What is it that fans hate about DAF?

Muston

While talking the other day to a couple of Bond mate's, the subject of DAF came up. This is one Bond film that I have a love/hate relationship with. On one hand I enjoyed Connery's last official performance, I also liked Mr Wint & Mr Kidd. There are some parts, like the PTS that I thought was well done. But then we have Charles Gray as Blofeld, who I thought was a poor choice, seeing that he was in YOLT as a different character. Tiffany Case is also in my view a poor Bond girl when following on from Teresa "Tracy" Bond. The plot isn't so bad though the final showdown on the oil platform could have been a bit more exciting. It's one I like more than hate but there seems to be a lot of people that consider it one of the worst. What's your thoughts on it and if you do hate it, how come?

always shaken

First of all you have to remember that DAF was made in 1971
and for people to try to compare DAF with say CR is a tad unfair on DAF
would you compare a new BMW M3 with its 1971 1602 counterpart ?
but i for one love DAF it has Wint & Kidd ,the red mach 1 stang ,Shady Tree
and Willard Whyte you all , how can you not like Plenty Otoole ,(im sure you are)
classic .DAF bring it on you all,

zaphod

always shaken wrote:

First of all you have to remember that DAF was made in 1971
and for people to try to compare DAF with say CR is a tad unfair on DAF
would you compare a new BMW M3 with its 1971 1602 counterpart ?
but i for one love DAF it has Wint & Kidd ,the red mach 1 stang ,Shady Tree
and Willard Whyte you all , how can you not like Plenty Otoole ,(im sure you are)
classic .DAF bring it on you all,

Only two good things about DAF and Plenty is both of them :007)

The Domino Effect

Sean Connery's wig. RM may have looked his age at the end, but at least he didn't go to Donald Trump's Hair Emporium.

Blackleiter

You and I are on exactly the same page about DAF. You like and dislike the same things about it as I do. I certainly don't hate it, because having Connery back is a big plus (and he gives a very good performance). But it's my least favorite of Connery's Bond movies, which still puts it way ahead of several of the films that came after it.

Muston wrote:

While talking the other day to a couple of Bond mate's, the subject of DAF came up. This is one Bond film that I have a love/hate relationship with. On one hand I enjoyed Connery's last official performance, I also liked Mr Wint & Mr Kidd. There are some parts, like the PTS that I thought was well done. But then we have Charles Gray as Blofeld, who I thought was a poor choice, seeing that he was in YOLT as a different character. Tiffany Case is also in my view a poor Bond girl when following on from Teresa "Tracy" Bond. The plot isn't so bad though the final showdown on the oil platform could have been a bit more exciting. It's one I like more than hate but there seems to be a lot of people that consider it one of the worst. What's your thoughts on it and if you do hate it, how come?

Blackleiter

zaphod wrote:

always shaken wrote:

First of all you have to remember that DAF was made in 1971
and for people to try to compare DAF with say CR is a tad unfair on DAF
would you compare a new BMW M3 with its 1971 1602 counterpart ?
but i for one love DAF it has Wint & Kidd ,the red mach 1 stang ,Shady Tree
and Willard Whyte you all , how can you not like Plenty Otoole ,(im sure you are)
classic .DAF bring it on you all,

Only two good things about DAF and Plenty is both of them :007)

) ) )

TheManfromJutopolis

For me it's the movie where the tone of the series takes a turn for the worse. The earlier Connery movies and OHMSS have their moments of humour but there's a grittiness and a realism to them too which is quite faithful to the original novels. Diamonds Are Forever seems to usher in a different tone, less serious, more cartoony, that is maintained throughout much of the Moore era. DAF might be Connery's last outing as Bond, but for me it could just as easily have been Moore's first.

Muston

TheManfromJutopolis wrote:

For me it's the movie where the tone of the series takes a turn for the worse. The earlier Connery movies and OHMSS have their moments of humour but there's a grittiness and a realism to them too which is quite faithful to the original novels. Diamonds Are Forever seems to usher in a different tone, less serious, more cartoony, that is maintained throughout much of the Moore era. DAF might be Connery's last outing as Bond, but for me it could just as easily have been Moore's first.

I agree that DAF did have a hand in the less serious era Bond. It could very well have been a Moore film but I put a lot of that down to director Guy Hamilton and Tom Mankiewicz. Hamilton's four and Mankiewicz's three Bond films all have a lighter tone and have Bond as more of a super-spy than a secret agent. This was carried on with TSWLM and MR. So in my view Goldfinger really started that cartoonish style, as both TB and YOLT followed it and the series only got back on a gritty level with OHMSS.

jasper_lamar_crabb

DAF is hated because it is nasty, trashy, cheap and tacky. When released in 1971 it was objectively the worst Bond film.

walther p99

Too silly and ridiculous, and a Fat and out of shape Connery who is way past his prime as Bond doesn't help it either.

