Dr No - Overrated

MilleniumForce

I'm just going on say it: Dr No is my least favourite official Bond film (it flip flops with OHMSS). It it overrated? Yes, undoubtedly because it's the first Bond film. If Dr No wasn't the first Bond film, I feel it wouldn't be as loved as it is. There are a number of reasons why I don't like it and why I think it's highly overrated:

- Dr No himself is bland. Despite being regarded as an iconic villain, Dr No is also one of the blandest Bond villains. Beyond his artificial hands, his limited screen time means he poses very little threat to Bond, and doesn't leave the lasting impression some might think he does.

- Honey Ryder - the most iconic Bond girl - is also the blandest. She barely does anything in the film, and she has no unique qualities that make her stand out among other Bind girls, other than the fact she was the first.

- Jack Lord is overrated as Felix. Please, somebody tell me why he is regarded as the best? Again, he does very little, and those stupid drag queen sunglasses he wears in his first scene just makes that entire scene laughable.

- Very little actually happens. Dr No feels different to every other Bond film. Because barely anything exciting happens. It really plays out more like a murder mystery show; yes, it's Bond doing some actual spy stuff, but it's hardly anything thrilling or groundbreaking.

- The three blind mice are the worst henchmen until Elvis. The concept here is cool; blind assassins. It's like the coolest gimmick ever. And yet, what do they do? They kill two people, and......drive off a cliff. Overall it's pretty sad that this is what happened to a decent concept.


Dr No is a Bond film that I just can't understand why people like it so much. I can see why people would like films like TB, OHMSS and QoS, but this? The only reason I can think is because it's the first Bond film, and whilst it deserves credit for that, Goldfinger should be the movie credited for making Bond as popular as it is today.

Chriscoop

good lord man! I think you may have taken leave of your senses!!

I for one really enjoy Dr no, more so the first hour

Thunderpussy

I love Dr No, it has great pacing, story and characters -{ so I'd have to disagree with the OP.

Matt S

I also must disagree.

-Dr. No has fantastic charisma, a solid plan and cool hands. He may not be the greatest Bond villain, but I find him far more compelling than Stromberg, Kristatos, Koskov/Whitaker, Elliot Carver, Mikkelsen's Le Chiffre or Dominic Greene, amongst others.

- Jack Lord is a fantastic Felix because he's the only one besides Jeffrey Wright that seems like he could be Bond's equal. He is young, cool, confident. Linder is too old, Van Nutter is too whiny, Burton is too stodgy, Terry is too cocky and Hedison doesn't have any coolness about him.

- Honey Ryder is just fantastic to look at and has an interesting back story.

- I love the murder mystery vibe of the film.

- The three blind mice do have a cool concept, and since they're the ones who start off the whole plot of the movie, that's more than enough involvement in the film.

The only thing that really bothers me about the film is that all of the female characters have the same voice.

hehadlotsofguts

The Three Blind Mice are humourous in thier attempts to kill Bond. A passing car scares the sh!t out of them, when they try and shoot Bond. I think that's hilarious. The reaction shot of them was priceless! What was with that one Three Blind Mice assassin smashing a window, when he shoots Trueblood? I guess they tried to make them more menacing by doing this, but they came accross as clumsy.

Colonel Shatner

Dr. No was a relatively low budget film and essentially a prototype for the rest of franchise, very firmly rooted in the early 1960s, so it would be a bit rough now.

Napoleon Plural

The OP has a point in that if Dr No were the 4th or 5th or even 2nd movie, you might not think much of it. That said, Love Me Do is hardly the best Beatle single nor Please Please Me the best album but dammit if there isn't just something about them and not just because they're the first.

Of course, No was the first to do all these Bond elements and you may feel they were done better later but it has an understated charm and No's East v West speech is one of the best.

Chriscoop

Napoleon Plural wrote:

The OP has a point in that if Dr No were the 4th or 5th or even 2nd movie, you might not think much of it. That said, Love Me Do is hardly the best Beatle single nor Please Please Me the best album but dammit if there isn't just something about them and not just because they're the first.

Of course, No was the first to do all these Bond elements and you may feel they were done better later but it has an understated charm and No's East v West speech is one of the best.

