Review of Diamonds Are Forever (1971) by Elliott M — 12 Mar 2011

I always think "Gee, I'm too hard on [i]Diamonds Are Forever[/i]. It's probably not [i]that[/i] bad." And then I watch it, and invariably I realize that no, I'm not too hard on it at all. It's pig swill. With a few floaty bits in it that are really worthwhile.

The fundamental problem with [i]Diamonds Are Forever[/i] lies in its plotting, which is lazy, stupid, and largely incoherent. Tom Mankiewicz' dialogue is hailed, and perhaps rightfully so - some scenes, like Tiffany Case's introduction, boast dialogue that really crackles, and elevates the film. As a substitute for rich characters (Dr. Metz, for instance, is a "renowned pacifist" who half-assedly protests against Blofeld's attacks at the end... for approximately 2 seconds, before doing his job), Mankiewicz gets by on droll, wry humour, and occasionally this works Charles Gray's irritable and sarcastic Blofeld is the film's highlight.

This still doesn't excuse the plotting, which I can only assume was hampered by some post-production cuts. The pacing is pretty terrible, and soon after Tiffany's intro the film as a whole sinks into an extremely dull stupor, until it just decides to bypass any semblance of plot development and "moves on." The best example of this is when we get a whole lot of hoo-hah about Tiffany evading Bond and the CIA, only for Bond to be waiting for her at her house not just in the next scene, but the next shot. Where... Plenty O'Toole has been killed... but... why is she there, again? It might seem like coherency is a big ask for a film like this, but when it has so little to offer in other areas, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable.

Not to harp on about the plotting, but apart from the fact that we get a reasonably buttoned-down affair about diamond smuggling that gives way to a very unconvincing space laser, we get this set-up about Blofeld's doubles that serves no other purpose than to set up the "wrong pussy" joke. The potential's there for it to add to the tension of the third act (which Blofeld is which, where's the real one, et cetera et cetera), but no. Instead we get a series of the most uninspired set pieces in the entire series (a lackluster car chase that is followed by another car chase that comes up even shorter in the luster department; an "Oh crap, Bond's going to be crushed by the elevator" moment followed by... another one later in the film), and a climax that is put to shame for sheer balls-to-the-wall thrills by [i]Steel Magnolias[/i].

Although I hate most of the film, you can't get much worse than the "big battle" at the end of this. With the [i]least convincing explosions ever[/i]. I don't mind dated special effects, really I don't, but these are terrible even by the standards of the time. Friggin' D.W. Griffith would have rejected that **** in 1915. The real nugget in the colostomy bag, though, is the fact that Bond's big face-off with Blofeld involves him... sitting in a crane. Which is just about the least cinematic climax possible, and services only Connery's laziness (it's still a more impassioned turn than his previous outing as Bond...). It's a Godsend when Jill St. John falls into the water for no good reason, just so Bond can [i]do something[/i].

The film abounds with obnoxiousness - Jimmy Dean's very loud performance is controlled and razor-sharp compared to what else is on offer. You've got Jill St. John's awful, awful turn as Tiffany Case - her overbearing and faux-sassy performance offends me more than the dead-eyed coasting of Lois Chiles and the like. She is offset somewhat by the... no, wait, the very loud and annoying Lana Wood. Whose impressive Bristols, admittedly, let her off the hook. Wint & Kidd are similarly obnoxious, although at least they provide a few laughs - Bruce Glover's performance isn't "good" by any barometer of sanity, but a couple of his deliveries and facial expressions are gold. (I loathe Barry's motif for them though. Sorry.) Don't get me wrong, I think there is a place for obnoxiousness in a Bond film - but it should be coming from Bond, and it should only tick off the other characters - not the viewer.

On the other end of the spectrum you get boring-ass performances like Bruce Cabot's. And Sean Connery's - as I say, he's better than he was in [i]You Only Live Twice[/i], but he's still slumming. He's only identifiable as Bond because you remember better movies. The thing with Connery is that he's not a great actor, but he's such a charismatic presence that it doesn't really matter. But when he doesn't care... it shows. Very much so.

I mentioned before that Gray gives the best performance, and I think he absolutely nails Mankiewicz' dialogue. He even turns the most perfunctory lines into something amusing. And of course, one can't talk about [i]Diamonds Are Forever[/i], without talking about Ed Bishop's incredibly endearing mini-performance as Klaus "Hergie" Hergershimer. He should have received a Hermioney Baddley-style Oscar nom for that performance. I like Dr. Metz as well, admittedly, as well as the Flaming Chinese Russian.

When all's said and done, I'm disappointed in myself for returning to the well to watch this, and doubting my own judgment. I'll be reluctant to watch it again - it's such a dull, joyless experience salved only by momentary sparks of wit and a handful of amusing oddities. It's better than several of the robotic post-Cubby installments, but for me, it's most certainly the worst of the "classic" Bonds.