46. From Russia with Love

Terence Young, 1963

This is the second of MGM’s hugely successful James Bond films and it stars the best Bond of them all, Sean Connery. It may also be the best Bond film of them all. It is certainly my favorite. You see, this movie comes prepackaged with all the great things about the Connery Bond films. Exotic locations? Check. Most of this one is set in Turkey, which really looks lovely here. I’m also a big fan of the gypsy camp Bond hangs out in. Beautiful women? In abundance. You get the innocent Russian dupe Tatiana Romanova, Sylvia Trench following up her small role in Dr. No, Kerim Bey’s gorgeous wife, and, of course, the gypsy girls. I really like gypsies. Then there’s the class. Like The Pink Panther, these films are imbued with that sixties idea of class that is just impeccable. Everything is very plush and beautiful. The men wear suits and the women wear gorgeous dresses. Everything is expensive and wine flows like water. Bond himself is cultured beyond belief and the world of the super rich seems ordinary for two hours. Of course, this isn’t the super rich of today, filled with 24 hour raves and Paris Hilton wanna bes, but you grandfather’s idea of classy, which tends to involve a lot of quiet evenings and hats. It’s an aesthetic I adore. Really, and I recognize that this won’t mean anything to some of you, it’s a lot like Playboy After Dark and I think that’s great. Further, this particular idea of Bond and his world is distinct from the Roger Moore films and other, later entries. These films are very adult. They are often very smart and concerned with complicated plots of move and counter move that as often involve sitting down and thinking things through as they do going out and blowing stuff up. They are violent and sexy. Of course, they’re nothing compared to today's levels of violence and sex, but, for the sixties, these were meant for a very sophisticated and very adult audience. This is Bond for mom and dad. It wouldn’t be until Roger Moore’s films that Bond would become a family character.

Another big reason I like this one best is the villainy here. This is one of the SPECTRE films and I always like the idea of pitting Bond and MI-6 against a rival organization. Blowfeld is here, but he’s pretty much a background character, which is how I prefer him. Rosa Klebb, the Russian with the knives in her shoes, is also terrific. Best of all, though, is Robert Shaw as Red Grant, Bond’s opposite number. Grant serves as Bond’s nemesis in a way that has never really been equaled. Sure, other films have tried the idea, notably Scaramanga in The Man with the Golden Gun and 006 in GoldenEye, but neither really work as well as Grant. The same should be said of Blowfeld. Blowfeld is a welcome master mind, but he’s really more M’s opposite number than Bond’s. Like Bond, Grant is an agent, a man with a mission. He is trained to the peak of his profession, which, of course, is killing. He isn’t terribly cultured, in fact his lack of knowledge of fine wine is what ends up giving him away, but I’m not sure Bond’s nemesis should be cultured. He is a cold blooded killer, a version of Bond himself without humanity or a real sense of self. Where Bond is the consummate gentleman, Grant is the ultimate animalistic killer. He is concerned with himself and his mission. He could hardly care which of his SPECTRE cohorts die and one gets the sense that he’d gladly work for MI-6 if they’d let him kill at his discretion.

On a final note, there are a number of people out there who will tell you that On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is the best of the Bond films. They will tell you that this is because its the only one to really offer character development (in the form of Bond marrying Emma Peel from The Avengers) and the only one to have Bond show emotion (he cries at the end when Mrs. Peel buys it. Did I ruin it for you? So sorry.). Their one concession is that George Lazenby, replacing Connery for one film, sucks ass as Bond. Well, my friends, there’s your problem. I suppose On Her Majesty’s Secret Service may be a fine film in its own right, but it isn’t a good Bond film. A good Bond film requires one thing above all others: Bond. Lazenby isn’t Bond. Bond doesn’t marry and Bond doesn’t cry, particularly the Bond of the sixties. I know what you’re saying, “But doesn’t that curb depth and isn’t depth a good thing?” Hey, depth is a great thing, but with the Bond movies depth has always resided in the plot and the bigger picture. Bond himself is, within each actor’s particular portrayal, the constant. True, that may limit things occasionally, but that has never been the point of Bond. Bond was developed by Ian Flemming to be candy for the adult mind and there’s nothing wrong with that. Sure, pop corn movies like Armageddon can suck, but some pop corn is really good and I’m not sure it needs to be anything more, at least not in the case of 007.