cinemajesty Movie Review: "007: Dr. No" (1962)Little did they know about the Zeitgeist, when teaming-up New York City based investor Albert R. Broccoli (1909-1996) and Canadian producer Harry Saltzman (1915-1994) optioned Ian Fleming's spy novel "Dr. No" published in 1958 to realize a fairly budgeted independent action movie, introducing the character of James Bond in her majesty's secret service, performed by 31-year-old Sean Connery.The 1st Bond presents itself in a highly entertaining mood directed by competent and able director Terence Young (1915-1994). The main character needs to investigate murders of governmental members on the island to Jamaica, exposing an underground oragnization that will shake up the worldwide secret service for years to come.The picture is modestly produced with a 1.1 Million Dollar budget, yet brings style, grace and elegance to the screen in the all time famous casino scene with Sean Connery lighting a cigarette while playing Black Jack with the antagonist's mistress, later to expose as the daring scientist Dr. No, when James Bond learns his trade by going locally undercover with hotel employees, a fisherman and bartenders.James Bond meets constantly changing love interests, this time in shape of actress Ursula Andress, portraying a female shell diver named "Honey" stepping out of water at a remote beach side, marking the first iconic visual in a smash hit motion picture from the 1960s, which secured the producers production company Danjaq LLC and build an instant classic spy action movie series.© 2017 Felix Alexander Dausend (Cinemajesty Entertainments LLC)

morganstephens512 I thought it was a pretty decent film. Although if I din't know James Bond was a mega franchise, I would have never expected that sort of film to be the start to something this big. I find it odd the credits were only like ten seconds at the end. Sean Connery gave off a pretty good performance, although I guess that is not his best film. The first ten minutes really confused me but after that I sort of started to understand what was happening and I was able to enjoy it after that point. My favorite part of the film was the part when it was showing the spider crawling up his body and he was just laying there is stillness waiting for it to get off him before he reacted. I was also surprised it took 50 minutes for the love interest to show up. I would she would have been in the first twenty minutes. Although I did role my eyes at the black guy dying when nobody else did. Or the villain only being in the last fifteen minutes. Overall, I would say a 8.5/10. It kept me entertained and that was what is important for movies of that type.

roddekker Aside from the old "tarantula-in-the-bed" routine (hastily thrown in for good measure) and the pretty Miss Taro venomously spitting into Bond's face (applause. applause) after spending the previous hour gleefully rolling around in the sack with him - 1962's "Dr. No" contained absolutely no memorable scenes worth ranting and raving about here. (I'm not kidding!) But, with that aside - This film certainly contained lots and lots of major let-downs! Such as - The bikini-clad Ursula Andress (aka. Honey Ryder) emerging out of the sea. I'm sorry, folks, but this was not... I repeat, "THIS WAS NOT" one of the supposedly sexiest moments ever recorded in the history of film. No, it wasn't.In fact, I thought that this seashell-collecting bimbo, with her tiresome angry pout, put in one of the worst "Bond-girl" performances that I've ever seen.And, how about mad scientist, Dr. No, himself? Boy, I'm tellin' ya - This pompous, effeminate, little snot (though a gracious host) made my skin crawl with his insipid presence and his rubber-gloved hands. To me, Dr. No's character was about as menacing as a wet dishrag with his drab and dreary little "evil" plot of absolute domination of the world. (Spare me!) Instead of offering the viewer death-defying excitement, mixed generously with a stylish pizazz - Dr. No's humdrum story just sort of drifted along aimlessly from scene to scene without much drive or momentum..... Anyway - What more can I say?

sqdb 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.