Fan Reviews (Diamonds Are Forever)
Fan Reviews of the James Bond films can be submitted to MI6 via
the Contribute page, or on
the Reviews board of the "Keeping
The British End Up" discussion forums. The views expressed
on this page are those of the individual and not mi6-hq.com.
"Diamonds Are Forever" by Overkill
“He’s Back! Sean Connery IS James Bond.”
So trumpeted the posters and adverts for the 8th James Bond adventure.
Following the poor box office of OHMSS, and the subsequent falling
out between Lazenby and Eon, United Artists decided the only way
to get the public back was to bring back the only man they would
associate with the role: Sean Connery. Whilst UA mounted a very
personal attempt to tempt back their man, Broccoli and Saltzman
went in search of their own man. That man was John Gavin, a workmanlike
American actor, best known for roles in Spartacus and Psycho.
He was signed on a pay or play deal, eventually meaning he got
paid even though he never shot a single scene for the movie.
With a then record breaking salary (later donated in full to
a Scottish Arts charity) Connery secured the role and the world
rejoiced. Then the film was released…
DAF is a film of such varying quality that at times it feels
like two (or even three) films clumsily edited together (rather
like the Man from UNCLE movies, which were cobbled together from
disparate episodes of the TV series).
It has a confused plot, wasted locations and sets, bizarre characters
and a general sense of uncertainty. What it DOES have is Connery’s
best performance since Goldfinger. At least, he looks like a man
enjoying being Bond. And it helps enormously.
Blofeld is back in his third incarnation is as many films. This
time YOLT’s Charles Gray portrays him a camp megalomaniac
who would probably be as comfortable propositioning young men
in Heaven as he is planning world domination (this time via a
diamond encrusted space laser if you’re interested). Gray
is a fine actor and he gets some fantastic dialogue (“New
York… all that smut and traffic”) but is about as
threatening as a wet rag. More sinister, though equally camp,
are Mr Wint and Mr Kidd, Blofeld’s hired homosexual henchmen.
Brilliantly played by Bruce Glover and Putter Smith, they do fill
you with a genuine sense of unease, possibly as a result of their
murderous introduction killing a dentist with a scorpion and dumping
a sweet old lady in the river.
The ladies are a mixed bag this time. They combine great beauty
and resourcefulness with the consistency of jelly once they get
a sniff of Connery’s hairy chest. Tiffany Case (Jill St
John) starts off as possibly the most independently minded Bond
girl since Pussy Galore, but once she sleeps with James she becomes
just another pretty bimbo wandering around in her pants. Equally
useless, though in fairness, wildly underused, is Plenty O’Toole
(Lana Wood) who appears to be a high-class prostitute scamming
Vegas mugs for cash and sex. We can’t be sure about this
because almost as soon as she appears she’s thrown out of
a window, and then turns up dead in Tiffany’s swimming pool.
Why? No one seems to care. (A deleted scene has Wint and Kidd
mistaking her for Tiffany… yawn).
So what begins as a potentially gritty spy thriller (there’s
a fantastic fight between Bond and diamond smuggler, an early
highlight) quickly descends into cheap smut, over-long chase sequences,
and an oil-rig based climax that wastes a fantastic Ken Adam set.
But what do I know? DAF was seen as a major success box-office
wise, mainly (possibly) because of Connery’s re-appearance.
It also ushered in a lot of the cheap comedy for which Roger Moore
always gets the blame (Wint’s ‘enjoyment’ at
having his nadgers squeezed by Bond; the moon buggy chase; Blofeld
in DRAG!!!). It pleased many fans and Leonard Maltin ranks it
as one of the best of the series.
But for me it is a disjointed mess with some good moments, but
ultimately leaves me hungry for Moore.
Rating
"Diamonds Are Forever" by NicNac
Diamonds Are Forever, a knee jerk reaction to the less than
overwhelming performance of the one off Lazenby Bond OHMSS, was
an attempt by Eon to bring back the easy going fun of Goldfinger.
Saltzman and Broccoli still saw GF as the jewel in their Bond
crown and were determined to repeat the formula and hopefully
the success of the earlier film. As a result, Guy Hamilton was
re-hired to direct, and he took the assignment gratefully.
John Barry returned to provide the music, but the most noticeable
returning face, was that of Sean Connery. Lured by a £1
million fee (unheard of in 1970), Connery's about turn was nothing
short of remarkable, but did he provide a performance to match?
