From Russia with Love

Recently, I visited a museum where I could admire ladies' dresses from leading tailor salons of the First Republic, which were intended for women from higher society. I say "could admire," but I didn't, because it was clear that the ravages of time had worked relentlessly not only on the faded colors but also on the once bold patterns and cuts. What used to dazzle is now just an item in the museum's inventory. I have a similar feeling about the early Bond films. The series about the unbeatable agent of Her Majesty has always been considered by me as a purely marginal part of cinema, and above all, the films from the 60s and 70s are fixed in my mind as museum exhibits. Bond films from the 90s started to become interesting with their sets, special effects, and action, but I only fully embraced their universe with the arrival of Daniel Craig - he became the first Bond whom I believed in as this invincible action hero. The trashy nature of From Russia with Love is evident, but not significant enough to make the film entertaining in and of itself. Some detachment is noticeable in the film, but it is not sufficient. It takes itself too seriously considering how naive the whole plot appears today and how clumsily it works in terms of the action. While I can choose from four genres in the film's header, the only one that would hold up today, namely comedy, is missing and unfortunately was not intended this way. I almost dozed off during the most dynamic action scene, the attack on the gypsy camp. I give the claim that Sean Connery is the only authentic Bond the same weight as the claim that little green men from Mars control us. Overall impression: 45%. (21/11/2013)

More money, more steel. After the grand success of Dr. No, the budget for the next installment was doubled, and thus could have been spent on helicopters, speed boats, multifunctional briefcases, and penicillin injections for James Bond, who this time left-handedly fucks not only his young paramours, but also a Russian agent and two rambunctious gypsies, all of which occurs with a casual flair that the makers of Fast Money could only dream of. Two-thirds of the way through, Agent 007's second adventure manages to keep you constantly on tenterhooks with its unpredictable script and a sense of omnipresent eyes and ears, thanks largely to a clever and down-to-earth screenplay that, despite the extensive exposition, doesn't drag its feet into overblown ambitions of world domination, but instead narrows its premises the more the film progresses. Except, of course, for the final helicopter and boat shenanigans, which were an afterthought to give the film an action-packed climax. Unfortunately, they also make the whole impression of the finale feel fragmented in both pace and mood, and the whole film comes out from under the Bridge of Sighs somewhat empty. The best part is once again a mentally underdeveloped Bond girl who trades a prestigious job as a spy for the chance to be the next trophy of a dude who grabs girls by the arm as a matter of course. (16/06/2019)

For a film that takes nearly an hour to really get going, and that the villains don't come up with a megalomaniacal plan to destroy half the world, it's still interesting throughout. This fact is aided by Young's brisk direction and the cleverly simple script that doesn't offer much in the way of action sequences, but I give respectful kudos for those few bits; particularly Bond's fight with Grant on the train is something that, given its physicality, is something that Bourne needed to rediscover 40 years later. (14/01/2012)

It's unbelievable how this film from 1963, which was already completely different in terms of filmmaking, managed to inspire and captivate me. Bond's lines and grimaces haven't aged even after 50 years. Some effects are naturally clunky, but the can be tolerated thanks to the pace and strong script. Excellent villains, a fantastic fight on a train, and above all, an incredible pace. Compared to the first installment, it's a huge leap forward. I expected to watch it more out of obligation, but I devoured it with unexpected enthusiasm. Even back then, they were able to beautifully utilize the settings – Istanbul and Venice – with a sense for excellent cinematography. (23/12/2013)

A deviant contribution to the British film crown jewels, but one that brings a heap of contradictions. For some, this is the very signature of Bond, one they would like to see more often, and I acknowledge that the tough battle with the cold spy adversary is among the best that the sixties adventures could offer. However, watching it with the removal of six decades is sometimes painful because a disastrous first half precedes a thrilling second half. In the first half, empty dialogue is carried out, episodic scenes are chained together, and opponents of 007's sexist face have a field day. The highly positioned female antagonist is portrayed as an ugly box, and as a reward for saving the group, the main hero is reluctantly offered two women from the local community. And there are lots of other things that are too much a product of their time, causing my smile to twist into a cringe unnecessarily often. Sean Connery himself, of course, plays it with a charm all his own, but this time it almost wasn't enough. (07/01/2022)