ReBONDing: Diamonds Are Forever
Reevaluating the Sean Connery Era (1962 - 1971, 1983)
DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER (1971)
Directed by Guy Hamilton
Written by Richard Maibaum, Tom Mankiewicz
Ian Fleming (novel)
Running Time: 120 minutes
Original Verdict:
Because of Connery's high fee, the film's special effects budget was significantly scaled back, which was apparent on screen. Let us also not forget the "gay" assassins as well.
Rating: 3 out of 5.
THE REEVALUATION
The Cold Open: James Bond is on the hunt! Hunting down Blofeld for murdering his wife, or at least that's my assumption. Bond moves from henchmen to henchmen until he finally locates him at a Plastic Surgery Clinic and Spa. Disguised as a doctor, Bond is found out, has a very clumsy fight, and disposes of Blofeld in what we presume is molten clay. I guess Blofeld is now dead? It feels rushed, disheveled and completely unsatisfying.
The Story: Diamonds Are Forever is a perplexing plot where Bond is sent to infiltrate a diamond smuggling ring, where he tracks the jewels from South Africa to Las Vegas and to find out why. Not knowing who was going to play Bond when they began pre-production, this film suffered from multiple versions and rewrites. Originally, the plot was going to involve Auric Goldfinger's twin, seeking revenge for the murder of his brother. Then the story shifted again when producer Cubby Broccoli had a strange dream where he went to see his good friend Howard Hughes but is presented with an impostor.
Still not 100% certain if they were going to secure Connery for the role, they brought in a new screenwriter who was instructed to make Diamonds Are Forever "more American" in an attempt to win back American audiences who had been disappointed with OHMSS. That's why a majority of this film takes place in the United States. Instead, we get a strange reboot. Connery is back, the producers ditch that Lazenby guy, and try to forget that that other film ever happened. Diamonds Are Forever clearly feels like it takes place in an alternate Bond-verse.
The Villain: We now have our third Blofeld in as many films and they keep getting worse with each iteration (just like with Felix Leiter). At least the producers are being consistent with their inconsistency. Charles Gray -- who briefly played Henderson in YOLT -- is cast here as Ernst Stavro Blofeld in Diamonds Are Forever. His portrayal of Blofeld is laughable at best. Gray's Blofeld comes off as an inconvenienced aristocrat, mildly irritated with Bond, and prefers the likes of cloning and cross-dressing as much as his diamond-powered super lasers. He's the worst Blofeld by far when you compare him every other version throughout the entire franchise (including the unnamed Blofeld from the For Your Eyes Only cold open).
The Heavy: Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd, the homosexual homicidal duo. I didn't really care for these two when I was younger. As time has passed, I've warmed up to the two. Their onscreen chemistry is quite peculiar as the roles are portrayed by "Father of weirdo Crispin Glover", Bruce Glover and "Professional Musician by day, non-actor by night", Putter Smith. They're one of the only constants in this horribly structured and unevenly thematic film.
The Girls: Jill St. John's portrayal of Tiffany Case is beyond reprehensible. While wonderful to look at, her character actually arcs backward, from cool and calculated jewel smuggler to stumbling and blundering ditz. Then there's Plenty O'Toole, the gold-digger whose presence almost feels jammed into the narrative. After latching onto Bond in the casino, she sheds her clothing, gets thrown out the window (into a swimming pool) by some mobsters, and then inexplicably winds up dead at Tiffany Case's home. I think they left part of her story on the cutting room floor.
What Doesn't Work? Almost everything. First of all, Connery is downright unpleasant at times in this film. His portrayal of Bond here is only a small nudge away from sinister and that's a bit unsettling for me. Secondly is the production value. Whether the producers were strapped for cash because of what they had to pay Connery, or those involved just felt uninspired, the film has an incredibly cheap look and feel throughout. Even John Barry's score is unbalanced and detached, at best resembling stale leftovers from better films. Lastly, the plot feels complex even though it shouldn't, and most of that is due to it being underdeveloped and submerged beneath irrelevant and ridiculous set pieces. I could keep going, but my list is already too long, I'm too tired and I'd rather just finish up here and be done with this post.
Final Thoughts: Diamonds Are Forever is the first Roger Moore Bond film that starred Sean Connery. Maybe that's why some fans love this one so much. The film is filled with so much camp it should take place in a National Park. I had been dreading the day when I actually had to pull this off the shelf, and for good reason. The film is horribly unbalanced, superficially lighthearted, with a bitter aftertaste. It is anything but easy going down and almost unbearable to watch.
I've never cared much for Diamonds Are Forever. It isn't a good film. It's by far the worst outing by Sean Connery and is truly only watchable in parts. Be that as it may, Bond fans should all be eternally grateful for this cheese-filled campy crap-fest of a film. Why is that? Because if the studio head at United Artists and a healthy paycheck of $1.25 million (a record offer at that time) hadn't softened Connery's heart, we would have been subjected to an American James Bond and quite possibly the implosion of one the most lucrative film franchises in motion picture history. (Remember that the producers considered doing this again with Octopussy, just 12 years later when Roger Moore was considering retirement.) Let's just be thankful for this cinematic floater so we can flush it down and move on.
