Dr. No (1962) - Action, Adventure, Thriller

Hohum Score



A resourceful British government agent seeks answers in a case involving the disappearance of a colleague and the disruption of the American space program.

IMDB: 7.3
Director: Terence Young
Stars: Sean Connery, Ursula Andress
Length: 110 Minutes
PG Rating: PG
Reviews: 47 out of 428 found boring (10.98%)

One-line Reviews (250)

Indeed,the film is still entertaining as long as you don't expect thrill a minute action.

And what has been fascinating about the franchise is how connected it is to the art behind the project that despite of getting an attention as such, the commercial aspect of this infamous character doesn't affect the quality of its vocab.

Fortunately for the future of this long-lived series, the first film was a very-well made product, bright, fast-paced and relatively faithful to Fleming's exciting original storyline.

But there is all too much which is of its time, creaking plot points, poor special effects and dull sequences which would be improved upon in later films.

Of course the film is so much slower than action movies are these days but at the time it seemed to be pacy and exciting.

The film plays more on the espionage side of Bond's work rather than taking up too much time with ridiculous action sequences, and when the fight scenes and the climatic final action sequence do happen, they're exciting and not too over the top.

The editing of Peter Hunt keeps the movie moving in what could otherwise be dull moments.

While Dr. No isn't a high point for the series, it is a very entertaining movie with a great bad guy and, of course, a great Bond girl in the form of Ursula Andress.

The first James Bond film is an exciting start to the long-running franchise.

Thunderball is too long and is the most boring Bond film, in my opinion, due to the long and slow underwater scenes.

In fact, it's fascinating to see so many of the Bond trademarks already in use in the franchise inauguration.

We get to see Bond show his strength a few times and the climax is quite low-key yet still intense.

However, there is some theatrical-style acting from a few supporting players (being made in the '60's and all), but it doesn't affect the main storyline, which, as I mentioned, is a bit slow, even considering that this is one of the shorter films.

Compared with other Bond films, Dr. No-the film that introduced 007 to the world-can be rather dull.

The pacing is also really slow by today's standards.

A solid and enjoyable, if rather ragged cinematic introduction to James Bond .

In one particular scene, Bond picks up a half empty (or half full?

Dr. No is a very entertaining movie and that's all that matters.

The dialogue is great, the sets by Ken Adam are stunning and the effects hold up fairly well today in my opinion.

How it rises from the sea is simply stunning!

Most apparent is the repetitive soundtrack which drives me crazy when watching despite it not being bad.

The movie is filled with likable characters (Felix Leiter, Quarrel), enjoyable action sequences, and a great bad guy.

We do get some nice moments though: the banter between Bond and Sylvia in the Casino and his apartment; the introduction of Leiter and Quarrel; But a lot of moments really drag on far too long, like Bond's trip through the ventilation ducts, or the actual infiltration of the control room.

While the film's 'plot' would become 'Standard Bond' (a maniac attempts to 'heat up' the cold war by provoking America, in this instance, by crashing it's rockets), and reappear in many incarnations over the years, the story behind the first film is still fascinating.

Once you understand it, the journey is enjoyable.

Far inferior movies are more enjoyable because there is enough meat to the story to engross its viewer for its entire running time.

The plot is intriguing and the locales in the Bahamas are gorgeous.

Here we have action, thrilling, exotic places, all shaken, not stirred.

The spider in his bed is a suspenseful touch, despite the obvious Plexiglas between Connery and the arachnid.

Still, quite enjoyable to watch.

Overall an enjoyable film, with the most compelling scenes having to do with the investigation by Connery and Lord.

Cliché story, music, effects and 1960s vibe and it works extremely well.

Sean Connery (Bond) also take a one drink of coffee, he also does not swallow, but after one sip both cups are empty and dry.

The plot works well and allows a slow build up rather than a huge stunt sequence every 15-20 minutes.

The story is somewhat predictable toward the end but with a middle part that I found especially thrilling it makes up for lost time with a great bunch of scenes where Bond is in trouble.

It is fortunate that it took less to excite a movie audience back then, because an action movie of such a plodding pace would not be allowed a sequel today.

The gun barrel sequence, the opening sequence, great music by Monty Norman, great action and thrilling scenes, especially Ursula Andreas creating the sexiest scene in cinema.

Dent shoots but his gun clicks on empty.

It doesn't go about trying to dazzle us with intense action set pieces, but merely tells an engaging Ian Fleming story.

