James Bond 007 contre Dr. No

This movie was pretty good. It started off a little slow but picked up towards the end. The ending seemed just a tad rushed but all the loose ends were tied up.

Maybe my favorite Bond girl to date. She was stunning and so natural.

I wish they could have fleshed out Dr No a little more. They didn't say much about him. He seemed like a pretty cool villain.

Sean Connery again is easily my favorite Bond. He was a natural for this role.

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.

Dr. No is a 1962 film directed by Terence Young and based off of Ian Fleming's novel of the same name. It is the first film to feature James Bond, the world's most famous secret agent. This alone has earned it a spot in history as the start of one of the longest running and most significant film franchises ever made. At the time of my writing this, there are 25 films spanning 58 years, with a 26th to be released in three months. For this reason, Dr. No will always hold a special place in the hearts of many fans, from many generations. As a latecomer to the series, I do not share this nostalgia, but the film still holds up very well. Watching it today, one of the most notable things about Dr. No is the overabundance of tropes. It checks every box you would come to expect from a James Bond film, and come to resent from their many copycats. Nonetheless, it is a film that is absolutely oozing with style. Sean Connery pulls of the lead roll with seemingly effortless sophistication and charisma, and I would give him a large part of the credit for this film's success, and by extension the success of the franchise. The story that Dr. No tells is simple and straightforward, but I generally feel that this works in its favor. We are thrown right into the action, and we are shown with great efficiency and effectiveness exactly the type of character that Bond is. This is not a film that wastes your time. The first 80 minutes of Dr. No are everything you want from a Bond film, but near the end I sadly feel that it falters somewhat. Though it still far from terrible and retains every ounce of the style that makes this film so great, the storytelling in the final act is simply not as good. I do feel that a lot of this may be due to it not necessarily aging the best. Dr. No is an incredibly clichéd villain, and although it should certainly be noted that this film is largely responsible for most of the tropes it presents, it can still feel somewhat tiresome. Dr. No is a ridiculously overdramatic villain, and between his private island and his robotic hands he fits the mold for a 'Bond villain' perfectly. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but when it comes to the final act a villain that is supposed to be very menacing and incredibly intelligent ends up coming across as incompetent. This leads to an ending that feels quite abrupt, and even a little anticlimactic. The Bond franchise is also notorious for its 'Bond girls,' female leads who are usually throwaway characters, included entirely for sex appeal. Dr. No is no exception. The character of Honey Ryder in this film has no real bearing on the story, and everything could have played out in exactly the same way without her inclusion. Bond always has, and always will be a womanizer, a character trait with which I have no problem, but this often comes at the expense of the female leads. For this reason, I am glad that, while certainly very present, these aspects of Bond's character are less extreme than they are in some of the later films. Honey Ryder is an unfortunately irrelevant character, but she is also a very small one. The film doesn't spend too much time on these parts of the story. Dr. No is not the best Bond film, but it is the first, and for that it deserves recognition. It does an excellent job of establishing Bond's character, and it is gripping from start to finish. If you want to watch a Bond movie, then Dr. No will give you everything you expect to see, and very little else. It is far from a masterpiece, but it established all of the tropes you expect to see from a Bond film, good and bad, and that at the very least is laudable.

Yes, most of Dr. No is cheesier than an Afghani shepherd's lunch. But this is one of my favorite Bonds anyway. I like the music, the "underneath the mango tree" thing. Doing the intro with just the regular theme song is a nice contrast to all the following films. The introduction to Bond is without comparison in the series. It's perfect.

Maybe I'm simply enraptured by her tropical innocence combined with her encyclopedia reading, but Ursula Andress is not only my favorite Bond girl, but the ideal woman, except for maybe Viveca Lindfors in Stargate. I fully realize that that should make me an object of scorn or pity. But her lines about seeing a praying mantis, blah, blah, is so rewind-worthy. And the look on her face when Bond kills the guy in the river is so hilarious/alluring/acted that I can't help but love it.

Then of course they have to kill off Quarrel, the ultimate non-white sidekick since Tonto, who believed in the "dragon." But despite all that, it remains a great example of a human action film. Action is such a de-humanized genre now. Oh for the days of yore, when secret agents actually ran out of breath and had to do little things like place a hair on the closet door to see if anyone opened it. Now they'd just have a laser sensor that would kill any intruder. Sigh. And the spider, and especially the spider music.....

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.