137 replies to this topic

[00Twelve]

There's plenty to dislike about the score, but I actually liked the "spider" theme.

Like some others, my main gripe is about the loss of the obstacle course. They could have at least followed it faithfully without the squid fight. Hindsight's 20/20 of course, and they probably couldn't make it as watchable with Bond having to muck up a cage full of spiders. Still, would have been nice to see.

[Harmsway]

But if you're looking for a very faithful adaptation of a Fleming novel, featuring 007 in all his chainsmoking, non-PC glory, DR. NO will sort you out as well as any other Eon flick and more so than most.

Sort of.

The novel is much more engaging than the film is, and moves a lot faster, to boot (in my 216 page edition, we're on the island by page 73). It never gets bogged down with the detective work (which is minimal), there are a lot more interesting segments, and the character work is much better in the novel than it is in the film.

FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE comes a lot closer to matching the novel its based on. It might even be better than its source material.

But Jamaica is pure Fleming, no?

Sure. But it's only interesting in Fleming because of the detail. You just put it on screen and it's so-so.

I kind of get what you mean, insofar as there's a lot of Norman's score that sounds as feeble and as dated as though it's from an Ealing Studios production from the 1940s.

And that's the part I hate. I do think "appalling" and "dreadful" sum it up. By far one of the worst elements in a Bond film.

[spynovelfan]

DR NO is a superb film, of course. But perfection, surely, is FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. There's not a thing wrong with it, is there? Can anyone really spot a flaw?

[Loomis]

The novel is much more engaging than the film is, and moves a lot faster, to boot (in my 216 page edition, we're on the island by page 73). It never gets bogged down with the radiation nonsense, there are a lot more interesting segments (the torture sequence, for example, which is ten times more fascinating than watching Bond crawl through tubes), and the character work is better in the novel than it is in the film.

That the novel is more engaging than the film does not change the fact that DR. NO is one of the most faithful screen representations of a Fleming novel and Fleming's Bond. And even if the book is better, that in itself does not make DR. NO a bad film. I'm sure that if I asked you at the right moment, you might concede that Fleming's CASINO ROYALE is a more interesting, hard-hitting, character-fuelled, etc. piece of work than Eon's CR, but you'd never say that CR is a poor movie.

But Jamaica is pure Fleming, no?

Sure. But it's only interesting in Fleming because of the detail. You just put it on screen and it's so-so.

Is it? Not sure I'd agree. But I guess you could always argue that the images that come to a reader's mind when he's glued to a decent book will usually be more powerful than anything presented by a film adaptation.

Anyway, to answer the question I posed when I started this thread (precisely four years ago, funnily enough), no, DR. NO is not the best James Bond film ever made. CASINO ROYALE has surpassed it as a film, although there's arguably a lot more of Fellmnigng's Bond in DR. NO.

DR NO is a superb film, of course. But perfection, surely, is FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. There's not a thing wrong with it, is there? Can anyone really spot a flaw?

Erm, well, from memory (haven't seen it for quite a while), the pace flags a bit from time to time. Some of the Istanbul scenes, in particular, could have used some editorial tightening.

Some of the FX is a little dodgy, and the helicopter/boat chase stuff towards the end falls a little flat. Minor gripes, sure, but gripes nonetheless.

I honestly think Eon has only once given us something that approaches perfection: CASINO ROYALE.

FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE comes a lot closer to matching the novel its based on. It might even be better than its source material.

Can't agree there. Fleming's FRWL is far more complex and atmospheric than the film, and the characterisation is much more detailed and interesting. Along with YOLT, it stands head and shoulders above all his other books, IMO.

[Leon]

DR NO is a superb film, of course. But perfection, surely, is FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE. There's not a thing wrong with it, is there? Can anyone really spot a flaw?

There's always things wrong with any Bond film, though that's part of their charm really.

FRWL is my favourite film and possibly book also, but with the film my major annoyance is the helicopter battle and boat chase being so blatantly in Scotland. It doesn't look like the Balkans at all.

Edited by Leon, 02 April 2008 - 10:16 PM.

[BoogieBond]

Most Iconic moments... Possibly... GF a challenger ?
Most Influential.. Yeah, got a point... Again GF a challenger ?
Best ? Hmmm. Would have to give that to FRWL. Not my favourite, but FRWL is the best IMO.

IMHO, FRWL ironed out the few slight imperfections of DN, the music, slightly bigger budget, and Connery more comfortable in the role, slightly better supporting characters(although thats real close). Better action and real menacing baddies.

[Mr. Blofeld]

The climax of Dr. No drags quite a bit, so when I watch it, I usually skip over the dogs sequence; just a tip for you all.

[sharpshooter]

Doctor No is splendid. Connery is possibly the closest to the literary Bond in this film.

