Diamonds Are Forever, why so much hate?
DiamondsAreForever91
Posts: 16MI6 Agent
Hey all! Im new to the forums and new to the Bond series as well. Diamonds Are Forever, I found to be very enjoyable! Its one of my favorite bonds personally one of my top 5 but I always read that people tend to not like it due to the camp and silly tone of it. However, after seeing all the Bonds that preceded DAF, I don't understand what everyone finds so silly about it. Maybe its because I'm new to the series but I didn't see anything in DAF that is any different from a Bond before and after it, to me it was the same Bond antics and same type of thrills as the rest. The one thing that I don't like it is Wint & Kidd thats the on element I find silly, I read people that say the moon buggy scene is silly but when isn't there silly moments in a Bond? its part of the series. So for those of you who may not like DAF, please share with me what elements you did or didn't like about the film, I am curious to see what people don't like about it. Thank you all, and live Bond and Beyond!
Comments
DAF is rather campy and disappointing in some Places after the serious OHMSS. Because Audiences were not ready for the more gritty Feel of the previous Film with Lazenby as the new Bond, EON decided to return to the Direction of GF with DAF. The first Version of the Script even had Goldfinger's twin Brother as the Villain -{
I quite like DAF, a guilty pleasure perhaps.
You different reasons. For me it's a bit of a disappointment coming after the
Fantastic OHMSS ( just my opinion ) . Connery doesn't look in shape, seems
Bored, Blofeld is not at all menacing and it doesn't have any really exotic
Locations.
On its plus side. It has a fantastic J Barry score, some great K Adam sets
Win't & Kidd are very good. So a bit of a mixed bag for me. Although there is
absolutely nothing wrong in loving it, plenty of room for all opinions. {[]
hahah its funny how it all varies because I actually find OHMSS to be one of my least favorites, Lazenby didn't quite do it for me and it felt a little slow for me. I watched OHMSS and DAF back to back one day with my dad and after OHMSS DAF seemed a lot more upbeat. Oh man I just realized your user name is Thunderpussy that gave me a great laugh over here haha. The car chase and oil rig raid are great, although I do agree its the only Bond I can think of that doesn't have a crazy beautiful area like the ones before it. I had to get to a place where I could finally say this because I watch it and I love it and never can see what someone would hate about it lol
And Welcome DiamondsAreForever91!
1. Thunderball 2. FRWL 3. Casino Royale 4. TLD 5. OHMSS 6. SkyFall 7. GF 8. TSWLM 9. GE 10. FYEO
AVTAK is another Bond that takes a bit of stick. Although it too
Has its fans -{ That's what's great about the Bonds so many
Different films, for so many different moods. {[]
AVTAK was good it entertained me, I think my favorites thus far are DAF, TSWLM,Goldfinger, Thunderball
Welcome fellow Bond fan! Nice to have you with us. As for DAF, sure it has some rather glaring weaknesses, some of which our friend Thunderpussy has described, but all in all I find it to be a very enjoyable Bond film. The fact that it stars the real James Bond doesn't hurt either! (Stick around long enough and you'll understand that remark coming from me! :007) )
I look forward to your contributions to the forum.
You said things weren't that different in the previous Bond movies. How about Blofeld in drag? How did we get from that menacing Blofeld we first saw in From Russia with Love, to Charles Gray dressed up as an old lady in Diamonds are Forever?! Charles Gray was a completely stupid casting choice for Blofeld in the first place!
There's also this scene of Bond lying in bed with an ashtrey on his chest. Yeah, I know that's just a minor thing, but just look at that particular scene yourself... it's just seems so unglamorous and unBondian. It's like you watch an depressed old man in a midlife crisis regretting his life.. That part always makes me realise we're miles away from the suave Connery we first saw introduced in Dr. No. (He almost looked better in Never Say Never again, which came out more than a decade later!)
Some things also seem so UnBondian in this movie in general, like the elephant at the slot machines and the gorilla girl at the circus or Bond having a mouse trap in his jacket pocket ... What, is that some new MI6 standard issue equipment?
