IMDb > Diamonds Are Forever (1971) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Diamonds Are Forever
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
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
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 8 of 28: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [Next]
Index 279 reviews in total 

7 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

This Christmas its Diamonds. Because Diamonds are Forever

Author: Tom Bixby ( from TOP SECRET
11 December 2001

With Diamonds are Forever as its starting point, the Bond series takes its first steps towards a revolution. Although Cubby Broccoli had yet to introduce the style , technique and humour that the Bond movies employed to define the 70's Action/Adventure movies,didn't untill The Spy Who Loved me [1977], the blueprints to all the greatest 70's Bond movies are very evident and apparent with Diamonds are Forever. From the very start of the fantastic pre-credits sequence in wich Bond hunts down Blofeld, presumably to avenge his wifes death [On Her Majesty's Secret Service, 1969], the claim is made that this is going to be lighter and more fun than anything on a Bond movie since Goldfinger [1964]. This is thanks to three important factors, Guy Hamilton who directed Goldfinger is back to direct his first Bond movie since the 1964 classic. With him Hamilton brings along alot of comic book orientated ideas and a wondefuly imaginative and humourous writer in Tom Manciewicz. Manciewicz is youthful and more American in his ways of writing and this gives Diamonds a fresh and polished feel to characters and action sequences. Sadly the script for Diamonds is one of the less involving and suspenseful of the series but no less enjoyable. The third factor in Diamonds success is the return of Sean Connery. Relaxed and re-energised after his hiatus from On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Connery looks to be enjoying himself, and this seems to be an inspiration to the rest of the cast and the overall look of the movie. In truth, Diamonds Are Forever is one of the most enjoyable and original of the entire Bond series.

It would have been nice perhaps that in the wake of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, George Lazenby and OHMSS's Director Peter Hunt had returned to do a follow up revenge story in wich Bond avenges Tersa [Diana Rigg] who was shot in the final moments of OHMSS. Sadly this wasn't to be. In its place we have the next best thing. Connery is back, the action is more fast and lighter, the sets are bigger and the characters are larger than life. Central to the success of the well written characters is the way in wich they are played, and Diamonds comes up with a killer cast. Charles Gray who was fantastic as a support in You Only Live Twice turns on the charm as a very subdued and eerie Blofeld. Perhaps working against Gray is the fact that the ghost of Telly Savalas, the best of the Blofelds echoes through the movie. Gray however is very comanding and humourous in the movie and it is refreshing to see a different look and style to the character. Equally impressive is Jill St John as Tiffany Case. St John comes over like Lucy from Charles Schultz Peanuts cartoons and in most movies this would seem out of place but gives Diamonds the humourous edge it needs. As efficient as St John is Lana Wood as Plenty O Toole. Wood is beautiful for the part and has a very apealing charm. Manciewicz provides Connery with one of the all time great Bond one-liners in conversation with Wood "Hi Im Plenty, Plenty O Toole" exclaims wood "After your father Perhaps" inquires Connery. Were as most Bonds give us one hench men, Diamonds gives us two, and homesexual ones at that. Mr Wint and Mr Kidd as portrayed by Bruce Glover and Putter Smith respectively are two of the most original creations of the action movie genre. The come across as some sort of Stoned Laurel and Hardy and again add to the humour and are vicious and nasty creations underneath the fun. Finally there is Jimmy Dean the Country music superstar who turns up here as the Howard Hughes clone Willard Whyte. Dean seems at first out of place in a Bond movie but eventually grows upon you as the humour escelates. Like most Bond movies there is at least one performance that doesn't work : Norman Burton as Felix Leiter. Burton has none of the style and charm Rick Van Nutter had in the role or the appeal that David Hedison would go on to have in future Bond movies. Burton is with out a doubt the worst of all the Leiters.