Firemass

I believe Jasper and Walther summed it up perfectly.

Personally, I find "hate" to be a very strong word and I certainly don't hate any of the Bond films. It's just a matter of liking some less than others.

DAF is still a pretty entertaining film. Charles Grey would have made a decent Blofeld if not for the unnecessary drag-queen scene. (WTF?)

Am I the only one who suspects Connery killed Plenty? His alibi was pretty weak.

I would say the DAF influence on the Moore era was dropped completely in favor of a YOLT approach for Spy and Moonraker. Then the 80's incorporated more Fleming short stories and influence.

RogueAgent007

Blackleiter wrote:

You and I are on exactly the same page about DAF. You like and dislike the same things about it as I do. I certainly don't hate it, because having Connery back is a big plus (and he gives a very good performance). But it's my least favorite of Connery's Bond movies, which still puts it way ahead of several of the films that came after it.

Muston wrote:

While talking the other day to a couple of Bond mate's, the subject of DAF came up. This is one Bond film that I have a love/hate relationship with. On one hand I enjoyed Connery's last official performance, I also liked Mr Wint & Mr Kidd. There are some parts, like the PTS that I thought was well done. But then we have Charles Gray as Blofeld, who I thought was a poor choice, seeing that he was in YOLT as a different character. Tiffany Case is also in my view a poor Bond girl when following on from Teresa "Tracy" Bond. The plot isn't so bad though the final showdown on the oil platform could have been a bit more exciting. It's one I like more than hate but there seems to be a lot of people that consider it one of the worst. What's your thoughts on it and if you do hate it, how come?

I agree. DAF is, while not one of my favorites, certainly not a terrible movie. Personally, I think Tiffany Case is one of the best looking Bond Girls of all time. The look she gives Leiter from the bed while covered in those white furs is enough by itself. Not to mention her in that red and purple bikini.

Yes, Connery's out of shape, yes Charles Gray is terrible as Blofeld, yes some of the scenes looked like they were clipped from a B movie, but it's a enjoyable nonetheless. The Mach 1 Mustang is one of my favorite Bond Cars, Shady Tree and the 3 tough guys taking him to Slumber Mortuary (I godda brudda! still cracks me up every time).

I love the movie, it's just there are others I love more

Barbel

Personally I love DAF (well, I love them all, of course) but that's partly historical, being of an age to remember that Connery returning to the role of 007 was a Big Thing, The good times were back! Fantastic music by John Barry (one of his top Bond scores, though having to follow his wonderful YOLT and OHMSS music it's often overlooked), Shirley Bassey belting out the classic song, some nods to Fleming in the first half, the memorable Mr Kidd & Mr Wint, some beautiful lines ("Alimentary, Dr Leiter", "I'm Plenty" - "But of course you are" - "Plenty O'Toole" - "Named after your father, perhaps" - etc), Bernard Lee grumbling at 007. Above all, Sean Connery as James Bond. Yes, a little bit older, but clearly enjoying himself and as Tom Mankiewicz said "He had an old pro's grace about him".
Sure, the last act is lacking, and there's definitely too much of the light touch that Guy Hamilton loved but there's never been a Bond film without weaknesses and this one is too often unfairly maligned.

chrisisall

-{ yes, quite. -{

Thunderpussy

I agree, DAF may not be the Best Bond film, But it's great fun
Fantastic score and a really witty script.

Shady Tree

I love the whole style of this film.

Napoleon Plural

Whether you like DAF comes down to that old saying "It's alright if you like laughing..."

The jokes, delivered with impeccable comic timing by Connery, are superb. In looks and tone, DAF is an acquired taste, but once you get it... it has this surreal vibe, even Blofeld in drag fits the garish Liberace Vegas vibe.

It fits in with the 1960s Batman series, the Dukes of Hazzard, that kind of thing.

Of course, it's the antithesis of its predecessor OHMSS and because that is now highly rated, DAF must get slagged off. I was watching Bourne Supremacy the other night, and how that starts,

with a female fatality puncturing the happy ending of the first film

, is how DAF might have begun had Lazenby come back for another.

davidelliott101

It's more of a Moore romp film than a Connery film. The key was Connery back for one more film, so story, rest of cast, etc wasn't important.

It's a decent film, but like many other Bond films, gets silly towards the end.

Firemass

davidelliott101 wrote:

It's more of a Moore romp film than a Connery film. The key was Connery back for one more film, so story, rest of cast, etc wasn't important.

It's a decent film, but like many other Bond films, gets silly towards the end.

No Moore film was as sleazy, tacky or grimy as DAF. Think of the lush exotic locations of Moonraker or Octopussy vs. the dimly lit casinos and glitzy hotels of Las Vegas.

