criterionforum.org

Diamonds Are Forever is a lot of fun taken in its own right but the main issue with it is that, if you are watching the films in order and at a brisk pace, you are itching for a second George Lazenby outing where he avenges his wife - and instead you get Connery on the cusp of geezerhood off on a lark to Las Vegas. A good lark it is though, Wint and Kidd in particular as you say. The whole episode with Peter Franks cracks me up too, from Connery making out with himself in the shadows to "is he dead?" / "I sincerely hope so..."

I didn’t. I honestly have no clue why anyone thinks OHMSS is anything but mud.

MichaelB wrote: Fri Aug 01, 2025 8:37 am I've never understood it either; I started watching all the Bonds in chronological order a few years ago, but got bored during Thunderball to the point where I switched it off and planned to get back to it later, but never did. (I'd seen it before in its entirety, but it never made much of an impression on me then either.)

The big underwater battle sticks out the most. It's impressive how far they went to stage one because it's a very difficult and enormously expensive endeavor, but unfortunately the results show why it's rarely worth the trouble - the inherently sluggish movement and pacing that comes with anyone moving underwater sucks all the energy and visceral excitement that comes with the visual spectacle of hand-to-hand combat. Amping up the score only emphasizes the difference rather than cover it up. (otoh, that sort of movement can translate well for comedic effect - see the underwater struggle in Buster Keaton's The Navigator.)

No underwater fight scene will ever top this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh61gnj2hLo

Diamonds Are Forever was on telly a few days before we had a talk in our school by a police officer, and I'll always remember him saying "Did you see Diamonds Are Forever when the bloke peeled off his fake fingerprints? Don't try that in real life; it won't work."

I decided to revisit Diamonds are Forever - I remembered it least amongst the Connerys, and not fondly, but I liked it a lot this time. It's a bit more grisly than its predecessors, but still in a campy way; its use of violence and action at once extravagant and also self-consciously trivial. Like the opening attack on Blofeld, or the overextended elevator fight, or the wild car chase. I appreciate how the overarching absurd plot takes a backseat to these smaller, less dramatic objectives revolved around the diamonds and such - so the film feels in step with its low stakes. Bond being repeatedly bested by the henchman into ridiculous situations is an amusing running joke, as is the bit where he fakes his voice and talks himself up, Charles Gray's more animated and insecure version of Blofeld also constantly shapeshifting from copying himself to dressing in drag, etc. ("such nice cheeks too, if only they were brains"), but really it's all gravy when kept at a tempo that never takes itself too seriously. Even the earlier campy Bonds have these moments of tonal whiplash that attempt to elevate the dramatic heights beyond where the audience is at, but not this one - and yes, the sleazy Vegas setting helps sell this vision. A James Bond movie is basically like going to Las Vegas.. they should all take place there

Being claustrophobic, the crematorium escape from Diamonds Are Forever has always haunted me

I love the anticlimactic cut from the tension to the lamest rescue ever