Dr. No

Klaus Hergescheimer

One of the things that really puzzles me is how little conversation goes on about the VERY FIRST of the Bond films, DN. There's plenty of convo about Connery's delivery of the classic line for the first time, Bond's killing of Dent, Ursula Andres emerging from the sea as an iconic moments (as well there should be, especially on the last count), but very little conversation itself takes place. I mean, it is, after all, THE FIRST ONE! What, have people forgotten about it over the last 40+ years, or something?

I find this to be a real shame considering that I find it to be one of the finest films ever made, enough so to rank it #3 on my list. It doesn't have the wizz that future ones would have, but the movie itself is such a strong product. Plot development is terrific, Connery is in excellent form, there's lots of well-executed suspense (this might be the most suspensful one of the lot), the imagery is terrific, and, of course, there's Ursula Andres.

Here, I give DN the attention that it truly deserves as a classic film.

Ice Station 0

Ok, you opened the door, why don't you like Goldfinger?

mythrenegade

Dr. No is my very favorite bond film for many reasons. One, it defined the entire series, and I do have a fondness for beginnings, but there is more to it than that.

The pacing seems very odd (quite slow) in this day and age, but the movie paces quite well if you don't expect an explosion every minute or so interspersed with car chases. The introduction of bond was brilliant, at the baccurrat table, first we see his hands, the cigarette, and the very first line becoming an instant, defining classic.

Ursela Andress is simply stunning. She set the standard for all bond girls to follow. Ken Adams sets were simply brilliant. The room with one chair in it to talk with Dr. No etc. Joseph Wiseman made an excellent villian, one who is not intimidated by bond but ultimately mad.

The movie doesn't move around the globe, but it is still set in an exotic locale of Jamaica, and the did a good job of showing the beauty of the area as well as the local color (the music, the bars etc.). The plot seems simple today, world domination. On the other hand, that is because we have 40 years of James Bond fighting villians who, in a nutshell, are trying to do what Dr. No wanted to do in the very first bond film.

Jack Lord is the perfect Felix Lighter. Unfortunately, he knew that, and wanted to make the same as Bond and receive equal billing, and so Felix was written out of the script of FRWL.

Bond puts up a valliant fight before finally being captured by Dr. No. Compared to how quickly Bond is subdued in, say, TMWTGG or LALD, Bond's work is brilliant.

There is much to love about Dr. No. Truly worth another viewing, as soon as I finish my trek through the moore films (TSWLM is up next).

Joel

Barbel

mythrenegade wrote:

Jack Lord is the perfect Felix Lighter. Unfortunately, he knew that, and wanted to make the same as Bond and receive equal billing, and so Felix was written out of the script of FRWL.


Joel

I don't think Leiter was ever in the script of FRWL; the equal pay/billing issue arose over GF.

highhopes

Fish1941 wrote:

Ice Station 0 wrote:

Ok, you opened the door, why don't you like Goldfinger?

1. When a movie has more than one plothole, its hard to admire it (i.e., Goldfinger keeping Bond alive and the murders of the Mafia bosses).

2. It's a little more sexist than the average Bond film. I hate the Bond/Pussy Galore barn scene.

3. I don't care for the immature portrayal of Bond in this movie.

4. It truly ushered in the fantasy element in the Bond franchise . . . and the sophomoric wit.

5. Bond's captivity on Goldfinger's Kentucky farm dragged the movie for me.

There you have it.

Fish, you mention the murder of the Mafia bosses in goldfinger. I have had a problem with that scene for years. What's is it about it that bothers you? I'm curious if it's the same thing as with me.

As for Dr. No. It's a classic that I dearly love. It does a wonderful job of introducing the Bond character and Connery does put in a star-making performance. Ursula is a knock-out.
That being said, it definitely has the look of a B picture, which it definitely was, even in its day.
Still the strengths far outweigh that weakness.

Dan Same

I adore DN. It's fourth on my list. Although not all the ingredients were in place, and I think that Connery was a little unpolished, I really think it's magnificent. The film has everything; the introduction of Bond (IMO the single most important scene in the entire series), the killing of Dent, the introduction to Honey Rider (later on she delivered IMO one of the greatest speeches in the series about her rape), the sleeping with and turning into the police of Miss Taro (a scene which represents Bond at its purest), the dinner scene with Doctor No and the scene with the spider. Plus there's the shot of Sylvia Trench's legs, the car chase, the confrontation with the driver.. really I could go on forever.

I love this film. I don't think it's as satisfying as FRWL, GF or TB, but I really have no complaints. I mean, my biggest complaint is actually not much of one at all. That is, I think Connery's performance was a little rough, but at the same time, I also think it was brilliant.

A wonderful film. One of the genuine Bond classics IMO. :007)