137 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

I've reached the conclusion that DR. NO is the best James Bond film ever made. Not, perhaps, the most entertaining (I'd cite THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN as the most fun 007 flick), but certainly the best. Even more than FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, GOLDFINGER or ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, it seems to me the greatest artistic accomplishment of the James Bond series.

There is literally nothing wrong with it. It is, in other words, an utterly perfect piece of cinema (as well as one of the most influential and therefore important pictures of all time). Every hair is perfectly in place, so to speak.

- James Bond: who better than a young Sean Connery? And Connery gives, in my opinion, his finest performance as 007 first time out.

- Script and dialogue: every line is absolutely terrific. There's the sort of sophisticated wit that Purvis and Wade could only dream of writing. The screenplay is flawless, with not a page of flab, and with every spellbinding scene propelling the story forward while fleshing out the characters and their universe. This, my friends, this is how a James Bond script ought to be!

- Cast, cinematography, locations, set design, music.... all quite, quite superb. No, this is it, people - DR. NO is the cat's whiskers. The don of all dons. Number one in both senses.

Am I a lone voice in the wilderness here?

[Qwerty]

I do love Dr. No, there's something about watching that film and knowing you're in for a terrific spy thriller. I find the hotel scenes to be sensational as is the dinner with that man himself, the introduction of all the key characters, Felix Leiter by Jack Lord, the plot and loads more.

However, I do not call it the best Bond film. There are others which I consider superior, and while this one has a fantastic screenplay taken from my all time favorite Bond novel, I like certain other films more.

A superb Bond film though, and one that always delivers entertainment.

[BondIsMoore]

Dr.No is my second favourite Bond movie, right after Thunderball. It just has really simple, good story with a great villian.

[Max Zorin]

Most entertaining? Certainly not. Most perfect? Okay, I'll give you that.

It is an incredible film, and an excellent way to introduce the character of James Bond - it's adult, stream-lined, and it takes itself seriously, but not too seriously. It's smart and not over the top.

Connery's performance is perfect, and I think this is the closest to the novels we'll ever get. The performances are all top notch, the girl is beautiful, and Joseph Wiseman sets the standard for Bond villains to come.

The lines are funny and witty, but not crass and over the top like P&W's.

I think it might even be safe to say that the series started to go downhill from here. Sure, Goldfinger is famous for creating what's now seen as the Bond formula...but is that necessarily the formula Fleming had in mind?

[Turn]

I'll disagree with you right off the bat, Loomis. Don't get me wrong, as far as the series goes, it was a great start and still holds up well for the most part. But it is far from being the best.

I think a lot of it had to do with this being the first film and the series had yet to find its way. There are odd moments when Connery just doesn't feel like Bond yet. And the film doesn't so much feel like a spy story, but more of ahard-boiled detective story a lot of the time.

And there are small things that seem to date it more than any of the other '60s Bond films, maybe it's just me that feels like that. Quarrel, for instance, comes off pretty bad when you think about it. The "Fetch my shoes" line on Crab Key is a prime example of this. And there's a couple of times when he comes off like Rochester of Jack Benny fame with big eyes, making him more of a caricature when he started out as a strong character.

And Miss Taro also seemed a bit amateurish at times too. Monte Norman's score was way below what we would get with John Barry, save for him giving us the James Bond theme. I can almost overlook it for that right there.

For what was invested and what came out of it, Dr. No can't be overlooked as an entertaining and important film in the series. But I think the next film built on what was established and helped mold it into the great enduring series it is. But I could never bring myself to feel this is it.

[Loomis]

Among DR. NO's chief strengths is its astonishing atmosphere of menace and suspense. No other Bond film has quite the same air of mystery, the same sense of "Gee, I really do wonder what's going to happen next". Its look and feel is quite unique in the series; yet there's not just tension: there's also the wonderful old-time "travelogue" feel, eroticism and humour. A heady brew.

It's also a brutal film, still quite shockingly nasty (check, for instance, out the killing of Strangways' secretary - there's more blood there than in all the Moore flicks put together). It's still very powerful stuff indeed, DR. NO, and has held up remarkably well over the years.

[Qwerty]

I have to agree that in the travelogue department, Dr. No scores a perfect score easily. The main location is astonishing and it always grabs my attention at least, everything about it just feels right.

