NOW meet the most extraordinary gentleman spy in all fiction!
When Strangways, the British SIS Station Chief in Jamaica goes missing, MI6 send James Bond - Agent 007 to investigate. His investigation leads him to the mysterious Crab Key; the secret base of Dr No who he suspects is trying to sabotage the American space program using a radio beam. With the assistance of local fisherman Quarrel, who had been helping Strangways, Bond sneaks onto Crab Key where he meets the beautiful Honey Ryder. Can the three of them defeat an army of henchmen and a "fire breathing dragon" in order to stop Dr No, save the space program and get revenge for Strangways? Dr. No is the first film of legendary James Bond series starring Sean Connery in the role of Fleming's British super agent.
A lot like Archer without jokes.
"I admire your luck, Mr..."
The slow-paced, dialogue-heavy plot of James Bond's first outing, Dr. No, is clearly a product of its time. Even so, it's sort of incredible how confident and fully-formed some of the more iconic elements of the Bond mythos were already, right here at the outset - that singularly propulsive score, an opening credits sequence that somehow manages to be as stylish and dynamic as any other in the series despite being built exclusively out of circles, an imaginative (and pricy) villainous lair, and, most of all, a hell of a performance by Sean Connery.
Like Daniel Craig, Connery plays Bond as a genuine character - hyper-masculine, coldly detached, and hopelessly addicted to the good life…
Thank jeebus for Letterboxd. For years I've been doing the "Bond Marathon" before the latest 007 adventure. For years I thought I was the only sad fucker who endured all twenty something films in preparation for the next slice of kiss kiss, bang bang. There's a few that have more or less concluded this little ritual, but seeing as Skyfall ain't out until 26th October I thought I'd slowly work my way through them, starting now.
So... Dr No. The originator. The great beginning from which all others (good, bad, indifferent) have followed. There's certainly a great deal of what we now consider to be Bond DNA in here.
Maurice Binder title sequence? - Check
Monty Norman's James Bond theme…
I've decided recently to watch the entire James Bond series in sequence as I haven't watched a Bond film in years. I've seen all of them up to and including Goldeneye, so it will mostly be a revisiting.
Dr. No was, of course, where it all began and it's fascinating looking back that things never changed that much in terms of the set-up of the film. No pre-credits sequence, but otherwise the credit psychedelia is still there and, in this case, quite ingeniously weaved into the film's opening scene. I'd have liked to have seen the Three Blind Mice survive and become a recurring theme.
It's quite a slow moving start to the series, which is by no means a…
007 is here sir.
I've seen this movie countless times, but for some odd reason I never remembered that Sean Connery introducing himself with the line "Bond. James Bond." was actually in response to the character Sylvia Trench (Eunice Gayson) introducing herself first in the same fashion. Just one of the many staples that was first introduced in this film and continue to endure 50 years later.
The first Bond film was actually supposed to be Thunderball, but when Ian Fleming wrote and published a book based on the script's story without consulting anyone, it ruffled a few feathers. The story had…
My personal journey through the James Bond series begins today. I have never been an avid fan, but am always up for a strenuous marathon and this is one of the largest ones around. The list of titles I had seen before today: Goldfinger, The World is Not Enough, Die Another Day, Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. It should be BIG fun all around and I'm a sucker for series defined by their eras. Dr. No is no exception. It has all the trademarks before they were defined but is naturally messy in it's genre-pioneering of "spy activity". The plot is secondary. I'm not going to rehash all the pros and cons but it's loaded with intrigue, danger, suave badasses, beautiful women and lavish locales. It's definitely slow and there's plenty of poor acting but it holds up as a landmark spy movie almost 50 years old. Connery really is that good.
A good way to start off the series. Sean Connery gives a simultaneously cold and charming performance as James Bond, and he certainly helps this film.
This is not so much an action movie as it is a mystery. It moves slowly, with Bond following clues. While modern audiences will certainly find this boring, it makes for an interesting film and the plot gets your attention with very little action. Of course, the action that is here is all the more memorable because it's limited.
I'd say the film's biggest problem is the direction by Terence Young. It's just pretty bland and outside the opening credits, the film is very conventional in its style. Also the ending is really stupid and doesn't make sense, even if it's a little fun to watch.
When a British agent is mysteriously murdered in Jamaica, veteran operative James Bond 007 (Sean Connery) is sent to investigate, ultimately facing the titular villain (Joseph Wiseman) on his secret island hideaway.
Still the best of the Bond actors, Connery combines a convincing physical presence with the suavity we have come to expect from the character. Although he does not have the array of gadgets that he will later, other hallmarks of the series are introduced here. The result is an adventure that is a bit more grounded in reality than many of the later films would be. Ursula Andress remains one of the most impressive Bond girls.
This was released to the world in 1962, not '63 as stated here.
This is the first James Bond screen adventure. The original. Not attempting to improve or expand on any sequels. It has the right balance of sardonic humour, exciting action sequnces, gorgeous girls, exotic locations, chilling villains and Sean Connery's inimitable portrayal as 007 straight from Ian Fleming's timless spy thriller novels. This combinations was something audiences had never seen before, and why James Bond sets the standard for action and adventure in cinema.
A straight forward plot of planned US space programme sabotage by the evil terrorist group SPECTRE, under the eyes of the mysterious Doctor No (Joseph Wiseman) and his accomplices lead Bond through the exotic…
a little dry and searching for me
While the post-colonial theorist in me wants to completely dismiss this film for its problematic portrayals of women and Jamaica damned if it is not a wonderful first entry into the Bond franchise.
While in Jamaica investigating the death of one of his colleagues, James Bond discovers a plot by a mysterious Dr. No to disrupt the American space program.
I've been meaning to get to all the old Bond films ever since the resurgence of the latest films in the franchise, featuring Daniel Craig. This one was fairly decent. It's pretty straight forward in regards to a Bond film and I can see why in the early 60's it became so popular.
Doing a little Bond marathon this month, decided to start it off with the first one in the series.
Released fifty years ago in the United States, Dr. No is the introductory film to the worlds most beloved spy, 007. This dialogue heavy, espionage packed first entry is a great start to a great franchise.
Alright, it's cinephile confession time, once again. I have never, up until this point, seen a single James Bond movie in its entirety.
Let me explain. My only real exposure to the franchise besides the common knowledge of its tropes and trademarks was a video game by the name of "007: Agent Under Fire", which I played a shit-ton in my PlayStation 2 days. It was packed to the brim with elaborate action set-pieces to naturally pad out the gameplay, so when my eleven-year-old self caught clips of the various films on AMC, I was instantly bored by the notion that Bond wasn't brandishing various assault rifles and taking out helicopters every two minutes like in the game. For some…
First ever Bond film and also one of the better Bond films I have seen. Given that what I have seen is mostly Brosnan onwards Bond, it probably wouldn't matter much but still, it's a good film. It has a good villain, Ursula Andress and Bond has decent mission which incidentally comes with something like script. Only thing it lacked was his gadgets and action but from other Bond films I have seen from that period, that turned out to be blessing in disguise.