43 replies to this topic

[Pierce - Daniel]

I rewatched DAF today, usually i had it pegged as one of the worst Bond movies Ive ever seen, but today I watched it, and loved it.
First off the the pre title is fun, I love the 'ask Maria' line, and the following scene with her and Bond, and the main title is also great. I found it near impossible to keep the frin off my face watching the film, it was so fun and lavish, a real caper of a film.
I enjoyed how untypical in struture the film was, the scene at the start with the diamond official being intercut with the villian's actions was a great energetic way to kick off the movie. The 3 big factors that really make this film work are: the script, the director, and the star.
The writting is so great, its witty, and full of zinger one liners, some of the best in the series no doubt. I didn't reach the stupid turgid realm of the latter Roger Moore movies, but is great and very well handled.
Hamilton in the director's chair is also effective. Hamilton's films always seem like a comic strip, there quick and fun and never leave you long enought o question anything as you fall with the momentum of the story, his style here is also very slick, he moves the camera around with great fluidty, catching so much within one shot. His comic book style pacing is real very effective, and I find it lets him get away with so much, eg alot of circus scenes (that elephant comes to mind) because the film carries on the good will it has gathered through out to that point.
Now on to Connery, he really is great in this one. By the looks of things hes having a great time, romancing women and getting up to all sorts. He really is Bond simple as, and with the great dialgoue (the writters make sure Bond gets all the killer lines), he seems inantely, organically, Bond. His charisma seeps from the screen and is evident to all those viewing. Regardless of how great an actor Sean really is, and he truly is, Bond seems to just come to him so naturally. It's much like watching a Geogre Cloonely film, there great actors, but there always do smooth so well. It really is Connery's movie throughout, and he really owns it, in a way I dont think he did in YOLT. There seems to be alot of fun in the making of the film.
The first half of the film really is a fun caper film, it silkly moves across the screen with the help of the script, Connery and Hamilton, for instance the moment where we discover Bond taking Frank's car away from him. the only gripe I have comes int he second half, when the film stops being the caper movie it set out to be, instead the Bond elements appear to drag it down. As soon as the action came my eyes began to roll, we're treated to a rather low-speed moon buggy chase, followed by another rather boring mustang chase through Vegas, Hamilton has never been able to master the car chase, I found the GF and TMWTGG's all rather dry. The film then throws Blofeld into the mix and the final shoot out, though being very well executed, feels a little anti-climatic.
The first half though the film fires on all cylinders, Wint and Kidd really steal the opening, Jill st John is great as the female lead, and when Charles Gray gets into things, he really gets into things, his scenes with Connery are really very good, some great diagloue being exchnaged between the pair. i'm glad the producers never apepared to miss a trick when it came to casting Blofeld. The lighting in the film is visuallly stunning, and the smaller action set pieces are really where the film excels, Bond in the coffin (followed by that great St. Paul gag to Shady Tree) as well as elevator fight scence and the trapped pipeline moment. Connery's clothes are also awesome, i loved some of his suits throughout the film. The special effects though are godawful, I'm curious as to anyone who may have been lucky enough to see DAF in cinemas at the time, where they state of the art back then or were they always as shoddy as they feel today, thank god they save them for the end. John Barry's score is terrfic and the title song sounds as good as it has ever done, and Ken Adam's sets still look great.
All in all the film is a great fun caper film, Connery is on fire and with thanks to the cracking script and solid direction the film really excels regardless of the bad press the film gets for being a little 'camp', I feel happy to have it int he series as its such a great fun departure from those times Bond maybe took itself to seriously.

[DamnCoffee]

I'm in the same boat. In fact, I don't HATE any Bond movie anymore. The camp ones I see as fun, the serious ones I see as brilliant spy thrillers. The only Bond movies I'm still on the fence with are For Your Eyes Only and The World Is Not Enough, and even then they have some redeeming feature.

