Dr. No or Casino Royale?

JimmyBond0129

Which film do you prefer the very first Bond film ever made or the 21st Bond film? I like both movies but I prefer Dr. No because without the success of the original Bond film there'd be no Casino Royale 2006. And like the Casino Royale novel the cinematic Bond (Sean Connery) made his first appearance in a smoky casino.

8420

Casino Royale for me.

Loeffelholz

I give the edge to DN, mostly because of its bold influence over (one might say reinvention of!) of the action film milieu. That moment, when Sean Connery is seen for the first time, suavely smoking that cigarette and delivering The Line^TM for the first time, changed everything---and even though the film has now begun to suffer declining kudos (in some quarters) for being 'dated,' it remains a seminal moment in film history, and its classic status is forever assured.

On the other hand, I believe that CR is the second origination of James Bond, and will also be seen as a classic in the rear-view mirror of history...but there's only one 'first time.'

:007)

Willie Garvin

Agreed.I also give the edge to Dr.No. Connery has THE entrance no other 007 actor will ever match.And more importantly,Connery lives up to the promise of this entrance-it's a dynamic and charismatic interpretation.Sure, Dr.No is not a perfect film, but it is the first film in the series, and aside from a weak climax(Cubby's rocket obsession is unfortunate but the appearance of the stolen portrait of Wellington is a masterstroke),there's much more of Ian Fleming's eerie Cold War world in this movie --even with the toned-down look of the Doctor and the bikinied Honey,her nose unbroken--than there is in Eon's spectacular production of Casino Royale,a film I also like, but for entirely different reasons.:)

Thomas Crown

Willie Garvin wrote:

Agreed.I also give the edge to Dr.No.Connery has THE entrance no other 007 actor will ever match.And more importantly,Connery lives up to the promise of this entrance-it's a dynamic and charismatic interpretation.Sure, Dr.No is not a perfect film but it is the first film in the series, and aside from a weak climax(Cubby's rocket obsession is unfortunate but the appearance of the stolen portrait of Wellington is a masterstroke)there's much more of Ian Fleming's eerie Cold War world in this movie --even with the toned-down look of the Doctor and the bikinied Honey,her nose unbroken--than there is in Eon's spectacular production of Casino Royale,a film I also like, but for entirely different reasons.:)

I would agree with the sentiment expressed by WG and others that Dr.No is the more important of the two films given the measurable historical impact of Dr.No on both the Bond series and the action adventure genre at large. But the question, I believe, was one of preference, and in that regard, I find Casino Royale the more preferable. Its cast is uniformly stronger, garnering a deeper depth of performance from solid actors, its script more developed, and it accomplishes two masterful feats in one film: successfully breaking the cinematic mold of both the Bond character and the nature of Bond films in the casting of Daniel Craig and the re-boot, while also accomplishing admirably the immensely difficult task of taking a novel over half a century old and adapting it to the silver screen in a way that is both modern and faithful. Coupled with a fantastic score, cinematography, action, locations, the works, Casino Royale is to me a more enjoyable and better film. That is not an indictment of Dr.No however, a movie whose importance reigns superior to that of Casino Royale and one I appreciate enough to consider among the series best entries.

Bottom line, both of these movies should find their way into your DVD player more often than the bulk of the series.

Alex

Well as far as preferences go, I'd much rather enjoy the enticing charms of a gorgeous looking 60s time capsule, albeit with modest budget, over a good, eh, semi-great, techno-blood fest.

Too many cell phones and furrowed brows in CR.

JimmyBond0129

Alex wrote:

Well as far as preferences go, I'd much rather enjoy the enticing charms of a gorgeous looking 60s time capsule, albeit with modest budget, over a good, eh, semi-great, techno-blood fest.

Too many cell phones and furrowed brows in CR.

You know people make a big deal about films becoming outdated because they want their favorite films to be timeless but the out-of-date-ness of Dr. No never bothered me.

heartbroken_mr_drax

JimmyBond0129 wrote:

You know people make a big deal about films becoming outdated because they want their favorite films to be timeless but the out-of-date-ness of Dr. No never bothered me.

Thats right, for older movies that may be dated, think of it in the context of the time.

Jimmy Bond

DR. NO, of course. Just about everything in it is perfect.

CR is very good, but too flawed for me. Highly overrated.

Dan Same

Jimmy Bond wrote:

DR. NO, of course. Just about everything in it is perfect.

CR is very good, but too flawed for me. Highly overrated.

I agree almost completely. I don't regard CR to be all that much good at all (and I agree with you that it is highly overrated), while I certainly agree that DN is close to being perfect.

TonyDP

Despite its modest budget Dr. No comes out ahead in just about every category for me as well: leading man, leading lady, villain, overall plot, character interactions.

It doesn't take itself too seriously and its just a much more fun movie to watch, with a good balance of action and subtle humor. Bond is also a more appealing character as Connery deftly balances his toughness, wit and charm. Monty Norman's score is probably the weakest element of the film for me but the shorter running time makes for a more well paced adventure that tells its story in a compact, concise manner.

General_Ourumov

Call it blasphemy, but apart from the superb performances by Joseph Wiseman and John Kitzmiller, I think Dr. No is a rather tacky-looking and watery entry in the Bond series, historic or not.

I dislike the production values. I know it was small-budget, but there you have it. Music was awful, editing sub-par in my opinion, boring climax, no interesting sub-villains.

That said, it's by no means my least favourite film - but the fact that it was the first Bond film doesn't sway me.