[tdalton]

I don't think that DR. NO is the best film in the franchise, but there is only a small handful of films of the official 21 that are better than it, and even those are only marginally better at best. I don't have as much of an issue with the score as others do, and I find it to be better than the scores for recent films, such as CASINO ROYALE, in that it's not nearly as distracting from what happens on screen as some of the more recent scores. Overall, I'd say that the film sits somewhere around the outskirts of the top five in the franchise.

One thing about the film that is truly great is how low-key it is compared to the rest of the franchise. I think that it would be great if EON made another film that was similarly low-key as DR. NO, although I know that it would never happen.

[ChronoBreak]

Dr. No isn't quite the best, but it's nearly perfect - Pure, undiluted Bond. I actually think it's Connery's finest hour in the role.

Most film historians and critics seem to point to Goldfinger as reference material when addressing the issue of new or upcoming Bond films, but I always shine a light directly to this film - The pacing, the atmosphere, the tone, the character moments, the intangible 007ness of the entire production... Dr. No has these qualities in spades.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Most film historians and critics seem to point to Goldfinger as reference material when addressing the issue of new or upcoming Bond films, but I always shine a light directly to this film - The pacing, the atmosphere, the tone, the character moments, the intangible 007ness of the entire production... Dr. No has these qualities in spades.

Let's not forget that You Only Live Twice is essentially a bigger-budgeted production of Dr. No set in Japan...

[HH007]

Do I think Dr. No is a great Bond film? Yes. Do I think it is the best Bond film? No. Here's my top five:

1) Casino Royale
2) From Russia With Love
3) On Her Majesty's Secret Service
4) Dr. No
5) The Living Daylights


That's where I stand.

[Turn]

Most film historians and critics seem to point to Goldfinger as reference material when addressing the issue of new or upcoming Bond films, but I always shine a light directly to this film - The pacing, the atmosphere, the tone, the character moments, the intangible 007ness of the entire production... Dr. No has these qualities in spades.

I would disagree. Dr. No in many ways doesn't even seem like a part of the same series. Bond is so much more like a hard-boiled private eye in DN, putting together clues and interviewing suspects. The action in the first two thirds of the film are as much of a Sam Spade or Mickey Spillane type of movie as much as a Bond film, only this one takes place in an exotic location with a character with a license to kill. It's only in the last third of the movie it becomes like the series we now know.

GF had an outrageous villain with an outrageous scheme and an outrageous henchman with a gimmick. GF has the technology with his laser, which was somewhat new at the time. Whereas Bond didn't have any gadgets in DN, he has plenty in GF, highlighted by the Aston Martin. The pace is quicker, there is much globe-hopping and Bond directly courts humor in the film whereas in the others it was more about the one-liners. He peels off a wetsuit to reveal a tux, complete with a boutenniere.

It's not that DN doesn't have Bondian qualities, just that GF is quite justified in being the film that really set the tone for what came after, for the most part.

[Matt_13]

Alright, I just finished watching Dr.No and while it is without a doubt the most "Fleming" style Bond film, it definitely is not the "best". While I do value the films brutality ( the murder of Prof. Dent, the knife kill on Crab Key, and the slow, violent strangling of the scientist after Bond escapes the tunnel system), and while the score suits the film perfectly, Dr. No still manages to fall a little flat in terms of entertainment. Now don't get me wrong, the suspense scenes are very well directed and the action sequence at the finale is wonderfully shot as well, however the film still seems to lack the intrigue that some of the other films in the franchise hold. So is it a good film? Yes, definitely. Is it the best? Not quite.

[tdalton]

Do I think Dr. No is a great Bond film? Yes. Do I think it is the best Bond film? No. Here's my top five:

1) Casino Royale
2) From Russia With Love
3) On Her Majesty's Secret Service
4) Dr. No
5) The Living Daylights


That's where I stand.

I think that DR. NO, along with the other films on your list, are the types of films that EON should be striving to make. The best things about these films are that they're not outrageous like other films in the franchise, and save for CASINO ROYALE and the conclusion of THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, the action in these films are fairly low key when compared to other films in the franchise.

For the record, I would probably put DR. NO somewhere around fifth (although it and FOR YOUR EYES ONLY are probably in a tie for the fifth spot):

1. Licence to Kill
2. From Russia With Love
3. The Living Daylights
4. Casino Royale
5. Dr. No

[Piz Gloria 1969]

Um , I thought this was actually a new thread and then I discover it's like 4 yrs old lol

"It doesn't look like the Balkans at all"

Well , many foreigners are prolly clueless about this...it doesn't really matter.

Besides , the scene is PURE Bond !

