No hate here. DAF was my introduction to Bond and I love every minute.
A fantastic score, two quirky henchmen, Jill St. John's lovely cheeks. etc. What's not to love? A fun romp.
DAF was also the first Connery Bond I ever saw. I went to the video store looking for a Connery Bond movie and just randomly picked it out from all his others, I guess I liked the cover art. I wish I could remember what my first impression of it was, I guess must have liked it because I went back and got Dr. No. I had nothing to compare it to so maybe the ridiculousness of it didn't hit me.
Having seen all the series films from the beginning in the theaters (yes, I am THAT OLD), and being a fan of Fleming's novels, the film was also a royal letdown for me as well when I saw it in the cinema - specially after OHMSS. They introduced a new actor, who I thought was fine at the time and would have probably grown into the role over a few more films - and had him in one of Fleming's best novels - which was brought to the screen more or less unchanged - then they dropped the DAF turkey on me. I was floored. No only do they bring Connery back (what??), but put him in an utterly unserious campy laugh fest (I started to think I was watching an episode of Batman). Maybe, I thought, the people who made it were high at the time (a lot of society at that time was!). Then I realized the hard truth: they had found a cash cow that spit out more coins with every new film that Connery had been in - blamed Lazenby and the LACK of camp in OHMSS for not returning as much as Connery's projects, so decided to go back to making the regurgitated plot of YOLT (just trade one global blackmail plot for another). They shoveled in some of Fleming's plot to keep some resemblance of real world espionage and Bond's character in it, and voila, Bond in a pre Austin Powers look a like film. They could have had Connery winking at the audience through it and it would not have really changed it. Now, I will admit DAF was not one of Fleming's strongest stories having Bond involved with gangsters and smuggling instead of enemy spies, but it still had some great scenes in it and of course Tiffany Case. The only scene of the film I enjoyed was the fight in the elevator, because I watched it and thought, yes!..the film is now going to get real! Then..it didn't. I have not watched the film in years (because I can see every scene in my head and that's bad enough, and will probably never watch it again). To me it was the real start of the Moore era of Bond as Austin Powers. In fact, if you squint a little, you can see Moore in every scene that has Bond in it.
DAF mocked the whole Bond phenomena like West had his kicks on Batman , I think you're supposed to chuckle and groan at it......light entertainment but has some black humor in the form of Wint/Kidd.
I would def have enjoyed a dark DAF though.......perhaps Wint/Kidd would've been so cruel they'd have to edit some scenes due to PG rating ?
To me it was the real start of the Moore era of Bond as Austin Powers. In fact, if you squint a little, you can see Moore in every scene that has Bond in it.
As Sir Roger himself once put it, "I get the blame for Bond films I wasn't even in!"
Anyway, I think this thread has covered it well, but to me DAF is the Bond film for me that comes closest to actually feeling like a full-blown comedy....and that's not a good thing. There are two many things I am not willing to tolerate....Blofeld in drag, Jill St. John in any sort of attire, "two meenutes ahnd counteeng!", Nairobi being in South Africa, comedy German mad scientists, Connery's premature ageing....still, Wint and Kidd are great.
Worst Bond film for me bar LTK....which is pretty much the same as being the worst Bond film.
For me, DAF is kind of perfect but wholly at odds with its predesessor which had high production values but really hardly a laugh in it, DAF is crackling with real wit and Connery is on top form. One scene easily segues into another, a real romp. OHMSS should be great but for me it kind of drags, esp the first half, it's almost as indigestible as Christmas fare.
It's probably the weakest of the novels as well, the climax being a rather bizarre showtown involving a train and a SPECTRE-owned Old West ghost town called Spectreville. No moon buggy chases or space lasers, though.
Sir_Hugo_DraxBeneath the Flat Stone Posts: 40MI6 Agent
I agree with the Original poster Diamonds are Forever is a great film! A brilliant soundtrack, Great characters and interesting locations!
However I agree that as a follow up to OHMSS it is pretty lousy! I always felt it made more sense to swap DAF and OHMSS around in film order, this may seem a bit odd but allow me to explain (And if you see any flaws please enlighten me!)