There's also the scene of Plenty O'Toole's body turning up at Tiffany's swimming pool. Which also seems to be some plothole, as the two aren't linked. But the reason for that turns out to be a complete scene that got deleted. Of which Plenty actually got back upstairs after she got thrown out of the window and she saw Bond with Tiffany. Then those bad guys end up killing Plenty and stuff.. It's kind of complicated, but they should have just kept the scene in to avoid confusion...
I probably got a lot more, but hey, I don't want to burn this movie to the ground completely, so to be fair, I could also mention some stuff I do like about this movie.
Bond going to Amsterdam was great. It's cool to see my country during a period that I wasn't alive yet, even if it's only briefly. Most of Connery's oneliners are pretty funny as well: "Providing the collars and cuffs match.." "I was out walking my rat and I seem to have lost my way.." "I had a brother! .... "small world..." "Named after your father perhaps?" just to name a few. The moonbuggy thing was really weird, but I could find enjoyment out of it. (Although why there would be a filmset of a moon landing scene in that facillity in the first place I still don't really get..)
Overall it's a fun movie, and it does get me laughing in some parts.. but it has a lot (to many for me) of cringeworthy scenes in it overall..
YouTube channel Support my channel on Patreon Twitter Facebook fanpage
Er OHMSS was also very campy if not downright silly at times. Im referring to the scenes at the chateau when Bond pretends to be a gay scottish genealogist.
Yes, there were a couple of Campy Scenes in there. But the overall Tone was more Darker then in previous Films.
I think it is to do with the camp. Some men won't admit liking it even when they do. Or just don't understand why there is camp in there first place. DAF, at the time was a throwback to the pride of the fleet ie Goldfinger. Same Bond, same director, same title song. Connery I always thought looked happy in this. He hasn't got the press attention of YOLT and seems quite cheery. He's on record of enjoying the script.
Mankiewicz's script is full of puns. I especially like "I didn't know there was a pool down there"Las Vegas was probably at its height in the early seventies. Sinatra and Elvis Presley were playing there and it was entertainment capital of the western world. It is a perfect location for a Bond film. There is enough deceit and avarice in the glittering city for the producers to base a good story. Las Vegas has a very dazzling frontage but go beneath it and there is a seedy underbelly with enough gangsters and ne'r do wells to hang a good story on. There is a theme of falseness running throughout the entire film - the fake Blofelds, counterfeit diamonds and money, false identities, simulated moon surface and sheer phoniness of the desert city.
The production design is all we expect from a Bond film. Ken Adam comes back to design the sets and creates the chicest film of the series. With Willard Whyte's penthouse is glittering metallic silver reminiscent of the diamonds that seem to permeate this film. The producers do seem to catch the mix of glitter and sleaze which is so much a part of Las Vegas. Its often Las Vegas and it tackiness that puts American fans off – its just not exotic like Jamaica or Bolivia. Alot of people don’t like this one. It gets a kicking from new fans. Maybe they are right. It is too arch and camp – but that was the direction the films were going.
Worth watching for Shirley Bassey. And Jill St John.
are stand alone films/stories.
Doesn't exactly come across as the heart broken widower hell bent on throttling
Blofeld with his bare hands ( as in the novel YOLT).
I do remember being highly entertained, laughing at all the one-liners etc.
Unlike us Bond geeks, I'd say most of the cinema going public loved and enjoyed
It, as good night out. {[]
I think most other people here have pretty much stated what they don't like about it, and I share their views generally. It is too distinct a change in tone from On Her Majesty's Secret Service. In the context of that film, Diamonds Are Forever was meant to be a story about Bond exacting revenge on Blofeld, but it was anything but. Furthermore, the character of Blofeld has been reduced from a very smart and very astute villain to a comic.
This is a sore point for me as a Fleming purist. Bond films aren't meant to be silly, they are meant to be played with a straight face. I consider From Russia With Love, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Dr No to be the three best Bond films (in that order), because they are played with a straight face and has more or less adhered to the story as Fleming had written.
That's the way Bond is meant to be.
the Same actor throughout, hopefully bringing in some of the ideas from YOLT ( The garden of Death etc)
This time having Bond and Blofeld having a real vicious fight at the end ( The odds very much against 007 )
Just have two guys who Really hate each other, Going out to beat each other to Death ! {[]
How do you feel about CR and QOS? Certainly those two were played completely straight.