The simple answer is 'probably yes'. He looked 10 years older
than he had in YOLT, and 10lbs heavier as well. Even so the Connery
cool was in place and any problem with his appearance could be
forgotten and forgiven.
The supporting cast was generally excellent, including Jimmy Dean
as a Howard Hughes type figure, and Bruce Glover and Putter Smith
as the fey hitmen Wint and Kid.
Jill St John was the wise ass, mouthy Bond girl Tiffany Case,
and I certainly could have done with less of her, but that's a
small gripe.
The main villain Blofeld returned in the guise of Charles Gray.
His Blofeld proved to be much more hands on than any predecessor,
but for all that Gray still gave off sufficient menace, and was
probably the right sort of actor for this kind of film, extravagant,
and slightly camp!
The plot, about diamond smuggling, turned into the usual outer
space hardware nonsense, and lost it's way in spectacular fashion
ending in a tame oil rig shoot out. The rest of the action veered
in quality. A second rate punch up in a lift, a diverting car
chase, and an entertaining climax where Bond disposes of Wint
and Kidd in amusing style.
The Las Vegas locations now look a little 'so what', but then
again most Bond locations from the 60s and 70s do, mainly because
the world is a smaller place now.
So DAF… 70’s colourful Bond caper. Does it work,
or is it best forgotten?
OHMSS was, for me, a way forward, but the 70’s audiences
were ready to laugh at Bond's antics, and DAF set the ball rolling,
ready for LALD and all that followed. So perhaps we shouldn't
be hard on this film. Bond had been reinvented, and audiences
were secure for another 10 years or so.
It looks a little naff, it drags in places, and of course, the
cutting of vital scenes with Plenty O’Toole created a nightmare
of continuity problems, but DAF is still pretty good fun and there's
enough great dialogue, enjoyable scenes and mad characters to
allow us to at least let it off the hook.
Rating
"Diamonds Are Forever" by TimDalton007
After the rather “dismal” box-office returns of
1969’s On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, George Lazenby
left the role of James Bond and left the role of 007 open. Producers
Albert R. “Cubby” Broccoli and Harry Saltzman choose
to leave the serious Fleming-esque film and take the Goldfinger
approach of action humour and an outrageous plot. They even went
as far to give Sean Connery, who had said he would never play
the role again, $1,200,000 to play 007. The film promised to be
one of the best, with Connery saying that the script was “the
best one we’ve had, certainly construction wise.”
Unfortunately, the film does not come out as good as Connery makes
it to be.
The problems with the film start right with the main character,
007. Sean Connery does very little in terms of acting in the film
besides giving one liners that are mostly cringe worthy. The Bond
we start off with in the teaser sequence of the film is apparently
revenge minded and more like the Bond of Dr. No and From Russia
With Love. But after Bond arrives in Las Vegas, Bond becomes a
light hearted comedic character who is more interested in bedding
Tiffany Case and Plenty O’Toole then attempting to find
out who’s hoarding the smuggled diamonds. Age is also an
issue, as Connery changes hairstyle and colour many times in the
film and his scene with Plenty are unbelievable due to a very
obvious large age difference.
The main girl, Tiffany Case, is another character that starts
off good and ends up comedic and useless. Her meeting Bond in
Holland, her treatment of Bond and her getting the diamonds in
the Circus, Circus casino shows her to be a tuff self-sufficient
character who puts Bond in his place more than once. But once
the pursuit in the Moon Buggy is over and for the rest of the
film, Tiffany becomes a complete bimbo and a Bond sufficient woman.
This can’t be blamed on Jill St. John who does the best
that she can with this poorly written role.
The role of Ernst Stavro Blofeld the role is both poorly written
and terribly miscast. The Blofeld is nothing like the Blofeld’s
that we have previously seen in You Only Live Twice and On Her
Majesty’s Secret Service. While the Blofeld’s we had
previously seen have menace and have a commanding presence to
them, this Blofeld is the polar opposite. He is a sincere, un-menacing,
and just gives orders. He is much more interesting as he hides
behind the cover of Willard Whyte. It is only here that the character
has any menace what so ever. Once it’s revealed that Blofeld
is only pretending to be Whyte, the character becomes rather tiresome.