DAF begins with Bond looking for Blofeld in Japan (At least I think its Japan lol) which if this film were released after YOLT would make perfect sense, as we are left at the end of that film with Blofeld escaping from his volcano in Japan. As everyone knows there is no mention of Tracy in DAF what so ever, however bond does seem pretty pissed and out for revenge in the beginning of the film, however this anger seems to just be gone later on!
Also in DAF we learn that Blofeld has been making doubles of himself using plastic surgery. This would explain why Blofeld would not necessarily notice bond in OHMSS, as this is the real blofeld and is yet to meet bond. Also in FYEO the Blofeld character in the beginning of the film is wearing a neck brace and is in a wheel chair, which ties in perfectly with his accident in OHMSS.
That's actually an interesting way of putting it. That's how I view it for optimal entertainment. I watch DAF as it was originally intended, as a prequel to (rather than an omission of) OHMSS. Now no one cry blasphemy just yet, think about it. If it's squeezed in after YOLT we bypass the lack of remorse, lack of vengeance and lack of any reference to OHMSS. Plus in OHMSS M states that Bond has been on his assignments, albeit unsuccessful, to track down Blofeld, presumably after the events of YOLT. This is in line with DAF's setup. Bond is on an impersonal warpath for an international terrorist who in the end bested him. Then, campy or not, DAF takes place, Blofeld escapes from the oil rig after Bond avoids death and jumps and enter Lazenby. Still hunting Blofeld, a man who we have seen twice escape him. Blofeld has his ever changing face from DAF amended it would seem (perhaps we could infer that he was seriously scarred in the bath-o-sub) and he has pretty much is old face back, minus the scar which would have been removed in his first surgery. Exhausted and ruthless, he is now launching what will be his last operation under SPECTRE. I then imagine Blofed pretends Bond's disguise has him fooled in order to entrap Bond - also I'd imagine a man like Blofeld would relish in holding the life of a man he hates in his hand (ala Gustav Graves- it's my only example for this idea). Bond becomes too much, Blofeld traps him and the rest of the movie goes on. Then he is injured at the end to return and die in FYEO (looking the same with the neck-brace and such). Not perfect but it helps make DAF more enjoyable - in this case it is merely a lesser Bond film like TMWTGG etc. In this way there need be no edits to the movie, only ones logical conclusions drawn from subtle clues and a different perspective. Plus I always feel that the change of actor is a new series of sorts within the franchise so revenge for Tracy is never truly handled right. That being said, I believe certain elements, such as OHMSS, are interchangeable between every Bond, - except Craig of course for obvious reasons. So it is handled but not in the same canon. It's like comic books, many redos but with an omnipresent history and plenty of stories to enjoy alongside the canon of the moment. -{
On another note, isn't it strange that before I became acquainted with Mr Bond some of the elements I associated with the series (space lasers, cremation death-trap, that movies theme song in particular, and diamonds) are from DAF . Ironic that one of the more sub-par Bond films has left a huge imprint on culture with Bond's name on it while greats like OHMSS are less prominent outside of Bond fandom. Well at least that's the case in the culture I was exposed to.
One more note (say anything you want about it's quality, there is plenty to talk about with this movie ) ) isn't it strange that when they were making DAD they were trying to capture the classic Bond feel and so they copied the diamond space laser concept AND the plastic surgery elements for the villain and even a ridiculous vehicular escape (just replace moon buggy with Ice-racer thingy) from a less-than-good outing to the same end where the film was not so well received post-hype. I call it Diamonds Hurt Forever Syndrome. Lets pray that the last outbreak yielded a cure.
Then he looked again at Bond and spoke very quietly, the red moustache lifting slowly from the splayed upper teeth.
"I should spend the money quickly, Commander Bond," he said.
Then he turn away from the table and walked swiftly out of the room.
Oh that's a good post, like the comparison of the moon buggy escape and the ice racer, never occurred to me. Now if only DAD had the same stellar wit as DAF how much higher esteem I'd hold it in (oh, but Bond is a bit too porky in DAD also, another comparison).
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Sir_Hugo_DraxBeneath the Flat Stone Posts: 40MI6 Agent
If only it did have some of that killer wit and charm. -{ Also, very good point with Bond's waistline, I hadn't noticed until now. I guess the plots of both movies weren't the only things getting a little tired around the middle.
