Agente 007 - Licenza di uccidere

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!

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.

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.

"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".

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.