James Bond 007 contre Dr. No

"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.

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.

DR. NO, the first of the "James Bond" film series, was a dazzling adventure that would change the 'look' of action films, forever. While the film's 'plot' would become 'Standard Bond' (a maniac attempts to 'heat up' the cold war by provoking America, in this instance, by crashing it's rockets), and reappear in many incarnations over the years, the story behind the first film is still fascinating.

From the completion of his first 007 novel, "Casino Royale", in 1952, 41-year old author Ian Fleming believed that movies and television would be the best 'forum' for James Bond. But deals usually fell through (one that didn't, resulting in an American TV adaptation of "Casino Royale", in 1954, was a flop), and failed screenplays would be rewritten into best-selling short stories and novels, instead. Not surprisingly, the novels impressed many film producers with their cinematic sweep and potential. Two of the producers, American Albert (Cubby) Broccoli, and Canadian Harry Saltzman, would become the key players in bringing DR. NO to the screen.

Saltzman had managed to obtain an option to most of Fleming's work, but the move left him too financially strapped to produce them. Broccoli had wanted to produce the Bond novels, himself, but didn't own the rights. When Saltzman refused to sell, but offered a partnership, instead, Eon Productions was created, and United Artists, impressed by both men's enthusiasm and vision, agreed to bankroll their proposed "Bond" series. DR. NO was chosen as the first to be filmed, and, after several directors (including future Bond legend Guy Hamilton) passed on the project, Terence Young, as smoothly elegant as 007, himself, signed.

Who would play James Bond? Fleming jokingly suggested 52-year old star David Niven (who would, in fact, later play Bond in the spoof, CASINO ROYALE). Broccoli wanted Roger Moore, 34, but he was under contract for "The Saint". Then, independently of each other, both Broccoli and Saltzman heard about Scottish actor Sean Connery, 31. After viewing DARBY O'GILL AND THE LITTLE PEOPLE, Broccoli arranged an interview, was greatly impressed, and hired Connery, assigning director Young to teach the 'rough-edged' actor some style and sophistication. Connery was a quick learner, and soon was so impressive that even Ian Fleming would call him perfect, and would, in fact, incorporate elements of Connery into the Bond of the novels.

New York actor Joseph Wiseman was chosen as Dr. No, after Noel Coward refused the role ("Dr. No? No! No! No!"), and Fleming cousin, actor Christopher Lee, was unavailable. Future "Hawaii 5-0" star Jack Lord, a protégé of longtime Broccoli friend Gary Cooper, was cast as C.I.A. agent Felix Leiter, and Swiss bombshell Ursula Andress became Honey Ryder, Bond's first leading lady (her voice dubbed, because of her thick accent). With Bond 'regulars' "M" (Bernard Lee) and Miss Moneypenny (Lois Maxwell) in place, the Bond legend began.

A few bits of trivia: the 'gunbarrel' introduction, created by 'Opening Credits' designer Maurice Binder, featured stunt 'double' Bob Simmons, rather than Connery, as it was added after shooting was wrapped; Ken Adam's futuristic sets would not only become Bond highlights, but would influence 'real' interior design styles for a generation; and the film's score was by London theatrical composer Monty Norman, with John Barry's participation consisting of conducting the orchestra, and orchestrating Norman's "James Bond Theme"...which Barry did so well that he would become THE Bond composer for over twenty years!

DR. NO was a hit, particularly in Great Britain, and it received a HUGE boost in the U.S. when it was discovered President Kennedy was a 007 fan (FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE was chosen as the second film, in part, because it was a favorite novel of JFK). While the film lacked the 'overabundance' of gadgets and style elements of the later Bond entries, it was a remarkable debut!

And James Bond WOULD return...

Bond. James Bond. One of the most well-known cinematic icons of all time, Agent 007 has lit up the silver screen and wowed audiences for over 50 years, and this franchise shows no signs of slowing down. The character first appeared in author Ian Fleming's 1953 novel "Casino Royale," but he's best known for the long-lived film franchise by Eon Productions. James Bond has since been ingrained as a major component of popular culture, redefining the film industry upon the release of the early films. Audiences hadn't seen anything like it at the time, and they couldn't get enough of it. Bond has since blown up on a global scale, and it all ties back to this first film, "Dr. No."

Despite being the first film in the series, "Dr. No" is actually based on Fleming's sixth novel in the series. As the inaugural Bond film, director Terence Young had a blank slate to work with. The clichés and archetypes that are instantly connected with the franchise today had not yet been established. Fleming wanted David Niven to play Bond, but the studio ultimately went with Sean Connery, who played a major role in defining what the popular view of Bond would become. He simply exudes confidence through his voice, appearance, and attitude. From that genre- defining first moment where we're introduced to Bond, he instantly slips right into the character. It's no wonder people often cite Connery as the definitive Bond, because his performance laid a lot of that groundwork for future incarnations. He's easily one of the best aspects of the film.

The film sends agent 007 on a mission to Jamaica to investigate the disappearance of a fellow MI6 agent, Strangways. While there, he teams up with CIA agent Felix Leiter (Jack Lord), a native fisherman named Quarrel (John Kitzmiller), and eventually, a woman named Honey Ryder (Ursula Andress) to investigate the goings-on at a mysterious island called Crab Key, owned by the sinister Dr. No, played with an eerie calmness by Joseph Wiseman. The plot itself is relatively standard Bond fare by now, but Dr. No makes for a satisfying villain, his plan is suitably evil ("World domination. Same old dream"), and his affiliation with the criminal organization SPECTRE leads to their recurring involvement in subsequent installments.

"Dr. No" has a unique, naive quality about it. There's no tongue-in-cheek self-awareness here, this is the first glimpse that audiences had to all the different tropes that would develop in the series, and they're done supremely well. I've already gushed enough about how perfect Connery is as Bond, but his supporting cast is also suitably talented. Ursula Andress sets the bar high for all subsequent "Bond girls" that would follow suit, and to this day, she's still one of the best. The production design by Ken Adam, while not yet achieving the grandeur of later films, is still brilliant, establishing the iconic island lair that has since become a staple of the series. Dr. No himself, while underused, is a suitably formidable foe, and Joseph Wiseman makes the most of his limited screen time.

The film is incredibly dated, and in many respects, it doesn't hold up well. However, I don't necessarily fault the film for that. It's definitely a product of its time, and if looked at through the proper context, it functions as a brilliant time capsule film, giving audiences a unique look into the cultural and geopolitical beliefs of the time. I would have loved to see audience reactions to this movie back when it first came out. It's a really revolutionary film, and at the very least, it's worth checking out if only to see where it all started.