Barry Nelson

Well let me see, Dr No, the film that started the greatest film series of all time, that created some of the key elements of all Bond films, that introduced the best Bond of all time, that had one of the most iconic introductions of a female character ever, that portrayed a secret agent applying his craft appropriately, deadly at times, secretive at others, and that held closely to the Fleming novel or Casino Royale that was a mediocre Bond film with a poor leading lady, that strayed from the novel far too much and reintroduced a character in a way that defied any normal suspension of disbelief. Easy, Dr No it is!

Dan Same

General_Ourumov wrote:

Call it blasphemy, but apart from the superb performances by Joseph Wiseman and John Kitzmiller, I think Dr. No is a rather tacky-looking and watery entry in the Bond series, historic or not.

I dislike the production values. I know it was small-budget, but there you have it. Music was awful, editing sub-par in my opinion, boring climax, no interesting sub-villains.

That said, it's by no means my least favourite film - but the fact that it was the first Bond film doesn't sway me.

Blasphemy! I'm sorry General, but unless you idolise the first four films, you can not call yourself a Bond fan. :v

Seriously though, I adore DN (sorry Alex ), alrhough when I first saw it, I was bored with it. I later rewatched it and I loved it. However what led me to truly fall in love with it was seeing it on the big screen. I saw it in a double with FRWL, and although I prefer FRWL, I think that DN is a much better film to see on the big screen. I love everything about it, especially Bond's introduction (arguably the greatest and most important moment in the history of the series), the introduction to H :xney and every scene that she is in, the conversation with Dr No, Joseph Wiseman's performance, the script, the dialogue, the handing in to the police of Miss Taro (but only after Bond slept with her ), the Three Blind Mice, the attention to detail such as Bond's puting tape on the door, the bizarre moments such as Bond's singing and Bond himself (in what I regard as Connery's fourth best performance.)

Alex

Lovely Venus emerges from shore, or a confused double-agent sinking like the Titanic? Easy answer.

General_Ourumov

Dan Same wrote:

Blasphemy! I'm sorry General, but unless you idolise the first four films, you can not call yourself a Bond fan. :v

Oh, pfffffffffffttt!!!

I love FRWL, GF, and Thunderball ain't bad. But I love them because they're superb films. I don't see why the 'classic' Bond films can't be open to criticisms. After all, they were all new films at one time or another. I think they started off with what was an average Bond film (looking back at the series) and built upon it and got better from there.

Anyway, I've spoken my piece.

Krassno Granitski

Dr. No

Casino Royale overrated? Shirley you jest. Great Bond film, Dr. No just happens to better

Dan Same

General_Ourumov wrote:

I don't see why the 'classic' Bond films can't be open to criticisms. After all, they were all new films at one time or another.

Every Bond film may be open to criticism, although some films are more open than others.

Thunderbird 2

I can't answer this question!

To me its like asking "Which is better, Classic Star Trek or Star Trek - The Next Generation?!"


The only Bond films I don't rate are AVTAK, and QofS. (The latter because of that bloody editing!)

Barbel

Given that the original question was one of preference, and that individual preference lies with background (age, how one came to like the Bond series in the first place, etc), then I have to come down with DN.

CR is an excellent latter-day Bond film, mainly because it uses such large amounts of original Fleming. What a pleasure to those who read the novel many years ago to see the incidents and details onscreen! A (generally) good cast, excellent music, and a director who knows what he's doing.

Yet, DN is the classic. Sure, it has dated after nearly 50 years- how not? Sure, the lower budget is apparent now (though not in the 60s). It still has the magic, Sean Connery effortlessly dominating the proceedings, and John Barry's classic theme setting the tone.

Mister White

It's Monty Norman though...

Barbel

Mister White wrote:

It's Monty Norman though...

[Post removed while worms are returned to can]

The Cat

No, without suing you can only say Monty Norman wrote the James Bond Theme, every single note of Dr. No and even all the music he had nothing to do with. There, that should keep everyone covered.

Barbel

Oh, definitely. Every single note.

(Murmurs "Was that alright?" to lawyer, who nods.)

Absolutely_Cart

Both are excellent films.

002

Dr No has always been and will always be very special to me. I was certainly aware of Diamonds are Forever, Live and Let Die and Moonraker as Bond films but Dr No was the first Bond film I ever saw (on TV).

Dr No wins.

AlphaOmegaSin

Dr No -{

Spoff

Tough one.

Casino Royale just edges it for me.

But both have their merits and are two of the best entries into the franchise.

DN has Connery, is effortlessly stylish, the locations are great and the story is good. If you don't get a chill and smile at least a bit during the "Bond, James Bond" scene when the theme fires up I feel sorry for you )

CR is just a great Bond film, it has all the elements you need, and is DC's best outing as Bond in my opinion. I really enjoyed it being re-booted and he also does an excellent "Bond, James Bond" at the end too The first time I saw the end of CR I was like "YES! Bond really is back".

There are certain bits of Bond films that just make the real fans smile, and for me that was certainly one of them. I literally walked out of the cinema on a high.

Shame about QoS, I walked out of that thinking "What just happened?". I like it a lot better after a few re-watches though

Blackleiter

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

Both are excellent films.

I agree, but if I have to choose I'm picking Dr. No. Although I only caught up with DN and FRWL after I had seen Goldfinger, DN still holds a special place for me as the one that started it all. And Connery's iconic first appearance as Bond still stands as one of the coolest moments in film history.

AlphaOmegaSin

That opening Scene of Bond lighting a Fag and saying the famous Lines still has yet to be topped -{

TheGRman

I enjoy both films for different reasons, but like many have also said the edge goes to DN, for me. It started it all and Connery became an icon. DC in CR, showed that he could act out Bond much like Fleming's idea, and CR is why I'm anticipating SPCTR so much.