Dr. No
| ♥ | This article is dedicated to Sean Connery and Monty Norman, both died on October 31, 2020 and July 11, 2022 respectively. May they rest in peace. |
| Dr. No | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 "The name's Bond. James Bond."
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Dr. No is a 1962 spy film directed by Terence Young. It is based on the 1958 novel of the same name by Ian Fleming. Starring Sean Connery, Ursula Andress, Joseph Wiseman, and Jack Lord, it is the first film in the James Bond series, and was adapted by Richard Maibaum, Johanna Harwood, and Berkely Mather.
Plot
James Bond (Sean Connery), codename "Agent 007", battles the mysterious Dr. No (Joseph Wiseman), a scientific genius bent on destroying the U.S. space program. As the countdown to disaster begins, Bond heads to Jamaica to confront the megalomaniacal villain in his massive island headquarters, where he encounters the beautiful Honey Ryder (Ursula Andress).
Why It's a Smith and Wesson, and You've Had Your Six
- Good direction by Terence Young.
- Great theme song by John Barry.
- The film has many iconic scenes including the first "gun-barrel sequence" (inspired by a scene from The Great Train Robbery), James Bond's introduction, Honey Ryder's first appearance and more.
- Dr. Julius No is an interesting and intimidating villain who plans to get revenge on both NATO and the Warsaw Pact for rejecting him by starting World War III.
- However, he is a bit flawed, see one of the Bad Qualities for more details.
- Good acting, especially Sean Connery, whose portrayal of James Bond is still regarded as the gold standard for future Bond actors.
- Same goes with Ursula Andress as Honey Ryder, and Joseph Wiseman as Dr. No.
- Great cinematography by Ted Moore.
- Amazing special effects by '60s standards.
- A decent story about a secret agent trying to stop an evil genius from trying to destroy the US space program as an act of revenge.
- Amazing dialogue, such as:
- “Bond, James Bond.”
- "That's a Smith and Wesson... and you've had your six."
- The set design is pretty impressive, given the small budget.
- Has some funny moments here and there, especially the one-liner Bond says after he kills the Three Blind Mice by making them drive off a cliff.
- The fight between Dr. No and Bond at the end of the film is not only well-done, but it is pretty fun to watch, despite being flawed below on BQ#2.
- Since this film did pretty well at the box office and it started the James Bond film series on a positive note, it spawned lots of sequels.
Bad Qualities
- There are many aspects of this film that haven't aged well compared to its successors.
- The film has no cold opening, with the "gun-barrel sequence" being immediately followed by the opening credits.
- The film does not have a "theme song", as virtually all the subsequent films would have. Instead, the Bond Theme plays over the opening credits.
- The Bond theme is not reserved for dramatic action sequences as it would be in later films, instead being used in scenes such as Bond lighting a cigarette while introducing himself and Bond arriving at the airport.
- Q is only referred to by his real name, Major Boothroyd, and lacks the snarky dynamic with Bond that he would develop in later films. There are no major "gadgets" here, either: Q Branch sends Bond an ordinary Geiger counter and issues him a new pistol.
- Misleading title: Despite the film being called Dr. No, the titular villain doesn't have a lot of screen-time since he does not appear onscreen until 1 hour and 27 minutes into the film, which can be problematic since there is only 22 minutes of the film’s runtime left.
- Though Joseph Wiseman's acting more than makes up for it.
- On that note, the fight between Dr. No and Bond (although well-done and fun to watch as mentioned above) is very anti-climactic.
- Bond only needs a single kick to send Dr. No falling into a pool of radioactive water where he's boiled alive.
- The pacing can be slow at times.
- Some aspects of the film could've easily been avoided.
- The entire plot relies on the United States ignoring the signal that's knocking their missiles off-course. Direction-finding for navigation is as old as radios, and direction-finding to locate enemy radio signals is just as old. This is especially egregious, given that Ian Fleming was an intelligence officer and would've been aware of this sort of thing.
- James Bond's sabotage of the nuclear reactor would've been short-lived if Dr. No had just one armed guard in the control room with them, or if all the rad-suited workers had rushed Bond en masse instead of fleeing and leaving Dr. No to fight him alone. It is also hard to credit that a nuclear reactor could be designed with so few safeguards that all that is necessary to blow it up is turning one dial too far to the right.