Although there is excellent suspense, certain other Bond films have it also though, to name one: Octopussy.

[Loomis]

[quote]
There are odd moments when Connery just doesn't feel like Bond yet.
[/quote]

Surely, though, that's just hindsight talking. We've all been conditioned over many, many years to expect the cinematic Bond to fit a certain profile. Certainly, if one believes that the character to be found in the works of Fleming is the yardstick by which we should measure the Bond of the big screen (one does not have to believe that, of course), it appears that Connery does a much better job of bringing him to life in DR. NO than he does in his other Bond outings.

[quote]
And the film doesn't so much feel like a spy story, but more of ahard-boiled detective story a lot of the time.
[/quote]

Possibly, but, again, doesn't that simply show the filmmakers' fidelity to Fleming?

[quote]
And there are small things that seem to date it more than any of the other '60s Bond films, maybe it's just me that feels like that. Quarrel, for instance, comes off pretty bad when you think about it. The "Fetch my shoes" line on Crab Key is a prime example of this. And there's a couple of times when he comes off like Rochester of Jack Benny fame with big eyes, making him more of a caricature when he started out as a strong character.

[Turn]

Among DR. NO's chief strengths is its astonishing atmosphere of menace and suspense. No other Bond film has quite the same air of mystery, the same sense of "Gee, I really do wonder what's going to happen next". Its look and feel is quite unique in the series; yet there's not just tension: there's also the wonderful old-time "travelogue" feel, eroticism and humour. A heady brew.

It's also a brutal film, still quite shockingly nasty (check, for instance, out the killing of Strangways' secretary - there's more blood there than in all the Moore flicks put together). It's still very powerful stuff indeed, DR. NO, and has held up remarkably well over the years.

I like these points. In looking at the film today, we have no concept of how important the location was at the time the film was released. Most regular people just didn't travel to places like Jamaica the way they do now. And it was daring for its time as far as the suggestive stuff and the nastieness. The Vatican doesn't issue warnings on Pierce Brosnan Bonds, do they?

I also agree about the menace and suspense, but not to the degree I think it was all improved in FRWL. Not seeing Dr. No until the last quarter of the film helped that, I think. But knowing Bond had to deal with Grant was just as effective. The scene when the Orient Express leaves the station in Istanbul and you see Grant staring out a window of one of the compartments is one of the great underappreciated shots of the series. You think you grab a sigh of relief and all they have to deal with is the Russian security guy, but Grant is the real threat.

Anybody else think the current series could benefit from not bringing the villain in until later would help?

[Loomis]

Anybody else think the current series could benefit from not bringing the villain in until later would help?

Definitely. And that's another of the really great things about DR. NO: the villain isn't overexposed. I love his spooky voice-only introduction in the scene with Professor Dent. "Warn me?" Splendid, splendid stuff.

[Loomis]

You know how the pre-credits sequence of GOLDFINGER is often described as a perfect mini-movie featuring all the quintessential Bondian elements? Well, I think there's another such mini-movie midway through DR. NO, from the car chase en route to Miss Taro's (just check out the look on Connery's face as he says "I think they were on their way to a funeral" - priceless), to the killing of Professor Dent, via Bond's seduction (rape?) of Miss Taro. It's all there: total, undiluted James Bond, firing on all cylinders, and perfect filmmaking technique.

[Turn]

My compliments on a good topic, Loomis. I have to say, my appreciation for DN is growing; I pulled it out of the DVD collection the other day to look at and thought about how good it is despite some of my reservations.

That's why I enjoy topics like this because they can help my enjoyment of the series grow and think about things I hadn't previously thought about.

[Qwerty]

I actually think the best part of the film is everything leading up to the finale, now I absolutely love this finale, it's a blast and it works great. But if the film has you so envolped in it that you keep wondering what will happen, then you can tell it's doing the right thing, and Dr. No has a perfect pace to it.

A good way to talk about the Bond films and Dr. No keeps getting better.

[Loomis]

My compliments on a good topic, Loomis. ... That's why I enjoy topics like this because they can help my enjoyment of the series grow and think about things I hadn't previously thought about.

Cheers, Turn, and thanks for your intelligent, thought-provoking responses.

[Loomis]

But if the film has you so envolped in it that you keep wondering what will happen, then you can tell it's doing the right thing, and Dr. No has a perfect pace to it.

