was even dismissed at the time by a lot of critics due to the violence, because as I said, the film was ahead of its time. The Vatican even took shots at the film, saying it was "a dangerous mixture of violence, vulgarity, sadism and sex", which probably isn't inaccurate, though this film is nowhere near as close to that template as some of the newer Bond films (the 1962 Vatican reviewer would've had a heart attack had he seen any of the Craig or Brosnan films). The film's reception at the time was generally mixed, but over time, it's been reappraised as one of the series' best entries, which is also accurate.

Many Bond tropes were instituted here, including, the diabolical villain with overblown plans, and the gorgeous female sidekick, known colloquially as "Bond girls". In this case, they are Dr. No, who is a very memorable villain, equal parts stoic and sadistic. He is cold and calculating, and he is brutal, either following through, or at least attempting, to torture Bond and his companion on different occasions. It's especially interesting how much of an impact he had on the Bond films and the action/spy genre in general, especially since he doesn't even appear in the film until about 2/3 of the way through. The girl is Honey Rider, one of the most memorable Bond girls, and probably one of the most developed, and she too doesn't appear until closer to the film's climax. Other institutions here are the villain's large base with many jump suit-clad henchmen, and the opening song and the iconic gun barrel opening, both very creative, which are just more testaments to how ahead of its time this film was. Oh, and "Bond, James Bond", one of the greatest film lines ever.

Sean Connery did very well, and he really is a great Bond. I've seen all the films by now and am still trying to decide my personal ranking of the actors, but it's pointless to get caught up in that debate. Regardless of his successors, Connery is still great, and put his stamp on the character here. He was the first, he made the character his own, and he gave a great performance. Ursula Andress was pretty good, though apparently Nikki van der Zyl did her lines, and she just mouthed them, I don't know why. Joseph Wiseman did an excellent job as Dr. No, and created a really iconic villain, and his cold glares and short lines were delivered well.

The character of James Bond here is very interesting, and really embodies the character imagined in Fleming's novels, equal parts cultured gentleman and badass trained killer. He is lighthearted and sardonic at times, and cold and ruthless at others, and Connery managed to balance these well, giving the character a subtle nuance. Three Bond regulars first appear here as well. The first is Q, called Mr Boothroyd here (played by Peter Burton), who supplies 007 with all of his gadgets and toys. The others are M (played by Bernard Lee), Bond's no nonsense superior, and Mrs. Moneypenny (played by Lois Maxwell), M's flirtatious and interesting secretary.

Overall, I thought it was great, and it did go on to spawn a 25 (26 if you count "Never Say Never Again") film series, all of which are entertaining. This was a fun movie, slow at times, and it's also pretty dated by today's standards, but that doesn't take away from how innovative and entertaining it is. I am a huge Bond fan, and I highly recommend this movie to fans, and if you're not a fan, you should still check it out. It's an essential piece of pop culture and film history, and well worth your time.

I first saw this in the late 80s on a vhs. Revisited it recently. It is the first film in the Bond series where Bond is sent to Jamaica to investigate the disappearance of a fellow British agent. The trail leads him to Dr. No, a former member of a Chinese crime syndicate but currently working for SPECTRE. Here Bond faces dragon-disguised swamp buggy, venomous tarantula spider, 'three blind mice' n a villain with metal hands. Fortunately Bond has three amazing ladies to cool off, Eunice Gayson, Zena Marshall n Ursula Andress.

Some interesting facts from the novel which is missing in the movie. The Chinese gangsters tortured Dr No, cut off his hands n shot him through the left side of the chest and left him for dead. Dr No survived due to a condition called dextrocardia in which his heart is on the right side of the body. He later joined SPECTRE n got his metal hands.