Evocative photography , much of the film was shot on location , with only a bare minimum of back projection used ; something quite unusual for a film of 1962 .

The story is as cliché as you would expect from a Bond movie but it's fine and very enjoyable even after all these years.

As I already said before, it is a bit of a snoozer compared to some of the other films.

The plot is tight, exciting, with enough type of good old fashioned detective to elevate it from a cheap spy thriller.

What seemed futuristic in 1962 seems stodgy now.

FINAL VERDICT: Style over substance, but entertaining nonetheless (6.5/10)[+] Stylish spy-flick [+] Paved the way for even better Bond movies[-] Average plot [-] Slow pacing.

What was new and exciting on film (James Bond) in 1962 now is colorless, humorless and almost the point of being called "boring.

The score from Monty Norman also seems to be a bit lacking, especially with its repetitive use of the James Bond theme, though it has some effective moments such as the tarantula scene or the final confrontation between Bond and Doctor No.

It's slow, at times pretty boring and has feels rather dated.

The film is a great start for a great and exciting series.

All in all, this is an enjoyable entry that previewed the greatness that was to follow.

But the third act is pretty boring.

" The movie keeps a pretty good pacing throughout the first half, but gets pretty slow and begins to drag in the minutes before its exciting climactic final stage.

Enjoyable starting point to a long line of movies .

There are also a lot of outside songs used which have a Caribbean twist that give uniqueness to the film and are very enjoyable.

Some humor along the way (which through time varied in styles) and some spectacular slabs of exciting action set-pieces.

The story flows very smoothly and remains engaging throughout, with the mystique of Dr. No built up along the way.

Entertaining enough, I suppose.

It's relatively short, and there's not a lot of development of worldwide danger, but Bond's escape is exciting.

Especially entertaining is watching Peter Hunt try to justify his ABYSMAL editing job on the action scenes.

From the opening scene where the 3 blind mice murder a British Agent to the finale in the evil Dr. No's underground laboratory, the audience is taken on a ride of thrilling espionage, beautiful women, and exotic locales.

There is room for more tension, action and pace and it does feel a bit slow at times.

I remember us liking them so, thinking they were suave, sexy and engaging.

It combines adventure, mystery, and international intrigue into a stylish and completely entertaining film.

Their were also a variety of enjoyable side performances in Dr. No as well.

Ursula Andress as Honey Ryder has possibly the most iconic scene of the film as she steps out of the ocean in a white bikini and she is surely a stunning beauty.

At the time of this post, Bond has been with us for 45 years, and even though there are many excellent films in the franchise (all of which are entertaining), Dr. No remains one of the best.

The spider sequence is quite gripping (until you see the glass reflected) and is one of the most memorable scenes in any of the films.

I seriously thought that, long ago, this film would have been dismissed outright as being nothing but an inconsequential relic had it not been the very first in the Bond series, which has somehow granted it an immunity from having to suffer that unbearable fate of obscurity.

She is stunning, no doubt, and lends to this air of the unexpected, with some unusual character traits.

Britain had tired of 'kitchen sink' movies and wanted something colourful, racier and exciting.

Much more enjoyable than some of the recent Bond outings.

There are just a few fights and chases; when they happen, they are modestly satisfying and thrilling.

Bond himself,a wine bore of the first rank,was a former Naval officer in his mid - forties,who,in the days before High Street Gyms kept himself fit by swimming five miles a day in the sea,whatever the weather,and presumably took frequent cold showers.

At least he would get more settled in, in later years, before he became bored with the role and gave it up.

Being the first James Bond film, Dr. No has several aspects that are dated or cliché in comparison to the other movies.

Probably the most exciting thing that happens is a tarantula in Bond's bed.

Colorful graphics of people dancing to Jamaican music is neither particularly sexy or exciting and could just as easily have been used to open any TV series of the era.

Additionally, even though Zena Marshall is often overlooked (because she shared the screen with the beautiful Ursula Andress) I thought her performance as the "bad girl" who tries to keep James Bond "occupied" was very enjoyable.

However it is somewhat entertaining and marked the beginning of many themes associated with the franchise.

No" is very, very entertaining, balancing its action in a way that some of the later, more over-the-top Bond movies did not.

These three 007's are genuine classics and each are just so ding-dang fun and entertaining!

It's a lot more straightforward and believable than the later films but it's also slower and not as exciting.

Although Goldfinger may have been the movie that started the Bond phenomenon, Dr. No first made the exciting debut of Bond in May 1962.

