|Page 11 of 25:||               |
|Index||250 reviews in total|
DAF will always stick between the views of stern Connery/Bond fans as well
as any other Bond fan.
But one thing is clear: It's the one where Connery's showing his weakest
performance until 1984, when he resurrected as well as updated 'his' Bond
not only successfully but also brilliantly.
DAF is also the most 'American' Bond movie until Dalton's second
It's apparent in every single scene that they didn't quite know where to
stick to the original style or shift towards Hollywood
But this still isn't a bad Bond movie - at least not as 'bad' as movies like
'Man With The Golden Colt' or the other 'American' Bond, License To Kill.
It's also the most cynical and ill-balanced Bond movie, shifting from traditional traits to pretty sick and TOO sexist 'jokes' - even for Bond.
But for fans..., and that's not to be underestimated, it still has its values.
And excellent title song. (No wonder, it's done by Shirly Bassey again) A decent main villain. (Charles Gray, this time on the wrong side of Bond.) Two memorable 'executors'. Who'll ever forget Mr Wint & Mr Kidd walking hand in hand? Two classic deadly weirdos, long before Hannibal Lecter claimed originality.
In a way this movie is my 'guilty Bond pleasure', cos it's still full of little aspects keeping me interested, even though I don't like the general outcome that much. Seen in broad daylight, though, it's the third worst of the lot.
"Diamonds Are Forever" (1971) is the seventh official James Bond movie and
saw Sean Connery returning to the role that he left in 1967 for 4 million
dollars . After George Lazenby turned down the offer for this movie after
his single 007 performance in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" (1969), the
producers were desperately looking for a new Bond actor. As Roger Moore was
bound to his "Persuaders" TV series at that time and another promising young
actor, Timothy Dalton, considered himself too young for the role, it was
Connery's turn to shave off his moustache and take his toupet and tuxedo for
another mission with Martinis, girls and fights.
"Diamonds Are Forever" was the first Bond movie of the seventies and wanted to leave the sixties formula of cold-war-fiction behind - the problem was that the producers didn't know where to move. The whole plot is ridiculous, boring, lame and just another repetition of the Blofeld-wants-to-conquer-the-world-story without any new ideas. So Bond hunts Blofeld and a pack of diamonds around the world, but no one really knows whats going on.
The settings - South Africa, Amsterdam and the United States - are not as well photographed as in the previous movies. While "You Only Live Twice" (1967) and "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" (1969) took much time to show the best sides of Japan and Switzerland and to introduce the local settings and culture to the audiences, the places in "Diamonds" are just superfluous. Images of South African gold mines and the city of Amsterdam are just short postcard views, as well as the setting of the Californian desert. You don't see as much of the fascinating city of Amsterdam (e.g. the canal streets) as in the Bond-rip-off "Puppet On A String", an Alistair McLean thriller adaption that was filmed at the same time.
The action sequences are mainly boring, and a car chase on a parking place looks rather like a scene from an old Keystone Cops comedy. The story itself has no logical progression and no real tempo at all, but is often interrupted by senseless other scenes. There are also too many stupid slapstick and comedy elements involved, but nearly no thrills and suspense.
The worst about this movie is the acting - apart from Connery, there is just a second-class cast in this movie. Charles Gray's Blofeld is not menacing at all and can't compete with Donald Pleasence's and Telly Savalas' Blofeld performances. Jill St. John is a dreadful and stupidly acting Bond girl, and Norman Burton's Felix Leiter looks rather like a shopping clerk. There is an offending couple of gay killers and a funny, but senseless couple of wrestling amazon girls.
The positive points about "Diamonds" are not many too mention. Connery's performance is good as ever and rescues the film from a complete disaster. There is also a brilliantly edited fighting scene between Bond and a henchman in an elevator in Amsterdam. The theme was sung by Shirley Bassey for the second time after "Goldfinger", but hasn't got the impact and style of that classic Bond tune. John Barry's score is fine, but has too many repetitions of the Bond and 007 themes from previous movies and also contains some dull comedy tunes that rather fits into a Disney movie.