Agreed.

And I really love "everything leading up to the finale" (i.e. from the appearance of the "dragon" onwards). Sister Lily and Sister Rose - wonderfully creepy. The unnerving way Dr. No "looks in on" the unconscious Bond and Honey. A clever visual gag (from the IMDb: "A Goya, stolen in 1960 and never recovered, is found on an easel next to the stairs in Dr. No's dining area - which is why Bond stops to notice it as he passes it while going up the stairs"). The dinner scene - some really brilliant writing, and both Connery and Joseph Wiseman are on fire. Bond's escape....

Okay, you could argue that the finale seems very small potatoes compared to subsequent climaxes; that Honey ought to have had crabs crawling all over her, etc. But, heck, it's still pretty darned amazing stuff.

And one can only imagine how edge-of-seat, how mindblowingly thrilling an experience DR. NO would have been to audiences in 1962. The PULP FICTION of its day, I expect. I'm sure people just came out of cinemas thinking: "Wow!"

[Loomis]

Most entertaining? Certainly not. Most perfect? Okay, I'll give you that.

It is an incredible film, and an excellent way to introduce the character of James Bond - it's adult, stream-lined, and it takes itself seriously, but not too seriously. It's smart and not over the top.

Connery's performance is perfect, and I think this is the closest to the novels we'll ever get. The performances are all top notch, the girl is beautiful, and Joseph Wiseman sets the standard for Bond villains to come.

The lines are funny and witty, but not crass and over the top like P&W's.

I think it might even be safe to say that the series started to go downhill from here. Sure, Goldfinger is famous for creating what's now seen as the Bond formula...but is that necessarily the formula Fleming had in mind?

Very, very well put indeed, Max, especially your observation that "it's adult, stream-lined, and it takes itself seriously, but not too seriously. It's smart and not over the top."

I think you and I are thinking along precisely the same lines here.

[Max Zorin]

Why, thank you, Loomis. They do say great minds think alike.

What's wonderful about Dr. No (which I'm just starting to understand since this topic) is that it has just the right amount of science fiction involved, without taking it to far. Here we have a villain with metal hands, but rather than exploiting this as a special "power" (for lack of a better word) for the villain, it plays almost like a handicap (Bond's line about trying to make up for his lack of hands - I'm not sure on the exact wording - is particularly effective.)

And you're right, Loomis...the dinner scene between Connery and Wiseman may well be one of the best interactions between hero and villain ever caught on screen. No's speech about crime and Bond's about people aspiring to be Napolean or God is top notch writing.

[Loomis]

What's wonderful about Dr. No (which I'm just starting to understand since this topic) is that it has just the right amount of science fiction involved, without taking it to far.  Here we have a villain with metal hands, but rather than exploiting this as a special "power" (for lack of a better word) for the villain, it plays almost like a handicap (Bond's line about trying to make up for his lack of hands - I'm not sure on the exact wording - is particularly effective.)

Once again, you're bang on.

In fact, Dr. No's hands are his undoing. He's unable to get a grip and climb out of the tank of whatever it is (I forget) he's thrown into.

Another thing I love about DR. NO is that it really bring's the viewer's imagination into play all the way through. Our brains are forced to do quite a bit of the work. How many of us, when watching the film, have not imagined Bond's grisly accident with the Beretta that jammed, and the circumstances under which it came about? And then there's Honey's background to fill in (like the villain, the Bond girl isn't overexposed), the shady past of Dr. No and the shady present of SPECTRE.... and there's also, of course, the little matter of "How late do M and Moneypenny sometimes work?"

Intrigue. It's a lovely word, and DR. NO is full of it.

[Max Zorin]

That's right, I forgot to mention that about his undoing! He's boiled like a lobster...which is a much more fitting end to being buried in bat guano.

I also like how Bond is forced to depend so much on BOND rather than an overabundance of conveniant gadgets. It's always been somewhat absurd that he always seems to have the right gadget for the right mission (ie, imagine he'd taken the Thunderball mission without that breathing device, or the Goldeneye mission without that pen?) whereas here he has (almost?) none.

And that scene with the spider may be one of the most suspenseful OO7 "death traps" ever...and he manages his escape without so much as a nod to Q-Branch.