I agree with you completely. Diamonds Are Forever is a brilliant, fun romp. It's no masterpiece, but it's supposed to entertain, and it delivers. As much as I would've loved a true sequel to On Her Majesties Secret Service, there's no point crying over spilt milk. What's done is done. We could've had so much more from this film, but we got what we got. I don't really have much of a problem with it.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I wonder how many Bond fans have re-visited the Mankiewicz films since the screenwriters passing. Anyway, I think DIAMONDS is a superb entry for the series and took the films into the seventies in the most entertaining way. I agree with the above comments on Connery and Hamilton. Connery is in charge and a fantastic leading actor throughout DIAMONDS and Hamilton is never really afraid to do anything within the remit of a PG rated (Bond) film. From the handholding escapades of Wint & Kidd to killing old ladies and drowning the younger one's, if its good for the movie it's in. There is no PC nonsense and the film never offends either because the tone is just right. The audience knows the whole thing is not to be taken seriously and that includes the plot (which never makes sense).
Aside from the now dated special effects my only complaint is the ending which should have been more spectacular, but perhaps this only notices on repeat viewings. Even today the Las Vegas setting makes the whole film cool, and stands as a reminder of how well the Bond films use locations. I doubt there will ever be another film to feature Las Vegas so prominently.
As is often the case with Bond films the icing on the cake is the John Barry score and I think there was no way better for Connery to depart the Eon series.

I found this spectacular behind the scenes footage from the film which I never knew existed. Well worth a watch IMO.

[Guy Haines]

I too would have liked a proper sequel to OHMSS, and if Lazenby hadn't been so badly advised and had instead stayed on as Bond, we might have got one, and probably not DAF, in spite of the end credits message that Bond would be back in that film.

There were aspects of DAF that were there, intentionally imo, to make the audience pretend that OHMSS had never happened - the most obvious of course being the re-casting of Sean Connery. I didn't like how the film makers (more likely, studio bosses) could casually dismiss the previous effort in this way.

That said, I've never disliked DAF. It was a film of its time, and very much of its principal location of Las Vegas. It was quite undeniably camp, but even the likes of Wint and Kidd had a dark, funeral parlour manner about them, compared to some of the later cartoonish henchmen (if you've ever seen the 1960s satire on funerals called "The Loved One", you might think that Wint and Kidd, and Morton Slumber, had wandered out of that film and into DAF.)

As a one off, in which Bond finds himself amid the garishness of Vegas, taking on some unusual and even absurd characters, DAF works fine for me, and benefits from the wit brought to it by the late Tom Mankiewicz - wit sadly absent from some future Bond films, even one or two I count as favourites. However, as a template for the Bond films that succeeded it, it probably wasn't the best to have followed.

[Dr. Metz]

I found this spectacular behind the scenes footage from the film which I never knew existed. Well worth a watch IMO.

Great find. DAF has always been one of my favorites, i'm still waiting for a blu-ray release of it... but anyway, i cant see how anyone could HATE the movie. It has just about something for everyone, funny lines, a good car chase(save for the ending with the car magically switching sides and the horrible and impossible excuse they give for it), interesting henchmen, a great soundtrack, colorful sets, ect.

[Turn]

That was a great little feature from You Tube. Connery was very patient with that interviewer, whose questions I could barely understand. But what was he thinking with saying Fleming visited the Bahamas during the filming of Thunderball? Maybe they had a Ouija board or something.

DAF is the first Bond film I saw when it was new when I was just a child, so it has a special place in my Bond memories. There's just something about it that has kept me fascinated with it for years, so it's always nice to see it get a little love.

I also agree with Pierce-Daniel's point about Connery. I've never agreed with the often used criticism he looks bored. I think he's very relaxed here and gets to show a lighter side, which you never got to see very often. But he still has the old ruthless side as well. He's still by far the best actor to portray the balance between the toughness and humor in Bond, IMO.

[Dr. Metz]

I also agree with Pierce-Daniel's point about Connery. I've never agreed with the often used criticism he looks bored. I think he's very relaxed here and gets to show a lighter side, which you never got to see very often. But he still has the old ruthless side as well. He's still by far the best actor to portray the balance between the toughness and humor in Bond, IMO.

While it isn't his best performance in the series, i feel that saying "he phoned in his performace" was wrong on my part(i said that on another thread that had to do with the death of Mankiewicz), he really isn't that bad. Connery seems much more enthusiastic in this one than in YOLT, but then again, he wasn't bad in that either. Connery is good in just about everything he does. But i think the most entertaining performance in the film was Charles Grey as Blofeld, save for the drag scene. I also think that the movie does give a nod to OHMSS. In the beginning when he is tracking down Blofeld, he seems to have lost all composure and is hellbent on finding him, which makes sense because, well, Blofeld killed his wife. At the end of YOLT, he seems very nonchalant about Blofeld escaping, so why would he suddenly care about it so much at the beginning of DAF?