It's hard to believe that "Goldfinger" director Guy Hamilton was responsible for this disappointing Bond adventure that cannot reach the quality and style of the first six 007 missions. Hamilton also directed the following two parts of the series which were as bit better and went into new directions - "Live And Let Die" (1973) and "The Man With The Golden Gun" (1974) featuring Roger Moore. Fortunately he turned down the direction of "The Spy Who Loved Me" (1977) - the first Movie who became a true Bond classic again for a very long time.
Why all the bad vibes about this movie?
Sure this isn't the best of Bonds, but I find myself coming back to this one quite a few times.
I didn't like Jill St. John too much...even though I haven't seen OHMSS, I hated them having to pair up Bond with her after Diana Rigg. Her character was a bit too much of a bimbo.
This is the first Bond movie that I have seen Blofeld in; later I found out that Blofeld was in all the previous Bonds except "Dr. No" and "Goldfinger." He wasn't the creep that Donald Pleasance was.
When I first saw Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd, those two characters REALLY gave me the creeps. I know some people find them as comic relief, but the two were pretty scary looking to me.
One gripe I have with this Bond movie is the scene where Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd put Bond in the coffin in the funeral parlor and try to cremate him alive. This was, in my opinion, a bit too creepy for a Bond movie.
This movie really had you guessing with the plot and all the diamonds being smuggled for unknwon reasons, but when the real reason came out, it was cool. I liked that laser satellite.
The scenes in Las Vegas have to be the best in the whole movie. It picks up when Bond goes to the Whyte House. It gave you a sense of good feeling inside afterward.
All in all, not a bad Bond flick. A good one, but not up there with "Goldeneye," "Goldfinger," "FRWL," "TSWLM," and "TND."
And some people are complaining about no tie-ins to OHMSS. I think the opening sequence well explains Bond's anger toward Blofeld (he even strangles a woman who Bond could fall in love with!).
*** out of ****
Yes, James Bond is back with a vengeance along with the actor, who in most
people's eyes, is the ultimate Bond-Sean Connery, now with a couple of gray
cells throughout his hairline.
It's the Seventies,and the producers take us into that era of Bond with total grace, finesse, and Schlock!...It's as though Connery had never been away, and to some people 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' was all a bad dream.
The film gets underway with a great opening sequence with Sean asking various dodgy characters 'Where is he?!', as regards to Ernst Stavro Blofeld, and was a great way to start out this adventure. Obviously, the James Bond that Sean portrays is carrying on from where he left off with his portrayal in 'You Only Live Twice' in 1967 and he isn't as melodramatic as would be expected from the events of the previous Bond movie, 'OHMSS'. We are treated to a great car chase in Las Vegas with James getting on the wrong side of American law and order, if you can call it that.
Charles Gray turns in a slightly comic portrayal as Blofeld, but is still quite believable as a modern day villain who doesn't care about the disaster he has caused in the life of James Bond, he certainly wants to create more havoc with his attempts at world domination. Jill St. John and Lana Wood are as sexy as ever with the addition of two 'heavy' Bond girls-'Bambi' and 'Thumper'.
Shirley Bassey belts out the hit theme and alas, we have another popular Bond classic which is to mark the final, albeit, unofficially penultimate outing for Mr. Connery.
I am a very young James Bond fan, but a very big one. Personally Sean Connery is the best Bond and will always be the best Bond. The first films in the series are by far the best and when Connery left in 67, and Lazenby took over for a movie things didn't look so good. But it turned out that On Her Majesty's Secret Service is one of the best films, and Lazenby is not that bad. But the return of Sean Connery in Diamonds are Forever, was just an excuse to hype up a really bad movie. This movie is terrible, I gave it a chance, and I'm not saying I don't own it, but its garbage. Why is Blofeld suddenly not paralyzed, why does he have hair. Why does he have two extremely dumb side kicks working for him as if he were a comic book character. The movie just keeps no resemblence to the rest of the series and tries to be funny. In my opinion ( hell I don't want some crazed fan emailing me) this is the worst and definatey most annoying movie in this legendary movie series.
