Written & Edited by: Lee Fenton

The man who started it all – Sir Sean Connery – receives the honour of being star of the WDM(c) choice for No 1 top 007 film of all-time. 

Screw being a knight, this is way better. 

 Connery’s ability to play James Bond is bar none. He brings a certain vitriole; suave, yet ready to leap-into-action at any moment. I’m sure – it could be argued that Craig portrayed the character with more physicality along with a cool, cold-demeanor. I won’t deny that, however Connery managed a certain poise while giving a highly charismatic turn as the globe-trotting secret agent. His facial acting conveyed superb tact and ego; 007’s trademark attributes. And the man’s innate classiness went a long way in convincing the audience that he excelled at espionage within high society.

 Connery was hands down the most suited in the role of master-of-disguise; something that later Bond entries tend to overlook. In his duty as an MI6 agent, James Bond needs to blend in amongst: Fortune 500 billionaires, oligarchs, oil tycoons, and international royalty – as well as other rich and powerful figures. Sean Connery always managed to play the character with a dash of poshness, actuated by the refined edge of 007, a characteristic lifted directly from the pages of Ian Flemming’s novels. In the books – Bond is never portrayed as a simple thug or hired goon – no, his impressive ability for espionage lies not only in his physical prowess – but also in his vast intellect and natural charm. 

This is understood by the film “From Russia with Love” — 007’s mental mastery is explored more fully than in the rest of Albert Broccoli's(1) James Bond properties. In this feature, Bond is smug, loquacious, and doesn’t need a host of gadgets to foil the villain’s plan. He’s got his wits, his fists, and of course – his patented (and much feared) licence to kill. There is little to no self-parody; which is essentially why I much prefer this entry to other golden-era Bond classics. 

Sure, Goldfinger is a fun spy-thriller that gallops along at a fast pace and delivers some highly entertaining 60s schlock – but ‘From Russia with Love’ gives you a serious story with a much needed emotional core for the character. The villain isn’t played slap-stick – for cheap laughs and thrills – instead this film allows our protagonist to inhabit a world that’s (mostly) grounded in realism. Sue me, I dig a serious take on espionage in film. 

When it works.

Footnote : 1 [the film rights holders]

“In his 1986 book, Danny Peary described From Russia with Love as "an excellent, surprisingly tough and gritty James Bond film" which is "refreshingly free of the gimmickry that would characterise the later Bond films, and Connery and Bianchi play real people. We worry about them and hope their relationship will work out ... Shaw and Lotte Lenya are splendid villains. Both have exciting, well-choreographed fights with Connery. Actors play it straight, with excellent results."[1] -  Danny Peary, Guide for the Film Fanatic (Simon & Schuster, 1986) p.163

Surprisingly, not everyone felt this way. Myriad critics of the time – felt that it paled in comparison to its predecessor, ‘Dr. No’. 

“In comparing the film to its predecessor, Dr. No, Richard Roud, writing in The Guardian, wrote that From Russia with Love "didn't seem quite so lively, quite so fresh, or quite so rhythmically fast-moving."[55] He went on to say that "... the film is highly immoral in every imaginable way; it is neither uplifting, instructive nor life-enhancing. Neither is it great film-making. But it sure is fun."  [2]Roud, Richard (11 October 1963). "New Films". The Guardian. London. p. 11.

This is something I find laughable, ‘Goldfinger’ was the first film to receive an Academy Award, so, I can understand someone thinking that it outranks ‘From Russia with Love’. Indeed, they only differ by 2% on RottenTomatoes – which heavily implies the films are comparable. But both those films far outdo the first James Bond picture. 

In my opinion, that’s inarguable.

‘Dr. No’ is a first attempt at adapting the source material, and should be given respect for walking where the second film in the series would run. Terrence Young directs both of the first two Bond films (Dr. No & F.R.W.L.) and manages to improve greatly on his second run. The first film suffers from slower pacing, acting that seems slightly stilted; plot structure that lacks polish. The story is cohesive but lacks the driving energy that later films would make iconic. Bond outings are meant to be dynamic and fast-paced. I will concede that some sequences should be slower-paced to allow for rumination – like the card game in Casino Royale or large chunks of dialogue in ‘The Man with the Golden Gun’. 

However, there is a balancing act that has to occur – since the juxtaposing of action with drama can come off as forced or contrite. ‘Dr. No’ stumbles a bit in this area.

‘From Russia with Love’ does everything right; that the first film didn’t.

The intrigue is front and center – and engaging as all hell. 

What more could you want from a spy movie?

___________________

Rating 9.5/10

Martini. Shaken not— 

I’m not even going to say it.

Sources:

_____________________________________________________________

[1] [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Russia_with_Love_(film)#cite_note-63

Gallery of the film ‘From Russia with Love’ Coming Soon.