Dr. No

1962

Action / Adventure / Thriller

35
Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 96%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 82%
IMDb Rating 7.3 10 134,607

Synopsis


Downloaded 40,198 times
July 7, 2019

Director

Cast

Jack Lord as Felix Leiter
Lois Maxwell as Miss Moneypenny
Sean Connery as Anthony 'Tony' Richmond
Ursula Andress as Honey Ryder
720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
912.63 MB
1280*720
English
NR
23.976 fps
110 min
P/S N/A / N/A
1.74 GB
1920×1080
English
NR
23.976 fps
110 min
P/S N/A / N/A

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by hilaryswank2011 10 / 10 / 10

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

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.

Reviewed by asdodge 10 / 10 / 10

A good introduction to James Bond

Dr. No begins the entire James Bond film saga, and yet barely fits any of the pre-conceived ideas of what a Bond Film is. What it does do is introduce the public to the basic tenets of who James Bond is and what he does and it does this very well. We meet Bond playing his card game of choice (Chemin de Feur, a form of Bacarat) and as suave and confident as he will ever be. It is also in this first movie (though the book was much later in the Bond series) that Bond is assigned the Walther PPK from Q Branch by orders of M. Bond is asked to investigate some problems in the Caribbean by the US (someone is messing with radar transmissions of US rockets in Florida) after a British agent in the area is killed. The investigations hint at a mysterious Dr. No (played brilliantly by Richard Wiseman) who owns a small island off the coast of Jamaica. What is so great about this movie is that, though a Bond movie, it lacks many of the silly contrivances of the "Bond Formula" which would be introduced piecemeal through later films. Bond is a detective... an agent... not some super-human hero who can pull down evil empires with a button on his magic watch. He's cool, calculating, and even cold-blooded when he guns down a potential assassin who he has already disarmed (though, the scene inferred here has 2 filmed versions- one in which the assailant reacquires his gun- albeit it, with an empty chamber...) The interplay between Bond and Moneypenny are here from the get-go, as is the irascibility of M towards Bond (which Dame Judi Dench has brought back brilliantly in the Brosnan-Craig Bonds). What's missing are the famous pre-titles sequences, although Maurice Binder's famous titles get a subtler beginning here (before they became the nude extravaganzas in later years). The requisite big-budget chase scenes are not here (though a car chase is offered), nor are the multi-continent gorgeous locales here... everything occurs in or near Jamaica. The most famous element of Bond movies (outside of Bond) are the famous "Bond Girls." Eunice Gayson as Sylvia Trench comes first, then, the iconic and legendary scene- Ursula Andress (as Honey Rider). SPECTRE, the infamous crime organization, is also mentioned in this movie. Again, this movie is not unlike many detective/spy movies of its era- it is the name "Bond" that makes it stand out. The fame that the Bond series later achieved was not here- the movie is solid and enjoyable but not "Casablanca" quality good. It is a 9/10 for Bond films because it is done well, fairly faithful to the book, and did not hide behind gadgets and gimmicks as later Bonds do. Bond here is an agent, who must be detective, lawman, and killer all rolled into one- and it does it well. All in all, a fine movie, made on a shoe-string budget that accomplishes what it was meant to do- ably and properly introduce James Bond to an international audience.

Reviewed by Sharkey360 10 / 10 / 10

Simple but one of the best Bond movies ever!

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!

Read more IMDb reviews

0 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment