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 6 of 26: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [Next]
Index 256 reviews in total 

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Going In Style

Author: Brian Washington (Sargebri@att.net) from Los Angeles, California
11 March 2004

This is probably my favorite film in the whole 007 series, even though it is not thought of as one of the best. This film has all the elements that made the series great; beautiful women, glamorous locations, plenty of action and even some very humorous moments. Even though Sean Connery was tiring of the role he seemed to show that he had fun making this, his final appearance (at least until Never Say Never Again) a very memorable one. Also, Jill St. John gives a very amusing performance as Tiffany Case. The thing that made her performance great was the fact that she did play it for laughs, not like the other Bond women who were either window dressing or damsels in distress. This film is one fun ride.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

One of the best or one of the worst

6/10
Author: fletch5
12 September 2000

The seventh James Bond movie "Diamonds Are Forever" can be seen as one of the best or one of the worst Bond films. It depends on how you look at it: if you don't require more than just harmless entertainment with no brains, "Diamonds" is your ultimate Bond movie. But if you can't overlook the silliness, bad editing, and the seemingly hastily rigged up script, you should avoid this one. It cannot be compared to the classic Bonds of the 60's, but it's not as bad or as silly as the Roger Moore Bonds "The Man with the Golden Gun" and "Moonraker".

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

"Definitely Distinctive"

9/10
Author: gerard-21 from United States
21 January 2003

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is the strangest Bond film of all, and as such, probably has the most polarized reviews. People either hate or love this one. Personally, I've always liked it. I think detractors get caught up on too many superficial things, like the few moments of juvenile humor, and don't appreciate this film for what it is: a very stylish, moody and weird romp. They also incorrectly assume that, because Sean Connery was coming back one time only for a fantastic sum of money, that his heart wasn't in it. In fact, as real critics have often said, he gives his best and most relaxed performance as Bond since Goldfinger. Logic would tell you that he wanted to go out in style, especially since he was so wooden his last time out in You Only Live Twice. It's not his fault the lines written didn't conjure up the seriousness of From Russia With Love. This film is vastly different from what preceded it, so some didn't like the change. But they're the ones missing out, because there are many memorable scenes and characters. This movie is not about action and gadgets, but about the surreal interaction between the characters. One has to go no further than the opening pipeline sequence to see that. Furthermore, the dialogue is terrific, and one has to watch the movie over and over to grasp all the ingenious lines. "Providing the collars and cuffs match" and I'm afraid you caught me with more than my hands up" are some of the best phrases ever uttered in a bond film. The characters themselves were equally fascinating. Wint & Kidd set the pace for the strange goings-on and are a refreshing break from all the strong-armed assassins (Jaws, Odd-Job) that seem to appear in the majority of bond films. Anyway, you don't see Mike Myers lampooning them in his Austin Powers series. And if you want realism, the fight with Peter Franks ranks right up there. A chunky and older Jill St. John is much more believable as a worldly feme-fatale than the parade of twenty-somethings we're typically presented with (Denise Richards, Tonya Roberts, etc...). And where is it written that the main Bond villain has to be someone as two-fisted as Bond? Charles Grey's Blofeld fits right in with the craziness, and at least he seems intellectually capable of taking on Bond and the world, as opposed to Donald Pleasance's spoiled-brat and Telly Savalas' New York gangster Blofelds. And for once, we can see where the protagonist's resources came from! (I won't go into details, because it would have to contain spoilers). Sure the action on the oil rig at the end is somewhat disappointing, but that's not what this film is about. The scene aboard the QEII at the very end ("Mouton Rothschild is a claret")is more emblematic of the mood the film makers were trying to convey. In conclusion, if you don't watch this movie expecting a Bond action extravaganza, but concentrate on the characters and dialogue, you'll thoroughly enjoy it.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

Should've been Lazenby's Quantum of Solace

2/10
Author: Cuish from Aberdeen, Scotland
1 March 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The year is 1971 and after one film, George Lazenby leaves the role and the producers manage to persuade Connery to return for one more film. However, things aren't of a diamond-like quality as the producers had hoped for with Connery on board...