In fact it HAS been, because very few motion picture of that time is still (even) this enjoyable to watch.

It starts off pretty good actually, the second half gets a bit tedious.

Classic Bond can be quite an adjustment, if you were weaned on the more exciting and technologically advanced Brosnan movies like I was.

A Rather Bland Start .

There have been half a dozen Bonds, some of them ludicrous, and all the films seem to be more expensive, more f/x-ridden, more spectacular, and duller than the ones before.

To me, Dr. No's character was about as menacing as a wet dishrag with his drab and dreary little "evil" plot of absolute domination of the world.

As in most Bond movies, the last scene is exciting and leaves behind a mess of explosions and other havoc, all justified to defeat the bad guy.

Some might argue that this movie is boring.

The somewhat plodding pace of the film, coupled with some inexcusable production errors (see the first fight scene, the tarantula in the bed scene) gives it the feel of a b-movie of the era.

His performance was flat-out boring.

Quite possibly the dullest Bond villain of all time.

A hero is only as good as his villain, lucky for James, the doctor is a very intriguing character.

But harmless fun nonetheless and much more enjoyable than some of the more recent Bond outings.

No" boasts fantastic acting, a great script, and some pretty intense scenes.

I think the plot and pace at times seem too slow, especially when arriving to Crab Key.

" A cheesy movie, but it's colorful and exciting.

To say this is one of my favorite Bond films would become boring after a while of reading my reviews.

The few slow spots are limited and do not slow the movie in general.

Inspired by the Cuban missile crisis, the ending is action packed and well done.

Locations such as Jamaica and Crab Key are really fascinating, especially Crab Key (because of low budget), for which credit goes to Ken Adam, a set designer who'd provide the fascinating set designs throughout the movies.

The stunning Ursula Andress has a good run in her role as the Baywatch-like Honey Rider, who is to this day considered the staple "Bond Girl.

In fact, I thought that this seashell-collecting bimbo, with her tiresome angry pout, put in one of the worst "Bond-girl" performances that I've ever seen.

As an occasionally exotic, exciting, contemporary spy thriller it's fine although dated by its slower pacing as well of course of its more specific treatment of women as playthings.

The film is very light on action which may bore modern audiences but the film makes up for it with a compelling plot, stylized direction and great acting especially by Connery himself.

Also fighting scenes are gripping even without VFX stuff.

There are some nicely directed and exciting scenes such as the tarantula attack, the infamous "You've had your six" and Bond climbing an obstacle-filled ventilation shaft (despite that scene doesn't make much sense when you think about it).

A "must see" that remains fairly enjoyable .

As he is finding the truth you get everything from thrilling car chases to poisonous spiders to dragons that run on diesel.

Wiseman's intense performance is so seemingly impassive even his rage seems measured.

As this is my first Bond review, I wont bore you with the details you maybe familiar with such as beautiful locations, cars and girls.

Enjoyable megalomanic atomic romp .

The seminal James Bond formula is all there: a mysterious incident, a mundane Bond, a secret mission, a few wisecracks exchanged with Miss Moneypenny, the usual three James Bond girls, the most significant one appearing in the third act, the escapism and the sophisticated villain whose identity is revealed near the end.

Well, at least we get the enjoyable ditty "Underneath the Mango Tree which is sort of catchy and has a nice cultural feel to it.

For those new to the James Bond Franchise, unlike the more recent films, where James Bond turns into a Rambo in a tuxedo kind of guy, in this film, like with most early Bond movies, the pacing is slow… almost too slow at times.

The mystery surrounding the antagonist kept me very intrigued through it and I was on the edge of my seat until the end.

No's" virtues all day long, but the movie ends up in boredom.

I highly recommend it to ANYONE.

Bond movies are my cinematic comfort food - I want to watch them when I'm sick, or bored, or happy, or sad.

The movie starts out slow and drags through the whole show.

This is quite unreliable, however, is exciting and watchable.

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...

It's kind of a snoozer.

Dare I say the movie is pretty boring at times.

Overall, a moderately enjoyable escapist slice of adventure, with, as is the case for films like "Star Wars", a largely negative influence on the future of film making.

Then Bond himself, 007, is introduced or, actually, introduces himself (on his home ground of England) - a classic for the ages, as if the filmmakers knew he would still be thrilling us on film four decades later.

In fact, it's probably the slowest-paced Bond film in the series.

The first Bond movie was somewhat dull in its action scenes.

Not the best film, but still enjoyable.