I don't listen to the Beatles without ear muffs I'm afraid

CmdrAtticus

MilleniumForce wrote:

I'm just going on say it: Dr No is my least favourite official Bond film (it flip flops with OHMSS). It it overrated? Yes, undoubtedly because it's the first Bond film. If Dr No wasn't the first Bond film, I feel it wouldn't be as loved as it is. There are a number of reasons why I don't like it and why I think it's highly overrated:

- Dr No himself is bland. Despite being regarded as an iconic villain, Dr No is also one of the blandest Bond villains. Beyond his artificial hands, his limited screen time means he poses very little threat to Bond, and doesn't leave the lasting impression some might think he does.

- Honey Ryder - the most iconic Bond girl - is also the blandest. She barely does anything in the film, and she has no unique qualities that make her stand out among other Bind girls, other than the fact she was the first.

- Jack Lord is overrated as Felix. Please, somebody tell me why he is regarded as the best? Again, he does very little, and those stupid drag queen sunglasses he wears in his first scene just makes that entire scene laughable.

- Very little actually happens. Dr No feels different to every other Bond film. Because barely anything exciting happens. It really plays out more like a murder mystery show; yes, it's Bond doing some actual spy stuff, but it's hardly anything thrilling or groundbreaking.

- The three blind mice are the worst henchmen until Elvis. The concept here is cool; blind assassins. It's like the coolest gimmick ever. And yet, what do they do? They kill two people, and......drive off a cliff. Overall it's pretty sad that this is what happened to a decent concept.


Dr No is a Bond film that I just can't understand why people like it so much. I can see why people would like films like TB, OHMSS and QoS, but this? The only reason I can think is because it's the first Bond film, and whilst it deserves credit for that, Goldfinger should be the movie credited for making Bond as popular as it is today.

I agree with you on your assessment up to a point. I don't think DN is overrated by fans for the most part. They give it high praise in large part because it was the first film and Connery's stamp on the role. Your objections for the points you make can be explained simply by keeping in mind that Fleming wrote many of his novels like NO as low key spy thrillers. Yes, he put in fantastical elements to tickle the imagination of his readers with exaggerated villains, action and exotic locations, but most of the plots were actually dressed up as real life spy stories from WWII and the Cold War. No, there was never any evil masterminds who owned an island and were paid to sabotage the US space program, but there have always been real enemy agents and international criminals who have tried to sabotage western interests through various means. They don't have nuclear reactors or hidden volcanoes, but there are always plenty of plots to attack western powers in one form or another.

DN was basically a modernized version of Fu Manchu. Fleming loved the Rohmer novels growing up, as well as the ones by Jules Verne. He penned NO in the same vein - a diabolical Asian criminal with his own island and a giant squid (shades of Mysterious Island). DN is basically Captain Nemo (in the novels an Indian prince) dressed up as Fu Manchu and instead of attacking enemy war ships he's trying to sabotage US rockets. So, instead of writing stories about the more pedestrian world of spying (shadowing agents, microdots, defections and just gathering intelligence), Fleming lifted the more thrilling stories from WWII, dressed them up with the trappings of fictional adventure and dropped them down into the grey world of the Cold War.

Here's the dilemma. The Verne novels make great big screen spectacle because of the fantastic elements in them. Spy novels that more or less try to stay grounded in real world events do not. They are more fitting as talking head detective films than action adventure. Bond's novels were a lot like that to a degree including DN. Yes, he did include action scenes in them to keep the reader enthralled, but a lot of them focused on Bond uncovering the plot. They would make for compelling hour long television more than big screen spectacle. Even CR, his first novel, seems more adaptable for the small screen rather than the cinema - which is why EON had to dress up it's version with the large action sequences that didn't exist in the novel. EON had the same problem with NO. Notice how everything is low key up until the last act when Bond gets to the island, is captured and then sabotages NO's plan and the installation. That's when they threw in the big screen explosions at the end to give spectacle to the small screen story. The did it again in the next film with the boat chase and helicopter attack.