Then he looked again at Bond and spoke very quietly, the red moustache lifting slowly from the splayed upper teeth.
"I should spend the money quickly, Commander Bond," he said.
Then he turn away from the table and walked swiftly out of the room.
It has occurred to me that some of us see a flippant film to be as tough as its toughest scene. So, DAF and fight in a lift makes it tough, lends it gravitas, MR, the shaken Moore from the centrifuge thing, death of Corinne and so on, other dark stuff there. OP has the death of Orlov and flight of a 00 after the pts, pretty dark. Others feel these films are only as strong as their weakest and silliest link ie gondola stuff and elephant doing the slot machine, which to be fair makes more sense but is not how I look at it.
But, with the films trying to be serious, such as CR, QoS, FYEO and TLD, then yes, the fleeting bits of incredulity really do let the film down totally, I apply a different criteria.
"This is where we leave you Mr Bond."
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Silhouette ManThe last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,845MI6 Agent
DAF is campy, spoofy stuff and general nonsense. I intend to rip into the film in my upcoming article ' A Very Nasty Little Film Indeed - Diamonds Are Forever (1971)' due to appear on The Bondologist Blog soon. It's one of the worst films in the series (though I think DAD may be the very worst) and has a (very) deservedly poor reputation. Goldfinger this ain't. Having said that, I've probably watched DAF more than any other Bond film as I want to see every little nuance for my review piece! Wint and Kidd are great, just a real pity about the miscast Charles Gray as Ernst Stavro Blofeld and the convoluted diamond smuggling plot also. And compariing DAF to a Bruce Wayne episode of the 1960s Batman is not so very far from the truth. There was a film version of this type of Batman released in 1966. It's a near relation to the 1967 spoof version of Casino Royale, too, mind!
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
- Horrible acting from basically everybody who was in the film
- Non stop goofyness from start to finish
- Ruining a pefectly good revenge story from OHMSS and going with a story about diamonds.
- Mr Wint and Mr Kidd
- Blofeld dressing up like a woman
Worst Bond movie EVAR!!!
1: Casino Royale 2: Goldeneye 3: Skyfall 4: Octopussy 5: Goldfinger 6: Tomorrow Never Dies 7: The World Is Not Enough 8: The Living Daylights 9: From Russia With Love 10: The Spy Who Loved Me
Silhouette ManThe last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,845MI6 Agent
It's a bummer for me because it literally ignores everything that happened in "OHMSS". There's no tension at all between Bond and Blofeld. "James...This is the guy that murdered your wife, remember?" I don't think they even mention Tracy's name. I know Bond is back to Connery, but it makes it seem like Tracy dying to Bond was no more of a hindrance than getting a stain on his suit.
As a whole, the film is alright, I even enjoy it more than "You Only Live Twice" but it's such a missed opportunity. Watching OHMSS followed by "LTK" offers a much more proper follow-up and a more rage-fueled Bond than the film that actually followed it.
"I've had a few...Optional extras installed."
Silhouette ManThe last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,845MI6 Agent
It's a bummer for me because it literally ignores everything that happened in "OHMSS". There's no tension at all between Bond and Blofeld. "James...This is the guy that murdered your wife, remember?" I don't think they even mention Tracy's name. I know Bond is back to Connery, but it makes it seem like Tracy dying to Bond was no more of a hindrance than getting a stain on his suit.
As a whole, the film is alright, I even enjoy it more than "You Only Live Twice" but it's such a missed opportunity. Watching OHMSS followed by "LTK" offers a much more proper follow-up and a more rage-fueled Bond than the film that actually followed it.
Yes, as someone here or elsewhere said, it's almost as if OHMSS never existed - this is a parallel universe with DAF being the true sequel to YOLT, with Bond mad at Blofeld escaping him in Japan in YOLT. This makes DAF make a little more sense, but it's still a very poor entry in the Bond series. It initiated the spoofy nonsense of the Roger Moore films (although even the poorest of those are superior to DAF) and that can't really be said to be a good thing for the Fleming purist and the Bond aficiando generally.