I have enjoyed all three of Craig's Bond films so far. To think that way back then I would probably have jumped on the "Craig is not Bond" bandwagon ... I think I've had a very large serving of humble pie.
QOS, however, was Craig's weakest, not because of bad acting on his part, but bad plot and a story that barely made any sense (at least, to me). But both CR and SF are entrenched in the lower half of my top 10.
I'm with you all the way. -{
To DEFIANT's point that Bond films aren't meant to be silly, I just don't agree. For that matter, I don't think EON or the bulk of the 23 films in the series agree either. The Bond novels are certainly "straight faced" and they are wonderful in that way, but I think that when Bond hit the silver screen they evolved into a wonderful escapist experience full of fun, action, and adventure. Without the lighter notes we wouldn't have the strong focus on exotic locales, beautiful Bond girls, funny quips, gadgets, and well...the "cool" vibe. Sure, the literary Bond is, to use an overused word, grittier, but my goodness that would have been tiresome for 23 films.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/skyfall-bluray-doesnt-match
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/skyfall-bluray-doesnt-match
I fell in love with DAF when I saw it as a kid, at the age of seven, in a listed-building 30s cinema packed out for the film's initial release in 1971. I remember that, during the main title sequence, lights were projected onto a revolving ‘disco’ glitterball so that the screen and cinema interior were dazzled with diamond-like reflections. The film has worked its magic for me ever since, and I now believe it to be a masterpiece of camp. Connery's relaxed interpretation of Bond as a maturing, sexy comedian is one of his most entertaining... a more accomplished performance in the role than any since GF. Sure, there are holes in the plot, but there's also a knowing wit in the screenplay which simultaneously celebrates and debunks Connery-AS-Bond's superstardom: audiences at the time really 'got' that and responded to it. Charles Gray's louche turn as Blofeld blends with the overall tone of the film: his camp persona brings amusing new meaning to the trope of the character's attachment to his Siamese pussy cat. (Blofeld never shares screen time with Wint and Kydd, but one wonders whether there may have been a queer 'casting couch' element to his recruitment of them as assassins! Witness Gray's other camp role in the series, as Henderson in YOLT, with his purring confession that he gets Russian vodka "from the doorman at the Russian embassy... amongst certain other things": the smutty implication is that the "other things" include sexual favours from the doorman as well as secret Soviet files.) Other highlights? John Barry brilliantly complements DAF's location work with one of his most evocative soundtracks, imbuing Amsterdam with a sense of prettiness and Vegas with razzamatazz, while realising in his action cues a musical sense of "precariousness glorified" (to quote Pauline Kael's contemporary review of the film). DAF can be edgy: occasional moments of startling violence (historically cut from many TV broadcasts) and a slant towards morbid humour and the bizarre lend the film a frisson which is often overlooked.
A criticism frequently levelled at DAF is that it isn't, like FRWL, a taut thriller, and that its climax is relatively lame. John Brosnan was publishing such complaints as early as 1972, in his book 'James Bond In The Cinema': "there is no real sense of menace in the film ... [and it] has a very weak squib of an ending when one compares it to the climaxes of DN, GF, YOLT, and OHMSS." DAF admittedly has a loose structure with a token plot. It's also undeniable that the climax is staged on a smaller scale than in some previous Bonds, and that some of it is played for laughs. But DAF doesn't want to be a taut thriller. Nor could it hope to expand in its finale on the extravagance of YOLT's Pinewood volcano set.
Should DAF have taken a sober direction and attempted to be more faithful to Fleming's novel of the same title? I think it was too late for that. A true adaptation of 'Diamonds Are Forever' - assimilating its rather downbeat meditations on mortality, its fifties mise-en-scene and the psychological tangle of Bond's relationship with Tiffany - would have needed to have been Hitchcockian in style, and made during Terence Young's early Bond tenure, probably as a companion film to FRWL and certainly before the horse bolted with GF in terms of outlandish fantasy and spectacle.