This is why NO seems underwhelming to modern viewers compared to the succeeding films and why when watched on a television, it seems like much of it was made for a small screen. It was striking to audiences then because it was filmed in (what to many back then) was a bright, sunny exotic place that they might never visit. Outside of calypso, Harry Belafonte and a few Hollywood B films, most audiences had little knowledge of Jamaica and it's culture - which made NO that more interesting to see. Today of course, it's getting harder for EON to find places that ARE exotic to audiences because vacations and air travel to such foreign countries has become commonplace.

When I watch NO, most of the pleasure I get from the film is seeing the bits and pieces that were actually in the novel and appreciating the fact they actually made the film in Jamaica. I only place it in the top of my favorites in the series because they did try to stay close to Fleming's work and they did their best at making it a quality work despite it's limited budget.

Gassy Man

DN is one of the few Bond films that captures the spirit of the novel -- though some plot elements change, the characterization and atmosphere are very much what are on the page.

It is also the inverse of what we see today and have seen since the 1980s -- it's a child-like fantasy made for adults instead of an adult-like fantasy made for children.

What I mean for that is that despite the larger-than-life qualities of the circumstances and production, the story proceeds as if written by adults for adults. It's grounded in enough reality to make the fantastic moments plausible, if not probable. So, Bond actually investigates rather than minimally uncovers some important clue before rushing off to his next action sequence. Despite his cool exterior, Dr. No is a villain driven by ego and rage -- his weaknesses -- and Bond exploits such through actual conversations that mimic the sort of real fighting that occurs between adults rather than a couple of over-the-top speeches before rushing off to the next action sequence. Bond is under threat constantly, but he and the villains play a cat-and-mouse game of wits like intelligent people will rather than blasting away at each other before rushing off to the next action sequence.

DN is a masterpiece for not falling into the cliche of just being a bunch of action sequences marginally strung together by the thinnest of plot. It's a fairy tale for adults, as most of Fleming's books were, rather than a brainless videogame for kids.

Loeffelholz

^ +1

It's impossible to overstate how important DN is, yes in part because it was first---it proved that Bond could not only survive cinematic adaptation---he could thrive on the big screen :007)

I blame the reduced attention span of subsequent generations (which hasn't helped filmmaking at all, IMO) for any notion that a film like DN is 'overrated'

Gassy Man

{[]

Vandrell

Gassy Man wrote:

DN is one of the few Bond films that captures the spirit of the novel -- though some plot elements change, the characterization and atmosphere are very much what are on the page.

It is also the inverse of what we see today and have seen since the 1980s -- it's a child-like fantasy made for adults instead of an adult-like fantasy made for children.

What I mean for that is that despite the larger-than-life qualities of the circumstances and production, the story proceeds as if written by adults for adults. It's grounded in enough reality to make the fantastic moments plausible, if not probable. So, Bond actually investigates rather than minimally uncovers some important clue before rushing off to his next action sequence. Despite his cool exterior, Dr. No is a villain driven by ego and rage -- his weaknesses -- and Bond exploits such through actual conversations that mimic the sort of real fighting that occurs between adults rather than a couple of over-the-top speeches before rushing off to the next action sequence. Bond is under threat constantly, but he and the villains play a cat-and-mouse game of wits like intelligent people will rather than blasting away at each other before rushing off to the next action sequence.

DN is a masterpiece for not falling into the cliche of just being a bunch of action sequences marginally strung together by the thinnest of plot. It's a fairy tale for adults, as most of Fleming's books were, rather than a brainless videogame for kids.

Totally agree. I actually enjoyed the film a lot more once i had read the book

Gassy Man

{[]

MilleniumForce

Ok, maybe I was too harsh. Yes, my attention span isn't brilliant, I'll admit that (probably why I don't like OHMSS either. Doesn't really cover my dislike for QoS though!). Despite feeling it is overrated, and it being one of my least favourite, re watching it today, I did actually enjoy it. I still think it is overrated, but it does have a lot of positives. Connery really fits into the part, and the film looks gorgeous - the set design and cinematography is probably the best of all the Connery films. It also, IMO, has the most attractive female cast of any of the films. I don't even think it's dated - ok, it is a bit dated, but it's the good kind of dated. It's the kind of dated that makes the film even better. I still think it is overrated though. Just because I think it is, it doesn't mean it's not important - but importance doesn't count for quality. Dr No is undoubtedly a very important film, not just for Bond - but for movies themselves. I fell, though, that the Bond movies have constantly been topping themselves ever since, so much it makes Dr No seem less and less......good. In fact, it's a good thing that Dr No is one of my least favourite - it shows how the Bond movies have developed into something better, and shows the strength of the franchise.

heartbroken_mr_drax

It is a good point about it being the first one that it gets almost a free pass. I understand why you say this - being honest, I do think that fact comes into some of my adoration of the film, but overall, I have always loved the feel of the film and the innocence of it.