Also, Blofeld and Bond share no chemistry, such as in the previous
film, between them, only adding a tired feel to the film. This
is only hurt by one of the worst casting decisions in Bond history,
and do I dare say all film history, Charles Gray. Gray, who is
much better in his very short role in You Only Live Twice, is
the worst of the trio of actors to portray Blofeld.
The only highlight in the talent is the supporting cast. Plenty
O’Toole is the best of the supporting cast as she steals
every scene she is in during her short appearance (it is, however,
worth noting that a lot of her scenes ended up on the cutting
room floor). Willard Whyte is a truly inspired character that
is serious and only once used for a laugh (Whyte: “Burt
Saxby?” Bond: “Yes.” Whyte: “Tell him
he’s fired!”) and he actually makes a very good joke.
The casting of Jimmy Dean in that role was also inspired and he
is surprisingly very believable. The characters of Burt Saxby,
Morton Slumber, Shady Tree are all very well cast and stand out
enough to make this a memorable film in terms of supporting cast.
With that said, it is worth noting that the supporting cast is
not perfect. The role of Felix Leiter and the henchmen Wint and
Kidd are underwritten, and in the case of Leiter is miscast. The
characters of Wint and Kidd, like their boss Blofeld, lack menace
and are used entirely for comical purposes, shooting bad quips
at every given opportunity. Leiter is the polar opposite of the
character set in Dr. No and Thunderball and becomes more of the
paper pushing CIA agent seen in Goldfinger. Whilst in Goldfinger
the role was well written and that made up for the miscasting,
here it doesn’t. Norman Burton is totally unbelievable in
the role and the badly written part doesn’t help at all.
The action in the film reflects the approach of humour and outrageousness.
The opening fight in the teaser sequence starts off good, though
it is largely tame compared to the fight that started off the
previous film. Connery at least does well here in the fight scenes
and Blofeld does actually have some menace in the scene when he
attempts to stab 007, but that disappears the moment Bond easily
knocks him out with a light. The fight in the elevator stands
out as the best action sequence in the film and gives the film
a much-needed dose of realism. But the moon buggy chase and car
chase are useless as neither one pushes the plot on and are nothing
more than attempts to showcase Bond’s skills at causing
the police and security guards to destroy their cars. The climactic
battle on the oil rig is boring, hampered down by terrible effects
of exploding helicopters (the same can be said of the sequences
where Blofeld’s satellite sets off various nukes) and a
pathetic end to the film. The fight that actually ends the film,
with Wint and Kidd against Bond, is totally boring and only adds
to the overall boredom that is apparent in the film.
If there is a bright spot in this film its John Barry’s
score. The score is never played for laughs and perfectly suits
the films Las Vegas location and helps to add some much needed
tension to the film, particularly in the climb outside the Whtye
House. The score does have its moments of lacking. The music for
the Moon Buggy chase is not well suited to the chase and the over
use of a action theme that starts in the teaser and goes right
trough to the end of the film becomes tiresome. Also, some of
the score takes a lot from earlier ones (the Moon Buggy chase
sounding like the Gypsy girl fight in From Russia With Love and
the music accompanying the various attacks by Blofeld’s
satellite sounds like the space march from You Only Live Twice).
But overall it remains one of the overall best Bond scores with
its use of both the James Bond Theme and the 007 theme. The main
title theme is very reminiscent of Goldfinger and is a classic
song, both amongst Bond themes and songs in general.
With lacklustre performances by the major cast, a overall good
supporting cast, ridiculous action sequences, poor special effects
and a score that is one of the best in the series, Diamonds Are
Forever is a very mixed bag that proves to be better in parts
rather than the whole.
Rating
"Diamonds Are Forever" by JBails007
After the George Lazenby experiment didn't work out, the somewhat
strange decision was to bring back Sean Connery. Since the unspectacular
and realistic OHMSS did not achieve the results that were expected,
Broccoli and Saltzman decided to return to an over-the-top action
film, with very mixed results.
The fact that there is a distinct lack of continuation is apparent
very early in the film. For one thing, one of the poorest casting
choices in the series was made with Charles Gray as Blofeld. If
Telly Savalas was a bit of a stretch in OHMSS (which I believe
he was), then Gray's Blofeld is just flat out ridiculous. He's
British, has hair, and isn't in the least bit menacing, and is
far too suave and sophisticated.