So what is DAF trying to do? In 'The James Bond Man: The Films Of Sean Connery' (1983), Andrew Rissik puts his finger on it. He eloquently places the film in the specific pop-cultural context of the late 60s/early 70s, comparing its style with other decadent movies of the time: "[They conveyed] a sense of decaying Carnaby Street glamour combined with an idea of the movie as a pictorial and psychological game: they dealt in weird, contorted relationships between pictorially interesting groups of people." If DAF's appeal is partly to do with visual glamour it's also to do with verbal wit. DAF is often criticised for lacking a sense of danger, but the ostensible menace of Blofeld's latest bid for world domination is not where the film's conflict drama lies: rather, it's in the game of witty one-upmanship played between Connery's Bond, a graceful old pro, and the assortment of friends and foes who cross paths with him, assail him and try to debunk him. It's a 70s comedy of manners, with all the elements of the Bond genre at its disposal as points of reference during the repartee and banter - in the same way that LTK (my other favourite Bond film) is an 80s crime/revenge drama with a legacy of Bond stock from which to draw to give it its context. As light comedy, DAF is a movie I'd like to watch in a double-bill with, let's say, 'Plaza Suite' (1971), rather than with any serious crime or action movie of the same vintage. In fact, I can easily see DAF's humorous, thick set Sean Connery going back-to-back with a wisecracking Walter Matthau!
How does this work in practice? Part way through the film Bond, posing as Peter Franks, pretends to be in mourning: he accompanies the body of a man he claims to have been his brother on a flight from Holland to Los Angeles. Feigning grief, Bond explains to the Lufthansa captain at the airport that “We were inseparable.” The deceased man is, in fact, the real Franks - a diamond smuggler killed by Bond before he was able to contact his Amsterdam connection, Tiffany. Bond is on a mission to follow the smugglers’ pipeline to America, having concealed the diamonds in Franks’ corpse to get past customs. Played with knowing irony by Connery, Bond’s claim to have had an “inseparable” relationship with a man whose identity he’s assumed hints at a meaning between the lines: it’s an oblique joke about the bond between the actor himself and the role, 007, which had made him a star.
In 1967, the publicity posters for YOLT had loudly insisted: “Sean Connery IS James Bond”. This proclamation of an “inseparable” connection between actor and role was, at the time, partly a strategy for undermining Charles K. Feldman’s spoof movie Casino Royale, which boasted a number of rival James Bonds; it was also testament to Connery’s phenomenal popularity as 007 at the height of Sixties Bondmania. Yet Eon Productions had to weather re-casting the lead for their own next Bond film, OHMSS. Connery had refused to return to the series for this one, having grown frustrated with the media frenzy surrounding 007 and the length of time it took to complete shooting the Bond movies. Audiences missed him as Bond: his absence put his replacement, George Lazenby, at a disadvantage from the outset, irrespective of any shortcomings in the newcomer’s performance; box office returns for OHMSS were slow. Back with a vengeance in DAF, Connery’s Bond immediately reasserts his machismo: he apparently kills off his arch-enemy Blofeld at the climax of a violent pre-credits sequence. When he returns to his official duties, M introduces him to an expert on diamonds, Sir Donald Munger, who remarks, “You've been on holiday, I understand. Relaxing, I hope?” Bond replies, “Hardly relaxing, but most satisfying.” On the surface, Bond is referring to his seemingly successful personal hunt for Blofeld, but these lines are also an in-joke about the fact that Connery had taken a “holiday” from the Bond series since YOLT. The break had been busy but “satisfying” for Connery, as he'd used the opportunity to focus on roles in other movies (Shalako, The Molly Maguires, The Red Tent and The Anderson Tapes. See James Chapman, 'Licence To Thrill: A Cultural History of The James Bond Films').
