ThiefHott Too much of everything

ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Micransix Crappy film

Derry Herrera Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

Movie_Muse_Reviews It feels good to have Sean Connery back, but that's about the extent of the joy to be had in "Diamonds are Forever." Producers Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Saltzman got their man, but the "James Bond" franchise got its first stinker. What starts out a fairly promising, grounded diamond-smuggling spy film flies off the handle as Bond descends upon Las Vegas and must stop another over-the-top villainous plot."Diamonds" was clearly intended to recreate the franchise's peak, like an early "best of" film. From Shirley Bassey's second series theme song to the return of director Guy Hamilton ("Goldfinger") and the nefarious Blofeld (now played by Charles Gray), Broccoli and Saltzman hit the reset button after "On Her Majesty's Secret Service," a move that paid financial dividends, but little else. The story, for one, just kind of perpetually rolls forward without ever any setup, suspense or stakes aside from a few "how will Bond get out of this jam?" moments. Bond infiltrates a diamond-smuggling ring and teams up with American Tiffany Case (Jill St. John) in Amsterdam, unaware that a trail of bodies connected to diamond-smuggling lay in his wake thanks to the shifty and odd duo of Mr. Wint (Bruce Glover) and Mr. Kidd (Putter Smith). Bond and Case arrive in L.A. and Bond rendezvous with his CIA pal Felix Leiter (Norman Burton) before bringing the diamonds to a funeral home. Then Bond ends up in Vegas at a hotel called the Whyte House … anyway, this follow-the-diamonds story is not hard to keep track of but it feels like an endless goose chase with each scene assigned the sole purpose of putting the next scene in motion.The action meant to punctuate the various plot points falls flat under Hamilton's direction in this film despite Hamilton's success in "Goldfinger." The car chases and the climactic oil rig scene take on an almost slapstick tone — and Bond's fight with two gymnasts flat- out does. And somehow, John Barry's score is missing the iconic "Bond" music at all the most opportune times. Way too much of the action is set to silence. Then there's the laughable special effects used in the end that highlight just how badly the movie has unraveled. To be fair, "Diamonds" has its classic "Bond" touches and plenty of clever moments, gadgets and one-liners. Writer Richard Maibaum, who penned nearly every previous film, is involved yet again here to ensure that continuity. The franchise doesn't lose its mojo in "Diamonds" (if for no other reason than Connery's involvement), but these highlights are just floating adrift, unable to make themselves useful in bolstering the story.Perhaps Connery is the greatest to ever play Bond, and the role fit him like a perfectly tailored tuxedo, but his mere presence alone and our familiarity with it doesn't carry "Diamonds are Forever." He's just kind of going along with it, not that the script gives him an alternative. Everyone involved in the film seems to assume the plot is simply a vehicle for Connery and the iconic parts of "Bond" to exist again, but they prove that not just any story is fit for 007. Unfortunately, it results in a lackluster, tacky sendoff for Connery's Bond.~Steven CThanks for reading! Visit Movie Muse Reviews for more

gavin6942 A diamond smuggling investigation leads James Bond (Sean Connery) to Las Vegas, where he uncovers an evil plot involving a rich business tycoon.While this is not the greatest Bond film, and some have said it is a sad farewell to Sean Connery, it does have its moments. For one, we have Q as a thief. I suppose being a spy agency's gadget man gives you some leeway, but I don't think you are supposed to steal from slot machines! As far as Bond girls go, Jill St. John is probably on the top half of a list running from best to worst. Strangely enough, I know her more as a mob moll than a Bond girl. Which makes the film's setting in Vegas all the more interesting.

jim_skreech Following the previous On Her Majesty's Secret Service, the Bond series was in a state of flux, having lost both it's key star, and it's new successor. George Lazenby famously turned his back on the Bond franchise, looking at the brave new counter culture films like Easy Rider as the way forward, and Bond as a rapidly moulding relic of the 60s. We know now that Bond has continued to pack out cinemas on each release, but following Lazenby's departure, the question was a troubled 'what now?'.Bond traditionalists are still crying out 'bring back Connery!'. And for DAF, they did. Connery was tempted back with a record-breaking 1.25 million, which he did donate in full to the Scottish International Education Trust, but this is rather the only positive that can be said about this involvement here. Connery was tired with the Bond franchise, and it's clear from his performance that he did not have his heart in the film, and gives a rather cynical performance. He had also visibly aged and put on weight. Ironically, he looked far fresher in his return in Never Say Never Again some 12 years later.Just like the decade itself, DAF is much more violent than it's predecessors, with some pretty grisly deaths (immolation, drowning, and a scorpion dropped down the back of the neck), however, the brutal fight in the elevator with Peter Franks is superbly choreographed, and in an era where Bond appeared to stroll through his fights with ease, this scene showed Bond meeting a true equal, fighting with a real sense of grit and intensity not seen elsewhere.One of the real weak points of DAF are the locations. Whilst other films in the series were set in places that the audience dreamed of going to (or sometimes didn't dare to go to), 1970s Las Vegas looks naff and lacks any kind of glitz, giving the film rather a cheap wood-panelled 'made for TV' veneer. However, what I really found unforgivable about DAF was it's continuity following OHMSS, something that has given some Bond fans cause to rather consider DAF to be a sequel to You Only Live Twice, and OHMSS to follow on from DAF. Following the murder of his wife, Theresa, on his wedding night, Bond should be explosive with anguish and rage. Although the opening scene shows Bond roughing up a few suspects, he seems to regard Blofeld, now a camp caricature better suited to a 1970s sitcom, little more than an old rogue, seemingly no more angry with him for murdering his wife, than he would be for keying his car. This was such an opportunity missed, and leaves me wondering how it would have been if Lazenby stayed and DAF intentionally scripted as a direct follow- up.DAF for me is the 'interim Bond, lost between the optimistic pop- Bond of the 60s, and the escapist romps of the later 70s. Fortunately the follow up, Live And Let Die, tapped into a new fun, playful Bond, and gave the franchise a lifeline, one that was later cemented with The Spy Who Loved Me. Connery on the other hand was finally allowed to act his age, and followed up DAF with 1973's The Offence, in my opinion the most intense and outstanding performance of his career.

Manhattan William I love Diamonds Are Forever. It's the best sort of time-capsule and thoroughly entertaining. I've always been a fan of the more understated Bond films, meaning I tend towards the earlier ones with fewer extraneous explosions and more locations. Here we are taken to Amsterdam and especially Las Vegas. I love the scenes shot in the casino! The era of wood paneling is long gone but I love revisiting! Can anyone imagine a performer like "Shady Tree" today? One of my favorite puns is in the name of "Plenty O'Toole" - it's a riot! The direction is really spot-on as well. The scenes in the crematorium are amazing and eerie. The plot IS a bit off balance but that doesn't distract from the fun. The ending, as with most Bond films, if predictable but at least it doesn't linger too long. Jill St. John is a bit wooden at times but in the end just manages to pull it off and is very nice to look at. Sean is in fine form throughout. The score (aside from the title song with neither I nor Harry Saltzman liked) is very good. One of the most entertaining films you'll ever see and in the end it's about being well entertained.