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.
Thanks for typing out that lot, it saved me from typing something extremely similar myself.
I class
Dr No as the best of what would later become the "traditional" Bond films, which IMO only leaves
OHMSS topping it. So
Dr No is ultimately the second best Bond film ever made IMO, but still the daddy of them
all in so many, many ways. Bond here is a proper investigative agent and Connery's down-to-business, no-nonsense, grounded turn in this film is IMO the best he ever was as Bond simply because not an ounce of the smug factor that crept in time and time again in subsequent films is nowhere to be seen in
Dr No. The film also thankfully doesn't have the irksome gadget formula going on either. I've said it countless times before, but I'll say it again anyway: when the crash-bang-wallop thrills of the other films wear off, THIS will be the film everybody goes back to. The comparatively simple but hugely satisfying gritty little pleasures and touches in
Dr No far outweigh a shedload of empty spectacle and gimmicks every day of the week IMO.