Diamonds are Forever is an absolute trainwreck of epic proportions. This is mainly due to the fact that it isn't the revenge story it should have been and Lazenby should be here, not Connery. Connery's return is simply disappointing. He looks like he aged about 20 years since You Only Live Twice and seemed bored and uninterested and was only there for the money, having been paid a million, the highest paid salary at that time. Furthermore, after a promising start in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, it's simply tragic that Lazenby (and Savalas and Hunt) didn't come back for a second film as he had the potential to be better than Connery if he'd stuck around for more, plus getting closure for the events in the previous film.

While more or less every other Bond film has some energy to it and the cast and crew put in a considerable effort, everything about the film in general is just so goddamn lazy. After the critical aftermath of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, the producers decided to play it safe and pretend that the 1969 film didn't exist and generally play it for laughs. With everything that is wrong with this film, the very fact that it wasn't the revenge story it should have been or at least some revenge angle, the film really doesn't deserve to see the light of day in my opinion.

And let's not forget the villains. Firstly, Gray's Blofeld is such a unsinister villain that you don't care whether or not his plan actually succeeds or not. Secondly, Wint and Kidd's homosexuality in the novel was only hinted at and both characters were serious hit men, but here their homosexuality is grossly exaggerated (in comparison to the book) and nothing like their literature counterparts.

The film only follows the book in certain areas, like the meeting in the apartment but is much, much sillier. It would be interesting to see the Spang brothers in a proper adaptation of the novel (of course, with much bigger roles, the Spang brothers are hardly in the novel), plus involving the section concerning the race track. Furthermore, in the novel, Tiffany Case is a frosty well-developed character and *not* the dumb bimbo of the film. Take this piece of dialogue for example:

'Listen, Bond,' said Tiffany Case. 'It'd take more than Crabmeat Ravigotte to get me into bed with a man. In any event, since it's your check, I'm going to have caviar, and what the English call cutlets, and some pink champagne. I don't often date a good-looking Englishman and the dinner's going to live up to the occasion.'

Now, would you find the Tiffany Case of the film say this? The book is one of my favourites in the series but not properly adapting the book is the least of this film's problems.

On the plus side, the film does feature a fantastic song by Shirley Bassey, the film's only redeemable quality.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

Connery`s Worst Bond Outing

5/10
Author: Theo Robertson from Isle Of Bute, Scotland
29 January 2003

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

For many people James Bond is Sean Connery but that doesn`t mean a Bond film is an instant classic because Connery is in it . DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER is barely watchable enough , just think how bad it could have been without Big Sean

***** SPOILERS ******

What I hate about this film is there is no internal continuity with OHMSS . Blofeld killed Bond`s wife in the previous movie and it starts with Bond on the revenge trail where Bond apparently kills Blofeld in the pre title sequence , but as the film continues and it`s revealed Blofeld isn`t really dead all that`s gone before is quickly forgotten about as if it never happened in the first place . If they were going to ignore all this then why couldn`t the producers just kill off Blofeld and introduce another meglomanaic villain . Like wise Charles Gray`s performance is totally unconvincing , can you imagine Donald Plesance from YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE appearing in drag smoking a cigarette from a holder in an entirely camp manner ?

The production values are also very poor . The script resembles one of the latter Moore films where lots of things may happen but serves to disguise the fact that there is nothing happening plot wise . Are Blofeld`s henchman SPECTRE ? If so it`s never mentioned on screen and I found their garish uniforms of pale blue jumpsuits and red helmets both irritating and laughable . Jill St John plays one of the most forgettable Bond girls and director Guy Hamilton has a real bad off day especially during the action climax featuring the superimposed explosions of helicopters

There are a couple of good points about DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER which stop it from being a contender for worst Bond film . There is the welcome return of Connery in the lead and I couldn`t help but enjoy the inclusion of a couple of gay hitmen , the scene where one of them is dispatched with a bomb between his legs still brings a wry smile to my face though Bond`s wise crack after this causes me to groan out loud

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

Oh dear. It's the Seventies.