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
It initiated the spoofy nonsense of the Roger Moore films (although even the poorest of those are superior to DAF) and that can't really be said to be a good thing for the Fleming purist and the Bond aficiando generally.
It was my first cinema Bond as a little kid, and thus has a special place in my heart. That said, it's pretty silly, even stupid at times. Still love the Mustang, and the mountaineering outside the Whyte house, a great deal of the dialogue is clever, but in the end, TMWTGG is a FAR superior effort; DAF makes TMWTGG look like a dark Flemingesque near-masterpiece. ) John Barry's excellent score makes the mess that is DAF seem way better than it is.
It initiated the spoofy nonsense of the Roger Moore films (although even the poorest of those are superior to DAF) and that can't really be said to be a good thing for the Fleming purist and the Bond aficiando generally.
It was my first cinema Bond as a little kid, and thus has a special place in my heart. That said, it's pretty silly, even stupid at times. Still love the Mustang, and the mountaineering outside the Whyte house, a great deal of the dialogue is clever, but in the end, TMWTGG is a FAR superior effort; DAF makes TMWTGG look like a dark Flemingesque near-masterpiece. ) John Barry's excellent score makes the mess that is DAF seem way better than it is.
Yes, TMWTGG is a veritable masterpiece much more focused on characterisation and plot than the mess of divergent parts that make up DAF for the most part!
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
Diamonds are Forever is second bottom for me. It's more a disappointing film than a bad film for me. I like a lot of it for what it is but admittedly that took time and I suppose you could say I can learn to like anything you put in front of me from any Bond film - maybe not that Jaws love scene in Moonraker but we'll give it another 10 years ) More to the point though, DAF isn't bad on it's own but if I watch it directly after OHMSS as it is in the timeline that's when it becomes a complete disappointment. It's the definition of an anti climax! I remember to this day the first time I watched it and getting that feeling of excitement during the PTS as Bond tries to track down Blofeld. I was thinking - awwww yeah Bonds mad, he's going to get some serious revenge here! Then a few things go wrong. Firstly, we see Blofeld. I mean, come on. Blofeld, in my opinion was at his most menacing when we didn't see him at all. Then Pleasance had that scar on his face which gave Blofeld a memorable feature. Then Savalas creates a pretty legit threat in OHMSS and comes across as interesting and menacing once more - then BOOM! Charles Gray (who I do like by the way) turns up and makes Blofeld into the least scary villain perhaps of all the Bond films. Seriously there is nothing menacing or threatening about his portrayal of Blofeld whatsoever! Secondly, Connery all of a sudden doesn't seem that bothered anymore. The build up of the PTS was generally pretty good but once the main film gets underway Connery loses his passion. And if Bond doesn't seem to care, then the viewer stops caring too! Because a lot of the time us fans will share the opinion of Bond! Thirdly, the silly goofiness of the plot sinks in and we realise that this is definitely not a revenge story at all. Tracy is forgotten, not mentioned and doesn't turn up again until we see her grave in FYEO - which leads to another embarrassing Blofeld parody.
There is no denying that there are enjoyable moments in DAF but there is a lot missing from this one. A whole lot. Other Bond films can almost get away with idiotic mistakes on the basis that they are undoubtedly stand alone Bond films with no relevance to any other film in the series. DAF on the other hand almost feels like a personal insult to OHMSS. It takes away a tiny little bit of glory from the almost perfect OHMSS! With the expectations of exciting, fired up revenge, you simply can't make the mistakes that were made in DAF and get away with it!
Obviously they've tried to not get caught up in whole revenge over Tracy's death thing and sort of semi-mentioned it a bit at the start and then introduced the story of DAF. But if they weren't going to have Bonds fury over her death as a main theme, why make it seem like he was out for revenge in the PTS at all? That is the main mistake that bugs me about DAF! A lot of the disappointment would be taken away if it had been made clear right from off that this wasn't a continuation of OHMSS, but it seemed so much in the very first scene that that was what they were going for and they simply didn't deliver after that!
As I say, if I really concentrate on thinking of DAF as just another Bond adventure I can enjoy it. But that knowing feeling in the back of my mind of what could have been, what should have been and what was hinted at the start it would be will never go away.
