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