[sharpshooter]

Diamonds Are Forever is a brilliant, fun romp. It's no masterpiece, but it's supposed to entertain, and it delivers. As much as I would've loved a true sequel to On Her Majesties Secret Service, there's no point crying over spilt milk. What's done is done. We could've had so much more from this film, but we got what we got. I don't really have much of a problem with it.

Indeed. There's plenty to like about Diamonds Are Forever.

[Binyamin]

Yes. Strange but true.

I used to loathe Diamonds. Hated it. Couldn't get through the whole things without throwing the remote in disgust. Then, caught it on cable half a year ago and it -- and Connery -- surprisingly entertaining. What happened? I have no idea.

[Ambler]

Even Guy Hamilton couldn't kill DAF.

[Lachesis]

I have never really understood the vitriol laid on Diamonds...its not the best by a long chalk but its not the worse either. Overall it doesn't pretend to be anything other than a fun romp..I can understand the disapointment after the tone of OHMSS (though that was viewed as a failure at the time by the production team) and the disapointment of seeing Connery not recapture the Thunderball aura (GF/TB duble bills still playing in many theatres when this was released)....though as others have mentioned the boredom apparent in YOLT has been replaced by a much more relaxed and natural perfomance.

Still we are all different I guess, of all the Bonds only TMWTGG and OP manage to make me cringe, the rest are just different levels of fun/quality.

[zencat]

I've always liked Diamonds. It was the first Bond film I ever saw. Sure, it has its flaws in comparison with some of the better films, but it has a lot going for it, including one of the very best scores. I'm a fan.

[Matt_13]

My biggest complaints about Diamonds are that it takes place in Vegas, and it's not shot particularly well which, despite some snappy dialogue and amusing sight gags, makes the experience kinda boring. I also don't find Vegas interesting in general. It is definitely one of the most self aware Bond films, and that's what keeps from being one of the worst ones.

[bribond]

I largely agree with the opening statement. I definitely prefer my Bonds a bit more chilled (Craig, Dalton, 1st two Connerys) and for ages I couldn't stand this film until I re-watched it about a year ago. I had always been bothered by the overly light tone coming after OHMSS, the near complete lack of tension between Bond and Blofeld, and the way Bond just easily surrenders himself to SPECTRE near the end when he arrives on the oil rig and near any scene with Jill St. John, who seems like a trashy heroine. However, putting that aside, the film is a romp, Connery is very charming as Bond in his return engagement and the film is pretty funny. I can certainly understand why the decision was made for this approach and the film's financial success may have saved the series. Wint and Kidd are pretty creative villains and Bond seems right at home inn Vegas. It'll never be my favorite but as entertainment it's just fine.

[jaguar007]

Like others on this thread, I have never hated DAF. Not the best, but I will take it over any of the Brosnan films. I believe Connery had said in an interview at one point that he actually had fun filming DAF and it does show in his performance. He may not have looked his best, but his performance was up a couple notches from YOLT.

[Double-Oh Agent]

I love Diamonds Are Forever. While it does have its flaws (i.e. a lack of enmity between Bond and Blofeld in Vegas, poor editing choices involving Plenty O'Toole, and the worst special effects of the series), it also has its benefits (a very witty script, terrific henchmen, and a great score) which easily trump any negatives the film has. As a result, DAF is a very fun and entertaining adventure. It's my second favorite Connery Bond film.

[elizabeth]

DAF isn't the best Bond film, and I don't think it even ranks in my Top 10, but I do like it a lot, and even though Sean is a little older, he still does as fine a job as he did in the 60s.

[jrcjohnny99]

DAF isn't the best Bond film, and I don't think it even ranks in my Top 10, but I do like it a lot, and even though Sean is a little older, he still does as fine a job as he did in the 60s.

Always been my least fave Bond movie along with AVTAK;
they shouldn't have brought Sean back and Charles Grey was horrible....