Some elements of the film require you to suspend some disbelief - such as the dubbing, soundtrack, jump-cuts, mistakes, budget, racism etc., but there's so much other greatness occurring that IMO it is easy to do so.

You can see the jump in production etc. between it and FRWL - any Bond film could've been in its place and had the same "feeling".

Mr Snow

Chriscoop wrote:

I don't listen to the Beatles without ear muffs I'm afraid

Ahhhhh.....fond memories indeed of Shirley Eaton -{

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6jzdbp1ni8

Mr Snow

To MilleniumForce - make your mind up mun 8-)

These are your quotes not mine, I just haven't learnt to multi quote yet.

"I'm just going on say it: Dr No is my least favourite official Bond film (it flip flops with OHMSS).
I can see why people would like films like TB, OHMSS and QoS,
I'll admit that (probably why I don't like OHMSS either. Doesn't really cover my dislike for QoS though!)."

As for the Bond films topping themselves, I totally disagree. In my opinion the Best Bond films were from the 60's with Connery and from there they went on a slow downward spiral. In saying that I still find the Bond films entertaining and I think Casino Royale (so far) has been one of the best since then and Daniel Craig (apart from Connery) has been the best James Bond.

As for QoS, that film in my opinion ranks just above TMWTGG as the two worst Bond films ever made.

With regards to Jack Lord as Felix Leiter being overrated, I'm very surprised. Felix Leiter in the majority of films rarely plays a big role anyway but Jack Lord was as cool as they are. He may not have been the best but was perfect for the part at that time.

With regards to your initial thread; Barbel usually finds these things pertaining to the subject matter and you may/may not have already seen this (and there may be others) but this may be of interest as to why people think Dr. No is one of (if not) the best James Bond film.

http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/47564/why-dr-no-is-the-most-perfect-bond-movie-possible-ever/

Silhouette Man

That you have Dr. No and OHMSS as your bottom two Bond films says that you lack taste to say the least of it. Only my opinion of course; others take the contrary view. For me. those are two of the best films in the series

Jamesbondjr

I don't like the word 'overrated'. It either implies that you think that someone's subjective opinion is wrong or they are being disingenuous in their praise.

I totally get what you mean though, MilleniumForce. Quite a few people share your view about Dr. No being one of the weaker entries in the series.

Personally though, I love it. It sits just outside my top 10.

ToTheRight

I actually think in this day and age DR NO is underrated. Growing up, it was often considered one of the best in the series, but now it' s almost never mentioned. In the 21st century CASINO ROYALE seems to be the masterpiece everyone compares both new and old Bond films too. DR NO has sadly been left behind.
Pity, as it's probably my second favorite Bond film, behind either FRWL or GF. I love it's simplicity, the fact that Jamaica is the primary location (that really is pure Fleming there), Sean nails Bond on his first outing in a way no later Bond actor (including Craig IMO) ever did. Besides with his grey suits, and hairstyle he looks really ******g cool. DR NO is a classic villain, in my top 5 easily, and Honey Ryder....well words fail me there. I would hope in the future DR NO gets more recognition and appreciation. It's a ba a$$ Bond film.