4/10
Author: Bel Ludovic from London, England
2 December 2002

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is undoubtedly the Bond film I enjoy least. Although the film boasts some cracking lines, Connery is simply going through the motions and picking up a paycheck at the end. Four years after his last one and his age is showing, too. (Spoilers ahead.) The whole screenplay is completely uninvolving, and no explanation is given for why Blofeld suddenly has hair and is not in a wheelchair. The film's kitch, camp quality can be put down to the prevailing flavour of the era, the beginning of the Seventies, and to its credit there's some wonderfully periodic interior design to be witnessed, but a Las Vegas setting cheapens just about any film, including this one.

When I was younger I found Mr Wint and Mr Kidd rather creepy, I think due to the appalling hairstyle and moustache on Mr Kidd. Their portrayal is more than a little homophobic, too; I don't know any gays who go around in public spraying themselves extravagantly with perfume like Mr Wint did, and the way he seemed to enjoy having his arms rammed up his groin before being chucked into the sea by Bond speaks volumes of the prejudices of the time. Better by far are Bambi and Thumper and the scene with them in it is probably my favourite, together with the wonderful fight scene with the real Mr Franks in the Amsterdam lift. Otherwise, Diamonds Are Forever is a dated, grainy, messy stinker of a film, and by the time the climax on the oil rig takes place the film has lost me, as I sit with glazed-eyes in front of the screen deciding what to have for dinner.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 18 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?

13 out of 26 people found the following review useful:

Unbelievably lousy

1/10
Author: josephpturner from United States
12 February 2009

I'm an old man of 58 who saw this when it first came out. I think I remember thinking it was OK. I watched it and other Bond film again because I could see them in HD. I'm sort of amazed at how weak and lazy this film was, just a fraction of the creativity of the first four Bond films (Dr. No, Goldfinger, From Russia With Love and Thunderball). When I say "fraction," I mean about a tenth as good. In those earlier films, you could have some success jumping into fantasy land and imagining being part of the action and suspense, so to speak. In this film, you'd fall asleep even trying! Connery had gain so much weight and looked so old that he is unbelievable as a carrier of "00" designation.

All I can say is, gee, I wish I could have make as much money in my life as Connery did here and give almost nothing to customer to earn it.

Finally, I liked seeing Jill St. John in high def, actually my main reason to watch this. She is extremely attractive here. She's about 68 years now. I wonder if she is still a "10" for that age category.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Bond Struggles with the Uncertainty of Middle Age

3/10
Author: Sean Lamberger from Bradenton, FL
18 April 2014

A real disaster of a flick that clearly reflects the uncertainty and disarray surrounding the franchise at the time. With George Lazenby out of the picture and a small cavalcade of fill-ins dropping off for one reason or another, EON pressed the panic button and brought Sean Connery out of mothballs for a swan song. It's a mistake from the very start. Not only does Connery look unreasonably old for the part, he badly overplays his confidence and worldliness, often coming off as desperate and smarmy. The screen is crowded with gaudy sideshow characters, including a trashy, ditsy leading lady and two villainous hit men who seem far more concerned with excessively elaborate setups than actually doing away with anybody. Even longtime nemesis Blofeld, who may have been the sole beacon of excellence in the equally-forgettable You Only Live Twice, is ruined by an awful recasting, horrendous new personality quirks and a master plan that makes no sense whatsoever. But that's par for the course, really, as the plot at large is peppered with so many dumb jokes and absurd asides that just keeping up with this swerving, goofball storyline is a challenge worthy of MI-6. There's a good car chase midway through the second act (which loses some steam thanks to a similar pursuit, just a few minutes earlier, involving a freaking moon rover) and a few of the gags are so mind-blowingly stupid that I couldn't help but laugh, but otherwise this is a completely insignificant chapter in the character's long, speckled history. Unless you're a dedicated completist, keep your distance.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