[elizabeth]

I think Charles Gray did a terrific job, both as an ally in YOLT and as a villain in DAF. He knew how to play both sides of the fence very well.

[blueman]

Run the gamut with this film, settled down with pretty much love it for what it is - a Bond spoof. Hard to consider it more than that when it doesn't take itself seriously, but I guess that's not a crime. Sad though how Bond evolved so quickly into such a tame and generic beast.

[Publius]

It's my least favorite. It is one of the funnier entries, but three things in particular keep it from even being bearable to watch by my standards:

1. It's ugly as sin. Aren't the silly, lighthearted Bond movies usually filmed with big budgets and good production values? What the hell happened here to make it look like it was made by a bunch of broke Bond fans rather than Albert Broccoli's EON?

2. Uh, there was no conclusion. Sure, the Wint and Kidd bit at the end was classic, but even if you're going to have as lame a final battle as they gave us (again, where was the spectacle?), at least have the decency of showing Bond definitely finishing off Blofeld, preferably mano-a-mano. This was not the film for leaving his fate ambiguous (that would only work in a more intelligent and serious follow-up to OHMSS), it was the film for giving the audience the satisfaction of seeing the bad guy done in, once and for all.

3. Seriously Sean, I know the powers that be were going for a semi-disowning of OHMSS, and you were really only there for the paycheck, but could you at least throw us a bone and look pissed when Blofeld reveals he's still alive?

[Guy Haines]

It's my least favorite. It is one of the funnier entries, but three things in particular keep it from even being bearable to watch by my standards:

1. It's ugly as sin. Aren't the silly, lighthearted Bond movies usually filmed with big budgets and good production values? What the hell happened here to make it look like it was made by a bunch of broke Bond fans rather than Albert Broccoli's EON?

2. Uh, there was no conclusion. Sure, the Wint and Kidd bit at the end was classic, but even if you're going to have as lame a final battle as they gave us (again, where was the spectacle?), at least have the decency of showing Bond definitely finishing off Blofeld, preferably mano-a-mano. This was not the film for leaving his fate ambiguous (that would only work in a more intelligent and serious follow-up to OHMSS), it was the film for giving the audience the satisfaction of seeing the bad guy done in, once and for all.

3. Seriously Sean, I know the powers that be were going for a semi-disowning of OHMSS, and you were really only there for the paycheck, but could you at least throw us a bone and look pissed when Blofeld reveals he's still alive?

I think they wanted Blofeld's fate to be deliberately ambiguous at the end of DAF, so the option of him making a comeback remained. What the producers perhaps failed to foresee was that Kevin McClory would be the one making the comeback, effectively preventing Eon from using Blofeld and SPECTRE again. Pity. I'd have liked to have seen how Messrs. Moore, Dalton, Brosnan or Craig would have tackled Bond's most infamous nemesis.

As for the pretense that OHMSS never happened, you are quite right. Connery went through the motions of "revenge" in the DAF pre title scene, but by the time he meets both Blofelds in the Whyte House, its almost like a Bond/Bond villain "old boys re-union", at least until 007 manages to shoot the fake Ernst instead of the genuine article. Similarly when Bond is aboard the oil rig and is given the usual guided tour of the villain's control room. Its more like an expected routine between Bond and Blofeld than anything else.

[hilly]