The plot involves some spies being killed and Bond, James Bond (the Smirking Sean Connery) is called in to investigate at a snail's pace.

I watched it again tonight and, aside from Connery's presence, found it dull, or maybe my sensibilities had dulled over the years.

Definitely an overpraised entry and the level of enjoyment varies between viewings but it's always perfectly enjoyable and is a good film in general.

Don't expect the wild adventure of The Spy who Loved Me, but it is better than Ian Fleming's original novel, and worth watching if you're a budding Bond fanatic.

The famous theme tune was never better than here, although it is played at odd moments and at other, exciting bits the soundtrack is surprisingly silent, which saps the film of some of its excitement.

Even though this can easily be called a classic I'd fall a little short of calling it perfect as I felt the film dragged in a few spots during the first half.

But I'm glad it succeeded, because it led to subsequent 007 films that were really very entertaining, especially "Goldfinger".

While Dr. No starts off a bit slow, it quickly picks up and doesn't fail to entertain in the least.

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.

the movie is well thught out,with the story and characters all developing ,building up to a simply breathtaking finale.

On the backdrop of exotic locations Terence Young's direction delivers an enjoyable spy thriller and Monty Norman's (libel actions aside with John Barry's publishers) James Bond theme is the icing on the cake.

Cons: Boring Villain; Boring sets in the third act.

During Bond's brief but pointless interrogation of Dent, the evil professor exploits an opportunity to recover his weapon when Bond looks away for a moment.

The action here is more realistic and intense.

A very dry James Bond...

That would be the first inspiration for the character which left a lasting impression on Fleming who decided to write a novel about a British Secret Service agent named James Bond who is a womanizing, martini drinking agent with very exciting and out of this world adventures.

And luckily, we had that to look at during the incredibly long and uninteresting pauses between action, dialogue and plot advancement.

The least pretentious of the series .

Very enjoyable - I hadn't seen Dr. No for over 30 years until tonight; it's colourful, bright and breezy entertainment, definitely pre-digital, pre-franchise and well made hokum.

Just like Bond himself, the theme is cool, its sexy, it rocks, and pumps the viewer up for exciting action.

Lazenby's short intervention lacked zing, Moore was too jokey and ill-fitted for action scenes, Dalton didn't even bother, Brosnan was too superficially handsome and slick, and contemporary 007 Craig is just a boring robot going through the motions.

After a few hours sleep, a stunning figure emerges from the surf; Honey Ryder's entrance has never been equaled by any woman in any subsequent Bond flick.

The story is engaging, the characters are interesting and the location is gorgeous.

True, it may bore movie-goers who grew up with Die Hard, Rambo, and the Terminator.

The exotic locations and set design are fantastic, and the plot is engaging even when it slows down.

Ursula Andress is a goddess as Honey Ryder in this classic, visually stunning scene from Dr. No just like the Die Another Day scene with Halle Berry that pays tribute!

Riveting and fancy main titles by habitual Maurice Binder ; besides , eye-popping production design by Ken Adam and Syd Cain .

Connery is supremely cool and fearless, the theme tune and gun barrel opening are already in place, and Terence Young, who directs three of the first four Bond movies, keeps it zippy and suspenseful when story gathers up a flame throwing tank, car chases, fights and a quite brilliant tarantula sequence.

Even the Roger Moore Bond films are more entertaining than this and yes, I do include Moonraker.

Sean Connery debuts as secret agent James Bond "007" in this highly entertaining yarn as Bond travels to Jamaica to investigate a colleagues death, and uncovers a plan by the sinister Dr. No(Joseph Wiseman) to start trouble between the U.

Not only is it run of the mill, and completely lacking the exciting, unique mood of John Barry's brilliant work for the series, most of the better selections on the official soundtrack album aren't even in the movie.

So if you are looking for a classic enjoyable movie, this is just what the doctor ordered.

The cinematography and locations are stunning, and the music and theme song are wonderful.

To me, Dr. No's character was about as menacing as a wet fart with his drab and dreary little "evil" plot of absolute domination of the world.

The action,while there isn't much of it,is pretty good when it's there,it's suspenseful and done well,although the action does feel too short.

In film quality, Dr. No probably hits the lowest of the low of the Bond movies- it is interesting, especially Urusula Andress coming out from the sea, but overall the movie is just too-slow paced (a 60s movie trademark) that doesn't really show what true Bond movies are about.

There was never a dull moment in this film, or any moment for that matter that made me bored.

