Who are you, and what have you done with superado?
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
) I'm just having a little fun with fans of modern blockbusters through which the merits of Bond films are sometimes filtered. I have to confess though I've watched the first 2 installments...but that's it!!!
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
) Who needs story, when you can have special effects !
Thinking is so passe!
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
The plot is simple to follow, it is loyal to the book. The only things that Dr No are missing is maybe a great pre-title scene, which would start from FRWL, a Q scene (also from FRWL onwards) and a John Barry score ( you guessed it: from FRWL onwards)
Dr. No is a near perfect Bond film for me. I agree with you for the most part except:
True that FRWL has a pre-title scene, but I consider it among the worst in the series.
Dr. No did have a Q scene, but not with our man Desmond.
John Barry did contribute to the main 007 theme in DN.
I also feel DN is underrated, because it gets neglected in the wake of bigger Bond films, yet now holds up the best out of all the 60's Connery Bonds.
-It doesn't have the slow pacing and huge plot holes of FRWL
-It doesn't have the boring Kentucky second half of Goldfinger.
-It doesn't have the bloated underwater battles of Thunderball.
-It doesn't have the general over-the-top weirdness of YOLT.
My current 10 favorite:
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
The plot is simple to follow, it is loyal to the book. The only things that Dr No are missing is maybe a great pre-title scene, which would start from FRWL, a Q scene (also from FRWL onwards) and a John Barry score ( you guessed it: from FRWL onwards)
Dr. No is a near perfect Bond film for me. I agree with you for the most part except:
True that FRWL has a pre-title scene, but I consider it among the worst in the series.
Dr. No did have a Q scene, but not with our man Desmond.
John Barry did contribute to the main 007 theme in DN.
I also feel DN is underrated, because it gets neglected in the wake of bigger Bond films, yet now holds up the best out of all the 60's Connery Bonds.
-It doesn't have the slow pacing and huge plot holes of FRWL
-It doesn't have the boring Kentucky second half of Goldfinger.
-It doesn't have the bloated underwater battles of Thunderball.
-It doesn't have the general over-the-top weirdness of YOLT.
You know what? You're absolutely right. This film is strongly becoming maybe my favourite Connery film! The pacing is great in this movie, Bond is doing real detective work, it is so faithful to the book, the iconic moments are more than a handful. It basically ticks all the boxes. Only at the very end, it kind of drags a bit (after the dinner scene, when Bond is captured) but that is the only negative thing I can think of.
Dr No might not be the first Bond movie I think of, when I think of the ultimate Bond movie in terms of grandiosity or iconicness (is that a word?), however I must admit: that is an unfair treatment. A great movie, where everything turned out to be done well, which started the so successful franchise. Probably the most underrated 'classic.'
I hadn't seen Dr No for years until putting on the bluray last night. And I was amazed. This is the first time I have seen it on bluray, and I have to say that the colours are vibrant and lush - just what I would expect from the format. Moonraker, which I watched for the first time on bluray a few days ago, seemed washed out in comparison. It's a shame the remasterers couldn't maintain a consistency through all of the films.
Anyway, onto the film proper. The slow pace and unfolding drama of Dr No is quite unique in the series. The only similar film is FRWL, and I believe that's because it was the follow up and shares the same director. Some might dislike this quality in a series known for its fast and epic scale action, but I found it refreshing. The story, while focusing on the mission, also establishes the character of Bond. Instead of relying on gadgets like many of the films in the series, Bond has only his wits and his Walther to rely on. He handles himself in a very masculine manner and it gave me a greater respect for the character. It's a shame more films in the series didn't take this approach and instead turned him into a gadget-reliant, superhero. Time is spent developing many of the secondary characters too, including Honey Rider and Quarrel, to varying degrees and I appreciate this even if its not all paid off in the end. For example, Honey introduces a revenge motif that isn't paid off in favour of Bond rescuing the damsel in distress. Goldfinger might establish the Bond formula proper, but all the key ingredients are here in Dr No, and its more enjoyable that they are subtle rather than grandiose.
Connery is on fine form here. He truly portrays the self-reliant hero here with his the warmth and swagger audiences came to love. This film, more than any other he did, helps me understand why so many think Connery is the quintessential Bond. The rest of the cast is just as brilliant, with Jack Lord's Felix Leiter one of the most memorable portrayals of this role, Ursula Andress the quintessential, self-reliant Bond girl, and Joseph Wiseman the perfect model for the series' sinister villains. Each adds their unique take and again, none of it is overplayed, making them believable characters.
There's little I can criticise about the film. There's a few scenes that seem full of expositional dialogue (the scene with M, for example), but Terrance Young and the cast do the best they can to make these visually and interesting and character revealing. And they never ruin the film. The climax and ending seem a little anti-climactic and rushed, respectively. Again, this is mostly nit-picking and it doesn't ruin the film. The only other thing I want to mention is I was never fully sure what Dr No was actually doing on Crab Key, but perhaps I wasn't paying attention to his self-righteous (but powerful) spiel in the dining scene.