[Max Zorin]

Plus, it helps that I'm terrified of spiders...I sure as hell couldn't have waited it out like that. (Mind you, neither could Connery.)

[Double-Oh-Zero]

THE best Bond film of them all?

Debatable.

One of the only Bond films that actually personifies the term spy thriller?

Without a doubt.

The buildup to the villain's reveal is perfectly executed. Even the sets that were built are ridiculously simple, but somehow perfectly effective. I'm in complete agreement with the point on Dr. No's interrrogation of Dent being splendid. The killing of Dent is one of the top five Bond moments of the series. To me, Honey Ryder is THE Bond girl of the last 40 years. Everything, the whole film, is almost flawless.

Almost. I still feel Connery's performance is a little rickety in this one, but who can blame him, really. At many points, I feel he's much too arrogant for his own good (especially during the evening scene at Pussfeller's). He's sometimes bossing people around and giving orders without any regard. Still, Connery is brilliant during the dinner at No's lair, the casino, and any of the scenes after they land on Crab Key. And, as it's been said, it's likely just hindsight talking.

[SPECTRE ASSASSIN]

"Don't count on it Zorin!"

I love Dr. No! I even named my hamster after the movie. I love watching the movie, still. I give you a couple of reasons why it stands up to today:

1) Introduction of James Bond, played by the real 007, Sean Connery
2) The Bond theme, gun barrell
3) Introduction of Ursula Andress
4) Dr. No, metal-handed scientist bent on taking over the world
5) One of the best films to be adapted from Fleming's book!
6) And Terence Young
I
love the grace and style of Dr. No! Even though dated, I the loved atmosphere of the picture! The directing and acting was also good. I especially liked the interplay between Bond and Moneypenny in the beginning of the movie!

As for the question, DR. NO is #4 on my favorite Bond movie list; ironically, it's the next Bond picture after Dr. No that's my favorite. (From Russia with Love)

[Turn]

Another thing I love about DR. NO is that it really bring's the viewer's imagination into play all the way through. Our brains are forced to do quite a bit of the work. How many of us, when watching the film, have not imagined Bond's grisly accident with the Beretta that jammed, and the circumstances under which it came about? And then there's Honey's background to fill in (like the villain, the Bond girl isn't overexposed), the shady past of Dr. No and the shady present of SPECTRE.... and there's also, of course, the little matter of "How late do M and Moneypenny sometimes work?"

I hate to keep harping on what today

[Triton]

Dr. No established the world in which James Bond lives. It establishes James Bond as a gentleman agent who has an apetite for Saville Row tailoring, fine food, drink, fast cars, and sex.

The film also introduces the editing style of Peter Hunt, the "James Bond Theme" by Monty Norman and John Barry, the gun barrel logo, and titles by Maurice Binder. We also are introduced to the production design of Ken Adam.

The film is also a well written adaption of the Ian Fleming novel by Richard Maibaum, Johanna Harwood, and Berkely Mather.

It's also clear that director Terrence Young established the James Bond style and added much of his dry wit and sophistication to the James Bond character.

I guess we can argue whether Dr. No is the best James Bond film ever made, or whether that title should go to From Russia with Love or Goldfinger, but I would say that every James Bond film since Dr. No is a variation of it.

[BondNumber7]

There is literally nothing wrong with it. It is, in other words, an utterly perfect piece of cinema (as well as one of the most influential and therefore important pictures of all time). Every hair is perfectly in place, so to speak.

Lately I have been getting more interested in Dr. No, which I find to be a great spy thriller with many tense moments that other films in the series lack. However, there are some minor problems that prevent the picture from being placed at the top of my list. I like Connery's performance, the way the makers leave the viewers wondering what Dr. No looks like for 1 1/2 hours; and even when we have seen the picture several times, leaving him out until near the end is still affective. The role of Quarrel is interesting and the scene where Honey Ryder talks about her father and nearly being raped is chilling. I also liked the brutal killing of Professor Dent by Bond and Strangways by the three Blind Mice. It also has a good story and Crab Key is a fun place to watch our heros running and hiding around. The flaws are the quick ending which should have been more developed, the utterly silly John Wayne 50's patriotic music when Felix finds Bond and Honey stranded out in sea, the "Dragon that runs on Diesel engines" is stupid looking, the control room is also lame, and even though Connery's performance during the spider scene is great, I can't ignore the glass underneath the critter. Other than John Kitzmuller(or whatever his name was), Sean Connery, and Joseph Wiseman, most of the characters are not really memorable. Ursula Andres looks great walking out of the sea and her speech about her life is nice, but she is not among the best of the Bond women. FRWL and TB seem to be more mature pieces of filmmaking.