I think Diamonds Are Forever ensured the longeivity of the series. Wonderful as OHMSS is, I think that the series would have ended prematurely had the producers continued the more serious "realistic" tone, as audiences would have become bored. Would anyone, aside from a hardcore Fleming fan, have really wanted to see a DAF that featured a hero mourning the loss of his dead wife and being out for revenge? Or if they had, would they have wanted to go back for the next one? I think the lukewarm box office of Licence To Kill and the mixed critical reception of Quantum of Solace indicates a need for the films to lighten up occasionally.
Like it or not, the average movie-goer wants to be entertained and whilst we can all say that we love the dark, brooding hard-edged Bond, with all his flaws etc, (and don't get me wrong, I think Daniel Craig is great) the fact is that this is just one facet of the Bond movies. These are not arthouse movies.Cinema audiences appreciate the humour, the action, the stunts and gadgets as much as the characterisation.And whether we choose to acknowledge it or not, these are the elements that drew most of us fans to the films in the first place. Whilst the "realistic" Bond of the books may appeal to hardcore Bond fans, the movies have a wider appeal and appeal to a mass audience whose opinion (and cash) is as good and valid as that of the "serious fan". Who cares if the girlfriend of the guy sat next to you didn't get all the visual references to past films in DAD, or who didn't appreciate how Fleming-like Timothy Dalton's portayal was meant to be. They're still a punter. They've bought their ticket and they're entitled to be entertained. If it were only "the fans" who went to see the films, then they'd never make any money.....
One of the things i love about the films is that the producers are happy to change the tone and will acknowledge when they have gone too far in a particular direction. Too far down to earth with OHMSS? Let's camp it up a bit with DAF. Too OTT with Moonraker? Back down to earth again with FYEO then. Ridiculous CGI and invisible cars in DAD not your thing? Then we'll start all over again with Casino Royale etc

I think DAF is an ok Bond movie. Sure it's got it's flaws, but it's also funny (with some of Tom Manc's greatest one-liners) and it's got a relaxed Connery who doesn't even pretend that he's there for anything but the cash.

[Mr. Somerset]

Just watched DAF last night. Enjoyed every frame. One Bond I never tire of, and is very fun.

[blueman]

I think Diamonds Are Forever ensured the longeivity of the series. Wonderful as OHMSS is, I think that the series would have ended prematurely had the producers continued the more serious "realistic" tone, as audiences would have become bored.

Audiences weren't bored by The French Connection. Or Marathon Man. Or Death Wish. Or Taxi Driver. Or etc. etc.

Agree that DAF set the lighter tone in stone for the franchise, and that it's been successful. Disagree that a more serious tone wouldn't have worked at the box office. Harry and Cubby went for bigger and better in the mid 60s, had they pulled back from that with as much conviction as they had first embraced it, we might well have seen a run of very serious, smaller - and relatively successful - 70s Bond films. Woulda coulda shoulda, guess we'll never know.

[Guy Haines]

I think Diamonds Are Forever ensured the longeivity of the series. Wonderful as OHMSS is, I think that the series would have ended prematurely had the producers continued the more serious "realistic" tone, as audiences would have become bored.

Audiences weren't bored by The French Connection. Or Marathon Man. Or Death Wish. Or Taxi Driver. Or etc. etc.

Agree that DAF set the lighter tone in stone for the franchise, and that it's been successful. Disagree that a more serious tone wouldn't have worked at the box office. Harry and Cubby went for bigger and better in the mid 60s, had they pulled back from that with as much conviction as they had first embraced it, we might well have seen a run of very serious, smaller - and relatively successful - 70s Bond films. Woulda coulda shoulda, guess we'll never know.

I agree. DAF is, imo, an enjoyable romp, and would have made a good one off, with Bond out of his usual comfort zone, but as a template I don't think it was wise to use it. What greatly helps it, and LALD and TMWTGG, is Tom Mankiewicz's wit. When his name came off the credits and his lines left the scripts, the lighter tone started to become a bit juvenile, not all the way through successive films, but enough times to be, frankly, irritating.

Also, I think the 70s films may have reflected a lack of confidence on the part of the producers. We know that Bond can and does sometimes latch on to current trends, but some of it was so obvious back then (blaxploitation, kung-fu, science-fiction.) Some of you out there will, no doubt, accuse the Craig movies of being just as prone to this - "Bourne-again Bond", you might say. But at least the Bourne stories are espionage/conspiracy based action adventures, a better fit for Bond, I think, than some of the styles bolted on to some of the 70s films in an effort to stay "relevant".

[David Schofield]

Also, I think the 70s films may have reflected a lack of confidence on the part of the producers. We know that Bond can and does sometimes latch on to current trends, but some of it was so obvious back then (blaxploitation, kung-fu, science-fiction.) Some of you out there will, no doubt, accuse the Craig movies of being just as prone to this - "Bourne-again Bond", you might say. But at least the Bourne stories are espionage/conspiracy based action adventures, a better fit for Bond, I think, than some of the styles bolted on to some of the 70s films in an effort to stay "relevant".

A very well made - and not often realised - point.