My sentiments exactly, LastRatStanding. "Licence to Kill" is a better follow-up to OHMSS than DAF is. It almost makes me wish Dalton had thrown caution to the wind and done OHMSS when he was in his 20s. He might have lobbied for an actual follow-up. Dalton would have been way too young, but at least there would have been some continuity.
Someone a few posts earlier mentioned that OHMSS seems never to have happened, since it goes Connery, to Lazenby and back to Connery. I agree, it's like Bond is pissed Blofeld escaped in YOLT instead of Blofeld murdering his wife.
And let me, just for a moment, forget that I'm a James Bond fan and put on my d*ckhead cap for a second. *Puts on d*ckhead cap*
Just a second. Can you think of any other franchise in history where such a blatant disregard for continuity would ever fly? I mean, I thought Prometheus was pretty good, but the fans of the Alien franchise were up in arms about this wrong, and that wrong, etc.
Are we the most forgiving fans in movie franchise history? We've gone through 6 actor changes with zero explanation. We've watched Felix Leiter's face change more times than that. We've seen a Felix in his early 30s with one James Bond turn into a Felix in his mid 40-s with another James Bond, and yet they remained close friends. We've seen three different actors acknowledge the death of Tracy Di Vincenzo. We've gone from a James Bond, who by his own admission says his acting range is "Left eyebrow raised, right eyebrow raised" to one that could quote Shakespeare while drinking his vodka martini, to another solid actor who can't quote Shakespeare and who looked like he stepped out of a GQ catalogue, to a blond guy who also does pretty well, but also probably can't quote Shakespeare. We watched Q interact with 5 different Bonds and watched him age while the Bonds around him stopped. We watched Moneypenny age with Q, then change faces multiple times. We've seen the four faces of M (This one is more forgivable) We watched Walter Gotell go from being burned to becoming a General who's an ally of Bond. We watched Charles Gray go from an assassinated contact to Blofeld, and he was the third face we saw of Blofeld. We watched Maud Adams go from Scaramanga's assassinated mistress to Octopussy. Hell, we even saw one James Bond leave, come back, leave, come back, and then leave a final time. We've seen movies go from fantastic (FRWL) to WTF (Die Another Day) We've seen the franchise remake it's own movies (TSWLM and Moonraker, LTK and QOS) And then we've seen the franchise start all the way back in the beginning, basically ignoring everything that came before.
It makes the head spin. what is it about this franchise that keeps us coming back for more? What is it about this franchise that makes us know all that, and yet keep us ignoring it while we come back for more? It boggles the mind.
It must have been 10X worse for the people in 1971 who waited 2 years to see Bond get his revenge on Blofeld, only to see they scrapped the whole story and made a new one about diamonds LOL.
1: Casino Royale 2: Goldeneye 3: Skyfall 4: Octopussy 5: Goldfinger 6: Tomorrow Never Dies 7: The World Is Not Enough 8: The Living Daylights 9: From Russia With Love 10: The Spy Who Loved Me
It must have been 10X worse for the people in 1971 who waited 2 years to see Bond get his revenge on Blofeld, only to see they scrapped the whole story and made a new one about diamonds LOL.
I am sure there were disappointed people in 1971, but the vast majority were just glad to see Sean Connery back and did not care too much about the story.
Moore Not Less 4371 posts (2002 - 2007) Moore Than (2012 - 2016)
I am sure there were disappointed people in 1971, but the vast majority were just glad to see Sean Connery back and did not care too much about the story.
I think you're right about that. I wasn't around in 1971, but to this day, Diamons Are Forever is one of my "guilty pleasures" because Connery was in it - as well as Dame Shirley Bassey's magnificent theme song. It's not a great film at all, but I find it difficult to "hate" it.
I'm with you. I remember being overjoyed about Connery's return in 1971 (even though I thought OHMSS was terrific), and for that reason I was able to overlook the weaknesses of DAF. I agree that it's bottom of the list as far as Connery Bond films, but I still like it more than several other Bond films.
I am sure there were disappointed people in 1971, but the vast majority were just glad to see Sean Connery back and did not care too much about the story.
