Dr. No

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. (11/17/2013)

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. (01/21/2013)

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. (10/28/2004)

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. (02/27/2014)

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. (06/15/2019)