Add to all this the wondeful backdrop of Las Vegas. Vegas contains one of the most flashy glamorous settings for a Bond movie, and it is easy to believe what is going on there. Ken Adams sets are again a joy to marvel at, particularly Blofelds fortress at the movies climax and individual creations like the Moonbuggy, an ugly creation intentionally so. Guy Hamilton gets the direction right with the action sequences, and Connery once again in control of things throws himself enthusiastically into the role of Bond, more humour from Connery than we have ever seen before, and the action sequences once agin pack the punch. Diamonds however contains quite a few mistakes wich at times is distracting, the one obvious mistake is the sequence in the car chase in Vegas wich see's Bond and Plenty in a red sports car through a narrow alley, in order to fit in the car tilts to one side on its left wheels and an insert shot shows it tilting to its right side. Anyone who has ever tried that knows it is impossible! Mistakes come and go but with the pace so energetic you hardly notice. To support the energetic pace is John Barry's whirling and absorbing themes, a few notches down from them of OHMSS, But still efficient and mesmerising, and there is the traditional theme song, another classic sung with amazing skill by Shirley Bassey {Goldfinger].

Diamonds are Forever isn't all plain sailing. The plot of the movie is quite difficult at first to get stuck into, and as the characters a quite fresh and original it is difficult to appreciate them at first but they grow on you with time. The script as with You Only Live Twice has Bond struggling to grasp a space weapon from the hands of Blofeld, wich seems like an old song sung over. Thanks to Tom Manciewicz's fresh and enjoyable screenplay nothing seems tired, and Guy Hamilton milks everything he can from Comic Book/Pop Art humour and action. Manciewicz would later employ as simmilar writing style into Live and Let Die [1973] Superman:The Movie [1978] and Superman II [1980], but it is with Diamonds that he learned his trade. It is quite sad to see Sean Connery in his last official and EON Bond movie. But at least he went out with a bang and not a whimper. Over the years he BECAME Jmaes Bond and if it wasn't for the likes of Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan the series may have ended with him. Connery is fantastic in Diamonds are Forever, wich is a very enjoyable and well made movie, and a great start for Bond in the 1970's.

You know what they say Sean, Never Say Never Again.

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

Should've been Lazenby's Quantum of Solace

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?

10 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

Connery`s Worst Bond Outing

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?

10 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

Sean Connery gives Cubby and EON all the finger!

Author: Karahde Khan from Around there
27 October 2002

The true story behind Connery's involvement in this film is: after the box-office almost-flop of the previous (and first non-Connery) Bond movie, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, the producers desperately wanted Sean back, but he had promised that "never again" he would play 007. Tired with Cubby Broccoli's insistence, he asked for a ridiculously high amount of money to do Bond again. Surprisingly, they accepted! So ol' Sean had to do the movie, but he had an ace up his sleeve: he intentionally acted the worse he could, to keep himself protected to return to 007 anymore.

That's why his performance in Diamonds Are Forever is the single worst one in all his career. He looks intentionally bored, makes faces that read "wish I was somewhere else", and underplays James Bond as much, that he over-underacts (if such a thing is possible). Truly, this man is an acting genius, equally effective in giving awesome performances (like in The Man Who Would Be King, The Name of the Rose, or pick any other film with him that's not this one) than in serving loads of acting poo poo.

I'm not saying Diamonds Are Forever is bad only because of this boycott. Even with Sean at his finest, this movie would suck. The screenplay is a joke! From the flipping-side car to the "Place that tape back, Mr. Bond" conclusion, everything's unbelievably ridiculous, and predates the worst Roger Moore-era silliness (and yes, the guys who defined it as "A Roger Moore Bond starring Sean Connery" got it right). In fact, this is the first Bond film in the series where the script stinks (most of the ones after would stink too). Redeeming features? Just one: Bond is still, and for the most part, the cold womanizer I like to watch instead of the romantic hero of such stinkers as The Spy Who Loved Me or The Living Daylights. Anyway, even this is destroyed: in a scene prior to the climax, Bond seems worried about Tiffany Case. The Bond I adore is the one that loses all interest in women after he has slept with her!

It's unbelievable how many Bond fans like this film but trash the far superior Never Say Never Again. True, NSNA didn't have Desmond Llewelyn, Lois Maxwell or Bernard Lee, but it had a better story, script and pacing, and, best of all, Connery's acting is good and he seems to be enjoying the joke (the entire film is a joke, starting from the title, but it's a serious movie at the same time, and it's not cheesy). That makes Never Say Never Again one of the best Bond films, and Diamonds Are Forever the only bad Connery-Bond movie.

