User reviews

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.

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.

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, 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...

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.

I recently embarked on a mission of my own. To watch all the Bond films in order. Believe me, it's not as easy as it sounds. Finding all of them is nearly impossible. Blockbuster's weak collection hardly does any justice, so I ended up buying most of my favorites.

I'm sorry to say, but to me Sean Connery is the only Bond. With the single exception being Craig in "Casino Royale". When I was growing up, I did enjoy Moore's villains, but now his portrayal seems almost goofy. Moore was just an old guy in a tight suit.

Connery seems to be the only actor that understands who or what Bond is. He is a well-paid assassin. But he is not simply a murderer. Not afraid to close fist punch a woman in the face or hold the door open for her. Later actors too often forgot that Bond is supposed to be graceful yet brutish. Approachable yet cold hearted.

"I admire your courage, Miss...? Sylvia Trench: I admire your luck, Mr...? Bond. James Bond." This could well be my favorite line in cinema history. Not the often lame interpretations, but during the opening scene at the card table. It still gives me chills.

I just wish they would get back to the basics. How many explosions and car chases does a person need to see. I thought he was a spy, they went and turned him into Rambo.

We start with three blind mice, looking to remove you in a trice. Then a pick-up with a gun, but he isn't any fun (or particularly good with a gun). There's a bit of a two timer, who beds down a slippery big spider. So the mice ignite a fire, leads to self-inflicted pyre. Miss Taro likes to cook, so Bond goes to have a look. When she's gone the spider master, has an unfortunate disaster (he can't count). A gunboat out at sea, crewed by shouty mercenary. There's an armoured type of wagon, it's a fire breathing dragon. Terror, revenge, extortion, all excessively out of proportion. At the hands of Dr. No, he doesn't play the pia, pia, piano.

It may be over forty years old, but the first Bond film still holds up well today, thanks to great Caribbean locations, tight direction and scripting and an assured debut performance as Bond from Sean Connery, who looks at home in the part from the beginning. Compared to many later Bond films, Dr No is lacking in big action set pieces, and there is no hi-tech gadgetry in sight. However, this brings the film much closer to the spirit of Fleming than many of its successors, and allows Bond to actually do some espionage work, bringing a welcome flavour of realism to the proceedings. Bond in this film is not a quipping, invincible superhero, but a human being prepared to become a ruthless killer when required, and capable of being scared, as is plainly demonstrated when he finds a nasty-looking spider on his bed. This is a Bond who can also get beaten up, and look the worse for wear afterwards, not a common feature of most Bond films.

Having said that, many of the soon-to-be familiar elements of the Bond franchise do make their debut in Dr No, such as Bernard Lee's irascible M, Lois Maxwell's Miss Moneypenny, and Bond's CIA ally, Felix Leiter, well played here by Jack Lord. Q also puts in an appearance, but in this film he is played by Peter Burton rather than Desmond Llewellyn, and all he gives Bond is a Walther PPK. Dr No himself is the first in a long line of supervillains with some kind of physical abnormality and an impressive HQ, but he is well played by Joseph Wiseman and his scheme for knocking over NASA rockets is not as OTT as some of the fiendish plots of later films. The other big element present from the start is, of course, the Bond girl. There are some very good ones in this film, especially the lovely Ursula Andress, who remains one of the most iconic of Bond girls, even if she doesn't do very much after coming out of the sea.

It is not the greatest Bond film, but Dr No remains an impressive start to the series, setting much of the tone for the franchise while treating Bond more seriously than would often be the case in later films. 7/10

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.

