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 »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 5 of 28: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [Next]
Index 277 reviews in total 

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

In Old Las Vegas

7/10
Author: jubilee77 from United Kingdom
20 October 2009

Diamonds are Forever was Connery's assignment to reprise the role of James Bond after turning down the earlier starring role of Our Majestry's Secret Service and this was left to George Lazonby. OOMSS may have received mixed reviews but it was clear that Lazonby as Bond was completely lacklustre and it wasn't surprising that he only made one appearance as the super spy while Blofield may been played by different actors such as Donald Pleasance, Telly Savalas and this time, Charles Gray in this 1971 release. Diamonds are Forever is a highly watchable film because there are some excellent choice of locations and my favourite is Las Vegas and the Neveda desert and there is generally good levels of action and the car chases along with the humour and dialogue that adds up. But the film is not without its drawbacks by being a bit dated and it is sometimes lacking the qualities of earlier Connery-era Bond films, being more violent and also a little bit dreary and has also been hampered by production problems. Finally, compared to today's Las Vegas, its hard to imagine what it was like back in 1971 with all those frequent changes that have taken place over the years making it virtually unrecognisable.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

One of my favorite vintage Bond flicks since "Live and Let Die"

7/10
Author: charlessmith702210 from United States
1 January 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie, "Diamonds Are Forever" was probably a great prelude to the latest flick involving diamonds used in countries in war---"Blood Diamond."

The scene involving two evil dancers who fight against 007 looks like something out of a few of the fight scenes in "Goldeneye" too---the idea of "dancing and fighting" by the anti-Bond ladies.

The space weapon in "Diamonds" that goes haywire and beams a heat-emitting laser ray that burns anything in its vicinity was almost similar to that space weapon used in "Goldeneye". Especially when the ray heats up---and blows up--an entire anti-aircraft missile emplacement. Well, instead of electromagnetic pulse like "Goldeneye"---it is heat in "Diamonds Are Forever" that is used in the weapon's destructive force.

All of that leads into the final battle at an oil rig which masks as a main computer base, housing the main control area for that haywire space weapon. Well, Bond stops the main evil character by hoisting up his escape ship and slamming it into the main control area, knocking the computer out of commission. The laser weapon was supposed to attack Washington D.C. but the failure of the master control put the whole evil contraption out of commission.

I especially like the mini-fight scene involving two accomplices of the main evil character that were about to kill Bond and his lady companion with a dynamite bomb rigged on a timer. Of course, when Bond fights back by putting that bomb on the back of one of the bad men and throwing him overboard just in time (the bomb blows just before he hits the water)---you know that Bond is going to live another day.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

After Lazenby there was Connery-again

Author: Petri Pelkonen (petri_pelkonen@hotmail.com) from Finland
22 September 2000

Sean Connery returned to James Bond's role in 1971 after George Lazenby failed in the job.The plot of Diamonds Are Forever is too complicated to explain.I can't even remember it all that good.I'm pretty sure it had something to do with diamonds. Sean Connery is as charismatic as always.The good old Q is played by Desmond Llewelyn who tragically died last year. Diamonds Are Forever is a perfect entertainment movie.There are terrific action sequences so you can't get bored watching this movie.I recommend Diamonds Are Forever for every action freak out there.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

What a great Bond film.

Author: adam.kyles from adam.kyles@btinternet.com
23 August 2000

This is a fantastic Bond film! It provides humour as well as action. Tiffany Case is the most interesting Bond girl. The only problem is Blofeld is played by somebody else (again!) Apart from that, this is truly brilliant. 5 star out of 5.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

"Humility is the worst form of conceit, Mr. Bond."

Author: James Bond (hmssagent007@hotmail.com) from London, England
8 August 1998

Diamonds Are Forever represents a Bond film that simply celebrates the return of Sean Connery by losing all the emotion of OHMSS and pulling out all of the stops. A sattelite laser (thankfully not aimed at 007's crotch this time), a high speed chase where the police exhibit all of the intelligence of a non-featured J.W. Pepper, a floating fortress, and an amazing climax. A fan's only concern is wondering why Blofeld is making a habit of placing Bond in cells with holes in them! It seems that after a few years of hiding and countless plastic surgeries, Blofeld is getting careless - allowing Bond to get REALLY close to his world domination machine, so that when Bond ejects his programmed plan, he can only sigh and offer an exasperated "replace that tape immediately!" Regardless of a careless and all-too-mortal villain however, Diamonds Are truly Forever. It shines as one of the best.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Connery encore...