Dr No has reinvigorated my interest in the more Flemingesque Bond films. I have always enjoyed these films in the series (FRWL and OHMSS are two of my favourites) but have always gravitated towards the Moore era and the escapist adventures. Dr No still contains the adventure elements but in a more subdued and realistic manner. Connery's Bond in Dr No is a character I can relate to. He's a character I can go on the adventure with, feeling the danger and intensity of each moment even if I know he will succeed in the end. In comparison, Moore's Bond, not to put him down, especially since the later Connery films head in this direction too, seems cocky in comparison and I feel distant from him because he has become a superhero who can't lose rather than a resourceful man struggling to stay alive or succeed in his mission. What I meant to say is that, although I love the later films in the series, I'm disappointed the filmmakers moved away from this more down-to-earth portrayal of Fleming's character for such a long time. But I guess they were simply catering for audience demand.
In the end, Dr No comes across as surprisingly fresh, despite its age, and I think it deserves more recognition as a top tier Bond film.
Comments
Who are you, and what have you done with superado?
Thinking is so passe!
Dr. No is a near perfect Bond film for me. I agree with you for the most part except:
True that FRWL has a pre-title scene, but I consider it among the worst in the series.
Dr. No did have a Q scene, but not with our man Desmond.
John Barry did contribute to the main 007 theme in DN.
I also feel DN is underrated, because it gets neglected in the wake of bigger Bond films, yet now holds up the best out of all the 60's Connery Bonds.
-It doesn't have the slow pacing and huge plot holes of FRWL
-It doesn't have the boring Kentucky second half of Goldfinger.
-It doesn't have the bloated underwater battles of Thunderball.
-It doesn't have the general over-the-top weirdness of YOLT.
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
1. Dalton 2. Moore 3. Connery 4. Lazenby 5. Craig 6. Brosnan
You know what? You're absolutely right. This film is strongly becoming maybe my favourite Connery film! The pacing is great in this movie, Bond is doing real detective work, it is so faithful to the book, the iconic moments are more than a handful. It basically ticks all the boxes. Only at the very end, it kind of drags a bit (after the dinner scene, when Bond is captured) but that is the only negative thing I can think of.
Dr No might not be the first Bond movie I think of, when I think of the ultimate Bond movie in terms of grandiosity or iconicness (is that a word?), however I must admit: that is an unfair treatment. A great movie, where everything turned out to be done well, which started the so successful franchise. Probably the most underrated 'classic.'
1. Connery 2. Craig 3. Brosnan 4. Dalton 5. Lazenby 6. Moore
Anyway, onto the film proper. The slow pace and unfolding drama of Dr No is quite unique in the series. The only similar film is FRWL, and I believe that's because it was the follow up and shares the same director. Some might dislike this quality in a series known for its fast and epic scale action, but I found it refreshing. The story, while focusing on the mission, also establishes the character of Bond. Instead of relying on gadgets like many of the films in the series, Bond has only his wits and his Walther to rely on. He handles himself in a very masculine manner and it gave me a greater respect for the character. It's a shame more films in the series didn't take this approach and instead turned him into a gadget-reliant, superhero. Time is spent developing many of the secondary characters too, including Honey Rider and Quarrel, to varying degrees and I appreciate this even if its not all paid off in the end. For example, Honey introduces a revenge motif that isn't paid off in favour of Bond rescuing the damsel in distress. Goldfinger might establish the Bond formula proper, but all the key ingredients are here in Dr No, and its more enjoyable that they are subtle rather than grandiose.
Connery is on fine form here. He truly portrays the self-reliant hero here with his the warmth and swagger audiences came to love. This film, more than any other he did, helps me understand why so many think Connery is the quintessential Bond. The rest of the cast is just as brilliant, with Jack Lord's Felix Leiter one of the most memorable portrayals of this role, Ursula Andress the quintessential, self-reliant Bond girl, and Joseph Wiseman the perfect model for the series' sinister villains. Each adds their unique take and again, none of it is overplayed, making them believable characters.
There's little I can criticise about the film. There's a few scenes that seem full of expositional dialogue (the scene with M, for example), but Terrance Young and the cast do the best they can to make these visually and interesting and character revealing. And they never ruin the film. The climax and ending seem a little anti-climactic and rushed, respectively. Again, this is mostly nit-picking and it doesn't ruin the film. The only other thing I want to mention is I was never fully sure what Dr No was actually doing on Crab Key, but perhaps I wasn't paying attention to his self-righteous (but powerful) spiel in the dining scene.
Dr No has reinvigorated my interest in the more Flemingesque Bond films. I have always enjoyed these films in the series (FRWL and OHMSS are two of my favourites) but have always gravitated towards the Moore era and the escapist adventures. Dr No still contains the adventure elements but in a more subdued and realistic manner. Connery's Bond in Dr No is a character I can relate to. He's a character I can go on the adventure with, feeling the danger and intensity of each moment even if I know he will succeed in the end. In comparison, Moore's Bond, not to put him down, especially since the later Connery films head in this direction too, seems cocky in comparison and I feel distant from him because he has become a superhero who can't lose rather than a resourceful man struggling to stay alive or succeed in his mission. What I meant to say is that, although I love the later films in the series, I'm disappointed the filmmakers moved away from this more down-to-earth portrayal of Fleming's character for such a long time. But I guess they were simply catering for audience demand.
In the end, Dr No comes across as surprisingly fresh, despite its age, and I think it deserves more recognition as a top tier Bond film.
8. TMwtGG 9. AVtaK 10. TSWLM 11. SF 12. LtK 13. TND 14. YOLT
15. NTtD 16. MR 17. LaLD 18. GF 19. SP 20. DN 21. TB
22. TWiNE 23. DAD 24. QoS 25. DaF