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 guide
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 »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 4 of 29: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [Next]
Index 281 reviews in total 

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Sean Connery returns and goes back out with a bang

8/10
Author: Tom Willis from Georgia, USA
26 February 2011

After the release of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, most people probably assumed that George Lazenby was officially the new James Bond... they were wrong. Connery returned supposedly one last time to reprise Bond in 'Diamonds Are Forever' which completed the Ernest Blofeld trilogy of the series for those who know what I'm talking about. The film picks up loosely following the events of OHMSS. What are those events one might ask? Watch it and see for yourself. Overall, I really liked Diamonds are Forever. It is on of the first Bond films I saw as a teenager so I guess it holds somewhat of a special place for me. That being said, I may fail to point out possible legit criticisms so for anyone who wonders what those criticisms could be, watch the movie or look for another review. Regardless of what "could" be wrong with Diamonds Are Forever, it definitely holds up well and is very entertaining. The movie on one or two occasions tends to make fun of itself but that really takes nothing away from it. As with the previous installments before and after Thunderball, I recommend this Bond title.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Funny and entertaining.

8/10
Author: will-boyd from United States
26 August 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This was the Bond film that introduced irony and real wit to the series, thanks to the recently deceased Tom Mankeiwicz. Connery bluffly handled the role, and never telegraphed the jokes. He had aged since his appearance in You Only Live Twice, but his no-nonsense confidence worked very well with a terrific, fast-moving story that constantly surprised and entertained. Critics, notably Pauline Kael, enjoyed the witty, sardonic script that deftly referenced the modern takes on subjects like the Funeral business and Howard Hughes's disconcerting reclusiveness. Like the best Bond movies, it took you on a tour of an exotic location, and Mankiewicz' Las Vegas was one of the best uses of a location in the Bond oeuvre. Mankiewicz kept the movie moving, while inserting memorable and funny bits of business along the way. Morton Slumber, Shady Tree, Plenty O'Toole, among others, are perfectly realized minor characters, and cast perfectly. Not to mention Jimmy Dean as Willard Whyte, who brings cornball gusto to the role. This film was a balance of humor and credibility that the series never again equaled, and after this the irony quickly curdled. Diamonds Are Forever is a great example of creative storytelling, and maybe the most fun of the Bond films.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Formula Stretching Time

7/10
Author: Bill Slocum (bill.slocum@gmail.com) from Greenwich, CT United States
19 March 2010

It's my favorite Bond movie, but ask me to defend it objectively and I struggle. Yes, "Diamonds Are Forever" is weak in plot, continuity, character motivation, and overall depth. Yet it's an awful lot of fun.

When we first meet Sean Connery, back as Bond after a four-year absence, he's kicking the tar out of assorted people trying to locate Blofeld (Charles Gray). Once that's out of the way, he is called upon to help infiltrate a diamond-smuggling ring. Bond may think it's the sort of job that's beneath him, but he will find strong reason for seeing it through.

It was the first Bond movie not made in the 1960s, and the culture shock is there from the start and continues all the way through. Long sideburns, Peckinpah-like blood splats, an old lady who teaches children religion but keeps a hollowed-out Bible for smuggling stolen goods. Blofeld is seen walking around in drag. His two main henchmen, Wint and Kidd, are not only apparently gay, but seem to have a snarkily aloof attitude about their jobs. The "Clubland" atmosphere of Ian Fleming seems well behind us now.

"You've just killed James Bond", the lead female Tiffany Case (Jill St. John) cries.

Not quite, but it's not the Bond you came to expect from earlier films.

What works for me in this movie are three things. First is the music, particularly the wonderfully jaded title song, the best of any in the Bond series even if it was never a commercial hit; as well as the eerie flute-like theme that follows Wint and Kidd's appearances. Second, the clever off-kilter sensibility that successfully reworks the Bond model for a new age. Third, the humor, of satirical quips and the ever-reliable double-entendres we expect from 007.

"Why are we staying in the bridal suite of the Whyte House?"

"In order to form a more perfect union."

It's not a perfect film. At times, it's not even a very good one. Throughout the picture Bond gets into various scrapes he weasels out of with discomfiting ease. In fact, except for a harrowing elevator fight near the beginning of the film, there's not an instance where Bond is severely pressed.