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

The First James Bond Film Adventure! His name is Bond; James Bond. Connery's first effort operating with his infamous ¨Licence to Kill¨ . 007 The double "O" means he has a license to kill when he chooses...where he chooses...whom he chooses. In this outing Bond goes after an extremely nasty enemy , this time his main contender results to be the megalomaniac Dr. No . The picture contains comic-strip adventure , sensational pursuits , silly set pieces , great stunts , tongue-in check humor , frantic unstopped action , amazing gimmicks and stimulating images like are the spectacular chases , the overwhelming scenes , and the breathtaking fights . The resourceful , handsome and virile British government agent James Bond (an excellent , as usual, Sean Connery) on loose seeks answers in a case involving the disappearance of a partner and the disruption of the American space program by a weird Chinese scientific (Joseph Wiseman) . Seeking revenge for the death of an operative Bond discovers a mad scientist is sabotaging rockets launching from his hideout in the exotic Jamaica . Bond helped by a CIA agent (Jack Lord) and a native agent (John Kitzmiller) undertakes a dangerous assignment in the island run by a diabolic villain from Spectra , (a criminal organization formed by the greatest criminal minds around the world) . NOW meet the most extraordinary gentleman spy in all fiction!...JAMES BOND, Agent 007! Miss Honey and Miss Galore Have James Bond Back For More! Spend a night with James Bond! .

This solid , slick first screen adventure for agent 007 contains thriller , standard humor , magic mix of action-packed , dazzling stunts , gadgetry , and romance provided by sexy company , Ursula Andress as the gorgeous Honey Ryder ; this film promptly made big stars of him and Ursula .This James Bond versus Dr. No is thought by many to be the best James Bond movie . Lots of exciting escapes but not an over-reliance on the gadgets of the later movies . Sean Connery as James Bond is very fine , he does remarkably well , he has toughness , irony , humor and sympathy ; furthermore , he also has coldness , cunning , intelligence and roughness . Sean Connery said that this movie was his personal favorite out of the Bond films he did . Here Bond is an efficient , agile , sardonic , relentless agent trying to chase obstinately a criminal mastermind traveling around the world , this time is mostly set in Jamaica . Bond to achieve his goals , along the way uses violent means , pulling off brutal killings against enemies who wreak all sorts of havoc . As always Bond will use "state of the art" and fantastic gadgets while the Spectre organization goes after him . The action-packed includes : impressive car chase scenes , shootouts , and Bond attacked by a fire-thrower vehicle , tickled by a tarantula , James grilled by some electric fencing , swamped by seawater and nearly atomised in a nuclear pile . This first 007 movie is far less spectacular and glitzy than any its successors , but the action moves swiftly enough to cover the holes in the screenplay written by Richard Maibaum . Dr. No¨ boasts one of the sexiest and most delectable ¨Bond Girls¨ of them in Úrsula Andress who stunningly walks out of the waves in a white bikini . Other Bond girls here appearing are Zena Marshall and Eunice Gayson . In addition , a lot of notorious and usual secondaries such as Anthony Dawson , Bernard Lee as M and Lois Maxwell as MoneyPenny .

Lavishly produced by the regular producers , Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Saltzman , they didn't want James Bond's main enemy to be Russian , so for the film version his nemesis is the fictitious criminal organization Spectre . Riveting and fancy main titles by habitual Maurice Binder ; besides , eye-popping production design by Ken Adam and Syd Cain . Unforgettable musical score with immortal and catching leitmotif by Monty Norman and John Barry . It's brimming with colorful and fascinating cinematography by cameraman Ted Moore . Evocative photography , much of the film was shot on location , with only a bare minimum of back projection used ; something quite unusual for a film of 1962 . The motion picture was well directed by Terence Young and followed by ¨From Russia with love¨ whose budget was $2,000,000 , double that of ¨Doctor No¨ . Young was author of three best James Bond films : ¨Dr No¨ , ¨Thunderball¨ and ¨From Russia with love¨ and directed to Audrey Hepburn in a good thriller titled ¨Wait until dark¨ and a failed film titled ¨Bloodline¨.

The James Bond franchise is one of the most successful and lucrative in film history. When you look back on Bond's first film salvo, Dr. No, it is a little hard to imagine that all that success would follow down the decades. Because truth be told this is not a very good movie. It may work as a nostalgia trip, as a bit of film history. There is an undeniable curiosity to seeing the first Bond film. Watching this film may satisfy that curiosity but that's about it. If you ignore the billion-dollar franchise it spawned and take the film on its own merits Dr. No just doesn't work.