I think you're right about that. I wasn't around in 1971, but to this day, Diamons Are Forever is one of my "guilty pleasures" because Connery was in it - as well as Dame Shirley Bassey's magnificent theme song. It's not a great film at all, but I find it difficult to "hate" it.
I'm with you. I remember being overjoyed about Connery's return in 1971 (even though I thought OHMSS was terrific), and for that reason I was able to overlook the weaknesses of DAF. I agree that it's bottom of the list as far as Connery Bond films, but I still like it more than several other Bond films.
I am sure there were disappointed people in 1971, but the vast majority were just glad to see Sean Connery back and did not care too much about the story.
I think you're right about that. I wasn't around in 1971, but to this day, Diamons Are Forever is one of my "guilty pleasures" because Connery was in it - as well as Dame Shirley Bassey's magnificent theme song. It's not a great film at all, but I find it difficult to "hate" it.
Diamonds Are Forever is one of the weaker Bond films, but I certainly do not "hate" it. In fact, I quite enjoy it. Sean Connery looks more interested than in You Only Live Twice and shows one or two moments of the old magic, such as the fight with Peter Franks. I like Wint & Kidd and the way that one finishes off the others dialogue. Bond trapped in the burning coffin is another highlight. There is also some good humour. I absolutely adored Dame Shirley Bassey's title song at the time, not so much these days. I am one of the rare breed that favours her Moonraker title song over the others, wonderful ballad, underrated.
As for bottom of the list regarding Sean Connery's Bond films. In my case it is Never Say Never Again.
Moore Not Less 4371 posts (2002 - 2007) Moore Than (2012 - 2016)
I just didn't like DAF at all. It didn't feel like a proper Bond movie to me, more like a parody. It actually felt creepy and slimy. Especially Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd! How creepy were they? My younger brother loves DAF and he can numerous reasons why but I strongly dislike it for the same reasons. That shows that it really is a matter of personal taste. For me, it lacks the class of most of the other movies. The low point of the series in my opinion.
"You were fantastic! We're free!"
"Kara, we're inside a Russian airbase in the middle of Afghanistan."
I just didn't like DAF at all. It didn't feel like a proper Bond movie to me, more like a parody. It actually felt creepy and slimy. How creepy Especially Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd!were they? My younger brother loves DAF and he can numerous reasons why but I strongly dislike it for the same reasons. That shows that it really is a matter of personal taste. For me, it lacks the class of most of the other movies. The low point of the series in my opinion.
You obviously have not read about the Novel Versions of Wint and Kidd then )
1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger
Comments
Connery's rug
Vive le droit à la libre expression! Je suis Charlie!
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
www.cancerresearchuk.org
@merseytart
DAF was also the first Connery Bond I ever saw. I went to the video store looking for a Connery Bond movie and just randomly picked it out from all his others, I guess I liked the cover art. I wish I could remember what my first impression of it was, I guess must have liked it because I went back and got Dr. No. I had nothing to compare it to so maybe the ridiculousness of it didn't hit me.
I would def have enjoyed a dark DAF though.......perhaps Wint/Kidd would've been so cruel they'd have to edit some scenes due to PG rating ?
Jill St. John "died" on Batman
As Sir Roger himself once put it, "I get the blame for Bond films I wasn't even in!"
Anyway, I think this thread has covered it well, but to me DAF is the Bond film for me that comes closest to actually feeling like a full-blown comedy....and that's not a good thing. There are two many things I am not willing to tolerate....Blofeld in drag, Jill St. John in any sort of attire, "two meenutes ahnd counteeng!", Nairobi being in South Africa, comedy German mad scientists, Connery's premature ageing....still, Wint and Kidd are great.
