Diamonds Are Forever

Diamonds Are Forever-1080P

Diamonds Are Forever-720P

Diamonds Are Forever-480P

Diamonds Are Forever 1971 1080p PROPER BluRay - Ozlem

source: Diamonds Are Forever

What an embarrassment this film is! Following the masterpiece of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, one would have expected a solid revenge pic, following Bond's attempts to avenge his lovely wife Tracey, killed by Ernst Blofeld and his assistant. Instead, we get a mindless, shrill, completely unreal parody of Ian Fleming's brilliant master spy. Sean Connery returns after a sabbatical, older, tubbier and less interested in his legendary role than ever. He is joined by a plethora of over-acting actors playing moronic characters: chief amongst them are Jill St John, who easily wins the medal of most annoying Bond girl of all time; Jimmy Dean, who's boneheaded Texan drawl adds more than a few eye-rolls to the movie. The film is also burdened with one of the most convoluted plots of all Bond films, which is very odd considering how cartoonish the whole setup is. Some good special effects just cannot compensate for all the inane hijacks that accompany them. I have to say this right now, and that is I love James Bond and everything about him, but this film is so embarrassingly bad, I don;t even consider it Bond canon. It is just a really, really lame film.

For many people James Bond is Sean Connery but that doesn`t mean a Bond film is an instant classic because Connery is in it . DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER is barely watchable enough , just think how bad it could have been without Big Sean ***** SPOILERS ****** What I hate about this film is there is no internal continuity with OHMSS . Blofeld killed Bond`s wife in the previous movie and it starts with Bond on the revenge trail where Bond apparently kills Blofeld in the pre title sequence , but as the film continues and it`s revealed Blofeld isn`t really dead all that`s gone before is quickly forgotten about as if it never happened in the first place . If they were going to ignore all this then why couldn`t the producers just kill off Blofeld and introduce another meglomanaic villain . Like wise Charles Gray`s performance is totally unconvincing , can you imagine Donald Plesance from YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE appearing in drag smoking a cigarette from a holder in an entirely camp manner ? The production values are also very poor . The script resembles one of the latter Moore films where lots of things may happen but serves to disguise the fact that there is nothing happening plot wise . Are Blofeld`s henchman SPECTRE ? If so it`s never mentioned on screen and I found their garish uniforms of pale blue jumpsuits and red helmets both irritating and laughable . Jill St John plays one of the most forgettable Bond girls and director Guy Hamilton has a real bad off day especially during the action climax featuring the superimposed explosions of helicopters There are a couple of good points about DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER which stop it from being a contender for worst Bond film . There is the welcome return of Connery in the lead and I couldn`t help but enjoy the inclusion of a couple of gay hitmen , the scene where one of them is dispatched with a bomb between his legs still brings a wry smile to my face though Bond`s wise crack after this causes me to groan out loud

DAF is one of the weakest, laziest movies in the franchise. For a start, where is the action? Apart from a good close quarters punch up in a lift, there is hardly any. What remains is lacking in energy and played mainly for laughs. 007 beaten up by two acrobatic women - until he just holds them underwater in a swimming pool. An awful slapstick car-trashing chase in Vegas. And the big finale is anything but. We have a few of Blofled's henchmen fighting a few helicopters. Bond does almost nothing except swing Blofeld's escape pod around with a crane. Which brings us to another point - this is without doubt the least serious Bond movie ever. It is borderline comedy throughout, clearly influenced by the likes of The Man from UNCLE and the Batman TV show. Blofeld dresses in drag at one stage. Most of the supporting characters are comic relief. The sinister henchmen, Wint and Kidd, would stand out in any other movie due to their extreme black humour, but here they are just wasted. Jill St John's Tiffany Case is amongst the worst Bond girls, silly and helpless. We even see Q - in Vegas - cheating on a slot machine. At least Connery is back right? Wrong. He's clearly on set, but equally clearly thinking about his next round of golf. Even his delivery of 'Bond, James Bond' is awful. He isn't helped by some awful costume decisions, including a brown tweed suit, and a pink (!) tie. Connery's huge payout for this film means everything else looks cheaper than before; by the climax you have embarrassing helicopter explosions, clearly animated, that would have been superbly detailed model shots in previous (and later) movies. There is virtually nothing good to say about Diamonds. The film is so lacking in energy or excitement that only the plot manages to pull it along. It's a series of weird and comedic scenes that hardly feel like a Bond movie in any way, and it's hard to believe this came after On Her Majesty's Sceret Service. The film scrimps so much on the action that you are left watching a bizarre, parallel universe version of Bond where nothing remotely Bond-ish seems to happen. It feels almost like a live-action version of a Saturday morning Bond cartoon, watered down for the kids (Bond never even uses his gun). Two plus points; Shirey Bassey's theme tune is superbly atmospheric and mysterious. Jill St John is very sexy. That's it. Connery came back, the director of Goldfinger came back, and the result was this farce.

Hands down the worst of the Connery Bonds. After the dismal efforts of George Lazenby, producers ponied up and returned Connery to the fold for one last go at the role. Almost nothing works in this dreary entry which plays more like a low-rent heist caper on an episode of Starsky & Hutch than a big screen spy caper. The majority of the action takes place in Las Vegas, which was hardly an exotic locale even in the 1970s. Bond: The good news is Connery is back and Lazenby is gone. The bad news is that Connery is on total auto-pilot in this film. He is so obviously filled with disdain for the part at this junction that one almost wishes he had not agreed to return for this entry. The villains: Charles Gray is the third actor in a row to attempt to do something with the thankless Ernst Blofeld role and (as with his predecessors) fails miserably. Thankfully this would be the last time that Blofeld would be used as the main Bond nemesis. The less said about Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd, who play like rejected villains from a bad Batman episode, the better. The women: Jill St. John makes a strong first impression as the tough-as-nails Tiffany Case, then her character does an about-face. By the final act, she is a typical bikini-clad bimbo acting as though she does not have a brain in her head and becoming more an obstruction to Bond rather than an equal or an assistant. And I have yet to figure out what Lana Wood and her copious cleavage are supposed to be in this film. Did the majority of her role land on the cutting room floor or something? It literally makes no sense. By the time Jimmy Dean shows up with "Bambi & Thumper" even the most die-hard Bond fan will want to tune out.

There is something unappealing about this James Bond movie. I think I've seen all of them and there are but a handful of them I would never watch twice. This is one of them. Some - like Goldfinger, The Spy Who Loved Me and others - I would happily watch many times. Despite having the normal amount of gadgets, pretty women, funny wise cracks, etc., this film seemed to drag in parts. Some of the earlier Bond movies are a bit slower than the ones in the past two decades, but not all. Maybe it's the time period this was made. I have found very few films in the first half of the 1970s that didn't look and sound sleazy to me. This felt that way, too. Jill St. John looked pretty hot in her day, but looking at her now as he looked then, I can't say that. Now she looks cheap with too much eye makeup, something actresses did a lot in the 1960s and early '70s.. I did like her name: "Tiffany Case." There wasn't much else to like.