Film Study: "Dr. No"

Dr. No: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bond

It's hard to imagine a time without James Bond. For 50 years, he has excited film audiences and critics with his unique mix of action, espionage, and political intrigue. Of course, let's not forget him as a literary figure, based on the author's (Ian Fleming) experiences as a spy. Naturally, his creation clashes on the biggest stages with absolute evils looking to harm everyone, typically aspiring with apolitical motivations. But don't let this make you think for a second Bond's yarns aren't of quality, especially Connery's films. In my opinion, Sean Connery delivered the best incarnation of the character that sets an unfairly high standard that's unlikely to be matched.

Dr. No is most known for being the first incarnation in the soon to be 23 film series. Endless debate could occur regarding whether or not James Bond, as a character to the silver screen, was the first modern action hero. What's not debatable is the unparalleled impact and legacy these series of movies have had on not only the action genre, but for films in general and franchise building. This film nearly set EVERY archetype that is subject to both criticism of praise of both spy and action films. However, there are a variety of reasons that this film has distinct differences with the other movies in the series.

The most visible and easy to spot is the lack of outrageous gadgets and their famous creator, Q. Although this may frustrate some purists, I thought the lack of some of the more fantastic elements was more than alright, even necessary, to establish 007 as a great improviser and tactician. Jet-packs and invisible cars aside, Bond proves here that all he needs is his brains and a gun, something today's action "films" can't seem to combine successfully. Don't see me as a gadgets/Q hater, but it was refreshing to sit through a Bond film that DIDN'T include the tedious scene where we got all of the new gadgets for the movie, some of which aren't even used adequately, and Q snapping off some condescending lines to MI6's most decorated agent. But that's just me.

The cast is good, with Connery, as I said before, interacting with the other actors with such confidence and suave, it's hard to picture anyone else in the role. As far as Bond girls are concerned, Ursula Andress isn't a great actress, but she's so beautiful, I never really seemed to mind. Bernard Lee as M is passable, as I've seen Judi Dench's take on the character to be the definitive version. Although Joseph Wiseman is hardly in this as the title character, I've always found the reclusive villain creepy, even though he's not as memorable as other bad guys of the series.

To me, the best thing about the movie is the distinctly cool, 60s feel it had. Not as present with cheesy qualities that some choose to recall to vividly with the other films, Dr. No's production design and visual style hearken back to a bygone age of pure good vs. evil on an elaborate, epic scale. No's lair is just fun to view as the ultimate diabolical headquarters. The score puts you squarely in the time, crafting the blueprint of action film scores.

It's up for intense debate whether or not this is the franchise's finest outing.  While I certainly don't think so, I could see why one may think so. I've always been a huge fan of Goldfinger, From Russia with Love, You Only Live Twice, and Casino Royale (the Craig version). I think all of those are superior to this one but this one is still a great nostalgic look at both the character and filmmaking itself.