Loeffelholz

DN is my #2 favourite, right after FRWL -{

Miles Messervy

The pacing of Dr. NO is why I like it so much. With the exception of SPECTRE, I have immensely enjoyed Daniel Craig's outtings--but the pacing of those films and the reliance on large action pieces detracts from their overall quality. DN and FRWL are true masterpieces because they have it all. Despite its longevity, the series has rarely gotten that particular balance so right.

caractacus potts

I think the reason the OP is underrating Dr No is because it is the first film, his premise is almost tautological

there's a reason much of it looks like a TV episode, and that's because the budget was so low, and that is because nobody had ever tried to make a James Bond film before, they did not yet know what a James Bond film should look like, they had no reason to believe there would even be a second

with each of the next few films the budget doubled and the formula began to fall into place with the third film

so, if we imagine the same stories filmed in a different sequence, if Goldfinger had been first it would have had the budget and pacing of a tv episode, and Dr No would have been the one with four times the budget that finally clicked the formula into place ... and bigbudget formula-establishing alternate universe Dr No might have been a much more satisfying Bondfilm than our universe's Goldfinger

why not? there's actually nothing inherent in the stories that makes Goldfinger more archetypically Bondian: its one of Flemings slowest books (three chapters on a golf game) and the plotting becomes increasingly slapdash towards the end
whereas Fleming's Dr No novel has many more fantastical elements and is more of a thriller in its structure (Fleming actually started writing this one as a failed movie concept in the 50s did he not?)

in fact, the most fantastical elements of the book actually got left out of the movie, specifically the fight with the giant squid, also the escape through the pipe network was much more complicated in the book ... I'm sure they didn't have the budget for a giant squid when they made the first film, and had Dr No been filmed after the series was a success a filmed squid fight might have ended up being the most spectacular scene in the series ever ... people'd be saying "that hollowed out volcano was such a letdown after the giant squid fight two films ago, they'll never top that for sheer spectacle"

Miles Messervy

Sounds like Hiddleston's Bond will need to do battle with a giant squid!

Barbel

caractacus potts wrote:

Fleming actually started writing this one as a failed movie concept in the 50s did he not?

To paraphrase Fleming, if I can correct you without weakening your case: TV, rather than movies.

Thunderpussy

It's amazing what Fleming's imagination came up with, from a visit to a bird sanctuary. -{
Even the large wheeled truck used to move visitors. Became a " Dragon" .

Loeffelholz

Miles Messervy wrote:

Sounds like Hiddleston's Bond will need to do battle with a giant squid!

)

Diabolik

Thunderpussy wrote:

I love Dr No, it has great pacing, story and characters -{ so I'd have to disagree with the OP.

This is, in a nutshell, what I love about Dr. No. There is little spectacle but the core elements are fantastic, Bond is great, the bad guys are great and it moves at a smooth pace.

I think watching later films in the series only makes me appreciate Dr. No more. It has a charming simplicity to it and it sets the standard for every Bond film to come.

Gassy Man

Miles Messervy wrote:

The pacing of Dr. NO is why I like it so much. With the exception of SPECTRE, I have immensely enjoyed Daniel Craig's outtings--but the pacing of those films and the reliance on large action pieces detracts from their overall quality. DN and FRWL are true masterpieces because they have it all. Despite its longevity, the series has rarely gotten that particular balance so right.

While I disagree on SP -- and while it may also be a sign of the Apocalypse -- to the rest I must say {[] .

CmdrAtticus

Gassy Man wrote:

DN is one of the few Bond films that captures the spirit of the novel -- though some plot elements change, the characterization and atmosphere are very much what are on the page.

It is also the inverse of what we see today and have seen since the 1980s -- it's a child-like fantasy made for adults instead of an adult-like fantasy made for children.

What I mean for that is that despite the larger-than-life qualities of the circumstances and production, the story proceeds as if written by adults for adults. It's grounded in enough reality to make the fantastic moments plausible, if not probable. So, Bond actually investigates rather than minimally uncovers some important clue before rushing off to his next action sequence. Despite his cool exterior, Dr. No is a villain driven by ego and rage -- his weaknesses -- and Bond exploits such through actual conversations that mimic the sort of real fighting that occurs between adults rather than a couple of over-the-top speeches before rushing off to the next action sequence. Bond is under threat constantly, but he and the villains play a cat-and-mouse game of wits like intelligent people will rather than blasting away at each other before rushing off to the next action sequence.

DN is a masterpiece for not falling into the cliche of just being a bunch of action sequences marginally strung together by the thinnest of plot. It's a fairy tale for adults, as most of Fleming's books were, rather than a brainless videogame for kids.

+1