The picture contains comic-strip adventure , sensational pursuits , silly set pieces , great stunts , tongue-in check humor , frantic unstopped action , amazing gimmicks and stimulating images like are the spectacular chases , the overwhelming scenes , and the breathtaking fights .

However, if you can enjoy a slower film of this kind, with a reasonable amount of action, this Bond film that started it all is probably worth watching.

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.

I mean, the way movies were made back then, the tolerance of the audience for spy/action movies and element of surprise was probably wholeheartedly different than 2012, but dang was I bored for the most part.

Prior to the recent offerings starring Daniel Craig, Sean Connery was the most compelling and interesting James Bond.

When James Bond (Sean Connery) pours the coffee, Ursula takes a sip, but does not swallow, then her cup is empty.

It didn't keep me consistently entertained throughout, sometimes due to the pacing and sometimes due to other flaws, but there certainly are some intense moments (usually action scenes), and there was enough suspense to keep me watching, even though I had seen the movie before and knew what would happen.

The film is slow in some parts, and it doesn't have as much action as some people might be used to with a lot of the subsequent Bond films.

Id read a few reviews on here before I watched it, but I quite enjoyed it.

The movie has no cool inventions, moves at an extremely slow pace, and hardly has any action.

It's brimming with colorful and fascinating cinematography by cameraman Ted Moore .

But the action though looking more contrived with age, still is effective in moving the story along.

Incredibly entertaining and a terrific introduction to this movie series.

I can forgive a film for not having much action, but I feel this way because I find Dr. No to be a boring villain.

Remembering the famed Bond is effectively a new screen character here, I'd say he was efficiently portrayed by Connery, but the character, as has been said, is very uninteresting and basic.

I like Bernard Lee in a role that is quite a jump ahead from the rather bland characters he played before Bond came along.

" But there are many other big scenes - Bond's flirtation with the secretary Miss Moneypenny, the attempted assassinations (one involving a killer spider), and the meeting with Dr. No (who is played very effectively by Joseph Wiseman) - that are just as thrilling as the first one.

How Bond succeeds in his mission of stopping Dr. No--in the estimable person of actor Joseph Wiseman-- and his sinister organization makes for an exciting action climax to the film.

No," has a rough hewn urgency about it not only in Young's lean, muscular helming of the exotic, larger-than-life, derring-do hijinks in the Caribbean but also in Sean Connery's snappy, no-nonsense performance.

Armed with secret and bizarre gadgets and an armor of deadpan humor, one-liners and wits, with a suave personality to top, Connery shines as 007 and proves his "License to Kill" attitude is a force to be reckon with, battling villain after villain, giving us thrilling actions.

Some of these big scenes, which go far in making this film incredibly entertaining, have become iconic.

The action in this is slower compared to the action of the other Connery films and their is more casual banter between good and evil in this movie.

The first act is pretty enjoyable and the second act gets even better.

This is the least action packed Bond film, and it is this distinction which makes it stand out.

The least pretentious of the series, although I have to say the pretentiousness is one of the qualities I liked about some of the later 60's films.

A British spy fantasy; The story is tongue-in-cheek hokum, but fast moving and entertaining.

all right, the pace of the first half is a bit slow, though it would not have felt like that in the 60s.

Those who say it is unwatchable are missing something.

The plot's a bit slow and simplistic and there are no good henchmen.

Sean Connery wore blue pants, his adversaries wore Glad bags, the pace was slow, the explosions few, the Bond quips less ready, and the girls wore too much clothing.

The story can be quite slow at times, but nonetheless an enjoyable film.

Although the formula had yet to be perfected, the basic ingredients for an engrossing and entertaining 007 outing are present and accounted for: gorgeous gals aplenty (statuesque stunner Ursula Andress in her white two-piece bikini as gutsy diver Honey Ryder rates as a positively delectable sight), a truly hissable villain, a nifty animated opening credits sequence (alas, there's no catchy theme song), exotic far-flung foreign locations, and a rousing explosive climax.

The very first James Bond film ever made isn't a bad one, but some scenes may seem a little lengthy while a few others can even be somewhat boring and unnecessary to the story.

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.

The best James Bond (Sean Connery) and the best Bond girl (Ursula Andress) combine to make this the most exciting, although probably the lowest budget of all of the Bonds.

And though the pacing is a bit slow and dated, it still keeps up with the plot.

Although, this first Bond film is the least elaborate, it is the one of the most easily enjoyable and succeeds as a modestly entertaining spy thriller.