Perhaps the movie's biggest flaw is that the story is incredibly simple and not particularly interesting. Our villain, Dr. No, is, from his Jamaican lair, using radio waves to jam American rockets. If this doesn't strike you as being that big a deal you're right. There's very little sense of drama here. Bond villains in films to come had grand plans with undeniable high stakes. This villainous plan, and the villain himself, come off as a bit of a dud. So, lacking that drama any good movie needs, the movie slogs along towards its finish. There are some good moments sprinkled throughout. But in this case good moments do not a good movie make. And in the end comes a big letdown. Because for all its failings you hold out hope throughout that perhaps the movie will at least have a smashing conclusion. But sadly that is not to be. The big climactic final scene is more farcical than powerful. It all comes off as being a little silly. And silly is not really the effect you're looking for in a James Bond movie.

Yes, Sean Connery is a terrific James Bond. And it is interesting to see so many Bond firsts. There's the first appearance of that now so familiar musical theme. The first appearances of characters we would come to know and love in the films to follow. The first "Bond, James Bond." The first shaken martini. The first Bond girls, with bonus points for the famously memorable way in which Ursula Andress, as Honey Ryder, is introduced in the film. And so many other firsts, too numerous to mention. So go ahead and watch Dr. No for its place in film history, for the nostalgia trip it provides. And then go watch a better James Bond movie.

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.....

James Bond dons the training wheels in his first appearance on the screen, heading off a surprise threat in Jamaica... where everyone speaks with a British accent. Without the kind of galactic-sized budget or recklessly eccentric touches that would come to define the series in later installments, I was impressed with the film's ingenuity in filling those holes. Though Bond lacks his usual cache of gimmicks and gadgets, that time is instead spent inspecting the finer points of his espionage work, which I appreciated. There's something to be said for firing lasers from a pocket watch, but I was just as captivated watching Sean Connery booby trap his closet with a single strand of hair or set up a would-be assassin by rolling his bedsheets into a bundle and laying in wait. It loses touch with that grounded sensibility in the third act, though, which is much more in-line with what one would expect from the series. Bond's dastardly eponymous foil is comically run-of-the-mill, although he doesn't truly get enough screen time to explain himself and seems far too easily defeated. This is such a Connery showcase, though, that I doubt there'd have been room for such elaborations to stick anyway.

Though countless have taken on the role, James Bond will always be Sean Connery.

The year was 1962 and the world's longest running movie franchise was kickstarted with this great Bond movie. It provided a formula which future Bond movies were to follow, even to this day. Beautful Women,great action and a super villain. Adapted from the famous Ian Flemming novel of the same name it tells the story of a famous spy who goes to investigate the disappearance of a fellow spy. Sean Connery was perfect as the suave spy James Bond. Ursula Andress was rather good too, in fact being a guy she provided the biggest highlight for me. That famous bikini sequence(later copied in DAD) still does not disappoint, even after 47 years. Joseph Wiseman was great as super villain Dr No. After not having seen it for years, a couple of weeks I watched it again when a TV channel was showing it. After watching it I can safely say it still provides great entertainment and packs a almighty punch. Though not quite as FRWL or even Goldfinger(my personal favourite Bond movie)it is still a pretty good movie and it is fun for fans to sit down and watch the Bond movie franchise in it's prime. Pure escapist fun.

The James Bond franchise has so many films in its library, so many that one can get confused as to which film to watch, which story to pay attention to and which star to be seen.

And with the current trend of making action films (big budget special effects and tons of action) today, mystery, suspense and character-driven plots have all suffered badly in the 007 franchise.

As for the original Bond movie Dr. No, I can start by saying that its simplicity as well as Sean Connery make it one of the BEST BOND FLICKS ever! Why do I like Dr. No better than most other Bond flicks?: 1) There is no overload of explosions or special effects or action scenes. These elements never overwhelm the story telling.

2) The story is simple yet more detailed and more enjoyable to watch than that of other flicks like Man With The Golden Gun, Tomorrow Never Dies and Licence to Kill. In addition, Dr. No's story can be taken seriously.

3) Story is character-driven and the use of mystery and suspense is VERY refreshing after watching too many explosions and special effects happen on screen (Die Another Day anyone?).

