Diamonds Are Forever in Review

George Lazenby’s decision not to continue as 007 left producers Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman in something of a quandry. They went cap (and huge bundle of cash) in hand to Sean Connery who would eventually agree to return for his sixth outing as James Bond.

Blofeld is back yet again, this time with a madcap idea for building a laser gun big enough to destroy entire cities. To do so, he needs a massive amount of diamonds and James is charged with infiltrating the international smuggling ring supplying them.

In the way is a rogues' gallery featuring winsome homosexual button men Mr Kidd and Mr Wint, high-kicking tag-team Bambi and Thumper, a stand-up comedian called Shady Tree and shady mortician Morton Slumber as James follows the diamonds from Amsterdam to Vegas to the Californian coast.

But despite a tight story, some fresh locations and a memorably strange and nightmarish feel, it lacks the true spirit of Bond. Connery has fun with one of the more comic Bonds, but by now it’s really time for him to hand over the double-O status to some new blood and for the series to move on.

(Adam Lee Davies)

Sean Connery is lured back with a ton of cash and struggles to fit into a girdle. Your thoughts on his (triumphant?) return in this thread!

Here's mine, courtesy of the MI6 Archive:

Got a Bit Bored Towards the End
A Review of Diamonds Are Forever by Fairbairn-Sykes

