Dr. No (1962) Reviews

• "That's a Smith & Wesson, and you've had your six."

  JFHunt2006-10-16

  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.

• ''Bond...James Bond'' A Cold War Spy Film

  hilaryswank20112019-03-23

  Dir. Terence Young (1915-94)'s classical spy genre film 007 series is established by this film in 1962. It was not based on the first 007 novel Casino Royale (1953) written by Ian Fleming (1908-64). It's obviously a Cold War era's spy story that mainly depicts both MI6 and CIA as protagonists. The political stance is obvious that it opposes the Eastern bloc and serves the Western establishments. This film is single camera work as the most of European films in general. And the editor Peter R. Hunt's cutting is based on master shots and additional sets of reverse shots between characters involved in scenes. For example, at the beginning of the film in a "now-famous nightclub sequence featuring Sylvia Trench", editing was done in this way and the cutback between reverse shots and the master shot pretty discontinued. Besides this, the first assault scene at the begging of the film is remarkable that when John Strangways, the British MI6 Station Chief in Jamaica, and his secretary are ambushed and killed, we can see that quick cuts fit the rhythm of silencers firing. Of course, this was done by one camera due to reverse shots and cutaways are separable in shooting. In Perter Hunt's aesthetic view, quick / jumpy cutting with fast motions are technical solution to ease script flaws. Actually this is more sophisticated and cinematic than live time synchronisation of editing time with actions. Style is cutting off unnecessary parts from the process of organising a whole. Similar suggestion was done by Akira Kurosawa in 1990s about Japanese editorial tendency. His interview cited below: Peter Hunt was perhaps one of the most integral members of the James Bond team, using his vast skills as a film editor and director to help create a pace and style that helped to launch a phenomenon that still touches the world some two and a half decades after the film series began. He first joined up with Albert R. Broccoli, Harry Saltzman, Terence Young and the rest of the 007 team for 1962's Dr. No, on which he served as editor. He repeated this task on From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball and You Only Live Twice. From there he segued to the position of director on the sixth film in the series, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, considered by many to be one of the best Bond films ever. Unfortunately, after that film he left the folds of Bondage, turning his directorial sights to other films. One can only hope that someday he will be persuaded to return to the series, and help further the series he helped to create. Our conversation begins with the director's assertion that the impact of James Bond was every bit as significant to the sixties as the Beatles. Q: My feeling has always been that what the Beatles did for music, James Bond did for film. A: Right, exactly, at that time. Of course everybody has forgotten that now, because we've all fallen into that idiom in the way of presenting films. We always cut films in the way I did Dr. No, but at that time that was something completely different to do. If you looked at any films made before 1961, even American films, they always have the guy walking down the steps, through the gates, getting into the car and driving away. We don't do any of that anymore laughs. The fellow says he's going, and he's there. Q: Cut to the chase. A: Exactly, which is what I did in Dr. No in order to make it move fast and push it along the whole time, while giving it a certain style. Now, of course, that style is standard for everything. It's very interesting, really, when I think back to it all. What's really funny is that the Beatles used to come to our showings. I knew them all. They were good kids, really. We had offices in London, and in the basement we had a theatre, and they were often guests. They also were great fans of James Bond. Q: One question I've always pondered, is Terence Young's statement in one of the Bond fanzines that Goldfinger was in serious production and editing trouble, when the decision was made to shoot Thunderball quickly, release it first, and then release Goldfinger about six months later. But Young supposedly made editing suggestions that saved Goldfinger. A: laughs I don't know anything about that, but I don't think that can be true, because Thunderball was going through litigation at that time. Remember, it belonged to Kevin McClory. That was one of the ones that didn't belong to Broccoli, Saltzman and United Artists at the time, because Fleming had written the book Thunderball from a screenplay which Kevin McClory claims and he won the case he and Jack Wittingham wrote, which was not a book, but because they could never get it lifted off as a film...Fleming had run out of ideas, or was running out of ideas, and said, "Oh, I might as well write and publish this as a book," and then of course McClory said, "You can't do that. You haven't even said that I contributed to it or Jack Whittingham did." They had a big court case, which I think was settled out of court, and then of course the screen rights became Kevin McClory's. If you look at the titles of Thunderball, Kevin McClory is the producer. After Goldfinger there was some talk where everyone debated whether they should do Thunderball or one of the others. Q: I had read that they were planning on doing On Her Majesty's Secret Service after Thunderball. A: Originally, yes, which I was going to do. I was promised the film after Thunderball, but they found themselves in a contractual mix-up with other directors on hand, and I got pushed out into the cold, because it was going to be my first film. Eventually, though, I did do it, because what they did...you see, On Her Majesty's Secret Service should have come before You Only Live Twice in the series of events that Fleming wrote. At the end of On Her Majesty's Secret Service the wife is killed, and then in You Only Live Twice he is sent to Japan to extract revenge from Blofeld, and the series went on from there. But they did it the other way around and altered the ending of You Only Live Twice. At that time, in fact, I know they had branched out and had put several directors under contract to do other things for them, and they decided they wouldn't do the other things, and they found themselves either having to pay off these other directors or use them. So they were used in various ways for other things. For instance, Lewis Gilbert, whose editor I had been for many years, was signed to direct You Only Live Twice, which is how that came about. But Thunderball interested me insofar that until the court case was settled, they wouldn't touch it at all, and the case was still going on while we made Goldfinger, so I don't know what events he is talking about. Terence was extremely instrumental in the whole style of the films. He was extremely encouraging to me in our early style of Dr. No and From Russia With Love, and one cannot underestimate the personality of Terence that was interjected into the character of James Bond and Sean Connery's playing of it in the early films. There's no doubt about it, and he was the right man for the job at the time; a very good filmmaker. He's getting on a bit now, I suppose, like us all laughs. Q: Bond was so different for its time. As far as you're concerned, how did the whole thing come about? A: I was a top English film editor in those days. Harry Saltzman, who came across to England and the first film he made was Look Back in Anger, which starred Richard Burton, had been connected to theatre and various things during the early fifties. The war was over, and I was editing, and Harry had always wanted to use me. When he made a film he'd call me and say, "Come on, let's make a film together," and each time I was either in the middle of a film or about to do another film, so I had never been able to do it. But we kept on good terms, and it was Harry who got a hold of me when he was doing Dr. No. It happened that I wasn't do anything else at that time. I've known Terence since I was a boy; I'd been assistant on several films with him, and I'd always liked him. So all of that sort of slotted into place, and I found myself editing Dr. No. Now on Dr. No, of course, they had a lot of production problems; it was a very cheap production, completely unlike the amount of money they spend today. There were an enormous amount of challenges and problems. They had terrible weather in Jamaica, and they didn't shoot half of what they were supposed to shoot, so there was a great deal of ingenuity and creativity that went into the making of the film. That's really how Dr. No was born, as it were, and at that time, in fact, nobody gave much thought to the film. They just thought it was a cheap film being made at Pinewood, and it was only when it finally....all cutters, editors and people like that are cynical beings because they see the material so much, so often, but we thought Dr. No was marvelous fun, and we tried to make it more amusing wherever we could. Terence wasn't quite so sure about all of that. He thought we were setting him up with this film laughs. Anyway, he went along with it and various things that I suggested, because we had to get it moving as a film and make it all work. Out of necessity, the problems of production, Dr. No was born. I don't think that before it was run with an audience anyone knew what we had, and it was only when a large audience at the London Pavilion saw it that they fell about and enjoyed it, that it suddenly dawned on them what we had here. We had an entirely new type of film. You must remember that the climate of the audiences at the time was very "kitchen sink." It was all for actresses doing the washing up, and the housework, the sleazy back room about hard lives, which I guess the audience had become a bit bored with. Here was an absolute breath of fantasy, glamour, and they loved it. Like everything, it had a certain amount of luck when it came out, which is why I guess it took off.