[Sensualist]

Dr. No was the highest rated James Bond film it the "Top 100 British Films Ever Made" list that came out several years ago.

[Simon Bermuda]

I agree with much that has already been said in this thread. I'd say that Dr No and From Russia With Love are my two favourite 007 films (although I also have a soft spot for You Only Live Twice, since it was the first one I saw, when I was very young.)

Connery's performance in Dr No is great. He remains, for my money, the only truly convincing screen 007 - at least, when he bothers to make the effort. And I must confess, I do rather enjoy the arrogant, serious, sometimes slightly overbearing Bond we see here.

Connery's confidence does seem to falter occasionally, particularly in the scene where he's questioning Strangway's fellow card-players. And the rough edges do show through at times. But then, Connery was still finding his way into the role. Remember, he was basically a working-class actor effectively given the Pygmalion treatment by Terence Young. As has been said so often already, Connery made James Bond seem classless. (I think it also helped that Fleming chose a simple, classless name, rather than something like Tristram Fortescue.)

The Eon series got off to a great, astonishingly confident start with Dr No. I've always liked that strange bit of music preceding the Bond Theme over the gunbarrel intro - can't see any problem with the lack of a pre-credits sequence - and the simple, dancing-dots main titles are, to my mind, far more evocative and exciting than many of the later Bond title sequences.

The casino scene is just about perfect. (I heard somewhere that Connery needed several takes to nail the "Bond ... James Bond" line to the director's satisfaction.) I could spend several paragraphs enumerating everything else I think is great about Dr No, such as the M's office scene, the killing-of-Dent scene, the in-bed-with-Miss-Taro scene the Dr No's-dinner-table scene, etc.

I remember someone once made the amusing complaint that Monty Norman's soundtrack sometimes makes the Bond Theme sound like Indians-on-the-warpath music from an old B-western. While I agree with this observation, I do think Norman is rather unfairly maligned - all the Three Blind Mice, Jamaica Jump-Up and Mango Tree stuff fits the film very well.

I also think it was a shrewd move to use Barry's fantastic arrangement of the Bond Theme so extensively - it helps establish Bond as a cool customer in the same way that Morricone's music later helped establish Clint Eastwood's character in Sergio Leone's Dollars trilogy. (It did occur to me that the young Eastwood might have made a good Felix Leiter - closer than Jack Lord to Fleming's physical description of the character - although Leiter's presence is really unnecessary here.)

I suppose, for a young 007 fan coming to Dr No after the Brosnan films, it might seem very dated, quaint, cheap and even a bit dull. It's undeniably a period piece, but then I think Bond really belongs in the pre-Beatles era. When I first saw Dr No, in a double bill with Goldfinger back in the mid-70s, I thought Dr No easily the lesser of the two films. But now, oddly enough, my opinion has completely reversed, and I wish Terence Young had directed Goldfinger as well.

[DLibrasnow]

I think Dr. No is certainly a fine entry in the series and a great start but I would not go as far as saying it is the best James Bond film ever.

[Triton]

I think that Monty Norman is unfairly maligned because he had the misfortune to have his theme song re-arranged by John Barry and come before John Barry introduced James Bond music. I don't agree that its "Indians-on-the-warpath music from an old B-western.

Norman's music seems very dated now, but I can imagine that it was very modern sounding and innovative in the 1960's. His compositions for the Crab Key sequences make the island and Dr. No seem very dangerous, mysterious, and sinister.

Unfortunately, the sound track album contains mostly Jamaican calypso and other island music.

[Jim]

An adult fantasy that never descends into the childish, despite teetering on the brink of the absurd it is always reigned in by the quality of the story, the screenplay and the performances (especially Wiseman, in what is basically a ridiculous role). Watch it in black and white and it becomes a different animal; absurdist film noir. As an attempt to adapt the book and condense the spirit of the character of James Bond (which does include "Fetch my shoes", like it or not), with the knifing of the swamp guard as a particular highlight, it could well be the only James Bond film.