Dr. No (1962)

Dr. No begins the entire James Bond film saga, and yet barely fits any of the pre-conceived ideas of what a Bond Film is. What it does do is introduce the public to the basic tenets of who James Bond is and what he does and it does this very well.

We meet Bond playing his card game of choice (Chemin de Feur, a form of Bacarat) and as suave and confident as he will ever be. It is also in this first movie (though the book was much later in the Bond series) that Bond is assigned the Walther PPK from Q Branch by orders of M.

Bond is asked to investigate some problems in the Caribbean by the US (someone is messing with radar transmissions of US rockets in Florida) after a British agent in the area is killed. The investigations hint at a mysterious Dr. No (played brilliantly by Richard Wiseman) who owns a small island off the coast of Jamaica.

What is so great about this movie is that, though a Bond movie, it lacks many of the silly contrivances of the "Bond Formula" which would be introduced piecemeal through later films. Bond is a detective... an agent... not some super-human hero who can pull down evil empires with a button on his magic watch. He's cool, calculating, and even cold-blooded when he guns down a potential assassin who he has already disarmed (though, the scene inferred here has 2 filmed versions- one in which the assailant reacquires his gun- albeit it, with an empty chamber...) The interplay between Bond and Moneypenny are here from the get-go, as is the irascibility of M towards Bond (which Dame Judi Dench has brought back brilliantly in the Brosnan-Craig Bonds).

What's missing are the famous pre-titles sequences, although Maurice Binder's famous titles get a subtler beginning here (before they became the nude extravaganzas in later years). The requisite big-budget chase scenes are not here (though a car chase is offered), nor are the multi-continent gorgeous locales here... everything occurs in or near Jamaica.

The most famous element of Bond movies (outside of Bond) are the famous "Bond Girls." Eunice Gayson as Sylvia Trench comes first, then, the iconic and legendary scene- Ursula Andress (as Honey Rider). SPECTRE, the infamous crime organization, is also mentioned in this movie.

Again, this movie is not unlike many detective/spy movies of its era- it is the name "Bond" that makes it stand out. The fame that the Bond series later achieved was not here- the movie is solid and enjoyable but not "Casablanca" quality good. It is a 9/10 for Bond films because it is done well, fairly faithful to the book, and did not hide behind gadgets and gimmicks as later Bonds do. Bond here is an agent, who must be detective, lawman, and killer all rolled into one- and it does it well.

All in all, a fine movie, made on a shoe-string budget that accomplishes what it was meant to do- ably and properly introduce James Bond to an international audience.

Fmovies: Ahhh...let's go back to the year 1962. What was going on than? Well, Marilyn Monroe was found dead in her L.A. home, the Cuba crisis, racial integration in U.S. and yes, the first 007 was released in London. The legend was born.

They launch into the orbit until till than fairly unknown actor, and they hit the jackpot. Stalwart, confident, cool under pressure and witty. Sean Connery was all that and more. Beside him, was gorgeous and talented Honey Ryder (26-years old Ursula Andress) as the main "love bird" beside Sylvia Trench (Eunice Gayson) and villain Miss Taro (Zena Marshall). And as always trusty allies from Q (this time played by Peter Burton and only appeared for 10 seconds) to CIA and of course M. Thus, we can't forget his Jamaican friends Puss-Feller and Quarrel (a nice play from John Kitzmiller).

On the other hand we have interesting villains in this one. Though we have seen toughest and better opponents in other Bond movies, Dr. No have some class and helpful friends such as "funny" three blind assassins and Professor Dent (great scene by the way in the cabin).

So, is the first also the best in series? No, but it definitively ranks in top 5 Bond movies ever. It got best Bond actor (Sean Connery), great woman (Ursulla Andres) though we have seen better chemistry, superb jazzy score by Monty Norman with nice Jamaica sounds, witty bond humor ("i think that they were on the way to a funeral" or "make sure that he doesn't escape"), dreamy locations (Jamaica) and the component director who made the timeless classic. For this reasons, although not the best in the series, it still deserves a highest possible rate

10 out of 10.

"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".

Dr. No fmovies. Still going strong four decades later, it is sometimes hard to recall where the James Bond franchise began. Dr. No was released in 1962 with the relatively unknown Sean Connery in the leading role. The original Bond author, Ian Fleming, was still alive at the time and wasn't very pleased with the casting of Connery, though he soon warmed to the actor's interpretation of the role when he saw the film.

The big question is: how does Dr. No hold up over forty years on? Personally it has always been my favourite Bond movie and probably will never be surpassed. Even now, it is a step ahead of its counterparts. Connery never appeared in a better Bond flick (some were close), much less Lazenby, Moore, Dalton or Brosnan.

James Bond (Connery) of the British Secret Service is sent to Jamaica to investigate the death of an operative named Strangeway. He learns that Strangeway was looking into alarmingly high radiation readings generating from a nearby island called Crab Cay. Bond heads to the island and learns that it is a suspiciously heavily guarded place, patrolled by gunmen, dogs and armed boats, and none of the local islanders dare venture near because of rumours that a dragon also guards the area. Aided by a Jamaican agent called Quarrel (John Kitzmiller) and beautiful diver Honey Ryder (Ursula Andress), Bond searches the island's interior for answers. He discovers that the island is run by the deadly Dr. No (Joseph Wiseman), a visionary megalomaniac who plans to disrupt the American space programme by sabotaging their shuttles from his secret island base, using gyroscopic interference to bring them down mid-flight.

As the series went on, it became less and less related to the Bond of Fleming's creation, and increasingly akin to a comic book. Part of the strength of Dr. No is that it is faithful to its source. I've read Dr. No, and it is such a good book that it didn't really need altering beyond all recognition in order to be filmable - so, it's nice to report that scripters Richard Maibaum, Johanna Harwood and Berkely Mather have adapted it accurately. The performances are excellent: Connery confident and masculine as Bond, Andress jaw-droppingly gorgeous as Honey, and Wiseman fabulously sinister as Dr. No. Terence Young directs with urgency, getting plenty of excitement as well as some lovely location photography into his film (hard to believe he would go on to make such inept bombs as Poppies Are Also Flowers, Bloodline, and Inchon). Dr. No is a milestone in cinema history. It is the film that gave us our first big-screen 007; it is the grand-daddy of all globe-trotting adventure flicks; and it is a classic action film in its own right to boot.

Watching DR NO after all these years the first thing to strike me is how gritty it all is . The villains are cruel and not below shooting unarmed women in the back so who better to take them on than an equally cold hearted killer namely James Bond 007 . Bond must have shocked cinema audiences in the 1960s , no one described as a good guy in pre Bond cinema ever shot one of the bad guys in the back no matter what the provocation . John Wayne didn`t do it and neither did Errol Flynn but here we see Sean Connery doing it even though he didn`t have to .

And I`m making no distinction between Sean Connery and the character he plays , James Bond is Sean Connery . Try saying " James Bond " out loud . Done it ? Notice the slightly slurred Scottish brogue . Try it again . See it`s impossible not to say " Bond. Jamesh Bond " Let`s not forget Connery made Bond a cultural icon and Connery was at one point the world`s most famous and highest paid movie star .Not bad for a man who started off life in an Edinburgh tenement and whose first paid job was as a milk boy

One final thing I noticed about DR N0 is how tightly written and paced it is. Plot point is followed by murder attempt followed by plot point followed by murder attempt followed by plot point. At no time does any of this seem forced and at no time do we see 15-20 minutes padded out with a ridculous stunt sequence . If only all Bond films were as good as this or GOLDFINGER

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.