Dr No in review

When it comes to iconic film characters, you'd be hard-pressed to find one as well known and loved as James Bond. James Bond and his codename 007 have a 97% world-wide awareness among consumers. That's a pretty startling number that most corporations would kill for. It is also an amazing statistic considering the character's humble origins as the subject of a series of pulp novels from English writer Sir Ian Fleming. As Britain's most famous export, Bond has been revered for half a century around the world. Today, his popularity is at an all-time high. This popularity can be traced straight back to the subject of this review: Dr. No. It was the first Bond film and not only started the Bond film franchise, but also the career of legendary actor Sean Connery.

When a British MI6 signal station in Jamaica goes silent, Her Majesty's Secret Service deploys James Bond (Sean Connery) to investigate the problem. Bond arrives in Jamaica to discover a complete infiltration of English intelligence networks by a ring of unknown agents. He'll team up with American CIA agent Felix Leiter (Jack Lord) and a host of Jamaican operatives to investigate the problem and uncover the mysteries of Crab Key - - an island off the coast that is shrouded in secrecy. Crab Key is the home base of the evil Dr. No (Joseph Wiseman), a deranged scientist with a nefarious plan to crash US rockets. Once Bond infiltrates Crab Key, he'll encounter the beautiful Honey Ryder (Ursula Andress) who has her own score to settle with Dr. No.

One can view Dr. No as a throwback to the 60s spy genre, as the genesis for James Bond on film and as a cultural snapshot of the sexism and freewheeling attitude of the early 60s. Bond is the ultimate man's man. He kills the bad guys with suave efficiency, woos the ladies with ease and manages to redefine cool in just about every scene. The James Bond of the films is a bit of a different animal than that of the original books. It's in this sense that Sean Connery made his portrayal so iconic. Connery embodies the very essence of James Bond's cool character. His millionaire tastes in clothing, automobiles and food and drink defined the swinging sixties' ideal that matched the world written about in Playboy magazine each month. While some might find this attitude archaic, it still succeeds in fulfilling just about every male fantasy imaginable.

Dr. No is a tremendously entertaining Bond flick that sets the stage for the films that have followed over the past 4 decades. Sean Connery sets the stage for his iconic turn as the legendary spy and delivers a performance that has defined James Bond for almost fifty years.


(Ben Williams)

Post your Dr No reviews in here. :D

Dr No (1962)
Directed: Terrance Young
Starring: Sean Connery (James Bond)

The first official Bond film, Dr No, hits the ground running as Bond is sent to Jamiaca to investigate a murder of a colleague and finds himself in a deadly plot...

From the MI6 Archives:

Secret Agents Do Not Behave as You Suggest You Have Done
A Review of Dr. No by Fairbairn-Sykes

On the fifth of October, 1962, a film was released that changed the future of the way blockbuster movies were made. Adapted from the sixth James Bond novel by Ian Fleming, EON Productions' Dr. No was a sensational success, launching the career of its charismatic star, Scotsman Sean Connery. Connery, a former truck driver and weight lifter, was not novelist Fleming's first choice to play Bond, but once Fleming saw the finished film he was won over. Director Terrence Young had transformed the rough young man into the exact mix of masculine toughness, swagger, class, and rogueish charm necessary for 007. The result was a film that broke records and resulted in a series of sequels that has continued on and off until this day.
In the novel upon which the film was based, hero James Bond describes a good adventure as one containing "physical exertion, mystery, and a ruthless enemy". If these are the essential ingredients of a James Bond story, how does the first entry in the famous film series stack up?
PHYSICAL EXERTION (ACTION): Dr. No isn't as high on explosions and gunfights compared to modern action movies, but the violence quotient was rather high for an early sixties British thriller. Bond tends to punch his way through problems, and a lot of changes were made to the novel purely to enable Dr. No's lair to explode at the end of the film. On the other hand, the excellent obstacle course from the novel is represented in a very toned down manner, with the giant squid fight completely missing. The movie also has several extra car chases and fights than the novel, but none of these are particularly well executed -- understandable given that this is the crew's first time trying all of this. One interesting note is that at this early stage Connery's Bond is not an invincible paragon of manliness - instead he gets injured, and has to put effort into his actions; he's just a man. On the whole, the action in Dr. No gets a 6 out of 10.
MYSTERY (PLOT): While Dr. No is far more faithful to the plot of the novel than most Bond films, many changes were made by screenwriter Richard Maibaum. Many of these revolve around having to take the time to introduce Bond and his world. In places the movie drags on a bit, and this is mostly related to these added sequences. The section with Sylvia Trench in the casino is to relate to us that Bond is a classy, gambling, ladies' man. The excursion with Miss Taro let's us know he's a womanizer and not above lying to get his way. The sections with Professor Dent are ultimately a set-up for a sequence showing us he's a cold-blooded killer. Additionally, even though he adds little to the plot, Felix Leiter is added simply because he's an important character in the series, and so time is taken out to introduce Bond and him. The mystery of the film is weaker than the novels as well, as M knows what the ultimate plan of Dr. No's is before he sends Bond there. The mystery of No himself is well-kept, although the pay back is lessened because the money wasn't there to completely replicate No's appearance from the novel. Maibaum makes additions as well to show Bond as discovering evidence leading him to Crab Key, such as the rock samples, as opposed to Bond simply going there on instinct. It seems like a good choice, but it's one of the things that makes the film feel like a police movie instead of a secret agent adventure. The reduced mystery of Dr. No gets a 7 out of 10.
A RUTHLESS ENEMY (DRAMA): The drama of the movie lies mostly in the new. James Bond was a new kind of hero for a film - laid-back, yet tough, sharp-edged, yet humourous. His morals were loose, playing fast with women and lives. The women in the film are sexual predators, excepting Honey herself who provides the standard damsel in distress. Ursula Andress/Nikki van der Zyl's performance gives the innocence of Fleming's character, but lacks the strength. The rest of the cast is fairly good, though. Bernard Lee and Lois Maxwell make their debuts as the best M and Moneypenny of the entire series, and of course the power of Sean Connery as James Bond can't be mistaken. I think it's doubtful that the Bond phenomena would've taken off the way it did had the role been miscast even in the slightest. It wasn't. Rounding out the good cast are John Kitzmiller perfectly embodying Fleming's character of Quarrel, and Joeseph Wiseman given a completely iconic and powerful turn as the villainous Dr. No. Wiseman really pulls off the supreme overconfidence of the Fleming creation. Unfortunately, the cast is brought down in places; notably by Jack Lord, who is totally forgettable as ally Felix Leiter. A desire on the part of the producers not to have Lord believe he was an equal co-star to Connery led Leiter being re-cast in his next appearance (Goldfinger) with an even worse choice, resulting in a long-standing tradition of different actors in the role. All in all the ruthless enemy Dr. No earns a respectable 8 out of 10.
Dr. No contains interesting and curious aspects when viewed by the modern Bond fan. While the plot is somewhat altered from the original novel, the atmosphere and flavour of Fleming is mostly retained. Here is Connery at his rawest and least polished in the role. Here are the original Ken Adams sets that became a much imitated tradition of the films. And yet everything feels more subdued, and primitive than what would come later. The ending also feels a little weak, like a lot of build-up for not enough pay-off. And the score by Monty Norman, with the exception of the fantastically awesome and now world-famous "James Bond Theme", leaves much to be desired.
But it got people intrigued. Here was a leading man unlike anything they'd seen before. As Dr. No himself says in the novel, "secret agents do not behave as you suggest you have done", and indeed before this film heores did not behave as James Bond did. Now, forty-eight years later, they still don't.