Ugh. Okay, this was a tough one. Not to write, but just to watch. Oh, man. Diamonds Are Forever is the seventh film in the EON canon, but it is certainly not the lucky charm. The title, the characters, and certain plot elements are taken from Ian Fleming's fourth novel. It's enough to get his name over the title, though EON wisely stopped putting "based on the novel by" in the credits long ago. Wouldn't want anyone reading anything that might reveal what an steaming pile this quick buck flick is.
To bring our history lessons up to speed -- Sean Connery, the Man Who Was Bond, had decided to leave the series. His complaints? Too much comedy, gadgetry and not enough plot or character development. So what does EON do after he leaves? They produce a film without him that is serious, has no gadgets, and is very plot and character driven. Then, after their second Bond, Australian George Lazenby, bailed on them, they got desperate and threw a million dollars and Sean and got him back. What did they do once they had him? They produced a film that is very comedic, has lots of extraneous gadgets and seems to forget that movies are supposed to even have plots, much less characters.
Let's use the patented Fairbairn-Sykes method to dissect the bloated corpse that is Diamonds Are Forever.
PHYSICAL EXERTION (ACTION): Well, there couldn't be a lot of this in the movie -- Connery's decided to let himself go and it's clear he didn't care enough to get back into shape for the picture. A very select few scenes manage to work, mainly those with assassins Wint and Kidd (when they aren't making gay jokes), but for the most part, any action scenes the film has fall incredibly limp. In earlier Bond movies, action scenes in and of themselves helped drive the plot forward, taking us inexorably from Point A to Point B. In Diamonds, it more or less seems like the story stops to allow the action scenes to happen, and then we return to the story. These scenes then have no tension or drama, and tend to bore rather than entertain. The fight between Bond and two femme fatales named Bambi and Thumper is completely gratuitous, the scene where Las Vegas cops engage in a car chase with Bond comes across as more of a joke than anything else, and even the oil rig climax is devoid of all life (it doesn't help that instead of actually seeing the villain's comeuppance, we just forget about him). The action scenes in this film come across as attempts to pad the film out to feature length, as Maibaum and Mankiewicz's uninspired script probably has only 75 minutes of storyline left in it. There are a few exceptions to this rule -- the Wint and Kidd scenes possess a macabre sense of terror much of the film lacks, and a brutal battle between Bond (!) and diamond smuggler Peter Franks early in the film is quite engaging and reminds one of the good old FRWL days. Connery also remembers some of his early brutality in the PTS scenes. But once you get to the frankly ridiculous and pointless moon buggy chase, it becomes hard not to just start fast forwarding.
4/10
MYSTERY (PLOT): The credit says the film had two writers, but I'd be willing to believe three. The film divides neatly into three almost entirely separate and quite different sections, none of which except perhaps the first is well-written. In the first third of the film, which ends roughly when Bond reaches America, there is a definite narrative storyline to follow and the plot seems to be moving forward. There are many scenes from Fleming's novel and it seems like we're going to get a movie about Bond vs. Diamond Smugglers. Connery is brutal, the dialogue is tight, Jill St. John is engaging as Tiffany Case. Then we get the second third of the film, which ends right after the police car chase. This section, which I call "Bond in America" is basically filler. You could cut almost all of it out and lost little to no plot information. We're simply biding time. We follow the damned MacGuffin diamonds this way and that, Tiffany Case switches sides in the most arbitrary of manners, and Plenty O'Toole dies by falling into a giant plot hole. The plot structure of the film begins to resemble one of those cheapo seventies Bugs Bunny movies -- where the "plot" is really short new segments stringing together the old pre-produced Road Runner cartoons. We literally get long sections of chase scenes (lazily filmed and boringly executed) between tiny snippets of plot. I feel like I'm watching a less-engaging version of The Matrix Reloaded. As the movie went on it increasingly felt like I was watching a series of individual and self-contained scenes that were strung together in only the most casual of manner later in editing, and the writing tends to bare me out. The final third of the movie begins with the screenwriters almost joking about the huge holes in the movie's story when it switches from the police chasing after Bond to suddenly Bond and Tiffany on a glass window and Tiffany saying "James, how did we end up in the bridal suite of the Whyte House?". In the final third, we finally get some plot again, but it's somehow incredibly far removed from both the plot we started with and the plot of Fleming's novel. Blofeld's back and this time he's using diamonds to create a laser in order to attempt a pastiche of the schemes in Thunderball and You Only Live Twice. We also discover that the entire elaborate Blofeld doubles scheme was done just to set up a "right idea, wrong pussy" gag. Case becomes unbearably stupid in this section, hardly the character we met in the first act. Blofeld, a menacingly intelligent overlord of evil in earlier films, is now a kind of tame, kindly old man who has about as much menace as an old uncle. The climax is probably one of the weakest of the series, and you can tell the money's running low because we start get animated (as in drawn) pyrotechnics. I thought I was watching James Bond, not Godzilla vs. Megalon!! The final scene takes us back to Fleming, although it also starts the "henchman outlives the villain" trend that would become the norm in the Roger Moore films. Not that they really follow the equivalent scene in the book. If they had, it might've been...good. Finally, the film ends with a really weak joke and more of a whimper than anything else. When most Bond films end, I feel excited and ready for the next film -- think Goldfinger, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Live and Let Die, or Casino Royale. At the end of this film, I have to have someone poke me and say "Hey, it's over! You fell asleep!"
2/10
A RUTHLESS ENEMY (DRAMA): So of the newly cast roles, two good decisions were made. Connery as Bond, and St. John as Case. Connery, despite being clearly uninterested, still demonstrates that a bored Connery trumps an engaged Brosnan any day. His no-nonsense, confident, manly awesomeness makes up for a wide variety of the movie's ills. St. John shines as Case when she's given the right lines. Or maybe it's the fact that I'm biased and love redheads. Unfortunately, the casting director also proves he's a total moron by making Charles Gray the third (!) actor to portray Ernst Stavro Blofeld in as many movies. If there's anything that weakens Blofeld's claim to being Bond's Moriarty, it's that it's extremely difficult for the audience to have a proper relationship with the character when the actor is constantly changing and each one plays the role COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY! Ignoring Gray's earlier appearance as Henderson in YOLT, I can't find him threatening as Blofeld because this is the guy who I've spent most of my life mocking in darkened theatres for NOT HAVING A NECK!! Add to the fact that he dresses in drag, acts in a fashion totally incompatible with earlier appearances (Blofeld has Bond in his hands multiple times and each time acts like he's an old chum who he has no reason to kill), and is disposed of in a completely unsatisfactory and ambiguous fashion. If he got away, I want to see it! If he dies, I want to see it! Don't just have Bond start hurting him in a very third-party removed manner and then just forget about him altogether!! Speaking of characters who keep switching actors, this entry's Felix Leiter is distinguishable in that he is completely unlikeable. Connery manages to pull-off having a believable friendship with him, but Felix spends the whole movie berating Bond as if he was a frustrated schoolteacher. To be honest, once Peter Franks was dead and Tiffany pulled out the Playboy card saying "James Bond" and KNEW who James Bond WAS, I lost all interest in the movie.
1/10
Diamonds Are Forever misses on far too many levels. It seems like it's coasting, like it's lazy, and like no one's putting too much effort in. Connery makes up for a lot, but not enough. I even stop caring about him eventually. The film marks the slow start of the Bond films beginning to wink at themselves, with the constant recognition in this film of James Bond as an amazing superspy. Haha, I get it, Bond is famous, like in real life -- but if everyone knows about James Bond, how could he be an effective spy? Also -- I can point to this movie and blame it for nearly every boring cliche and tired joke I had to sit through in the Roger Moore era.
To summarize this review in short: Damn you, Guy Hamilton! Damn you!!
There's a scene in this movie, and an equivalent scene in the book, where M asks Bond about his vacation time. In the film, Bond declares it "hardly relaxing, but most satisfying". In the book, Bond states it was "not bad, but I got bit bored towards the end." Unfortunately for EON Productions, I agree with the literary Bond on this one. Yawn.
Diamonds Are Forever (1971) -- 2 out of 10

Such a fun filled film with the best dialogue in the series. I think Connery had a blast is this film, and I really enjoy it.