[Marc-Ange Draco]

Many good points in this discussion--I thoroughly agree that Dr. No does a good job establishing Bond's character. My personal favorite of Sean's 007 films is FRWL--the gadgets were cool but not improbable, and Red Grant has to be one the best henchmen in the series. (I also liked Kronsteen quite a bit, but I could go on and on about FRWL in another forum...). I was born the same year that TLD came out, but had the good fortune to be introduced to Bond with Dr. No--while I didn't see all the movies in order after that, Connery's Bond is -the- Bond to me, and while FRWL, GF, and TB aged a bit better in my opinion, Dr. No is a great start to the franchise, and still holds up as a solid spy/detective movie.

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

Do I think Dr. No is a great Bond film? Yes. Do I think it is the best Bond film? No. Here's my top five:

1) Casino Royale
2) From Russia With Love
3) On Her Majesty's Secret Service
4) Dr. No
5) The Living Daylights


That's where I stand.

I think that DR. NO, along with the other films on your list, are the types of films that EON should be striving to make. The best things about these films are that they're not outrageous like other films in the franchise, and save for CASINO ROYALE and the conclusion of THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, the action in these films are fairly low key when compared to other films in the franchise.

For the record, I would probably put DR. NO somewhere around fifth (although it and FOR YOUR EYES ONLY are probably in a tie for the fifth spot):

1. Licence to Kill
2. From Russia With Love
3. The Living Daylights
4. Casino Royale
5. Dr. No

I completely agree that Dr. No is a sound Bond film. I think it's wonderful, and definitely Connery's best performance as Bond. The airport scene is delicious, as is the scene vetween Bond and Mr Jons. I also like the hotel scene where Bond preps his room for intruders. Definitely true to the literary Bond, and the type of scene that is hardly scene in the more modern Bond films. However, I would rank my top 5 as:

1. Goldeneye
2. Casino Royale
3. The World Is Not Enough
4. Dr. No
5. Live And Let Die

[DaveBond21]

It's that far removed from the cinema Bond of the last 30 years that it doesn't seem like a Bond film. It and FRWL are to me, the worst.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow. Horses for courses. But how is DR NO far removed from the other Bond films of the last 30 years? It has:

The gunbarrel
The theme
A scene in a casino
'Bond. James Bond.'
Casual sex,
Flirting with Moneypenny
A scene with M
A Rolex
Felix Leiter
A larger than life villain
Who works for SPECTRE
Beautiful women
A sidekick who gets killed
Fantastic sets by Ken Adam
Dry one-liners, some of which could have been straight out of Moore films:
'Sylvia Trench: When did you say you had to leave?
James Bond: Immediately.......almost immediately'

This 'doesn't seem like a Bond film' to you?

This list seems to sum up Dr No nicely, and of course, all appearing for the first time in what is an excellent Bond adventure. With the sad passing of Joseph Wiseman, this will be the next 007 flick I will be watching.

[Cruiserweight]

I think it's been topped many times over.
I actually rank it near the bottom.

[Peckinpah1976]

I think it's been topped many times over.
I actually rank it near the bottom.

But since you're a Roger Moore fan and someone who cites John Glen as the best director to have worked on the series; it's probably fair to say that you don't know what you're talking about....

[double o ego]

I'm almost on the verge of tears here. Somewhere on this page someone cited GF as arguably being the best because it established the formula in spades, particularly the whole gadgets nonsense.

I think it's fair to say that GF is like the series' double edged sword. It helped catapault the series into wider territories but at the same time, I think it was also the start of the series' downfall.

After the Moore and Brosnan eras it's just too easy to fault more deseving classic films like Dr.No for not being a certain way. Just for the record, I'm only 24 so I grew up in the age of gadgets and crass cheese and am not some old timer, wanting the times of yesterdecades.
I find it laughable that Bond actually doing detective work is being cited as a flaw by a few people here. He's a spy, dammit! It's his job to INVESTIGATE certain matters of interest. That is what spies do and to make things all the more slick, it's not as though Bond had the people he questioned in some sort of torture room. He did it on the sly, making his inquiies in a more social manner. These sort of scenes just so happen to emphasise Bond's competence and as it happens, I can only think of 3 films where Bond is at his most competent, Dr.No, TB and LTK.

The score of the movie maybe however, may not be as great as the other entries but I feel that it works, wonderfully. It's primitive, understated and exotic. Just right and well suited for the film itself. Dr.No as a package isn't bloated. It's lean, sharp, intelligent, exotic and very creative. The movie relies on sheer talent moreso than anything else and it clearly shows.

Terrence Yound said something in an interview that took place in the 90s...about TB actually but what he said was something that worked very well for Dr.No. He said that, he could have made TB a much better movie had he......had LESS money to work with. See, the thing is, when using a lean budget, it forces one to be more creative and make better use of intelligence, instead of thowing copious sums of money at it and that I'm afraid is what happened with most of the Bond movies.