4) Sean Connery's performance is no less amazing and his use of charm, coolness and cruelty truly defined James Bond. No matter how hard others tried, Connery will always be the king of Bonds.

5) Ursulla Andress, similar to Connery, is STILL the queen of all Bond Girls not only because of her hot look but also of her excellent portrayal of Honey Rider. On screen, Ursulla has both the appeal of a fighting lady, the helplessness of damsels and the beauty that satisfies viewers. If Bond were to marry again, Honey is number 1 for him.

6) Director Terence Young succeeded in keeping the pace right (mostly moving in medium-pace) which effectively balanced the presentation and prevented it from boring or exciting the viewer too much.. There are lots of details to pay attention to plus the characters are very well told.

7) Dr. No is definitely one of the best Bond villains, probably the best. Joseph Wiseman's performance as the half-German/half-Chinese villain is great to watch and like Connery he had coolness and cruelty on screen…note how cool Dr. No was when he resisted Bond's attempt to provoke him. To check things carefully, Bond and Dr. No are essentially as bad as each other. One works to kill and destroy like the other. The makeup work on Wiseman is excellently convincing. Performance-wise, Wiseman's Dr. No is better and more appealing than that of villains Gustav Graves, Stromberg, Largo and others.

8) Dr. No's production values, despite the movie's age, still stands up well until now. The interior sets are very well designed (Dr. No's chamber where Bond and Honey had dinner with him plus Bond's Jamaica hotel room) and has mostly good props (some props look dated though).

Dr. No is worth viewing not only as a classic spy movie but also as a historical art piece of motion pictures! No matter what nay-sayers say, Dr. No will always be the model Bond flick for all sequels to be compared with.

And let us not forget that 007 creator Ian Fleming himself was greatly involved with this movie's production. Dr. No has a plot that can be told clearly, be taken seriously and enjoyed from start to finish. And it has a cast of characters greatly delivered by the actors. Many other Bond films failed when compared to Dr. No on these categories.

Highly recommended viewing!

Ian Fleming's James Bond character's humble on-screen beginning is just that — humble. "Dr. No" is more of a mystery than an action film, so despite being the film that introduced the world to the most successful movie character of all time, it's not often considered a favorite of Bond die-hards.

Yet the foundation for the Bond franchise's DNA is all here. The famous Bond theme, the opening down-the-barrel gunshot, "Bond, James Bond" the Walther PPK, banter with Moneypenny — all originated in "Dr. No." Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Saltzman honed the essence of Bond the first time through, including casting the best actor to play the role the first time in Sean Connery.

Connery isn't the only thing that makes "Dr. No" work, but it's hard to imagine James Bond becoming the icon he is today without him, and more specifically, his performance in the film. That starts with the look. As Bond is a ladies man (and more than a few women get all out of sorts around him in this movie), Connery had to have a natural sex appeal and natural is the best way to describe it. Simply, he's a man's man, far from a pretty boy, and he cleans up like a boss. And while he's pretty smart and skilled, Connery adds some grit into the performance. Bond gets put through the ringer in this movie and he doesn't always look good doing it.

"Dr. No" introduces Bond as a playboy, but one whose duty to country calls. A fellow 00 agent who was investigating the jamming of Cape Canaveral's rocket launch signals has gone missing (permanently, a.k.a. he's dead) in Jamaica and so MI-6 sends Bond to investigate. From the moment he lands he finds he's being closely watched and everyone he tries to question won't talk. He soon collaborates with CIA agent Felix Leiter (Jack Lord) and a boatman named Quarrel, where he learns of the reclusive Dr. No and his heavily manned island of Crab Key. Bond and Quarrel travel to the island where Bond discovers the beautiful Honey Ryder (Ursula Andress), but not without finding himself a bit trapped.

A good deal of "Dr. No" is slow-going, and the script relies on our curiosity about the title character in order to maintain our interest. Dr. No (Joseph Wiseman) is revealed late in the game and he's worth the wait, even if we don't get nearly enough of him. Creating the mysterious aura around No is one of the best things about this movie as it set the stage for the grandiose Bond villains to come. Most of the film is steeped in reality, but once we get onto the island, we see a bit more imagination and Bond gets rightfully larger than life.