Witty screenplay and great characters. Severely underrated.

The funniest of all the Bond films, with a great script courtesy of the late Tom Mankiewicz. Connery is at his best since Thunderball. Weirdly it appears that some die hard fans don't appreciate the greatness of Diamonds, but seem to forget that Bond isn't a stiff arsed killer all the time.
A film that is to be enjoyed on every viewing.

Funny, but a very dark film as well.

Great escapist fun. Love the camp feeling. 8)

ambler wrote:

Funny, but a very dark film as well.

It's comedy of the absurd.

Chang wrote:

Weirdly it appears that some die hard fans don't appreciate the greatness of Diamonds, but seem to forget that Bond isn't a stiff arsed killer all the time.

Lot of fans just shit on it for not being a OHMSS followup/revenge thriller. That was never going to happen without Lazenby and they should just accept DAF as a completely separate film like most Bond films are supposed to be.

You're killing me with these.

A bloke from another forum made em. These are the only ones he ever made.

Besides this too:

Diamonds is a taught, funny thriller up until the oil rig climax. At that point, all the tension leaves the film. It's quality up until that point, however. It's at least several steps above YOLT, if only because Connery isn't comatose.

Tubes wrote:

Diamonds is a taught, funny thriller up until the oil rig climax. At that point, all the tension leaves the film. It's quality up until that point, however.

Yeah. Wasn't that a hastily improvised ending? Could have been worse: QoS was a hastily improvised entire film.

I think its the ultimate Bond film. Sean in full swagger, saying goodbye to the series that made him fat rich and famous.

Outrageous escapist entertainment, but with a dark undertone. High camp offset by palpable danger and tension.

Tiff and Plenty are the ultimate va-voom Bond girls.(St.John as Tiffany Case may be the perfect woman) Both of them are pure cheese, but with style, brains and attitude to spare, which works quite nicely with the tacky yet glamorous Vegas setting

The John Barry music, the smart Tom Mank dialogue, highly imaginative set design and Guy Hamilton's directorial flair all help to make DAF the most enjoyable Bond film of the bunch.

Sean maybe a little heavier, having settled into his 41st year, but he's as menacing as any Bond ever.

Its also the gayest of the Bond films and in a very postitive sense. The film revels in its extravagance, including the flamboyant flourishes provided by both the deadly duo of Wint and Kidd and Charles Gray's high camp, but equally sinister female-impersonator-empresario stylings as Bond's greatest enemy.
Compare with QoS, which is rife with unsettling "Bond might be gay" subtext, which only serves to subvert the true nature of Bond while playing to the pc pretentions of the filmmakers.
DAF on the other hand is not burdened by pc inclinations, so Hamilton is free to play up gay caricatures for maxium entertainment value, without showing any disrespect.

DAF is the best of Bond. It works great on a double bill of showiing it once followed by showing it again. Double the fun. Double the excitement. Double 007 adventure.
Its also a good Bond pick me up after enduring a viewing of the dreary lifeless QoS.

Yuck.

dr. strangelove wrote:

Yuck.

Philistine! :affraid:

ambler wrote:

Tubes wrote:

Diamonds is a taught, funny thriller up until the oil rig climax. At that point, all the tension leaves the film. It's quality up until that point, however.

Yeah. Wasn't that a hastily improvised ending? Could have been worse: QoS was a hastily improvised entire film.

The finale was supposed to take place over a Salt Mine or something wasn't it? But then the owner wouldn't let them shoot it.

I'm of the opinion that all the Bonds (with the exception of Dalton) made one Bond film too many. Just that one film where they were just a bit too thick around the middle to carry it off. And this, for me, is Connery's one too many. I spend the entire film just thinking, "Yeah - it's good - but how much better would it have been with a younger Connery, or just a younger Bond?"

*prepares to don the asbestos suit*

So what would that make Never Say Never Again?

Vesper wrote:

So what would that make Never Say Never Again?

Two Bond films too many ;)

I never really think of it as a Bond film. Rather like counting the original Casino Royale.

I see this site is untainted by DAF-hating scum.

:)

Stilicho Bias wrote:

I see this site is untainted by DAF-hating scum.

:)

On my ranking it's number five and counting. Whatever that means.

I've got it No.6 with little opportunity for it to either ascend or decline.

I'm not a big fan of DAF, but I appreciate it for what it is, which also happens to be a load of fun.

I'm intrigued by it more since learning more about Jill St. John's mafia connections.