It's easy to understand why Dr.No may not be highly regarded but most of the complaints I've seen are all suface superficial complaints. Of course, Dr.No may look incredibly diiferent to every other entry but imo that's what makes the series on a whole somewhat shameful. We need more movies like Dr.No that rely on the true art of movie making.

Dr.No had beautiful girls, a competent Bond, beautiful locations, Bond being charming, ruthless, great supporting characters, a great villain, drama, compelling suspense, a plot that flows seemlessly.

Is Dr.No the best, maybe not but it's a damn cracking good movie that imo should be the rightful title owner of the Bond template that future Bond movies should adhere to.

[Peckinpah1976]

I think it's fair to say that GF is like the series' double edged sword. It helped catapault the series into wider territories but at the same time, I think it was also the start of the series' downfall.

I agree with you entirely; although it's long-term effects weren't immediately felt, the use of Goldfinger as a template has only been to the detriment of the series (I've nothing against the film itself btw, slightly overrated though it is). Such a pity they didn't use FRWL as said template instead (a good action/suspense thriller that happens to feature James Bond as it's main character is all a Bond movie should be IMO), then perhaps many of the worst excesses of the 70's, 80's & 90's could have been avoided. Having said that I'm more than happy with the last two films, so maybe they needed to get it wrong before they could get it right?

[Safari Suit]

After the Moore and Brosnan eras it's just too easy to fault more deseving classic films like Dr.No for not being a certain way.

By the same token, it's easy to credit them for not being a certain way. I think a lot of the acclaim the first two Bond movies (and to a lesser extent Thunderball and OHMSS) get is due to what they are not (i.e. anything that can really be described as gadget-laden romps) as much or more than what they are.

And I think it's time we put to bed this post-DAD-line-of-defence-against-DCINBites "Bond film with gagdets=embarassment/Bond film without gadgets=masterpiece" mentality. The gadgets are always a fairly minor element which, with a couple of possible exceptions, do not fully swing the films one way or another.

[Major Tallon]

Dr.No as a package isn't bloated. It's lean, sharp, intelligent, exotic and very creative. The movie relies on sheer talent moreso than anything else and it clearly shows.

Terrence Yound said something in an interview that took place in the 90s...about TB actually but what he said was something that worked very well for Dr.No. He said that, he could have made TB a much better movie had he......had LESS money to work with. See, the thing is, when using a lean budget, it forces one to be more creative and make better use of intelligence, instead of thowing copious sums of money at it and that I'm afraid is what happened with most of the Bond movies.

It's easy to understand why Dr.No may not be highly regarded but most of the complaints I've seen are all suface superficial complaints. Of course, Dr.No may look incredibly diiferent to every other entry but imo that's what makes the series on a whole somewhat shameful. We need more movies like Dr.No that rely on the true art of movie making.

Dr.No had beautiful girls, a competent Bond, beautiful locations, Bond being charming, ruthless, great supporting characters, a great villain, drama, compelling suspense, a plot that flows seemlessly.

Is Dr.No the best, maybe not but it's a damn cracking good movie that imo should be the rightful title owner of the Bond template that future Bond movies should adhere to.

It's not usual for me to post just to say I agree with something that someone else has said, but I agree very much with this analysis. Sure, I miss the fact that Bond's escape wasn't a part of an obstacle course, and I'd have liked to see Bond confront a squid and Dr. No get buried in guano, but the film has many pleasures, including the ones you've cited.

Like many others, I wonder why water was surging through a ventilation shaft and what became of it after it coursed over Bond. But there's a true sense of menace that hangs over the film, and the Jamaican setting is wonderful. The characters are well drawn, and the girls are beautiful. In my book, it's a great James Bond film.

[elizabeth]

i definitely do not think that it is the best film. i'm not really a fan of "underwater" bond movies.

[I never miss]

DN is a good film and I enjoy it immensely. However, as I see it, there are two main factors that prevent it from being an absolute 5* Bond:

1. The score (as has been mentioned previously).
2. The (understandable on his first attempt) lack of polish in Connery's performance.

Enjoy DN as I do, I still find it inconceivable how someone could prefer it to, say, FRWL. But hey, if we all had the same opinion then the world would be a boring place!

[Hotwinds]

Dr. No and FRWL both have that "realistic feel" a bit more than the other Bonds so in that way for me it is hard to beat. This discussion is almost impossible as it is subjective, but you could say that Dr. No is the first part of the holy trinity.

[Cruiserweight]

I think it's been topped many times over.
I actually rank it near the bottom.

But since you're a Roger Moore fan and someone who cites John Glen as the best director to have worked on the series; it's probably fair to say that you don't know what you're talking about....

Joke or not that gets a from me.
Secondly,last time i checked the dossier the options say favoite not best.John Glen is my favorite director. Big difference between best & favorite.

[DR76]

I think it's been topped many times over.
I actually rank it near the bottom.

I agree with this assessment.