‘Dr. No’ Review: Bond’s First Foray is More Spy than Action and it Pays Off

James Bond, has been a fixture in the cinematic lens for 62 years. And as Amazon MGM Studios has purchased the rights to the Bond franchise—finagling and deciding where to go from here (and who to cast as Bond)—it’s a good time to look back on the series’ roots. Every saga has a genesis—and there’s no better introduction to Bond, espionage, and all things MI6 than Terence Young’s 1962 opener “Dr. No,” starring Sean Connery as the first—if not most arguably infamous—Bond. 

Fans of the Ian Fleming novels will find easy footing here, as will most people who grew up in the Hollywood of old. Everyone has their favorite Bond. But what you’ll have to understand to enjoy “Dr. No” is the epoch it was released for, as well as checking your need for high-octane car chases, explosions, and, yes, even the non-stop deluge of tongue-in-cheek one-liners. “Dr. No” watches like a Fleming novel. Its hero, a then new-to-the-screen Bond, was just getting his feet wet; as was the series, getting audiences used to the tales of this womanizing, debonair super spy. 

Bond’s First Outing

“Dr. No” would keep its plot simple: the disappearance of a colleague and a couple of murders in Jamaica sends James Bond (Connery), better known as 007, to the Caribbean paradise to try and piece together the mysteries surrounding the case.  We see a host of players fans of the Bond franchise would come to know and love: most notably ‘M’ (here played by Bernard Lee) and Miss Moneypenny (Lois Maxwell). ‘M’ (who would change over the years, ultimately played by Judi Dench and Ralph Fiennes), is contained to really only one scene, as he discusses Bond’s Jamaica mission tersely. We also see some subtext exchanged between Moneypenny and Bond; but, unlike some of the series’ subsequent iterations, the innuendo is kept to a minimum. 

“Dr. No,” like all the other Bond escapades, delivers no shortcomings in filming locations for the picture (cycling through several locales in Jamaica and keystone London), taking viewers on an exquisite tour of paradise-like settings as the film’s plot progresses. Bond quickly makes some acquaintances (most notably a man named Quarrell, played by John Kitzmuller), and of course the series’ first ‘Bond girl,’ here played by Ursula Andress as ‘Honey Rider’ (the Bond franchise certainly leaves a lot to be desired with Bond girl names, for sure). But, in a change from what later iterations would become, Riders’ objectification is kept to a minimum, and under Andress’ direction becomes a more powerful addition to the film than maybe originally intended. 

Connery Plays a Good Sleuth-like Spy

We should talk about Director Young, who would direct three early Bond franchise films, who earnestly does a good job exploring Bond in his first iteration. He makes the smart decision to not make Bond a feckless incompetent, destroying cars and gobs of MI6 equipment in the process (note: there’s no ‘Q’ present here), but he gives us a Bond that doesn’t know quite who he is yet. He’s fashionable, for sure. Some of his trademark sartorial splendor is present, but in a toned-down way. The fashions of the ‘60s seem dated here, and Young doesn’t focus the lens on Bond’s wardrobe as aggressively as would later directors such as Sam Mendes and Martin Campbell. Bond’s mission is the point of this film, and ironically, not the man’s flashy style nor his prowess with women.  

I was impressed with Connery here (and I regretfully admit that until recently I’d never seen him in a Bond picture). He takes the fledgling spy and runs with him. And, truthfully, the script penned by five writers (Ian Fleming among them), doesn’t give him a lot to work with. There’s a surplus of sleuthing as Bond tries to piece together the pieces to the mystery, but with a dearth of the explosions and catastrophes that often accompany Bond during a chase (see any of the Brosnan or Craig pictures). One of the film’s keystone sequences has Bond surreptitiously making his way through a nuclear control room, and the key word in this sentence is surreptitiously. Connery, with much silence and restraint, makes Bond a hero we can align with. He’s cocky, yet cool under pressure, and nowhere near the reckless icon we would later come to expect. 

Of Nuclear Power and its Age-Specific Fears

The same treatment is given to Dr. No, played by Joseph Wiseman, who diverts from the typical Bond villain in unique fashion. Sure, he has the quintessential diabolical ‘defect’ that makes a Bond villain tick (in this iteration a pair of black-gloved metal hands, which he attempts to kill Bond with). No lost his hands in a nuclear accident to be replaced by these monstrosities (perhaps a nod to the Manhattan Project and the deaths from nuclear poisoning of Louis Slotin and Harry Daghlian?) The threat of nuclear warfare runs deep throughout “Dr. No,” the major fear of the time, replaced in modernity by genetic mutations and super bugs. 

No of course spends some time pontificating on his scheme, but seems more the mad scientist, and less the megalomaniac than some of Bond’s later villains would later embody. There’s of course the quintessential scene where—spoiler alert—No details his full plan to Bond, as well as giving away he’s a member of the criminal empire SPECTRE, but it lacks the panache we’ve come to expect from the franchise’s villains along the way. 

In short, “Dr. No” is a fitting entry into the Bond legacy. It introduces the debonair persona of James Bond, is played fittingly and perfectly by Sean Connery, introduces a litany of lush locations, and takes the time to explore who James Bond will ultimately be. Is it perfect? No. But it is entertaining, wholly incorporating the fears and trepidations of the era into a picture that plays more like John le Carré’s by-the-numbers spy thriller “Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy” than a demolition fest with gadgets. Slow and steady, “Dr. No” launched an icon whose fascination just refuses to die.