Salainen agentti 007 ja tohtori No

007__#1__The Bond movie that "started it all" and served all the ingredients typical for it: a simple plot that doesn't need to much thinking, a distinctive villain with megalomaniac plans (in this case a member of the Spectre organisation that regularly accompanied the Connery Bond films), an attractive setting and a pretty babe (Ursulla Anders's exit from the sea is still one of the most quoted scenes). But Dr. No is different in a way. It's almost devoid of action, it lacks Q's typical gadgets, and most importantly, Connery is too serious, without his sarcastic wisecracks and wit. Yet it was Connery's considerable charisma that "made" this film, without it, it would have been very mediocre. Better times were yet to come. (02.10.2005)

In 1962, a willing studio and a handy pair of producers (Saltzman-Broccoli) were finally found, able to realize ambitious plans to transfer the fates of Fleming's agent 007 from book to screen. Among the candidates for the lead roles were names such as Roger Moore (he was too young) and Cary Grant, but the choice fell to Scottish badass Sean Connery, who convinced with his musculature, rough smile and charisma that shone from him on all sides. And it was the right choice, that's obvious from Dr. No. It is basically a very conservative spy film with (for today's) minimal representation of action. It's based on a relatively realistic screenplay, so no big inventions, no Q. The plot is, say, a little more lukewarm, overly stretched and not diversified by anything particularly interesting (the main villain seems to be on the edge of interest), but Connery plays Bond with such grace and persuasion that no spy upgrades and action escapades are needed. The whole film holds firm thanks to the main character and his charm, and I dare say that the birth of the Bond cult was largely the work of the Scottish man in the early days. He provided the skeleton over which the super agent myth eventually began to wrap. Dr. No is a Connery film, it's entertaining, it's got English sarcasm, and perhaps too unhurried from today's point of view, but that's what its unique charm lies in. Let’s not kid ourselves, the power of 007 wasn't in super-weapons and incredible action performances, but in the steel-cold smile and calmness of a true gentleman... That's why pretty Brosnan can never become a real 007 agent, but he'll remain "just" an action hero. (28.10.2004)

Dr. No attacks the 80% popularity threshold with its ratings and has several satisfied comments in the style of "It's not quite there yet, but it has everything that makes Bond Bond, it's just not fully developed." From my perspective, Dr. No is a film that has only made its mark in film history as the beginning of a successful cult series about the unstoppable agent 007, rather than for its objective quality. Dr. No does not stand out from the contemporary genre productions, let alone the overall cinema of that time. Comparing it to the stylish action spectacle of later Bond films makes even less sense. It has many flaws. It is a clumsy and awkward film where many things happen by unintended magic. For example, the outrageously rushed finale, where the victory over the villain is so painfully easy and quick, is disappointing. Ursula's charms are undeniable, but many other bond girls have managed to combine physical attractiveness with a much greater dose of acting talent. Overall impression: 40%. (11.11.2013)

This isn’t completely traditional the Bond movies after all, the storytelling structure is fixed, but James isn’t yet the carefree Casanova that we’re used to, he just does his job in his own way. Traditional espionage tricks, not futuristic weapons, and only in the finale does Dr. No start to smack of sci-fi (metal claws, radiation), but that’s the way I like it. Ursula Andress is an old-style, double-edged goddess, with the wave of a wand, she changes from half-naked native in a bikini into Barbie and back again. Connery is my favorite Bond and he clearly enjoys the role of murderous bastard. An immortal classic. I think they were on their way to a funeral. (21.01.2013)

Dr. No is primarily a stylish crime drama where all the typical gadgets of Bond are still in the background at the expense of the dense atmosphere and strength of the main character. The film is essentially focused only on him and the side motives don't have much chance to develop. Fortunately, it is quite enjoyable, as Sean Connery is very charismatic and was not surpassed until Daniel Craig. And that's quite a few years and filmmaking styles. (17.11.2013)

Compiling the macho anthology 'The Sins of Our Fathers' has finally put me at the starting line of the fifty year existence of this monstrous chauvinist who in his spare time cuts up casinos and livers in between slaughtering whatever crosses the street in front of him and in his work time shoots his enemies in the back, breakfasts on Smirnoff, flies first class, and sticks to the principle of shagging everything white in a black country. The colonial arrogance reeks more than the combination of tobacco and cologne that is practically palpable from every interior scene, and frankly I don't at all share the sentiment here about the casting of the uncharismatic lumberjack Connery as the central hunk. However, the adventurous naivety coupled with a charming chosen freedom and the goofiness of the times (the female and ethnic characters here have the mentalities of eight-year-olds, the male characters the mentality of twelve-year-olds) is still making my skin crawl. (15.06.2019)

A Bond film made according to the way Ian Fleming wrote it. No one-liners or humor that we are used to in later films. This Bond is extremely reserved, and the plot corresponds to the original intention to make a spy film rather than an action film. (03.08.2016)

After a while, I decided to give Bond movies another chance, so why not watch them all at once, gradually, one after another. And what better way to start than with the first Bond movie, "Dr. No". Surprisingly, it starts quite simply, no big extravagances, Sean Connery introduces himself effectively when you hear the line "Bond. James Bond." for the first time, it does give you goosebumps, at least if you have some connection to the movie. Sean is incredibly charismatic, he occasionally delivers a dry one-liner, shows off in quite sterile fight scenes, but all of it with a touch of mystery and subsequent scientific-technological breath, which I quite liked. The introduction to a series that managed to survive until today speaks for itself. It's quite straightforward, but that can be forgiven, just like a certain caution in what is depicted, but that's part of being Bond. It's still mainstream. (28.02.2014)