Dr. No (1963)

Sadly Over-hyped

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

When 1962 the first James Bond film came on the big screen, no one had expected the success of the legendary agent to survive for so many years. I also have to admit that this agent is my favorite hero. He is always on the move, visits different parts of the world, always has the most beautiful women around him and can kick the villains in the ass. The start of this legend is captured Famos by Oscar winner Sean Connery. A smart guy with a lot of British charm (though Connery is Scot), always looks elegant, is very world-class and can radiate masculine hardness in serious situations. Certainly it is also a male worldview of men in the early 60s, but Connery hits the nail on the head. Of course, there is no such thing as the sensual Playmate of James Bond: Ursula Andress! How it rises from the sea is simply stunning! (not only because I'm also a Swiss). But it adorns the typical Bondgirl of the Connery era: beautiful and vulnerable. But can be very tough in difficult moments. Joseph Wiseman mimes the first Bond villain Dr. No. With his elegant and dry way, he wants to subjugate the nations of the Earth. Certainly he is also only a chess figure, but can already offer Bond's forehead. Dr. No is dry, devilish and deadly and always with a goal in front of the eyes: World domination! Certainly, the first Bond adventure is still timidly implemented. The action and the effects are cheap. But it sets the genre or franchise the stamp on how the adventure of the British agent should go on. Conclusion: A successful start that still plays with the handbrake. There is still a need to improve. But I certainly have no doubts about James Bond 007!

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)

Dr. No will always retain a footnote in history for being the first movie in a franchise which would go on to become the most lucrative in cinema history. Based on the second of Ian Fleming's novels about the British Secret Service Agent 007, the spy with a license to kill, James Bond. It is easy to not realise now that up to the release of this film, there really had been no screen hero like this. Never before had there been a character with such a tongue-in-cheek, morally ambivalent and hedonistic approach, a man whose own pleasures were at least as important to him as was the mission he had been sent on; he changed audience expectations of what a hero could be. In fact, this film caused some controversy on release on account of Bond's behaviour, not only his sexual dalliances but also his flippant attitude towards killing where in one scene he shot an injured adversary in the back. Up to this point British heroes tended to be of the stiff upper lip variety, gentlemen who reluctantly killed. Sean Connery puts in a very confident performance here that would forever set the standard for future portrayals, he is witty, suave and brutal. Aside from the Bond character, this film was also a massive shot in the arm for the action genre generally. It brought a whole new world of glamorous excitement, a world populated by beautiful women, exotic locations and high-octane action set-pieces. It was, and still is, a very attractive concoction.Like most films in the series, the story isn't exactly anything to write home about. Bond is sent to Jamaica to investigate the murder of a fellow British agent, which soon leads to a private island owned by a Chinese evil genius called Dr. No who has come up with a scheme to divert rockets fired from Cape Canaveral off their course and blackmail the U.S. into getting normal service restored. Or something. It's a story which is no more than a means to an end to allow for all the glamorised elements to come together – it's a formula that the series rarely strayed too far from. Seeing as this was the first movie, there was no title song sung by a prominent singer of the day but it was the first outing for the seminal 'James Bond Theme' by Monty Norman, which would go on to be used in every subsequent film in the series. Aside from this the somewhat atypical calypso tune 'Under a Mango Tree' features quite prominently, adding to the Caribbean flavour. This is all well and good but Dr. No is probably as celebrated for its introduction of the concept of what would go on to be known as the Bond Girl, and for many Ursula Andress remains the definitive example. She appears as a shell collecting uber-babe called Honey Ryder in a sea-emerging sequence which is so thoroughly iconic you would have to be living under a rock to not be aware of it in advance of seeing this movie. I daresay that Andress replete in bikini and/or wet-shirt for the duration of her screen-time made some serious ripples back in the early 60's. To be fair, Honey Ryder remains a knockout to this day and, as far as I'm concerned, you can't have too many Bond Girls in a movie.Overall, this really is an excellent start to a series which for my money operated at its highest level during the 60's era. In some ways it is charmingly under-done if anything, with an atypically rushed ending, which doesn't extend its action set-piece to epic scale, which in fairness was a feature which was to some of the later film's detriments. But as a fairly stripped-down Bond movie, which still has all the ingredients we love, Dr, No remains a huge amount of fun and would serve as the template movie for the glamourized spy film sub-genre forever more.

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.