While I feel OHMSS was not one of the better movies in the series,
it left a great set-up for a spectacular conclusion to the Bond
vs. SPECTRE saga. Bond goes on a mission of pure revenge and satisfyingly
avenges his dead wife. That did not happen. There was no mention
of Tracy. It almost seemed like they were trying to forget that
OHMSS had existed. The return to Connery's Bond even further solidified
the fact.
With all that said, I must try to look at Diamonds just as an
individual movie and not a sequel to OHMSS. It is a very entertaining
movie, with a fair amount of action (including an awesome car
chase) and probably the most humour in the series. But in my opinion,
the humour is far too constant and takes away the effectiveness
of any suspense. Connery gives a very unusual portrayal of Bond,
which is very funny but I found it shockingly un-Bondlike. The
character of Tiffany Case is the weakest Bond girl of them all
in my opinion. She is not in the least bit bright, and is quite
an annoyance throughout the movie.
The film does have some outstanding high points, however. Wint
and Kidd, the movie's homosexual hitmen, are surprisingly amusing
characters. While not the most talented actors, Bruce Glover and
Putter Smith play the roles in a very entertaining and unique
fashion. Jimmy Dean does very well in his role as Willard Whyte,
and has surprising screen presence. The movie has the most unique
feel of any Bond movie. It doesn't have the traditional 007 feel,
which is hard to say sometimes whether that is good or bad. Personally
I believe that is the high point of this disappointing movie.
This was a very unworthy swan song for Sean Connery. He was arguably
the best James Bond, and for some reason his portrayal is not
his normal one in this movie. The movie makes very little attempt
to take itself seriously, and does not properly close the book
on the Bond vs. SPECTRE idea, which had been going strong for
so long in the series. It is entertaining, and on its own would
be a very good movie. Unfortunately it is part of the amazing
Bond series and in my opinion fails to live up to standards.
Rating
"Diamonds Are Forever" by Tubes
After OHMSS finished with disappointing returns, EON hit the
panic button and fell back on their tried and true Bond formula.
To further guarantee box office results, they decided to imitate
the most popular Bond to that point, Goldfinger. They were correct
in their assumption (number one in 71), but the movie itself wasn't
up to par.
First off, it practically damns itself by completely ignoring
the previous film, OHMSS. Normally it wouldn't matter, but since
it ended in a cliffhanger of some sorts, it is disappointing to
not see a true revenge story. Some may point out "Watch the
pre-credits sequence. Bond clearly hunts down Blofeld!".
But how do they explain M scolding him for taking too much time
off? Or Moneypenny asking for a diamond ring (marriage anyone?).
Naturally, as the series progresses and attitudes for OHMSS change
to the point that future films reference Bond's failed marriage,
it make Diamonds look even more ridiculous.
Aside from this, it doesn't do a bad job. Connery actually puts
some energy into the role, instead of sleepwalking through it
a la YOLT. Wint and Kid are one of the best henchmen ever made
and they steal every scene they are in. Up until the last scenes
in the film, Tiffany Case is a good character, which can't be
said for some others. Charles Gray does a good job playing the
villain, if it wasn't Blofeld. It doesn't make sense to hire someone
who doesn’t match any characteristics for the character
you hired him for! He would have been great as a different villain,
though.
The supporting cast is fairly good. Plenty steals her meager
amount of scenes, Jimmy Dean is a great acting choice for Willard
Whyte. The only mishap is Felix Leiter. The acting choice is even
worse than Goldfinger. It also seems that the producers want to
make the CIA look like hapless bimbos.
The main problem with Diamonds is that the script doesn't make
much sense. This could be due to the fact that it went through
two different screenwriters with different points of view. It
ends up contradicting itself when it tries to explain Blofeld’s
motives (America held at ransom, then a nuclear auction? Not the
same thing!). It almost makes itself up by adding witty one-liners,
predominantly coming from Wint, Kidd, or both.
The main problem with Diamonds is that it reeks of the 70's.
It tries to shove it down your throat. I can accept the more subdued
style that LALD has, but this really is unacceptable. The entire
feel of the film is just wrong. Parts where there is supposed
to be suspense lacks it. If they had made the film with a little
more realistic tone to it, it would have been much better in my
point of view.
John Barry scores the move very well and there is some great
cinematography in some scenes. But the feel of the film completely
wreaks it. On a good day, it is average. On a bad day, I can't
stand watching it.
Rating
