Better Than Dr.No


this film wipes the floor with it

reply

I like both films, and I agree but it´s hardly fair to compare the two.

reply

You're right; they're really different movies. I'm not sure which I personally like better. M:I is more of an action film, Dr. No has that great vintage espionage flick vibe (plus it started BOND!)

reply

I meant budget and age wise. $1M v $80M and 1962 v 1996 in the action/spy genre.

reply

I think that's what produced it, though. M:I had the money to be an action film, and expectations were different (time/era).

reply

Without Bond, there’d be no Mission: Impossible. This topic is like saying the child is greater than the father. Typical internet stupidity.

reply

The child can be greater than the father.

Charlemagne was greater than Pepin the Short. Robert Johnson was a greater musician than his artistic forebears, and was certainly greater than his literal sire.

Bond v. M:I is already tough because they have different "takes" on the spy genre, but Dr. No in particular is further than apples and oranges (maybe steak tartar and oranges?) because of the difference in time period.

Ultimately, I think I'm giving the edge to Dr. No - I just like the simmering thriller more than the stunt-heist as a tone, but that's really subjective, and De Palma's Mission: Impossible is exemplary, and dare I say underrated (Dr. No is underrated, too)

reply

You missed my point completely. Of course the child is greater than the father. The point is so obvious it literally goes without saying.

However, no father =
no child. No Bond = no Mission Impossible.

reply

I think perhaps I am...the topic was, I thought, on the debate between Dr. No (Bond) and Mission: Impossible: which is the superior film. I thought your point was that Dr. No was superior by virtue of being a kind of progenitor of Mission: Impossible and I was attempting to provide counter-examples before supplying my own take on the original question (they are difficult to compare, but I prefer Dr. No because of stylistic preferences).

reply

I think your point is valid. What R_Kane said you could literally say that about anything. Without Hitchcock films, there would be no James Bond.

reply

Thank you. I appreciate the support. That was sorta what I figured. Saying a story is automatically of inferior quality because it is beholden to previous stories basically means, what? Gilgamesh or something is the default winner...?

I am curious what R_Kane's deeper points are, though, so I'm hoping he clarifies some of what he's talking about. At this point, I'm thinking maybe I misunderstood some of the nuance of his position.

reply

[deleted]

Dr No is a better overall film. It’s more entertaining and just works better.

reply

If you mean the original (I don't even keep track of remakes) Dr. No (1962) is far superior to MI1 (1996), which was really a poorly done version of the great '60s TV series. I also hated the MI with Halle Berry whichever one that is--don't even care. Best thing is just see the originals of everything, in this case the TV series.

reply

Dr No was remade? That´s the first I have heard of it. Halle Berry was never in an MI movie, she was in a terrible Bond movie though.

reply

Oh yeah, Die Another Day. Yuck! No, Dr. No wasn't remade. I just hate remakes in general.

reply

MI1 has a few iconic scenes that are great. The rest of the film is an embarrassing garbage fire. Renny Harlan levels of quality. It is the worst of the MI films easily. DePalma is a lazy director who seem only able to pay attention to one or two exciting parts and is doing cocaine in his trailer for the rest of his movies.

Dr No suffers from being dated and sometimes dry but is a good Bond film. Far better than the first 2 MI films.

MI1: 3/10
Dr No: 7/10

reply

the fact that is dated makes the film. it is sooo good. my favorite bond film for sure!

reply

DePalma's Mission Impossible movie has aged incredibly well...

It's an excellent movie... Very cinematic, lots of fun... I liked the stealth scenes and suspense throughout...

The visual style of DePlama, the cast around Cruise is excellent... You feel the sense of peril and high stakes, more than in the latter movies...

reply

The Latter Movies are on part with it MI2 is th worst but still better than any Bond film that has the same idenity since 1962

reply

get the fuck outta here! tom cruise is a loony scientologist. how dare u compare one of his movies to a classic such as Dr. No

reply

Advancements in moviemaking technology, their budgets and the spy genre in the 34 years between movies has a lot to do with it being a better movie... perhaps a more adequate comparison would be Mission: Impossible (1996) vs Goldeneye (1995).

I disagree that without James Bond there would be no Mission: Impossible, Bond was not the first spy to exist.

reply