Review of Diamonds Are Forever (1971) by Harry W — 19 May 2014

Although disappointed with the quality of You Only Live Twice, I was happy to keep going with the 007 films and decided to keep going with the series.

Diamonds Are Forever quickly reveals that it maintains a very camp style to it, different from the more sophisticated and serious tone of the previous films. Due to the melodramatic nature of certain scenes as well as a reliance on puns and such in the script, as well as a lot of lame jokes. The script in Diamonds Are Forever is certainly of poor quality most of the time as it is a mix of generic dialogue and cheap gags which are occasionally comically successful due to just how stupid they are, but much of the time that isn't the case. It is hard to take Diamonds Are Forever seriously since the attempted humourous nature of the film renders it a film that feels like it is parodying itself. If it was an intentional comedy then I could accept this, but as James Bond films tend to be dramatic spy films with a serious nature, I simply could not accept the theme of Diamonds Are Forever as a camp piece. I can't tell if Diamonds Are Forever was intentionally camp or not but either way it was not right and made me question the credibility of Guy Hamilton as a film director.

Diamonds Are Forever is problematic because it doesn't succeed as either a serious James Bond film or a camp one. It wants to be both a legitimate spy thriller and a comedic send up of one, but Guy Hamilton fails to find the appropriate balance to make it work and instead leaves it dangling somewhere in the middle. In the process it manages to supply some decent action scenes, but aside from some decent visual moments there is insufficient originality to really hold Diamonds are Forever up from start to finish.

The writing of the film isn't that great either because the story is a cheap retread of previous James Bond films which doesn't introduce anything new to the series or go into ambitious territory. While it allows some decent scenery to introduce itself to the film, it just gets pretty boring because I've already seen enough of what 007 has to offer in repetitive territory and don't need another example with Diamonds are Forever, particularly a camp one. And the story is so messy that it can even prove convoluted at time. I got confused in attempting to figure out everything that was happening in Diamonds are Forever and eventually got to a point where I simply gave up on caring and sat back to try and have some fun. It was then that I realised that the movie feels more like a series of vignettes that are choppily stuck together than an actual singular narrative, and it prevented the film from being truly entertaining. It had some good moments, but as a whole it was seriously rudimentary.

And the motives of character Tiffany Case kept on changing so much that I found myself confused. I could never tell if she was a hero or a villain because she kept on changing who she was following and trying to keep track of her eventually became boring and pointless, so the character is an unnecessary story element in Diamonds Are Forever who added nothing but made the story a lot more confusing and therefore a lot less enjoyable as a feature. The performance of Jill St. John always left me uncertain and she simply did not make the material any better, so she is one of the much lesser Bond girls of the entire James Bond series. When it comes to Bond Girls as a whole in Diamonds are Forever, there is more emphasis on putting a lot of women in skimpy outfits than there is on supplying a sufficient quantity of action to Diamonds are Forever. I know that both are common James Bond motifs, but a spy thriller is more important for its action than its Bond Girls. None of them are memorable for any positive reasons whatsoever except the one woman at the start who was briefly completely topless. Aside from her, all that Diamonds are Forever boasts is forgettable femme fatales and the character Tiffany Case who is a terrible addition to the film.

Aside from her the characters aren't too bad, and despite faltering under the camp direction of Guy Hamilton, most of the cast members manage to give it a firm effort in Diamonds are Forever. The only actor that really stands out though is Sean Connery. The man makes his final step into an Eon-produced 007 film in the iconic role of James Bond and is as suave and quick witted as ever. Although the way that the scenes are edited to jump between different time frames a bit too much, Sean Connery manages to keep James Bond in tact well enough with his dedication to every element of the character, from his handsome physical demeanour to his quick movement in times of peril, as well as his smart line delivery. He doesn't sink into the camp material, but the style of the film does damage his character a bit. Still, under direction from Guy Hamilton Sean Connery manages to deliver the best that is possible and makes an appealing effort in the role. Sean Connery gives it a good effort, and he proves to be the best aspect of Diamonds are Forever. So as a send off for the EON 007 films, Sean Connery puts in a great final performance to at least ensure that the repetitive film that is Diamonds are Forever is fairly watchable.

But despite having Sean Connery give a fine performance, some decent action moments and some good scenery, Diamonds are Forever is impossible to take seriously and hard to enjoy as a camp film which means it fails in both areas and is one of the lesser entries into the 007 films.