Wiseman and Andress are also examples of top-notch casting decisions. Andress is absolutely magnetizing despite her character's complete and utter lack of importance to the film. She is something for Bond to do (in all senses) and something for the audience to look at (and she rocks that bikini). As much as she started the great tradition of Bond girls, she amounts to a shell-collector who found herself in the wrong place at the wrong time. Oh well, it was the early '60s.

"Dr. No" has to be considered a wild success, however, because it introduced us to a character who clearly caught our interest. No matter how you feel about "Dr. No," it ends leaving you wanting to see more of this Bond, James Bond fellow and what beautiful women he might sleep with next while saving the world at the same time. The foundation this film builds is rock-solid, embodying nearly everything about the Bond character that we know today.

~Steven C

Thanks for reading! Visit my site moviemusereviews.com

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.

Before today, I have never actually seen James bond movie in full before, I seen parts of some movies.

So I decided for the whole of April 2014, I will watch every single James bond movies.

So I started of with Dr. No (1962)!

I liked title start of the movie, that tune is still stuck in my head at the moment.

The movie dose not take long to start at all, the song of 3 old men walking,(a song singing about which I thought was really clever) but then turn out not to be , who you think they are!

This movie is not action packed from start to end however it dose have some great action scenes throughout the movie.

Some decent car chase scenes, one car chase scenes looked a bit out dated.

I liked there few turns in story, you think the story is going one way but then take a turn, I really enjoyed this twist and turns in the movie.

I really enjoyed the last 20 minutes of the movie, I was hoping for longer fight scenes at end, a little disappointing with that.

The acting was great from whole cast!

As I thought this movie was really good, before I saw it, I did think whole movie would feel out dated but only one scene actually felt a bit out dated the rest of the movie was fine, even for today!

I though this movie was really good 7 out of 10

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 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 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.

This film was the first official Bond film to hit cinemas back in 1962. It kick-started Sean Connery's career, introduced the world to the cinematic James Bond and is, to many people, a truly iconic and important film...

Okay, let's get straight to the point. Dr No is not a great Bond film or even a great film in general. I know that a great deal of people have a special place in their hearts for this film and I respect that. However, modern audiences may hold an entirely different opinion of this film. I know that a lot of people may not agree with my opinion and that is their choice, but I still maintain that this film is nowhere near as good as most of the Bond films that were to follow.

There are some good points about Dr. No, though. Everyone knows about the "spider" scene and Ursula Andress looks great in that iconic white bikini. Sean Connery has also never looked cooler as Bond as he was in this film. The film also introduced audiences to the now instantly recognisable James Bond theme, which is first heard over the starting credits. It is also used several times throughout the film.

However, I think the negative points outweigh the positives. The film is now hopelessly dated and I think it has dated more than any other Bond film. The portrayal of the black characters can also, in some ways, be seen as stereotypical and even borderline racist. Bond's "fetch my shoes" line to Quarrel never fails to make me squirm with embarrassment. There are also very few action sequences and no stand-out set-pieces. I also believe that Dr. No, although worthy of a viewing, would not stand up to repeat viewings, as it is simply not entertaining enough. Even the Roger Moore Bond films are more entertaining than this and yes, I do include Moonraker.

As I mentioned, this was Connery's first Bond film and I know, to many people, he will always be the ultimate Bond. I do agree with that, up to a point. However, even he made some real stinkers as Bond. Goldfinger, in my opinion, is vastly over-rated and not much better than Dr. No in terms of entertainment value. Thunderball is too long and is the most boring Bond film, in my opinion, due to the long and slow underwater scenes. I am not even going to comment on the execrable Diamonds Are Forever...

So, to sum up, Dr. No is a film firmly of its time. I would imagine it had much greater impact when seen in cinemas for the first time back in 1962, but I just don't think it has stood the test of time very well. I would recommend a viewing for any serious Bond fan, but they will probably find that one viewing is enough. Connery made much better Bond films than this, so I would instead direct people to check out either From Russia With Love or You Only Live Twice. I find these films endlessly watchable. I give Dr. No four stars, because it was a ground-breaking film, but very far from the best of Bond.