This is a classic bond film. It has everything you would expect and more. There are gadgets galore, beautiful women and fascinating locations, along with a classic Bond plot. James bond starts in London as usual but visits Amsterdam, Las Vegas and the Nevada Desert along the way to name just a few. He is pitted against his arch enemy Blofeld once again, who has stolen a considerable amount of diamonds and is planning to use them from space to hold the world to ransom. Bond is of course sent to save the world, win the hand of the lady and arrive home shaken not stirred. This film has probably one of the most memorable car chases of all time featured in it and is worth viewing just for that. An absolute diamond of a film which seems to improve with age, a bit like a good wine.
The biggest problem with the character of Blofeld is that the film
makers felt the need for him to be seen. None of his appearances in
film have done the super villain any justice at all. He either looks
idiotic or simply lacking the substance he ought to have.
Blofeld was at his best in From Russia With Love. The voice had authority, threatened in a calm forbidding manner, never shouting nor excited. You could believe this man was the top guy and this Blofeld would never have put himself in direct opposition to Bond face to face. There would have been an army of Spectre agents in between them.
Grey tried to look evil, Pleasance whom I otherwise liked as an actor, simply looked ridiculous.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
So Diamonds are forever was fair but i didn't feel the Bond. 1. The Bond Girls. First off they were so annoying. they made me laugh because they were so stupid. Plenty O'Toole could get away with not being so bad because she is barely in the story. Tiffany made me mad. Seriously she fell off the oil rig with a machine gun by shooting it, the was pretty funny but stupid. Bond girls total rating: 4/10. 2. Villain. Still the Ernst Stavro Blofeld I know. Just not evil and sinister in my opinion. Henchmen some were OK while others weren't that good. Bambi and Thumper, Funny, dumb names, but good fight.Mr Wint and Dr Kidd. Not so great. Total 7/10 3.James Bond himself. Sean Connery so obviously good. I have not much to say. He wasn't as good as others in this. So the total:7/10 That was my review, bye.
Diamonds are forever is Connery's swan song after refusing to come back Connery was enticed into it by money lots and lots of money. And Sean Connery was worth every cent. the movie picks up where On her Majesty's secret service left off. Bond is hunting Blofeld and when he finds him he murders him. His vendetta done Bond returns home and is given a assignment involving Diamond smugglers. But since this is a mission for 007 nothing is as it seems. The Diamonds are pursued by two homosexual killers Wint and Kidd who are two of the most memorable characters in the movie. When Bond tracks the diamonds down to a smuggler name Tiffany Case things heat up. Tiffany has been targeted for death and Bond saves her only to find the whole thing goes much deeper. Blofeld is back from the dead for one thing. And a mysterious billionaire named Willard whyte is involved somehow. The film while not the best written Bond benefits from it;s strengths which is mainly Connery as Bond. It's a good sound action flick which goes well with a bowl of popcorn and the lights dimmed. Sean Connery is James Bond. What More can you want from a Bond movie?
I watched this yesterday, ITV are running some Bonds right now and I
had "enjoyed" those shown like Thunderball & You Only Live Twice,
strange though in this one Charles Gray was Henderson, on the screen
for about 10 seconds before getting a knife in him. Now he turns up in
this as Blofeld or is it Blofield, who cares.
The whole thing was a shambolic effort just to prove Bond films had run out of gas way back then.
This should have been the last one.
Not enough lines again, how many lines does one need to say the film was a waste of time and money, shall I write more lines, and keep writing lines, why do you need ten lines, is this ten lines now?
|Page 11 of 25:||               |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||Newsgroup reviews||External reviews|
|Parents Guide||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|