Anyway, this film is certainly a classic and it's well worth watching if you're a fan of the series.

After the failed mission, Bond is able to pay Dr. No an unexpected visit.

It was really disjointed and choppy, thank God that they got rid of him in the next movie and replaced him with John Barry.

Certainly better than most of Fleming's books, which were slow indeed except for the last 1/3 or so.

The pacing is so slow that it takes almost half the film to get interesting at all.

While the more recent Bond films are little more than entertaining BMW commercials, this one heavily advertises vodka – I guess BMWs weren't cool enough back in 1962.

The plot was desent and the action was breathtaking, and the familiar James Bond formula (gadget, cars, beautiful women) was introduced.

It was fresh -- amusing and thrilling.

The film is slickly scripted full of action, clever one-liners, and suspenseful moments.

Also, his sidekick Quarrel is a tiresome Jamaican stereotype, played as best as possible by John Kitzmiller.

With that said, I'm sure Truffaut shouldn't have taken the film too seriously as the goal was probably just to deliver an entertaining movie.

The action scenes are exciting, the music is cool, the characters are memorable, the locations are exotic, the sets are grand, and all around everything is really good.

Okay, but slow and boring .

The "Bond girls" are all stunning, which often makes them as memorable as James Bond.

The pace is quite slow and there isn't much action.

No' old fashioned, slow and unspectacular.

Anyway, I like watching the film but it can get a little boring sometimes and is why I sometimes don't choose to watch it on a Saturday night.

its a decent movie for a beginning, altho i think it gets a little tedious at times.

This average fiction is pretty exciting.

Ursula Andress is the only person worth watching, and she doesn't show up on screen until just over half of the film has been completed!

The "three blind mice" assassins that kill high power people are pretty boring and have no build up at all.

The women "on show" are indeed of a pleasing aspect, and much of the violence is well conveyed, but it all distracts in an ultimately pointless, superficial way.

It was the first James Bond film I watched from start to finish, and I don't recall loving it, but I guess I found it entertaining and memorable enough, even though I couldn't remember the title.

At the time, just about as exciting as films got, it was an enormous box office smash and vindicated the studio's decision to sign Connery.

It has several very tense and entertaining scenes.

This is where we first see most of the things that have come to be traditional in 007 movies, such as Bond's indestructibility, his blatant but perpetually uneventful flirtatious exchanges with Moneypenny, and the fact that he always gets the girl, or, as is often the case, girls.

A really enjoyable ride, then, with it's legendary theme music still one of the most recognisable in cinema.

In the end Dr. No is an enjoyable spy thriller and a movie you can enjoy even if you aren't a Bond fan.

We have a deliciously evil villain in Dr. No(Joseph Wiseman),the irresistible lady(Ursula Andress),and plenty of action packed thrills.

Some of the audience of today, prefer movie to be fast paced action movies meaning less story line.

There is a sense of ruthlessness and a darkly gratuitous anticipation of what is to come when dealing with an adversary that made Connery as Bond so exciting and credible.

For some reason it's a lot more exciting this way.

Enjoyable and tense.

Ursula Andress offers great support as the stunning and athletic Honeychile 'Honey' Ryder, and Joseph Wiseman has just the right amount of sophistication and danger to him.

Dr. No is a most entertaining start for the Bond franchise.

The movie has some fascinating scenes starting with the "Bond tune" which has become the stuff of legend.

And a special mention for the enjoyable dialogue.

The series got just the right mix with Goldfinger but here the film is enjoyable in it's basicness.

Improbable poker games, dainty gadgets, inordinately outdated car chases, repetitive utilizations of the same shots, deadly spiders, nobly kickass dialogue, naive characters who find tanks to look like Dragons (???

The only problem being that I was expecting something a little better-made; even the Italian rip-off of this movie, LIGHTNING BOLT, was more action-packed and entertaining.

He is not exactly an imaginative villain, but this suspensefully slow introduction makes him very effective (similar to the eventual introduction of Harry Lime in The Third Man, a method that prompted Orson Welles to call his part as Lime a `true star role').

There is some great suspense especially in the sequence where Bond finds himself in bed with a giant Tarantula and the sequences inside the evil doctor's house of pain are also thrilling.

But viewed today, most of its elements are either dated (rockets to the moon) or have become ingrained as cliche (island fortresses, femme fatales, "Since you won't live long enough to use the information, I'll tell you...

a proto-cliché here, I think...

The film proved to be immensely entertaining.