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 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
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 277 reviews in total 

8 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

THE hands down WORST Bond film of all time!

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?

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:

Looking old, 007...

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?

15 out of 30 people found the following review useful:

Unbelievably lousy

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:

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?

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