Worst Bond film for me bar LTK....which is pretty much the same as being the worst Bond film.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
That's actually an interesting way of putting it. That's how I view it for optimal entertainment. I watch DAF as it was originally intended, as a prequel to (rather than an omission of) OHMSS. Now no one cry blasphemy just yet, think about it. If it's squeezed in after YOLT we bypass the lack of remorse, lack of vengeance and lack of any reference to OHMSS. Plus in OHMSS M states that Bond has been on his assignments, albeit unsuccessful, to track down Blofeld, presumably after the events of YOLT. This is in line with DAF's setup. Bond is on an impersonal warpath for an international terrorist who in the end bested him. Then, campy or not, DAF takes place, Blofeld escapes from the oil rig after Bond avoids death and jumps and enter Lazenby. Still hunting Blofeld, a man who we have seen twice escape him. Blofeld has his ever changing face from DAF amended it would seem (perhaps we could infer that he was seriously scarred in the bath-o-sub) and he has pretty much is old face back, minus the scar which would have been removed in his first surgery. Exhausted and ruthless, he is now launching what will be his last operation under SPECTRE. I then imagine Blofed pretends Bond's disguise has him fooled in order to entrap Bond - also I'd imagine a man like Blofeld would relish in holding the life of a man he hates in his hand (ala Gustav Graves- it's my only example for this idea). Bond becomes too much, Blofeld traps him and the rest of the movie goes on. Then he is injured at the end to return and die in FYEO (looking the same with the neck-brace and such). Not perfect but it helps make DAF more enjoyable - in this case it is merely a lesser Bond film like TMWTGG etc. In this way there need be no edits to the movie, only ones logical conclusions drawn from subtle clues and a different perspective. Plus I always feel that the change of actor is a new series of sorts within the franchise so revenge for Tracy is never truly handled right. That being said, I believe certain elements, such as OHMSS, are interchangeable between every Bond, - except Craig of course for obvious reasons. So it is handled but not in the same canon. It's like comic books, many redos but with an omnipresent history and plenty of stories to enjoy alongside the canon of the moment. -{
On another note, isn't it strange that before I became acquainted with Mr Bond some of the elements I associated with the series (space lasers, cremation death-trap, that movies theme song in particular, and diamonds) are from DAF . Ironic that one of the more sub-par Bond films has left a huge imprint on culture with Bond's name on it while greats like OHMSS are less prominent outside of Bond fandom. Well at least that's the case in the culture I was exposed to.
One more note (say anything you want about it's quality, there is plenty to talk about with this movie
"I should spend the money quickly, Commander Bond," he said.
Then he turn away from the table and walked swiftly out of the room.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
"I should spend the money quickly, Commander Bond," he said.
Then he turn away from the table and walked swiftly out of the room.
But, with the films trying to be serious, such as CR, QoS, FYEO and TLD, then yes, the fleeting bits of incredulity really do let the film down totally, I apply a different criteria.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
- Horrible acting from basically everybody who was in the film
- Non stop goofyness from start to finish
- Ruining a pefectly good revenge story from OHMSS and going with a story about diamonds.
- Mr Wint and Mr Kidd
- Blofeld dressing up like a woman
Worst Bond movie EVAR!!!
I concur, although Wint and Kidd do have their moments!
As a whole, the film is alright, I even enjoy it more than "You Only Live Twice" but it's such a missed opportunity. Watching OHMSS followed by "LTK" offers a much more proper follow-up and a more rage-fueled Bond than the film that actually followed it.
Yes, as someone here or elsewhere said, it's almost as if OHMSS never existed - this is a parallel universe with DAF being the true sequel to YOLT, with Bond mad at Blofeld escaping him in Japan in YOLT. This makes DAF make a little more sense, but it's still a very poor entry in the Bond series. It initiated the spoofy nonsense of the Roger Moore films (although even the poorest of those are superior to DAF) and that can't really be said to be a good thing for the Fleming purist and the Bond aficiando generally.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Yes, TMWTGG is a veritable masterpiece much more focused on characterisation and plot than the mess of divergent parts that make up DAF for the most part!
There is no denying that there are enjoyable moments in DAF but there is a lot missing from this one. A whole lot. Other Bond films can almost get away with idiotic mistakes on the basis that they are undoubtedly stand alone Bond films with no relevance to any other film in the series. DAF on the other hand almost feels like a personal insult to OHMSS. It takes away a tiny little bit of glory from the almost perfect OHMSS! With the expectations of exciting, fired up revenge, you simply can't make the mistakes that were made in DAF and get away with it!