This is fine given Connery doesn't seem to be pressing much himself, He's just having fun and thus is in tune with the picture around him. Guy Hamilton, the director, never took his Bond movies too seriously, though he liked action-packed set-pieces, and thus a lot of goofy moments in "Diamonds Are Forever" skirt past with minimal fuss. I enjoy how the film sends itself up. Even Bond's way of approaching the villain's lair is played for a smile. Why sneak in when you can just parachute down inside a giant bubble?

For some, maybe many, the problem with "Diamonds Are Forever" is the same as its virtue to me: It never takes itself seriously. The producers are stretching the formula, taking some chances, and tweaking some cherished notions of what Bond films are about. Not all of it works, but it's a fun ride I enjoy taking.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

'She's very pretty...for a lady!'

Author: hugh1971 from London
19 December 2002

In my opinion this is probably the worst James Bond film - although it's still watchable. For starters, Sir Sean Connery just looks a bit past it - his paunch and toupee are really starting to look obvious, and he just looks out of place in the tacky Las Vegas locations. Bond is at home wearing a dinner jacket in a casino - but not a casino like 'Circus Circus' populated by midwestern holidaymakers! You may as well send Bond to Blackpool!

The faltering plot and the lack of Bond's sense of revenge at Blofeld also leave the whole thing flat.

Good points are the great score and theme song, and I do like Mr Wint and Mr Kidd - of course they're un PC but they're such outrageously over the top old queens that you'd have to be very po-faced to dislike them. Plenty O' Toole is gorgeous but wasted.

Somehow Sir Sean just seems at odd with the slightly camp direction the series was taking, and by the end of the film we can see the way is clear for the best ever James Bond - the master, Mr Roger Moore.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Pretty funny last Sean Connery entry.

8/10
Author: OllieSuave-007 from California, USA
28 October 2013

This is a pretty funny 007 film starring Sean Connery as his last outing as James Bond in the original continuity (not counting the Thunderball remake Never Say Never Again). Bond gets involved in a diamond smuggling investigation in Las Vegas, where he uncovers an extortion plot headed by his number one enemy, Ernst Stavro Blofeld.

Unlike earlier Bond films, you get to see Bond deal more one-on-one with Blofeld. There are more, if I remember, comedy in this entry than earlier films, particularly in that of Bond girl Tiffany Case (Jill St. John). I actually thought Case did a good job in her role; she was very funny and entertaining. There are also plenty of other Bond girls including that of Bambi and Thumper.

Bond did his usual one-liners and Licensed to Kill action in this film, but it was evident that Connery was done with the role. While many Bond films tend to drag on the plot a little, this one was pretty fast-paced and entertaining for me and I thought it closes out the Connery saga pretty well.

Grade B+

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Not the best, But a very good Bond film that deserves more credit

8/10
Author: David (DMP-2) from United States
24 December 2000

This film is excellent. The comedy (which has been the culprit for its discredit) is excellent. This is the first Bond to be uncensored totally. This came out 3 years after the MPAA created the rating system which allow for greater creative control to films.

Diamonds Are Forever was the first Bond Film to take it seriously (On Her Majesty's Secret Service, did do this, although few films did in the late 1960's, Planet Of The Apes was Rated G, the sequels went up to PG, which was M at the time).

The only thing I don't like about this film is that it should be a revenge film (See my comment on On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)and watch it). The end of On Her Majesty's Secret Service clearly shows that Bond should want vengeance, I would if I were in that situation. I think that may have also helped it gain more success, although its did make $44,000,000 upon release, at todays standard thats $180,000,000. It went on to make $116,000,000 worldwide, today thats $480,000,000. Of all the films thats the 4th most profitable.

Its evident although a great film, sort of a cult classic, On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969) jinxed this production. Its evident they wanted to avoid failure, by removing all evidence of it. By forgetting its finale. Also the return of Sean Connery, not only a addition that would help people for OHMSS, to this film, but also an insult to George Lazenby, who wasn't fired. Lazenby was certainly not better than Connery, but his departure was mistake and a failure. Diamonds Are Forever although to many a failure, is a very good film. But it also helped to make the forgotten Bond film On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969). In my mind if Diamonds Are Forever failed OHMSS will be remembered, final failure standout. I don't think anyone will forgot how awful BATMAN & ROBIN (1998) was. Although of course now OHMSS wouldn't be a failure. But this film also represented change a change that started after You Only Live Twice and would stop after Live And Let Die (1973) and wouldn't occur again until The Living Daylights (1987), although technically happen early in Sean Connery's second comeback Never Say Never Again (1983). Anyway this film is excellent Connery's #3 and Stands at #5