• Twenty installments later and what's better?

  uds32002-03-25

  Commenting on DR NO is a little like being asked to review 'Genesis" or "The Gospel According to Matthew." It IS what it is! Connery WAS Bond from the instant he appeared on screen and remember Ian Fleming, his creator was still alive at this stage. (Fleming in fact saw the first three Bonds but died before the release of THUNDERBALL) DR NO set the standards, albeit with a limited budget, for the entire series. Action, pretty girls, one-liners and impossibly cashed-up enemies. My own father was a confirmed Bond addict (having worked in army intelligence during WW2) and had been greatly looking forward to the release of this film. Cruelly, he died just a couple of weeks before its premiere in London in 1962. I made up for it however by seeing it four days running. At the time, just about as exciting as films got, it was an enormous box office smash and vindicated the studio's decision to sign Connery. Fleming in fact had wanted Roger Moore for the role, who was then riding high with THE SAINT worldwide and was unavailable for filming. Connery, who's only claim to fame at the time was as a part time male model and bit-part actor, his biggest role having been as a truckie in HELL DRIVERS three years earlier. Of course DR NO is dated now - its 40 years old! and deserves to be looked at from that standpoint The action sequences were raw in parts, pretty good in others. Sure the car chase scenes in Jamaica with the laughable back-projections are a cackfest now but none of this matters. The sets were imaginative, the fights good stuff, Ursula Andress enough for any young man's wet dream and Wiseman as DR No himself probably the best villain of them all, despite his very limited screentime. Very imaginative sets for the time and pyrotechnics to please. When it came to my home-town I took several days off college and watched it with fellow students. This was way better than Latin and calculus!

• Smashing Debut of 007 in Innovative Adventure...

  cariart2004-04-13

  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...

• Simple but one of the best Bond movies ever!

  Sharkey3602004-12-30

  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!