IMDb > Diamonds Are Forever (1971) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Diamonds Are Forever
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Diamonds Are Forever More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 11 of 26: [Prev][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [Next]
Index 259 reviews in total 

2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Sean Connery puts the series back on track

8/10
Author: action-6 from Froland, Norway
7 March 2000

James Bond is back on top after the terrible On her Majesty`s Secret Service. James Bond goes to Las Vegas to investigate the disapperance of diamonds in transit and discovers the involvement of his arch enemy, Blofeld.

Great action and a great soundtrack. A great film! 8,5/10

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Connery Goes Out, with a Splash

7/10
Author: asdodge from United States
12 December 2008

This is not the most favored Bond flick, however, it is not a bad film at all. Bond is asked to investigate a diamond operation and eventually uncovers a supervillain plot to blackmail the world by Spectre. The plot is fine, except for the use and portrayal of lasers (ahh, to have had the internet and research back then). Connery, however, has aged... the stress and hassles of being Bond once more and aging make him a little less impressive, and the script seems more suited to a Lazenby or Moore than to Connery. Supposedly to regain the American audiences lost when "OHMSS" did not do as well in US box offices, the film is based entirely in the USA and many famous American bit actors appear. (oddly enough, "Live and let Die" - the first Moore film, is also heavy in US locations). The movie follows the standard formula begun with 'Goldfinger" and could even be called a re-make of it- just substitute the lust for gold with the need for diamonds.

Connery gives a fine performance as Bond... dialoguing as well as he ever has- he just looks tired and out of shape (which, considering the movie begins with his seeking revenge for the loss of his one and only wife- Tracy, who was gunned down in the previous movie works in the plot at first.)

The movie has taken undo criticism for homophobia in the portrayal of two assassins- actually, it was rather brave to even suggest it, as homosexuality was not a truly open topic for the movie audience this was aimed at (even "Midnight Cowboy" got the "X" rating for its subtle yet frank depiction of male and gay prostitution). The two characters are humorous, but claims they play to stereotypes are misfounded. Neither plays the more familiar campy queen hair-stylist/interior decorator homosexual often mocked in comedy. Both are efficient killers. Bond movies had already hinted at homosexuality twice before (Col. Kleb in "From Russia With Love" makes extremely subtle advances on Tanya and Pussy Galore and her troupe were all supposed to be lesbians, as in the novel), but it was forced to be subtler or implied. In DAF, they push the envelope and make no doubts as to the orientation. Again, the criticism is unjust.

Anyhow, in this story, Bond is asked to investigate an apparent diamond smuggling operation that is leaving a trail of corpses from South Africa to las Vegas. Bond comes across one Tiffany Case who seems to be a ringleader for the smuggling operation and slowly gets her to start helping him. As Bond delves into this mystery further, however, he uncovers a plot to use a diamond-based laser gun in orbit to blackmail the world into paying a ransom. All this circles around the industries of a recluse billionaire, Willard Whyte. Bond eventually discovers that it is Blofeld and SPECTRE up to their tricks again and must stop them and save Willard Whyte.

The weakest point is the Jill St. John character, Tiffany Case. Set up at the start of the film as a key cog in a smuggling operation, self-assured and intelligent, by the end of the picture she has become another bouncing Bond bikini-clad bimbo, clumsy and silly. Had she been a more consistent portrayal, the movie would have been even better. Country singer and sausage king Jimmy Dean plays "Willard Whyte"- a casino owner and billionaire based on Howard Hughes. He comes off a bit of a country bumpkin; he's is okay, but he could have been better.

The usual special effects, innovative chases, wonderful camera work is all here. A fine effort with a couple of weak spots that might make one cringe here or there, but Connery hangs up his license to kill very well.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Who made this?

4/10
Author: coy_dog0 from Windsor, Ontario
12 February 2008

Who made this? Certainly not Guy Hamilton. Was Goldfinger a fluke? I knew I was in for trouble within the first 30 seconds of this film. The awkward pacing of the pre-credits sequence sets the stage for the only embarrassment in Connery's Bond filmography. After the artistic peak of OHMSS, this film seems like it belongs to another franchise altogether--maybe Shaft?

The script is terrible, the jokes fall flat, the lighting is horrid, Connery looks 65, and the film has lost all the polish and grit of the 60s film series. Its clear that the story is just scaffolding for the action. Connery breaks into a set for a moon landing and then steals a moon car thing and spends the next 15 minutes being chased by goons. Why exactly? (You know you're in a trash film when the camera lingers on extras and stuntmen rolling over and crashing in slow motion).