- Honey Ryder is loved by many fans, but others are much more critical of her, especially compared to other Bond Girls in the following films. However, Ursula Andress' performance is still good as mentioned above.
- Honey's incredible naivete and ignorance is not endearing, nor is her incredibly dumb way of trying to prove to Bond it could be a dragon (though it should be noted that Quarrel also thought it was a dragon, so she wasn't alone in that). In the book, Honey has the physical body and sexual urges of a fully-grown woman, but the mentality and naivete of a child. This is also combined with the fact that she never went to school, raised herself after being orphaned at a very young age and had little-to-no regular human contact. The problem with the film is that they keep in the key scenes from the book such as the battle with the tank, but leave out the context as to why an adult would be so easily fooled by such a pathetic forgery.
- Also, the Dragon in the film was an armored car with some eyes and teeth painted on and a flamethrower attached, which didn't make it look very convincing. The book had the group being attacked by a truly massive tank that had aeroplane tires, huge fins and a neck and head to make it look like a dragon, with flames coming out of the head's mouth.
- Honey's incredible naivete and ignorance is not endearing, nor is her incredibly dumb way of trying to prove to Bond it could be a dragon (though it should be noted that Quarrel also thought it was a dragon, so she wasn't alone in that). In the book, Honey has the physical body and sexual urges of a fully-grown woman, but the mentality and naivete of a child. This is also combined with the fact that she never went to school, raised herself after being orphaned at a very young age and had little-to-no regular human contact. The problem with the film is that they keep in the key scenes from the book such as the battle with the tank, but leave out the context as to why an adult would be so easily fooled by such a pathetic forgery.
- Due to the film having such a small budget, the film is a lot more subdued compared to the more action-packed sequels.
- In comparison, the film could be considered boring to some.
- Bond Villain Stupidity: Dr. No makes the major error — though it does prove to be the one which ultimately leads to his defeat — of not having Bond killed the instant it became apparent that he didn't have the slightest interest in defecting to SPECTRE.
Reception
Dr. No initially received a mixed response from critics, with Time magazine calling Sean Connery's portrayal of Bond "a blithering bounder" and "a great big hairy marshmallow" who "almost always manages to seem slightly silly". Stanley Kauffmann of The New Republic said that he felt the film "never decides whether it is suspense or suspense-spoof". He also did not like Connery's portrayal of Bond.
The Vatican condemned Dr. No, describing it as "a dangerous mixture of violence, vulgarity, sadism and sex", whilst the Kremlin said that Bond was the personification of capitalist evil – both controversies helped increase public awareness of the film and greater cinema attendance.
Leonard Mosely of The Daily Express said that "Dr. No is fun all the way, and even the sex is harmless", whilst Penelope Gilliatt in The Observer said it was "full of submerged self-parody". The Guardian's critic called Dr. No "crisp and well-tailored" and "a neat and gripping thriller".
In the years that followed its release, critical reception towards Dr. No became warmer. Writing in 1986, Danny Peary described Dr. No as a "cleverly conceived adaption of Ian Fleming's enjoyable spy thriller... Picture has sex, violence, wit, terrific action sequences, and colorful atmosphere... Connery, Andress, and Wiseman all give memorable performances. There's a slow stretch in the middle and Dr. No could use a decent henchman, but otherwise, the film works marvelously". Describing Dr. No as "a different type of film", Peary notes that "Looking back, one can understand why it caused so much excitement".
In 1999, it was ranked #41 on the BFI top 100 British films list compiled by the British Film Institute. The 2005 American Film Institute's "100 Years" series also recognized the character of James Bond in the film as the third greatest film hero. He was also placed at #11 on a similar list by Empire. Premiere also listed Bond as the fifth greatest movie character of all time.
On review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes, Dr. No has a 95% rating based on 60 reviews, with an average rating of 7.80/10. The sites critical consensus reads: "Featuring plenty of the humor, action, and escapist thrills the series would be known for, Dr. No kicks off the Bond franchise in style."
Videos
Comments
External links
Dr. No at the Internet Movie Database
Dr. No on Rotten Tomatoes
[[]]