1. THUNDERBALL (1965)

2. The Living Daylights (1987)

3. The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)

4.GOLDFINGER (1964)

5.Diamonds Are FOREVER (1971)

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

A disaster from beginning to end

3/10
Author: theskylabadventure from United Kingdom
6 January 2008

There's not a great deal to be said about this film that hasn't been said on these boards before. With the blood, sweat and tears pour out in OHMSS, we were introduced to a new, grittier kind of Bond. I don't know who decided that it didn't work, but clearly someone did. 'Diamonds Are Forver' was the follow up, and is cemented at the very bottom of most Bond lists.

Sean Connery looks like he couldn't care less what's going on in this film. It seemed to be a case of take the money and.. stroll. The plot is all but non-existent but still manages to confuse and bore. The action is timid and dull, the locations are far from inspired and Charles Gray is nothing short of pathetic in the role of Bond's nemesis, Blofeld, who seems to have gone from uber-villain to uber-camp cabaret act. Seriously, he's about as fearsome as my grandmother.

It is important to bear in mind that Blofeld murdered Bond's wife at the end of the last film. In spite of this, Bond seems to consider him a mere annoyance in this movie, rather than the object of blind rage, as you might expect. Their confrontation is more akin to Austin Powers vs Dr Evil than it is to Bond vs Blofeld from the previous films. The performances of Connery and Gray in these scenes may as well have been shot on different days, there is that little tension between them.

Thinking about it, there is really nothing at all memorable about this tripe. Even John Barry's score felt mediocre after OHMSS. This film is a disgrace to the franchise and to Connery's career. The only small redemption is that Connery's used the whopping fee he earned for this to make 'The Offence' with Sidney Lumet. Ignore 'Diamonds' and watch that. You'll thank me later.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 17 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?

9 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

The worst of the Connery offerings

2/10
Author: mnpollio from United States
23 March 2007

Hands down the worst of the Connery Bonds. After the dismal efforts of George Lazenby, producers ponied up and returned Connery to the fold for one last go at the role. Almost nothing works in this dreary entry which plays more like a low-rent heist caper on an episode of Starsky & Hutch than a big screen spy caper. The majority of the action takes place in Las Vegas, which was hardly an exotic locale even in the 1970s.

Bond: The good news is Connery is back and Lazenby is gone. The bad news is that Connery is on total auto-pilot in this film. He is so obviously filled with disdain for the part at this junction that one almost wishes he had not agreed to return for this entry.

The villains: Charles Gray is the third actor in a row to attempt to do something with the thankless Ernst Blofeld role and (as with his predecessors) fails miserably. Thankfully this would be the last time that Blofeld would be used as the main Bond nemesis. The less said about Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd, who play like rejected villains from a bad Batman episode, the better.

The women: Jill St. John makes a strong first impression as the tough-as-nails Tiffany Case, then her character does an about-face. By the final act, she is a typical bikini-clad bimbo acting as though she does not have a brain in her head and becoming more an obstruction to Bond rather than an equal or an assistant. And I have yet to figure out what Lana Wood and her copious cleavage are supposed to be in this film. Did the majority of her role land on the cutting room floor or something? It literally makes no sense.

By the time Jimmy Dean shows up with "Bambi & Thumper" even the most die-hard Bond fan will want to tune out.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 21 people found the following review useful:

Looking old, 007...

4/10
Author: Gislef from Iowa City, IA
4 December 1998

Sean Connery looks older here in his last Eon/Bond film than in his later Never Say Never Again. Diamonds... marks the end of one era of James Bond, and the beginning of another. No, not the switch from Connery to Moore, but any semblance of hard-edged Fleming-style "reality" - Bond is now Spiderman the Secret Agent, never without a one-liner or a handy gadget. Connery downplays everything with the aura of a man collecting a big paycheck (see Trivia). Ms.'s St. John and Wood wander around in poor-fitting underwear most of the time. Charles Gray is an adequate Blofeld: more urbane than Pleasance and Savalas, but lacking the physical presence of the later and his Fleming-pictured equivalent (he also favors cigarette holders, over Savalas' hand-held favorites). The only saving grace is the dialogue: the bad guys get the best one-liners, and Wint & Kidd's homosexual killers are a hoot.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 4 of 29: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

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