Dr. No (1962) -- 7 out of 10.

The first and one of the best. Much has to do with the low key atmosphere of the film. The plot is pretty grand, but it's handled in a very grounded way which enhances it IMO. Much of my praise also extends to the limited budget, and yet the film looks stunning. It's brilliantly saturated which is only exemplified by the outstanding sets, costume and lighting.

In terms of the narrative, it's definitely intriguing. It's updated brilliantly from the book. I like the idea of finding things out as James Bond does. The almost neo noir feel to the film adds to this, with Bond's detective like investigation of Strangways' home, visiting the professor with the receipt, and meeting the card players. The humour is there, but it's not overblown and slapstick. Little touches like Bond checking the watch while making love to Taro, and warning the general to be careful of her nail varnish is undeniably preferable to the likes of a gorilla checking the time. In comparison to the novel, I think I like them equally. Both brilliant and exciting.

DN also has my favourite James Bond performance. I feel it's the most Flemingesque in the series. Bond has an edginess, which is something I definitely like. He is there for the mission first and foremost, but I like the cinematic Bond creeping in when he decides to let a girl provide a distraction. And, let's be honest, if Miss Andress was to walk out of the water at you beach, wouldn't you just want to keep looking?

I'll add more to this after. :)

There's something to be said for the film that started at all, and while I think many of us hold up FRWL as a true thing of brilliance, if it weren't for Dr. No's success, FRWL would not exist.

It captures one of Fleming's most intense novels on screen in a very effective way - you experience the same thrill in the film that you do in the novel. You're intrigued by the mystery as much. You are just as taken by Honey Ryder as Bond is. Bond's character is introduced to the wider world of film audiences, and Connery was the perfect choice to do just that. Dr. No is really his best performance when you consider Fleming's Bond.

The only real thing going against it was it's low budget. The car backdrops, the too-red tint of the blood, the low maintenance lair of Dr. No, are all just minor production quality complaints that really have little effect on the purpose of the film itself: Bringing Fleming's Bond to life.

Dr. No (1962) - 9/10
The first and subtlest James Bond film adventure is far from unexciting. First mention goes to Sean Connery, who is the best James Bond in my mind. He is so natural and smooth, one might think he was born to play such a role. (With his best scene in this film being the execution of the poor yet deserving Professor Dent). Villain Dr. No is also one of the series’ strongest villains; he is low key, but carries a chilling persona. Ursula Andress as the series’ first Bond girl is a success too. She is not just eye candy, and despite tagging along for the ride, she is very resourceful. The plot development of Dr. No is also very satisfying, what starts as missing persons case turns into a world threatening endeavor. I’ve always liked that evolution. Despite having a considerably lower budget than the rest of the Bond films, Dr. No has always been the little film that could in my mind and pushes far beyond what it should have been capable of, which makes me appreciate it all the more.

Not dark and gritty enough.

For example, Prof. Dent didn't shit his pants when Bond executed him. Unacceptable.

Mr. Brown wrote:

Not dark and gritty enough.

For example, Prof. Dent didn't shit his pants when Bond executed him. Unacceptable.

Not to mention M barely appeared at all. Wasn't he worried about whether he could trust Bond?

But you always knew what Connery's little finger could do.