31 replies to this topic

[DanMan]

A couple of months back I started a thread called "Rate DAD". That thread did pretty good so i figured that I should do it for every movie starting with Dr.No. So here it goes, how do you rate the first Bond film on a scale from 1-10? I give it an 8.

[DieAnotherDay57]

I give it an 7 because it had evrything it needed to have exceptt the gun barrel sequence was not to good and the movie was sort of bad at times especially when he drives his car you can tell it sort of crapy.

[Scottlee]

I'll give it an 8. It was a solid enough Bond film for a first attempt.

[Bryce (003)]

Considering when it was made and it's very true to the novel, I'll go a solid 9.

They took a shot and hit the bullseye. Fleming approved, Connery fit the bill, Wiseman was full of menace and Ursula...well, hey...Ursula;)

Little did they know what they were launching, but Cubby and Harry had a feeling this wasn't going to be a one shot deal.

I'm trying to remember a great Fleming quote after the premiere, but it escapes me....It was classic Ian though.

Bloody good show.

[kevrichardson]

Very special film Dr.No . Strong villian , Connery intro is still the standard for all other Bonds . Ursula Andress is a goddess . I give it a 8.5.

[SirMiles83]

I give it a 7 out of 10, it was a great start for Bond, but the trademark elements that were missing were established in FRWL, and GF.

[DLibrasnow]

I give it an 8....the production values were not as good as in the later movies but they did a good job considering that they did it on what would be Pierce's Guinness tab today.
Wiseman was effective and menacing as the villain, and there was Ursula Andress, who is (along with Barbara Carrera) the most downright sexiest of all the Connery Bond girls.

[Righty007]

I give it a 8.5 because it was great as the first Bond movie. But, it was missing the trademark elements that the other movies have.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

for its time, and being it was the first i say a 8

[_JW_]

I will also give this film an 8 out of 10.

[Daltonitus]

A good 8, for all the reasons said before.

[Doubleshot]

I too would rank Dr. No with an 8.5. Terence Young's direction and style, the great actors and their performances amongst the cast, Richard Maibaum's crafty script, Ken Adams' production design, and Ted Moore's lighting make this a very memorable film despite the fact that it is the first James Bond film. The flaws that detract 1.5 points from the over-all score are small to be sure, but I find the idea and execution of the "Dragon" to be out of place and cheesy and Monty Norman's score atrocious.

[ChandlerBing]

Good movie marred by a terrible score by Norman.

[General Koskov]

I give it an 8 because they left out the assault course (not to mention the giant squid) and it must have left people who hadn't read the book wondering: 'where did the wave of water come from?' 'why was there heat in the vent?' and 'what kind of a jail cell has a vent which only electrocutes someone once?'.

But aside rom that, it was certainly a good film.

[sausagebrigade]

8/10. Not the best but it hits the mark in some aspects, namely the set design, title sequence and cinematography.

[booyeah_]

I give it 8 out of 10. Director Terence Young did a good job directing, Connery was great and Ursula Andress is one of the best Bond girls. Considering when it was made, it's great.

[Double-Oh-Zero]

Ironically, I just bought the DVD today. Anyway, 8 out of 10. The driving scenes were pretty shoddy (apparently, Bond goes around the same bend about 3 times), there weren't any gadgets, Connery is a little rusty, but it's all understandable for the first film. Jack Lord is good as Felix, and I usually imagine him when reading the novels. Other than a few minor flaws, the film is a solid effort and start to the series. Plus, I dare any male out there not to get turned on by Ursula Andress at least once during the film.

[Dr Noah]

I give it a respectable 7 out of 10.

[M_Balje]

6,5

[YOLT]

8.5/10 A great start for a great man.

[Fraternal]

2/10, I don't really enjoy it.

[CommanderBond]

6.0 i thought it was kinda dry but a great movie to start of with

[Genrewriter]

7/10

[Johnson Galore]

Dark Connery performance. Best Bond girl- Ursula Andress. Good direction and story. Decent villain. Weak score. Overall, a good start to the series, though they keep getting better through Thunderball. 8/10

[jwheels]

I give it a 9/10. Great way to start the series, only flaws are the ones that they made because it was the first in the series.

[Mjr. P.Townsend]

I give it a 4/10. It doesn't feel like a Bond film, boring action scenes even compared to Casino Royale - 1967!, book is better (even considering that this film was close to the book), music is quite lame, feels like a B-Film, and even more overrated than Goldfinger (and that film is badly overrated to begin with.) But for the positives: M's scene, shooting of dent, the sets, and the girls. I just wish Casino Royale ( The book version) was the first film of the series.

[Sensualist]

8.5

Dr. No oozes style. A motion picture ahead of its time. I adore the way it pushed the envelope on a sensory level. Sex and violence in the movies would never be the same after 1962.

Delicious!

[Onyx2626]

9

Sexually very frank.
I love the fact that it's not drenched with constant music. And that it's one of the few Bond movies that show him doing mundane things. I like Terence Young's pacing.

[deth]

Originally posted by Mjr. P.Townsend
I give it a 4/10. It doesn't feel like a Bond film, boring action scenes even compared to Casino Royale - 1967!, book is better (even considering that this film was close to the book), music is quite lame, feels like a B-Film, and even more overrated than Goldfinger (and that film is badly overrated to begin with.) But for the positives: M's scene, shooting of dent, the sets, and the girls. I just wish Casino Royale ( The book version) was the first film of the series.

duh.


Of course the books are better....

[Agent Lee]

I give it a respectable 7 / 10. However, all things considered, that particular film does not really stand the test of time...