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.
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.