I know you guys/girls don't give a ****, but here is my evaluation of DN.
GOOD
Sean Connery- Daddy 007 , made people say uh-oh, when he walked into the room
Ursula Andress- WOW. She is gorgeous.
Joseph Wiseman- Despite not living up to Ian Fleming's Dr. No, he acted superbly.
Jack Lord- The perfect Leiter
Bernard Lee- Shows great authority. By far, the best M
Sylvia Trench- Beauty.
Lois Maxwell- What a FLIRT! Perfect Penny.
John Kitzmiller- Good Quarrel
Great Dialouge
Many CLASSIC :cool: scenes
EVEN
Anthony Dawson- Looked nervous constantly and wasn't impressive
Peter Burton- OK, I am just too used to Desmond Llewellen
BAD
Plot incorporated horribly
No gadgets
4 out of 5 stars.
Do you agree?
JL's evaluation of DN
Started by
JLMuench
, Aug 28 2002 09:43 PM
5 replies to this topic
#1
Posted 28 August 2002 - 09:43 PM
#2
Posted 29 August 2002 - 07:03 PM
It's a good movie, and, hey, we all have to start somewhere!
#3
Posted 30 August 2002 - 12:20 AM
Well I think Dr. No's importance of the series should not go unchecked. And it along with FRWL, GF, TB, and OHMSS are the series cown jewels. It is a Bond to be marveled at, however I do not think it would be a Bond film that I would show to someone who has never seen Bond before first. It is a film that has an understanding that goes along with it. And I think that if it was watched by a kid today who has never seen Bond before, it would not be as appreciated as it should. I think it is a classic Bond film, and adored by many Bond purists, I certainly enjoy it. It was a cinematic revoultion, but compared to the adventures that would ride its cotails, it seems rather above averge, instead of excellent.
#4
Posted 30 August 2002 - 03:23 AM
Hey JlMuench......I dont give a ****
nah just jokin
I agree that Jack Lord was good, the reason he didn't do any others is because he asked for the same pay as connery.......a pity
nah just jokin
I agree that Jack Lord was good, the reason he didn't do any others is because he asked for the same pay as connery.......a pity
#5
Posted 30 August 2002 - 03:27 AM
It's kind of hard to judge Dr. No these days. It seems so far removed in a lot of ways, but still shows what would evolve into the series we still enjoy today.
I'm not sure if the non-fan would understand and be as tolerant. But I know I would love to have gone into that film fresh back in '62 or '63.
I think JL Muench was pretty much on target with his ratings. Except maybe for Jack Lord as Leiter. Although I would rank him as one of the top three Leiters, I still like Rik Van Nutter from Thunderball best. Lord is a bit too stiff, too much of a company man with little personality. I do wish he would have continued the role though. Who can take a guy like Cec Linder in Goldfinger seriously?
And I would have inlcuded the Three Blind Mice in there. They were off-beat enough to rank among the good things that separated Dr. No from other films of the time.
I'm not sure if the non-fan would understand and be as tolerant. But I know I would love to have gone into that film fresh back in '62 or '63.
I think JL Muench was pretty much on target with his ratings. Except maybe for Jack Lord as Leiter. Although I would rank him as one of the top three Leiters, I still like Rik Van Nutter from Thunderball best. Lord is a bit too stiff, too much of a company man with little personality. I do wish he would have continued the role though. Who can take a guy like Cec Linder in Goldfinger seriously?
And I would have inlcuded the Three Blind Mice in there. They were off-beat enough to rank among the good things that separated Dr. No from other films of the time.
#6
Posted 02 September 2002 - 02:46 AM
OK Turn
Good
Three Blind Mice
Good
Three Blind Mice