Reevaluation Score: 2 out of 5
James Bond will return... in one of the most divisive films among Bond fans.
Directed by Guy Hamilton
Written by Richard Maibaum, Tom Mankiewicz
Ian Fleming (novel)
Running Time: 120 minutes
Original Verdict:
Because of Connery's high fee, the film's special effects budget was significantly scaled back, which was apparent on screen. Let us also not forget the "gay" assassins as well.
Rating: 3 out of 5.
THE REEVALUATION
The Cold Open: James Bond is on the hunt! Hunting down Blofeld for murdering his wife, or at least that's my assumption. Bond moves from henchmen to henchmen until he finally locates him at a Plastic Surgery Clinic and Spa. Disguised as a doctor, Bond is found out, has a very clumsy fight, and disposes of Blofeld in what we presume is molten clay. I guess Blofeld is now dead? It feels rushed, disheveled and completely unsatisfying.
 |
| That's not how you treat a lady, double-oh seven. |
The Story: Diamonds Are Forever is a perplexing plot where Bond is sent to infiltrate a diamond smuggling ring, where he tracks the jewels from South Africa to Las Vegas and to find out why. Not knowing who was going to play Bond when they began pre-production, this film suffered from multiple versions and rewrites. Originally, the plot was going to involve Auric Goldfinger's twin, seeking revenge for the murder of his brother. Then the story shifted again when producer Cubby Broccoli had a strange dream where he went to see his good friend Howard Hughes but is presented with an impostor.
Still not 100% certain if they were going to secure Connery for the role, they brought in a new screenwriter who was instructed to make Diamonds Are Forever "more American" in an attempt to win back American audiences who had been disappointed with OHMSS. That's why a majority of this film takes place in the United States. Instead, we get a strange reboot. Connery is back, the producers ditch that Lazenby guy, and try to forget that that other film ever happened. Diamonds Are Forever clearly feels like it takes place in an alternate Bond-verse.
The Villain: We now have our third Blofeld in as many films and they keep getting worse with each iteration (just like with Felix Leiter). At least the producers are being consistent with their inconsistency. Charles Gray -- who briefly played Henderson in YOLT -- is cast here as Ernst Stavro Blofeld in Diamonds Are Forever. His portrayal of Blofeld is laughable at best. Gray's Blofeld comes off as an inconvenienced aristocrat, mildly irritated with Bond, and prefers the likes of cloning and cross-dressing as much as his diamond-powered super lasers. He's the worst Blofeld by far when you compare him every other version throughout the entire franchise (including the unnamed Blofeld from the For Your Eyes Only cold open).
The Heavy: Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd, the homosexual homicidal duo. I didn't really care for these two when I was younger. As time has passed, I've warmed up to the two. Their onscreen chemistry is quite peculiar as the roles are portrayed by "Father of weirdo Crispin Glover", Bruce Glover and "Professional Musician by day, non-actor by night", Putter Smith. They're one of the only constants in this horribly structured and unevenly thematic film.
The Gadgets: Fake fingerprints and a voice-changing machine. This is a weak entry involving Bond gadgets, which seems rather odd and out of place considering the outlandish tone of the entire film. The best non-Bond gadget is the absurd moon buggy. Bond's ability to operate and drive almost anything is just as absurd. Let's see how many buttons I can push on this thing before it starts to move so I can escape.
 |
| "Don't mind me as I break into your top secret moon simulation facility and steal your moon buggy." |
Final Thoughts: Diamonds Are Forever is the first Roger Moore Bond film that starred Sean Connery. Maybe that's why some fans love this one so much. The film is filled with so much camp it should take place in a National Park. I had been dreading the day when I actually had to pull this off the shelf, and for good reason. The film is horribly unbalanced, superficially lighthearted, with a bitter aftertaste. It is anything but easy going down and almost unbearable to watch.
 |
| This by far one of the most awkward moments in the entire James Bond franchise. |
I've never cared much for Diamonds Are Forever. It isn't a good film. It's by far the worst outing by Sean Connery and is truly only watchable in parts. Be that as it may, Bond fans should all be eternally grateful for this cheese-filled campy crap-fest of a film. Why is that? Because if the studio head at United Artists and a healthy paycheck of $1.25 million (a record offer at that time) hadn't softened Connery's heart, we would have been subjected to an American James Bond and quite possibly the implosion of one the most lucrative film franchises in motion picture history. (Remember that the producers considered doing this again with Octopussy, just 12 years later when Roger Moore was considering retirement.) Let's just be thankful for this cinematic floater so we can flush it down and move on.
Reevaluation Score: 2 out of 5
James Bond will return... in one of the most divisive films among Bond fans.
You just reminded me why I thought this was such a "bad" movie and you tell me why - because it was a "bad movie" from all aspects. I'm surprised you gave it a 2.
ReplyDeleteIt gets a 2 because it's still a Bond movie and if it weren't for this film, the entire landscape that laid out after 1971 would have been drastically different. That's why.
Delete