Bond fans, give it a look, then forget about it. True Bond fans, avoid it like the plague.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Sean Connery is back from vacation

Author: kikvadze03 from Batumi, Georgia
29 November 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie and 2015's SPECTRE are on the same level to me with this movie being slightly better in my view. It's good but not great. Guy Hamilton from Goldfinger returns to direct this film. Shirley Bassey is also back to give us another fantastic Bond song. Sean Connery is back as well after his "vacation" as bond. His performance in this film can match that of first three Bond films. Ernst Stavro Blofeld is back is in this film creating the "Blofeld Trilogy" in Bond movies - You Only Live Twice, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Diamonds are Forever (a little different from the Blofeld Trilogy of the novels). Charles Gray plays Blofeld in this film, while not as good as the previous Blofeld actors, he still manages to be entertaining. Mr. Wint (Bruce Glover) and Mr. Kidd (Putter Smith) are one of the best henchmen ever, they're hilarious but also murderous. Jill St. John plays an amazing Bond girl - Tiffany Case, a girl who is a bit tougher than most Bond girls. The plot is about diamonds and is one of the stupidest Bond plots ever. Special effects are also some of the lamest, looking horribly dated and fake. The movie also goes too far with comedy, even more than Moore films, making this feel more like a parody than an actual Bond film. Bond also rides a moon buggy in this film... really? Anyway this movie is stuck with 7/10 rating from me forever forever forever... forever and ever...

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Not that Bad

Author: Yog Sawhaw from Ann Arbor, Michigan
20 September 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Maybe it's because I had pretty low expectations for this movie, but I actually kind of liked it. I didn't think it would be very good because everyone says it's one of the worst in the series and also because the book, in my opinion, is the second worst of Ian Fleming's James Bond novels (The Spy Who Loved Me is slightly worse). The movie is pretty fun. The plot and action were good. And Jill St. John is, in my opinion, the most beautiful of all the Bond girls. I didn't think her acting was so good but I didn't really care.

I was kind of disappointed by the climax, though. The movie just turned into a more subdued Thunderball, with Blofeld blackmailing the world with the threat of destroying it. (It is a bit more interesting than the book, though - plain diamond smuggling just isn't all that exciting.) And the special effects in the climax are among the worst in the series, if not the worst. When Blofeld destroys missiles and submarines with his laser and when the helicopters attacking Blofeld's oil rig lair, it all looks pretty fake.

So Diamonds Are Forever is definitely not the best in the series, but it's also not the absolute worst.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

"Sorry about your fulsome friend . . . "

Author: Edgar Allan Pooh from The Gutters of Baltimore
28 April 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

. . . Jill St. John, as "Tiffany Case," consoles Sean Connery's "James Bond" midway through DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER. One would have wonder exactly WHICH "fulsome friend" Ms. St. John is lamenting. Two of the likely candidates are "Marie" and "Plenty." Neither character is on-screen long enough to even qualify for MLB's proverbial "cup of coffee." Bond rips off Marie's bikini top and garrotes her with it. Since the uncredited Denise Perrier, who played Marie, was not as famous as Ms. St. John, her chest points are clearly visible during this violent episode (1:44) and NOT modestly covered by pasties, as is the case when Bond beds Tiffany (1:08:30). This psychopathic sex-killing set-up (even if not carried to an ultimate conclusion) clearly inspired director Alfred Hitchcock's only topless scene the following year in FRENZY. (As a fellow Brit, Hitchcock was insanely jealous of Bond's glory and box office, churning out pale imitations such as TOPAZ and TORN CURTAIN in his declining years.) On the other hand, actress Lana Wood, as DIAMONDS' "Plenty O'Toole," suffers from benign neglect. Miss O'Toole spends plenty of her brief on-screen time during this film in swimming pools, being "doubled" by stunt-women and\or dummies. While "Plenty" may be more "fulsome" than "Marie," neither woman is likely to keep "Tiffany" awake at night. Perhaps a more intriguing point to note is that DIAMONDS' final Bond triumph just before the end credits depends on its audience accepting as "fact" that gays know nothing about wine!