DAF exudes a sense of how special it is to have its star, Sean Connery, back in action as Bond. The image of Connery rising atop the scenic elevator for The Starlight Lounge of The Whyte House - carnation in lapel; flanked by neon-lit, diamond-shaped star decorations - is a glitzy assertion of his superstardom in ascendancy: “priceless”, but debunked at the end of the ride by his need to duck to avoid being crushed. If DAF delights in Connery’s return, the publicity posters could make no pretense, this time, of an absolute equation of identities between actor and role. The link having once been severed, in OHMSS, it was now a more conventional case of billing “Sean Connery AS James Bond [my capitals]” - a reversion to the phrasing used in the early Sixties, prior to YOLT. As M puts it, rolling his eyes, “We do function in your absence, Commander.” This plays like a defensive message on behalf of the producers: the Bond franchise had got by without Connery, albeit not as successfully. This lends a mischievous meaning to Connery’s exchange with Tiffany after the demise of Peter Franks. Bond dupes her by switching wallets with the dead smuggler. She exclaims “You've just killed James Bond!” He replies, with a twinkle in his eye, “Is that who it was? Well, it just goes to show - no one's indestructible!” Again, Connery is playing himself playing Bond – comically acknowledging a sense in which 007 has become newly vulnerable. Aware of his reputation as ‘the real James Bond’, Connery could be joking, here, about the potentially fatal effect on the franchise which his departure might cause beyond this one-off return for the film in hand (“no one’s indestructible!”). The joke is also, obliquely, about "the other fella" George Lazenby’s short-lived, less successful tenure as Bond in OHMSS (“Is that who it was?”).
Thus writer Tom Mankiewicz was clever and sly enough to incorporate to his screenplay reflexive in-jokes and semi-jokes about Connery's decoupled/recoupled relationship with the Bond franchise as its star. For his part, Connery, who said he approved of the script, improved his performance to something considerably more polished than his previous bored plod through YOLT. M is perhaps again speaking for the producers when he says, “The least we can expect from you now is some plain, solid work!” Arguably, the only part of DAF in which Connery sags is during the short but pedestrian expository scenes with Willard Whyte and the CIA agents as they work out Blofeld’s plot; otherwise, he gives a light but nuanced, engaging performance. Rising from a coffin at Morton Slumber’s funeral parlour, Bond sums up his deal with the crooks, Slumber and Shady Tree: “You get me the real money, and I'll bring you the real diamonds.” If the “real diamonds” represent, at some level, the sparkling success of Connery's on-screen presence as Bond, the proven asset of his “incomparable charm”, it’s tempting to read this money-for-diamonds line as a cheeky allusion to the actor’s contractual negotiations with the producers and United Artists for a substantial reward to return to the franchise - especially since Cubby Broccoli, like the exasperated Slumber, had a background in the funeral business as a coffin-maker. With all his pulling power as Bond, Connery was lured back for DAF only after unprecedented financial incentives, including a million dollars which he donated to the Scottish International Education Trust. Exercised by the enormous cost of signing Connery for just one more Bond movie, the money men might also have shared the frustration of Blofeld as he refers to Bond’s escapades of the pre-credits sequence: “All that time and expense - just to provide you with one mock-heroic moment!”
Mankiewicz’s comic emphasis on the fact that Connery’s Bond is, after all, a performed role, not a necessary fact of nature, fits neatly within his broader theme of artifice in DAF. Phoniness is evident in a range of elements: from cloned (and drag artist) Blofelds, to a pretend girl-to-gorilla transformation for the kids in ‘Circus, Circus’; from a ludicrous ‘zero gravity’ simulation at Whyte’s space research center (given the lie by Bond's sprint across the fabricated moonscape), to a red-herring pussy cat and a fake bombe surprise dessert; from “Felix Leiter, you old fraud,” to Bond's own false identities (not only as Peter Franks but also his improvisations as Klaus Hergesheimer, the smoocher outside Tiffany's apartment and the genial Dutchman in the elevator); from Tiffany’s changing hair colour, to Bond’s bogus finger whorls, to the various voice boxes cunningly set to impersonate “the voice patterns” of Blofeld, Whyte and Burt Saxby. Indeed, phoniness is so pervasive as the film’s thematic strategy that it allows us to forgive, if we're willing, even unintended moments of exposed artifice, such as the unconvincing special effects work on the exploding helicopters in the playful climax and the comically resolved “Lean over!” continuity lapse in the execution of the Mustang wheelie stunt.