007 Begins to Lose Momentum with Forgettable 7th Film

6/10
Author: brando647 from Spring Hill, FL
4 January 2014

Having revisited the final canonical Sean Connery 007 film, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, I have to admit that I was wrong. I don't necessarily hate this movie, and I don't believe it's the worst Connery 007 movie in the series. That said, it's still an incredibly weak entry and a low note for Sean Connery's end to his official series run. After George Lazenby and ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE didn't perform as well as the studio had hoped (though it was still a success), their mission became to replicate the massive success of GOLDFINGER through any means necessary. All the signs are there: Sean Connery in the title role, Shirley Bassey performing the main theme, James Bond returning to America to unravel a complex bit of villainy, and a more toned down film that discards a lot (but not all) of the over-the-top elements of the previous films. The result is a tonally dull and overly complex that, while mildly entertaining at times, is pretty unmemorable. Following the events of the previous film, 007 concludes his worldwide manhunt for SPECTRE leader Ernst Stavro Blofeld when he confronts him and apparently kills him in a plastic surgery facility. From there, he is called in to investigate a diamond smuggling ring out of South Africa in which the diamonds have never resurfaced. When people in the smuggling chain start turning up dead, Bond finds a point of contact in Tiffany Case (Jill St. John) and poses as a smuggler to infiltrate the organization.

In a sense, it was good to have Connery back in the title role. But any good will the movie has from that is soon dissolved once we get into the movie itself. From the very beginning, I felt we were off on the wrong foot when it's revealed that Charles Gray has stepped into the shoes of iconic villain Blofeld. I don't have anything against Gray (though the only other time I've seen him on film was as the short-lived MI6 contact Henderson in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE) but he doesn't fit the Blofeld mold. The series had gone through a few Blofelds at this point and I'd always wished they'd chosen one actor (preferably Donald Pleasance) and run with him. So, a new Blofeld and it's Charles Gray. It didn't work for me but it could've been forgiven if the rest of the movie wasn't so flawed. Let's move on to Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd. Bizarre as they were, my major complaint with them had to be the fact that Putter Smith (Mr. Kidd) can't act. This is because he's not an actor. It shows. His line delivery is awkward and lifeless, and it ruins any potential creepiness coming from Bruce Glover's Mr. Wint. Let's shift to some positive casting: the Bond women in this movie are some of the hottest. Jill St. John and Lana Wood are both gorgeous and, while Plenty O'Toole (Wood) is sort of annoying, Tiffany Case (St. John) could be considered one of the stronger Bond women of the earlier films. She's tough and independent, even if she doesn't know her associates well enough to know if she should truly trust them.

Oh, one more bit of bad casting: Jimmy Dean, country star/sausage guru, as business mogul Willard Whyte. Yup.

Now, I am happy that the movie attempted to tone down a lot of the over-the-top campiness of some of the more recent fare. No orbital space capsule hijackings, no phony rear projection bobsled chases, etc. The bulk of this movie handles itself with some class. Until the moon buggy chase. At one point, Bond is escaping from an industrial complex where they're filming some sort of moon landing and Bond commandeers the goofiest looking moon buggy you'll ever see, drives it through a wall, and goes bouncing off through the Nevada desert pursued by guards on strange little motor tricycles with balloon tires. As Bond careens around the desert a medium speeds, cars and motor tricycles go barreling out of control and launch off sand dunes by the guards who've apparently never operated a motor vehicle. I'm sorry, but this sequence (when combined with Wint and Kidd…mostly Kidd) ruins any credibility the movie hoped to maintain. It doesn't do the movie any favors that the plot comes across as way more complex than necessary. Around the midpoint of the film, I totally lose track of who has the diamonds and where they're going and I don't regain my bearings until Bond busts into Whyte's top-floor penthouse.

DIAMONDS ARE FORVER isn't the worst 007 film but it's far from one of the best. It's decent entertainment at times but there's nothing here (aside from the moon buggy chase) that remained with me after the final credits rolled when I first saw the movie years ago. The entire final act, with an assault on an oil rig, is a dud. I'd completely forgotten all about it until I rewatched the film again not long ago. As the seventh film in the series, it gives the impression that the series began to lose some steam and the 007 hit machine might not be as invulnerable as it once seemed.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 6 of 26: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [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