From Russia with Love

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. (2013-12-23)

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%. (2013-11-21)

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. (2012-01-14)

The best Bond movie with Sean Connery. Or rather... The best Bond movie ever. Significantly different that the rest and more of a classic cloak-and-dagger movie. However it’s the most serious one and thrilling at the same time, a bit tongue in cheek with a lot of action and also quite realistic in places. For instance the fight in the train compartment is the type of a physical action which you don’t usually find in a standard Bond movie (well at least not until Craig’s arrival). (2004-11-17)

The most genuine spy film of all the Bond films. Connery's Bond met his match in Robert Shaw. SPECTRE and the Soviet Union got a proper hammering, without unnecessary frantic action scenes. It definitely belongs to the best of this genre. (2016-08-03)