Obviously they've tried to not get caught up in whole revenge over Tracy's death thing and sort of semi-mentioned it a bit at the start and then introduced the story of DAF. But if they weren't going to have Bonds fury over her death as a main theme, why make it seem like he was out for revenge in the PTS at all? That is the main mistake that bugs me about DAF! A lot of the disappointment would be taken away if it had been made clear right from off that this wasn't a continuation of OHMSS, but it seemed so much in the very first scene that that was what they were going for and they simply didn't deliver after that!
As I say, if I really concentrate on thinking of DAF as just another Bond adventure I can enjoy it. But that knowing feeling in the back of my mind of what could have been, what should have been and what was hinted at the start it would be will never go away.
Tracy is turning in her grave.
Someone a few posts earlier mentioned that OHMSS seems never to have happened, since it goes Connery, to Lazenby and back to Connery. I agree, it's like Bond is pissed Blofeld escaped in YOLT instead of Blofeld murdering his wife.
And let me, just for a moment, forget that I'm a James Bond fan and put on my d*ckhead cap for a second. *Puts on d*ckhead cap*
Just a second. Can you think of any other franchise in history where such a blatant disregard for continuity would ever fly? I mean, I thought Prometheus was pretty good, but the fans of the Alien franchise were up in arms about this wrong, and that wrong, etc.
Are we the most forgiving fans in movie franchise history? We've gone through 6 actor changes with zero explanation. We've watched Felix Leiter's face change more times than that. We've seen a Felix in his early 30s with one James Bond turn into a Felix in his mid 40-s with another James Bond, and yet they remained close friends. We've seen three different actors acknowledge the death of Tracy Di Vincenzo. We've gone from a James Bond, who by his own admission says his acting range is "Left eyebrow raised, right eyebrow raised" to one that could quote Shakespeare while drinking his vodka martini, to another solid actor who can't quote Shakespeare and who looked like he stepped out of a GQ catalogue, to a blond guy who also does pretty well, but also probably can't quote Shakespeare. We watched Q interact with 5 different Bonds and watched him age while the Bonds around him stopped. We watched Moneypenny age with Q, then change faces multiple times. We've seen the four faces of M (This one is more forgivable) We watched Walter Gotell go from being burned to becoming a General who's an ally of Bond. We watched Charles Gray go from an assassinated contact to Blofeld, and he was the third face we saw of Blofeld. We watched Maud Adams go from Scaramanga's assassinated mistress to Octopussy. Hell, we even saw one James Bond leave, come back, leave, come back, and then leave a final time. We've seen movies go from fantastic (FRWL) to WTF (Die Another Day) We've seen the franchise remake it's own movies (TSWLM and Moonraker, LTK and QOS) And then we've seen the franchise start all the way back in the beginning, basically ignoring everything that came before.
It makes the head spin. what is it about this franchise that keeps us coming back for more? What is it about this franchise that makes us know all that, and yet keep us ignoring it while we come back for more? It boggles the mind.
*Removes d*ckhead cap. Breathes deeply*
I'm gonna put in 'Licence to Kill'.
I am sure there were disappointed people in 1971, but the vast majority were just glad to see Sean Connery back and did not care too much about the story.
I think you're right about that. I wasn't around in 1971, but to this day, Diamons Are Forever is one of my "guilty pleasures" because Connery was in it - as well as Dame Shirley Bassey's magnificent theme song. It's not a great film at all, but I find it difficult to "hate" it.
And for that you have to bring back Blofeld and Spectre. In a way, you couldn't have Connery back for one last time and not have Spectre!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Diamonds Are Forever is one of the weaker Bond films, but I certainly do not "hate" it. In fact, I quite enjoy it. Sean Connery looks more interested than in You Only Live Twice and shows one or two moments of the old magic, such as the fight with Peter Franks. I like Wint & Kidd and the way that one finishes off the others dialogue. Bond trapped in the burning coffin is another highlight. There is also some good humour. I absolutely adored Dame Shirley Bassey's title song at the time, not so much these days. I am one of the rare breed that favours her Moonraker title song over the others, wonderful ballad, underrated.
As for bottom of the list regarding Sean Connery's Bond films. In my case it is Never Say Never Again.
"Kara, we're inside a Russian airbase in the middle of Afghanistan."
You obviously have not read about the Novel Versions of Wint and Kidd then