6/10
Author: matthew scot
16 December 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

***Warning! Spoiler Information Inside***

After George Lazenby's swift departure producers were at a loss to find a replacement. They lured Sean Connery back for one final hurrah. The price would be bloody steep , however in 1971 Diamonds are Forever was released.

Willard Whyte (Jimmy Dean ((Yeah, the sausage guy))has been smuggling diamonds from south African mines at an alarming pace and 007 is sent to Nevada to determine why. He uncovers yet another dastardly plot by S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Ringleader Blofeld.

The camp in this movie is dialed up even with good direction by returning director Guy Hamilton. Clearly a showpiece for Connery, the movie is filled with pop culture reference and inside jokes , all of which keep the flow moving. The Supporting cast is highlighted by the assassination team of Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd.

Sean Connery had large control over the film team, was paid well and given the rights to star in a Bond film of his choosing at a later time. This of course is a key development in the history of Kevin McClory's Never Say Never Again (1984).

Three stars(of 5.)

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

The first Roger Moore Bond film (without Roger Moore though)

7/10
Author: bowmanblue from United Kingdom
31 October 2014

I'll start with a fact: most serious Bond fans HATE Diamonds Are Forever. I used to watch it when it was on TV in the eighties (when I was a child) and I loved it. Nowadays, I guess I can see where people are coming from. It is a bit of an odd-one-out among the franchise.

Sean Connery returns as Bond (after the unsuccessful George Lazenby took over the titular role for a single outing). Now he's older. And it shows. Plus it doesn't really carry on from On Her Majesty's Secret Service; it feels like it's more a continuation of Connery's last Bond film, You Only Live Twice. Also, due to Lazenby's Bond not being financially profitable in American, Diamonds Are Forever is conveniently sent almost completely in the USA (including the first ever American Bond girl). Also, to add a few more pennies to the film's takings, we have plenty of product placement throughout. Therefore, Diamonds Are Forever seems to have its share of oddities before you even get to the plot.

Bond chases diamonds to America and ends up getting tangled up with his arch enemy Blofeld (again). There's not much to the story, but that doesn't matter too much as it flows along nicely. However, one criticism that was always applied to Roger Moore's Bond films was that they couldn't be taken seriously. People seem to prefer Connery's more serious outings. However, almost every line has a - naughty - double meaning to it and some of the situations do border on the comical.

Then, just when you think you're in a smutty comedy, you have two of the creepiest hit men ever seen on screen thrown in there. By today's standards, they're not too politically-correct. But whether it was then or now, they still seem to have been airdropped in from a much darker story.

Diamonds Are Forever is a mixed bag. Most serious Bond fans will hate it. I only like it because I remember it from my childhood and I never really got all the plot holes and silliness that came with it.

Don't hate it too much. It's not that bad, but it certainly is the 'odd Bond out' from Connery's time as the secret agent. You may only watch it once, but if you like Roger Moore's 'lighter' Bond, you may get some enjoyment out of this.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

A more tame Bond

7/10
Author: willcundallreview from United Kingdom
3 March 2014

Rating-7/10

Diamonds are Forever is in my opinion one of the best examples of what Bond is, with sophistication and some great action like moves he glides along does Bond and with Sean Connery returning slightly older, her still knows how to stop the world's worst. A fun film that is also slightly funny at times and I felt it was strongly a kind of good film and here below is why I felt that about Diamonds Are Forever.

The story is fun and set mostly in the USA and when he is Las Vegas it works really well as Bond get's to show off his charm even more among the numerous bars and casino's there. I like the pace as it is slightly slower than Connery's previous outings but still churns out a good story and great villains all who make the film even more fun. I also loved the stunts as they are ridiculous but they also work with this film and make it much more fun and exciting to watch.

Connery is back and his job in this is a firm one albeit he is very old I this to portray the kind of Bond he is trying to show. The Bond girl is Jill St. John and she is probably the most feisty Bond girl there is and seems to object to everything Bond does in the film. I loved the villains and not Just Blofeld(Charles Gray) but also Wint and Mr Kidd who play two of the most villainous Bond villains ever and are possibly the most calm yet sadistic movie villains in any film ever.