I was a little bored during Thunderball, with all the spectacle, but Diamonds Are Forever is something else altogether--its B movie in an A franchise.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

One of the Very Best Bonds

8/10
Author: jzappa from Cincinnati, OH, United States
11 February 2007

Diamonds Are Forever is undoubtedly one of the very best Bond films. It's one of the most tightly directed, humorous, and most intelligent of the twenty-one.

The plot is very smart. It moves with elusive and detailed grace. You will be surprised when certain characters or story elements leave and then suddenly return after the streaming of the plot has seemingly established itself. Diamonds Are Forever has two of the best Bond villains of the whole series, a sadistic and ruthless gay couple that finishes each other's sentences.

Sean Connery is possibly at his sexiest as Bond here in his final round in the official series, debonair as can be and with the suavest delivery of one-liners and mandatory bad puns upon beating someone up or killing them. He is without a doubt the best of all the Bonds.

Jill St. John, doubtlessly one of the sexiest Bond women ever, is given the short straw however, projecting one of the film's few flaws. She begins as a surprisingly clever and resourceful early Bond woman. It is only the fault of the writing that she, a common American criminal, somehow knows of elite British Secret Service agent James Bond, as if he were a celebrity, or that she spots Blofeld by his white cat even though she had never seen either one before, nor was there any chance for Bond to describe to her Blofeld or the cat. Alas, being an early Bond woman, her strength of character just could not last. Gradually throughout the film, her character becomes ditsier, weaker, dumber, and without clarity in her character's motivation. This is typical of Bond films and the earlier the Bond film, the more prevalent that unfortunate chauvinistic element is. At least most of the earlier Bond women were better actresses than they were in the later Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton films. It was an even trade-off: In order to be a powerful female character in a James Bond movie, you had to be a bad actress. If you were a good actress, you had to be a weak little girlie.

Driving the movie alone is the theme song sung by Shirley Bassey and John Barry's brilliant and pulsing score. James Bond films are known for the strength in their music, and Diamonds Are Forever is one of the brightest highlights in that area.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Sean Connery as James Bond is forever.

10/10
Author: bluesman-20 from Canada
4 July 2010

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?

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Connery's Best

10/10
Author: eil-2 from Lockerbie, Scotland
2 April 2001

After George Lazenby left the 007 series to pursue what is now obviously a failed movie career, MGM lured Connery back for one more Bond. And what an inspired idea it was. Connery is brilliant as 007, bringing some excellent humour to the film, and Charles Gray, as a rather camp Blofeld, is truly hilarious with some classic lines. Unfortunately, Jill St John plays a rather flat Bond girl after Diana Rigg's superb performance in the previous movie, and the special effects look terribly outdated today. Highlights include John Barry's excellent score, the pre- credits sequence, Bond mountaineering up a Las Vegas casino, Blofeld's henchmen Wint and Kidd, and the Moonbuggy chase. Classic Bond.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Such a pity. All that time and energy wasted, simply to provide you with one mock, heroic moment.

6/10
Author: Spikeopath from United Kingdom
17 May 2012

Diamonds Are Forever is directed by Guy Hamilton and adapted to screenplay by Richard Maibaum and Tom Mankiewicz from the novel of the same name written by Ian Fleming. It stars Sean Connery, Jill St John, Charles Gray, Bruce Glover, Putter Smith, Joseph Furst, Norman Burton and Jimmy Dean. Music is scored by John Barry and cinematography by Ted Moore.

Bond 7 and 007 is assigned to find out who is stock piling all the black market diamonds. This leads him to a sinister weapon being manufactured in space that can destroy major cities, the architect of such vileness? SPECTRE chief Ernst Stavro Blofeld, the man who murdered Bond's wife and someone Bond thought he had already located and killed.

With George Lazenby withdrawing from the franchise after just the one film, off to massage his ego and take further bad advice from those around him, Albert R. Broccoli & Harry Saltzman set about making Bond sustainable box office in the 1970s. American actor John Gavin (Psycho/Spartacus) had signed on to fill the tuxedo, but armed with wads of cash the producers managed to entice Connery back to the role he had previously fell out of love with. Helped, too, that Connery's post Bond movies, his last outing had been You Only Live Twice in 1967, had hardly set the box office alight. It seemed a long shot, but Connery stunned the movie world by agreeing to once again play the role that many would come to know him for.