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Bond #7: Down to earth

Author: unbrokenmetal from Hamburg, Germany
8 July 2008

Fleming's novels were more than once accused of sadism by critics, fortunately in most cases, not much of that made it into the movies. "Diamonds Are Forever", though, has not only some scenes of very dark humor (for example when Plenty is thrown out of the window - and the killer "apologises" for her safe landing with the words "I didn't know there was a pool down there"), but regrettably also a few others that border on the tasteless. I am thinking of the way Bond disposes of the 2 killers on the cruise ship, or when he happily says he "sincerely hopes" Franks is dead - in these scenes, the audience gets the impression he actually enjoys killing people in interesting, painful ways which is a long way from the old-school type of hero that would kill only for self-defense or if it really can't be avoided. From the fantasy in "Goldfinger" and "You Only Live Twice", we are down to earth here which also shows in the locations that are not exotic, but plainly continental Europe (Amsterdam) and the USA. There even is a car chase scene which would fit into anything from "Smokey And the Bandit" to "Kojak", but for Bond it's below standard to trash a few cars. What I liked best: the escape with the moon car is funny and unusual, the 2 athletic ladies kicking Bond where it hurts were a novelty, and I liked Charles Gray as a villain with a good reason to attack Washington DC ("If we destroy Kansas, the world may not hear about it for years"). Instead of a little known Bond girl whose participation in a Bond is the only highlight of her career, this time we get to see an actress already known for her other movies: Jill St.John was a great choice for the part of Tiffany Case. Not one of the top 10 Bond movies, but "Diamonds Are Forever" still has a handful of good moments.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

One of the Bond let downs but still enjoyable

Author: FilmFanInTheHouse from Berkshire, England
28 December 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Diamonds Are Forever is the return of Sean Connery to the role of 007. His mission is to successfully smuggle diamonds into USA, unaware that Blofeld is behind the scheme.

The film is mainly set in Las Vegas but also includes other stunning locations. The reason i feel the 7th 007 movie lets itself down is the weak action. Each film includes something stunning which you remember all the time. The only real memorable sequence from this film is a car chase through Las Vegas, with an unforgivable turn for a car in a narrow alley, which needs to be seen to be believed how bad it looks.

Jill St.John plays a good character in Tiffany Case, but does not play Tiffany Case as a good Bond Girl. Her and Bond don't spend enough time together to create that romantic link between the two. She feels more like an allie to Bond rather than his love interest. Jimmy Dean was also perfectly cast as Willard Whyte. He really came across as a high profiled American who likes things to go his way. As the films have gone on, the great character has seemed to decrease in Ernst Blofeld. This time we have the wonderful Charles Gray portraying him, but his talent is put to waste. He should have be on screen more with a menacing tone, instead of dressing up in drag to capture the Bond girl.

John Barrys greatness when it comes to soundtracks also seems to be lacking in this addition. Shirley Bassey returns to perform another great piece of theme music, although it won't be as memorable as Goldfinger.

Whilst Diamonds Are Forever has many flaws, it is still an enjoyable Bond film to watch, but then again, what Bond film isn't enjoyable to watch.

James Bond will return in.... Live And Let Die

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

James Bond frolics through Las Vegas in pursuit of Dastardly Diamond smugglers.

Author: J.D. Corcoran from Las Vegas, NV
21 November 2002

After more than 30 years, Las Vegas still feels the impact of this movie. The Nevada Film Office, headquartered in Las Vegas, still receives the occasional call from a visitor asking where is the hotel in which James Bond played "craps" with Plenty O'Toole? It has an amazing resiliency that has lasted for decades, and one of the most famous car stunt continuity flubs ever seen in a major motion picture -- with a stunt car going into an alley up on one angle and exiting the narrow space facing the other way! Although it was caught and covered with an "explaining" shot before general release, just exactly WHERE in that alley did James find room to flip the car over? Bravo and kudos to Sean Connery and all involved with the James Bond franchise, for creating a unique Bond installment that stands alone in much of its tongue-in-cheek humor, sarcasm, double entendre, and overall sense of fun in the Grownup Playground of the World: Las Vegas, Nevada. How impressive it is that this particular Bond movie endures and entertains viewers to such a notable degree after thirty-plus years!

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 8 of 28: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [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