The script and direction are average and to be fair are the same typical type of things we expect to see from Bond in his earlier showings. I loved the action sequences and well although Bond may take a slight back seat with the action he still manages to get in some great stunts and some good fight sequences that are we choreographed. One stunt you will see, I won't give it away, but it involves a car and Bond makes it do a certain thing which is well, well it must be near impossible but you will see.

The movie can be slow at times and you can even feel it is becoming stale at parts but it manages to hold up enough not too. I said before he sits back on the action and he does very much so, maybe Connery didn't want as much action as he was older but he seems to get by with little action, although I did feel it did well even without the bags of action we usually see. Another criticism would be the apparent Homophobia in where the villains are seen as a Homosexual couple and it is sometimes thought that because of there sexuality they are evil, it is never confirmed and should do little to offend.

Any Bond fan should like this as it show's off exactly what I feel Bond is known for, but also show's a more reserved Bond who studies the situation much better than in every other film. If you like a good crime spy adventure then this if or you too, it had gadgets, action and the fun criminals involved too, most should enjoy this as it can be very rewarding and fun.

I give it a 7/10 meaning a strongly a kind of good film, I felt maybe I overrated it after but hey it is a fun film and can be thoroughly enjoyed as well. When you watch just don't think about the plot and enjoy the quick snappy humour of Connery in his last Eon produced Bond role, in the truth the end of one of the best Bond's, and many consider him the best of all of them.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

End of an era

7/10
Author: Gary170459 from Derby, UK
30 December 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This last worthwhile Connery Bond film came out in the early '70's; it seemed to me even then at 12 years old that there had been a change in social attitudes – some degree of innocence had been lost in the 4 years since the previous film. Whereas You Only Live Twice was the usual daft and deft mix of humour and action in a nonsensical plot, Diamonds Are Forever had deft action in a nonsensical and messy plot with a touch of tired and camp cynicism.

Bond is enrolled by the British government to find who is cornering the world's diamond-smuggling market and put a stop to it. It's an un-engaging battle for the viewer though, Stout Bond looks for the most part uninterested in putting in the actual work for the money for which he was enticed back. There's also probably the worst scene in any of his Bond films when he's escaping from Tectronics in a Moon buggy – to someone brought up on Banana Splits it's awful and almost slapstick. The portrayal of younger women purely as sex objects is even more pronounced than before…although I confess I personally I preferred to look at Jill St. John than Connery throughout. On the plus side Bond's punch up with the real Franks in the lift was exciting, the car chase through Las Vegas was amusing, and Bond getting hot under the collar in the funeral parlour was chilling – there's plenty to savour, although Plenty wasn't in it for long. God help us if the world's safety depended on the quality of cassette tape playback!

Overall it's not as witty or memorable as we'd grown accustomed to, but watchable probably even for a non-completist. The next film in the series continued as The Saint, but to this day I still think the unshaken and unstirred Connery would have made a better Bond in the '70's, especially if he could've lost a lot of pounds and got a better wig. Never mind, there are the 6 movies of varying excellence and consistent entertainment from 1962-1971 to revel in every few years.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Not Bond or Connerys finest,but still a decent Bond film,

8/10
Author: Dillon Harris from Ireland
1 August 2012

Diamonds Are Forever is a good movie with good action,good storyline,humor and a good cast.Its definitely not the best James Bond movie or even Sean Connerys greatest Bond film,but its still a decent film.Sean Connery is still largely considered the greatest Bond ever,passing out his later Bonds such as Roger Moore,Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig.I personally think that Pierce Brosnan is the greatest Bond,I always liked him and I actually know a woman who lives near me whos first cousins with Brosnan,I didn't believe it until see showed a picture of him and her when he was in his teens,and hes aged very well.However,I do understand why Sean Connery would be considered the best because he brought us some terrific Bonds,such as Dr No,but Diamonds Are Forever wouldn't be at the top of that list.

A investigation on diamond smuggling leads James Bond (Sean Connery) and his partner Tiffany Case (Jill St. John) to Las Vegas,where Bond discovers a plan by his nemesis,Ernst Stavro Blofeld.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 5 of 28: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [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