My personal favorite Bond film. This was the film that forever cemented Sean Connery as my favorite actor.

A+

Great start to a series, The best Bond, Connery, but not his best at the role. Solid A though.

A top 5 Bond film, for sure.

A

Phenomenal for its time. Great movie.

A

Likable and forever iconic. I don't think of it as a masterpiece, but a very solid part of the franchise. I appreciate how "important" it is in film history, but I will always prefer Goldfinger as the true definition of Bond.

B

[font=century gothic]The first time I watched the film I fell asleep through it. Granted I was 12 and just discovering the Bond series, but for me at the time the film just didn't flow, and the one action sequence (An explosion really), just didn't cut it for me.

Later on I learned to discover what makes this film great. It's a top notch thriller and it has Ursula Andress in a bikini. I also like that Connery's Bond is kind of ruthless in this film. His Bond shows his ruthlessness from time to time in his other outings, but it's most apparent here.

A+[/font]

Great as the introduction of Bond, but not necessarily a great film. Some scenes are pretty good, showcasing Bond's talents and cementing his iconic status, but the climax is laughably silly and not very thrilling. Connery was just getting settled into the role, so he's a bit all over the place, and the character is not as witty or charming as he would become. Ursula Andress is one of the best looking Bond girls of all time, but she doesn't do a whole lot besides that. And the titular villain, despite the cool metal hands, is pretty lame. Important for the beginning of the franchise, but not one of its better installments.

Okay. The first time I saw this film was all the way back in 1997 (I lied before. I wasn't 12, I was 10) before Tomorrow Never Dies (First Bond I saw in theaters) came out. You Only Live Twice was the first Bond film I ever watched. Dr. No was the second and it did in fact put me to sleep the first time I saw it. I saw it again shortly there after and I liked it again and have watched it a number of times since.

But let me go ahead and disagree with some of the things I mentioned two years ago. It's not very thrilling, let alone being a top notch thriller. A good part of this is due to the film's limited budget, but not a whole helluva lot happens. You have your iconic shots, you've got your grandiose sets, and you've got a decent villian, but the film is kind of slow. The reason why the film works though is because of Sean Connery. Even though it's his first outing as Bond he's got the part down. He's cool, he's calculated, he's charming and he's ruthless. He's the entire package here. He's the reason why Dr. No works and he's the reason why we're still talking about Bond on film 46 years later.

***½

This is the first of the older films in the series that I've watched on Blu-ray and I've got to say that the film looks absolutely stunning. Usually when you read a DVD review about an older film and it says something along the lines of, "It looks like it was filmed yesterday" (or something that), I usually call bullshit on it. I read the same thing about the Bond Blu-ray's. If the film didn't look dated, you could fool almost think it was made recently (despite the fact that Connery became extremely famous and is now 46 years older). The film looks that good.

I'm once again revisiting these in time for the release of Skyfall.

It's too slow, it's not very thrilling, the villain is hilariously offensive, but Connery and the way Terrence Young directs him ultimately saves the day.

*** (B)

1. Dr. No (1962) - *** (B)

Good film, not spectacular (then again, which Bond movies are?). Nice starter, slow, iconic, great villain, and sexy Bond girl. Overall a fine Bond movie. Could do with more excitement, but I suppose in the 60's that was true escapism.

Iconic film but not that well done...

Still loads of Fun

B+