Clearly, EON lost their nerve with DAF and the failure to make a genuine OHMSS sequel, with or without Lazenby (hell, a fat knackered-looking Connery might have worked well as a recently-bereaved Bond). And this lack of courage really did set in with the 70s movies as one genre after another was immitated. Suddenly, whereas the Bond thrillers were innovators and market-leaders, they became little more thatn trend followers, imagination stiffled.

Indeed, it is odd that EON only felt capabale of expressing themselves again, of not latching on to an in-vogue genre, in the 1980s, - perhaps the long-term success of the franchise had reassured Cubby - and 90s (hey, wait a minute, that gives the Brosnan movies a lot of credit...)

Sadly, Babs obsesssion with Bourne and Craig's physical attributes took Bond back into the world of the immitator, not the originator. Like it or not, Bond has become Bourne again.

[Turn]

This thread has really got me thinking about how the Bond series really stuck out - like a sore thumb - during especially the early to mid 1970s, now considered the last golden age of American filmmaking.

Not that Bond was meant to be more than popcorn entertainment but instead of following in the trend of grittier films like The French Connection, Dirty Harry or Day of the Jackal, they chose to follow exploitation genres. Of course, it worked for them, and that's fine as I like those films, but you can easily wonder what could have been.

Besides, it was probably inevitable they would have returned to the big blockbuster formula anyway after Jaws redefined the box office in 1975.

[Guy Haines]

Also, I think the 70s films may have reflected a lack of confidence on the part of the producers. We know that Bond can and does sometimes latch on to current trends, but some of it was so obvious back then (blaxploitation, kung-fu, science-fiction.) Some of you out there will, no doubt, accuse the Craig movies of being just as prone to this - "Bourne-again Bond", you might say. But at least the Bourne stories are espionage/conspiracy based action adventures, a better fit for Bond, I think, than some of the styles bolted on to some of the 70s films in an effort to stay "relevant".

A very well made - and not often realised - point.

Clearly, EON lost their nerve with DAF and the failure to make a genuine OHMSS sequel, with or without Lazenby (hell, a fat knackered-looking Connery might have worked well as a recently-bereaved Bond). And this lack of courage really did set in with the 70s movies as one genre after another was immitated. Suddenly, whereas the Bond thrillers were innovators and market-leaders, they became little more thatn trend followers, imagination stiffled.

Indeed, it is odd that EON only felt capabale of expressing themselves again, of not latching on to an in-vogue genre, in the 1980s, - perhaps the long-term success of the franchise had reassured Cubby - and 90s (hey, wait a minute, that gives the Brosnan movies a lot of credit...)

Sadly, Babs obsesssion with Bourne and Craig's physical attributes took Bond back into the world of the immitator, not the originator. Like it or not, Bond has become Bourne again.

Much obliged. I've thought about your comment about the Brosnan films. After that six year hiatus, and a changed political landscape, I think they tried to make the 1990s Bond "relevant", oddly enough, by highlighting just how out of sync he seemed with the times, but how necessary he was as well. A bit like the 60s Bond (complete with that Aston Martin!) but suddenly dealing with the "pc world" of the 90s. (Mike Myers, of course, did it to great, and gross comic effect in his Austin Powers films).

Brosnan was no Connery, but I think his films tried to take their cue from the Connery films, in an ironic way. Another irony is that we now have an actor in Craig who is more than a match for Connery in his prime, yet to an extent his films reflect the times we live in generally and, intentionally or not, another recent film series in particular. Not that it stops me rating both CR and QoS very highly indeed.

[blueman]

I've never felt Bond has copied Bourne. Bond created the fast action seen in Bourne films back in the 60s, Bond (and Bourne) is just copying Bond now that they have a lead actor again who can do such action convincingly (like Bourne using Damon to similar effect). Not like gritty ever went away, just need the right guy to pull it off, just like you need the right guy (Moore) to pull smooth off.

The 60s will never come again, Bond can only flash into existence once. Thereafter EON needs to be savvy and tailor to the times, as they've done more or less successfully ever since. One thing to note, no one has ever successfully duplicated Bond, not long term. Yet, bumps and bruises inclusive, Bond remains. For my money QOS is the most Bond film in decades, only OHMSS bests it.