Back came Connery, back came director Guy Hamilton and back came Shirley Bassey to sing the title song (a true Bond classic it proved to be as well), these were reassuring signs, as was having Blofeld remain on villain duties. However, stung by the criticism of Lazenby's humanesque On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and the drop in box office profits compared to Connery's latter Bond films, the makers decided to play this Bond as fantastique, something that would define Bond until Timothy Dalton tried something different at the end of the 1980s. Roger Moore would replace Connery as Bond two years later and it's widely thought that his arrival as 007 ushered in the "ridiculous" era of overt humour, preposterous sight gags and cartoonish escapades, not so, it began with Connery's Diamonds Are Forever. The moment Bond drives a Ford Mustang on two wheels, all bets were off in the franchise.

Artistically "Diamonds" is a disappointing movie, fun for sure, but the screenplay refuses to let the film take itself seriously. It's often camp and the picture lacks dramatic thrust and spectacular action, with the finale a rather tepid affair. Connery's presence gives the film some warmth, but his charisma and vocal delivery can't detract from the fact he looks to be doing it purely for the money. His weight, like his hair colour, fluctuates, and much of the vibrancy of his 60s Bond portrayals had disappeared. Charles Gray turns in the worst Blofeld of them all, saddled with a screenplay that has him cloning and cross dressing, Gray has Blofeld as charming and wry, gone is the menace and machismo so wonderfully portrayed by Pleasence and Savalas respectively in the previous two Bond movies. Felix Leiter in Norman Burton's hands has been reduced to being a bit of a doofus, the baddies are either too fey or over the top, while Jill St John's main Bond girl, Tiffany Case, descends from being a steely femme at the beginning, to a voluptuous caricature.

On the plus side. Barry's score and Ken Adam's sets are still franchise joys, the byplay between Bond and M (Bernard Lee again) reminds us of once great characterisations, while Desmond Llewelyn's Q is nicely sent out in the field for a change. Action wise there's some fine moments. The pre-credits sequence as Bond chases down Blofeld starts things off excitingly, a fight in a lift is up with the best of the Bond movie dust-ups and the dirt bike and Mustang chase sequences are well put together by Hamilton. Good gadgets, too, if you like that side of Bond? There was enough good parts here, and the return of Connery, to ensure Diamonds Are Forever was a monster success at the box office, where it grossed over $115 million worldwide. It proved that Bond had longevity, but with a new actor to come to the Bond role in two years time and the big shift to comedy action over tough guy missions, would Bond turn off the movie loving public? 6/10

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

Connery is not forever

4/10
Author: Marnix ten Brinke from Netherlands
19 November 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Connery is back as 007 in the 7th Bond film produced by EON in 1971.

Diamonds Are Forever is arguably the weakest Bond movie ever produced. Connery looks very unsuited as Bond. He has gained weight and looks old and tired.

The humor is way over the top, the storyline too stupid and complicated and the larger than life characters can't be taken seriously at all. Especially Blofeld, who turns into a drag queen.

It seems Connery has more fun playing Bond than in his last one, but fun can't disguise how weak this film actually is.

I wonder if Lazenby could have made this one better...

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

Without any redeeming qualities

1/10
Author: KingJawa from United Kingdom
11 November 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Honestly, the Bond franchise has had more than a few bad entries - in fact its had far too many

This is the worst of the lot A Bond that looks 20 years older than he actually is - a villain that borders on the absurd.

The continuity is a disgrace - didn't' Blofeld kill Bond's wife? Didn't he have hair? Isn't the actor playing him one of Bond's allies just 1 film previously?

The special ''effects' are what effectively destroys what wasn't a good film to begin with - they are the worst i've ever seen in a major film, and bad even for the time

Avoid this film, it really lacks anything of substance. Connery is shadow of his former glory.

Sadly the next few entries would hardly improve on this....

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

THE hands down WORST Bond film of all time!

2/10
Author: houseofjames from Canada
31 March 2008

What an embarrassment this film is! Following the masterpiece of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, one would have expected a solid revenge pic, following Bond's attempts to avenge his lovely wife Tracey, killed by Ernst Blofeld and his assistant. Instead, we get a mindless, shrill, completely unreal parody of Ian Fleming's brilliant master spy.

Sean Connery returns after a sabbatical, older, tubbier and less interested in his legendary role than ever. He is joined by a plethora of over-acting actors playing moronic characters: chief amongst them are Jill St John, who easily wins the medal of most annoying Bond girl of all time; Jimmy Dean, who's boneheaded Texan drawl adds more than a few eye-rolls to the movie.

The film is also burdened with one of the most convoluted plots of all Bond films, which is very odd considering how cartoonish the whole setup is. Some good special effects just cannot compensate for all the inane hijacks that accompany them.

I have to say this right now, and that is I love James Bond and everything about him, but this film is so embarrassingly bad, I don;t even consider it Bond canon. It is just a really, really lame film.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 11 of 26: [Prev][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards Newsgroup reviews External reviews
Parents Guide Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history