KKwheelchair

Firemass wrote:

No Moore film was as sleazy, tacky or grimy as DAF. Think of the lush exotic locations of Moonraker or Octopussy vs. the dimly lit casinos and glitzy hotels of Las Vegas.

Agreed

bailorg

If you aren't particularly enamored with Connery as Bond, especially the campier, one-liner seemingly every scene late-Connery Bond, then I would imagine DAF is rather easy to dislike

Charmed & Dangerous

bailorg wrote:

If you aren't particularly enamored with Connery as Bond, especially the campier, one-liner seemingly every scene late-Connery Bond, then I would imagine DAF is rather easy to dislike

Connery was a brilliant Bond - even in DAF. But the point is that the film was a little cartoonish in places. It's big, brash and colourful - much as how I imagine Vegas to be, though I've never been - and somehow Vegas isn't a place I imagine the 'literary' Bond would embrace, given how snobbish he is about many things. Personally I love the film, it was the first one I saw in the cinema in 1971 and I've watched it many times since. Things like the Moon Buggy, the red Ford Mustang, Bond swinging in space above Vegas - I think they're wondrous.

But Connery is great, though the spectacle around him had taken over a little by then. Perhaps that's why he looks more relaxed, he almost strolls through the film in places. But when he gets going, such as the elevator fight, he's great. And the one-liners work brilliantly IMO.

Maybe it's just the slightly cartoonish nature of much of the film, the weak villain, and weaker ending that mark it down, so to speak. And because the film around Bond became the focal point, not Bond and how he drove the action as he did in, say, Dr No.

Manxman

I'm not keen on Diamonds Are Forever, for a number of reasons.

First, Connery's performance is the worst turn anyone has ever managed as Bond: he looks paunchy and elderly and acts as though he would rather be anywhere else. It's hard to believe that this is the same man who defined the character so powerfully during the sixties.

Tiffany Case is played as a buffoon and Blofeld as a camp, lecherous public schoolboy, which is simply bizarre given how he was portrayed in previous Bond films. Few of the supporting cast really stand out, and the plot, as well as being silly, is so overly complicated that I expect many people would need to see the film several times to realise what's going on at some points. Finally, the dénouement is beyond ridiculous: Blofeld clearly knows Bond of old and is aware how dangerous he is, yet has no qualms allowing him to touch the computer that is central to his not-very-convincing scheme.

On the plus side, Connery is suitably vengeful in the pre-title sequence, the camp of Wint and Kidd occasionally works very well (particularly when Mrs Whistler's corpse is pulled from the canal — a genuinely chilling moment) and the scene where Bond scales the building to reach the penthouse is extremely tense. That, however, is about it for the good stuff.

Moore Than

Manxman wrote:

First, Connery's performance is the worst turn anyone has ever managed as Bond: he looks paunchy and elderly and acts as though he would rather be anywhere else. It's hard to believe that this is the same man who defined the character so powerfully during the sixties.

For me, Sean Connery performed better in Diamonds Are Forever than he did in You Only Live Twice. He looks more interested, I tend to believe he adjusted his performance to suit the lighter tone of DAF. It is true he looks paunchy, there's no excuse for that. Elderly? He looks older than his 41 years, but not too old.

Manxman

I think the shock for me was seeing how much he'd aged in just four years. He actually looked younger and fitter in Never Say Never Again twelve years later.

davidelliott101

Firemass wrote:

davidelliott101 wrote:

It's more of a Moore romp film than a Connery film. The key was Connery back for one more film, so story, rest of cast, etc wasn't important.

It's a decent film, but like many other Bond films, gets silly towards the end.

No Moore film was as sleazy, tacky or grimy as DAF. Think of the lush exotic locations of Moonraker or Octopussy vs. the dimly lit casinos and glitzy hotels of Las Vegas.

LALD and TMWTGG comes to mind...

bailorg

Manxman wrote:

I think the shock for me was seeing how much he'd aged in just four years. He actually looked younger and fitter in Never Say Never Again twelve years later.

I agree with this. Connery just didn't look like Bond in DAF.

Strangeways

Hmmmmmmm

While I fully understand everyone's comments about DAF, I have a soft spot for it really. I am guessing because I saw it in the cinema as part of the Bond is Back to Back double features in the late 1970s.

Any other fans have it in heir top five?

AlphaOmegaSin

I still see the Pre Title Sequence in DAF as the Scene where Bond is getting his Revenge.

chrisisall

Strangeways wrote:

Any other fans have it in heir top five?

Before I read the novels & saw Dalton's movies it was my top ONE! )
I still love it though.
Tart's handkerchief... hahahahahah

hehadlotsofguts

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

I still see the Pre Title Sequence in DAF as the Scene where Bond is getting his Revenge.

i thought that was a double of Blofeld Bond killed in the PTS