Sean Connery made it clear in interviews that DAF was his swan song as Eon's Bond. There would have to be a different leading man for LALD, hopefully more successful than the last pretender, Lazenby. This is also implied in the movie, when Connery jokes about the diamond-laden corpse: “I think we ought to let Mister Bond take the load from here on out!” The producers were left with the headache of finding a new star again, an actor capable of sustaining the mythos of Bond through the rest of the Seventies. Mankiewicz’s metaphorical association of the elusive diamonds with stardom has final resonance in the last line of the film. Aboard the cruise ship, John Barry’s lounge music has built softly, like a mock requiem. With Wint and Kidd despatched, Tiffany gazes up at a single star shining in the night sky - it’s actually Blofeld’s diamond-studded satellite. She asks, “James, how the hell do we get those diamonds down again?” The original audience might well have wondered how the hell the 007 franchise could renew its sparkle without its proven star returning again to play the role with which he’d been synonymous for almost a decade.
The oft-recycled fan criticism of DAF that it chooses not to be a serious sequel to OHMSS is misplaced. The common complaint is that although OHMSS ends with Blofeld's murder of Tracy, DAF deals only briefly / perfunctorily with the business of Bond's single-minded hunt for Blofeld, in the pre-credits sequence, and that even this has elements of slapstick. Connery's subsequent exchanges with the 'real' Blofeld seem almost genial, teetering on Adam West 'Batman'-style buffoonery by the time we're on the oil rig. (Blofeld's cheroot is certainly more The Penguin than Ian Fleming, and TV audiences may have remembered Jill St John for playing Molly, The Riddler's moll, in the 1966 pilot episode of 'Batman'. Indeed, she became the only female character in the 'Batman' series to get killed. Shades of Tracy perhaps?) DAF misses a trick, or so the argument goes, and we have to wait till CR/QOS before we get a linked pair of Bond films which seriously address the theme of Bond following up the death of a loved woman. But all this misses the point. DAF should be enjoyed on its own terms. It chooses to leave alone OHMSS, a film which performed relatively slowly at the box office. It sets out instead to be a light-hearted romp, foregrounding Connery's return to the glittering playground of 007 - a mileu presented, entertainingly, as more decadent than ever with the demise of the swinging sixties. Sure, DAF's violent PTS is designed in such a way that viewers wishing to do so can infer a brief 'revenge' coda to OHMSS, but this isn't made explicit because it's not a reading meant to be obligatory. Although DAF's classic title song is sung from a female perspective, audiences disposed to identify a link with OHMSS could, if they wanted, interpret the song's lyrics as reflecting Bond's strategy for repressing his grief: the song's about an abandonment to hedonism, eschewing meaningful love and the pain which it brings in favour of impersonal pleasures symbolised by the hardest substance known to man. (The lyrics of Wings' 'Live And Let Die' advocate a similarly repressive coping strategy, this time from a male perspective.)
So would a longer tenure for George Lazenby have been better for the series, ahead of Roger Moore's innings? Could DAF have been an out-and-out 'revenge' movie? No, I don't think so. A 'revenge' Bond needs a skilled actor as lead... and Lazenby wouldn't have cut it. We get emotive 'revenge' themes later on, in the brilliant but commercially disappointing LTK and in QOS (flawed for reasons other than Daniel Craig's acting abilities, which are fine). Lazenby wasn't a skilled enough actor to have been capable of the powerful performance which would have been necessary to drive a 'revenge' sequel to OHMSS. Despite arguments sometimes made to the contrary, his lack of training or experience as an actor mattered. He'd perhaps have passed muster in a movie like YOLT, where Bond has little more to do than punch his way from one location to the next and (literally) press a few buttons; but in OHMSS, which had much more of a personal story for Bond, Peter Hunt's idea that it's possible to use editing to get a good performance out of any 007 actor proved to be only partially true. Lazenby didn't want to return anyway, a fact explained by reports that at the time he was too immature to take on the challenge of becoming a 'movie star'. In 1971 it was the right decision, pleasing for contemporary audiences, to put some 'movie star' playboy pzaz back into the series, in the person of Sean Connery - and to make DAF a celebration of that rather than a film about some 'other fella's' unfinished business.
Besides, our current notions of serious movie sequels didn't really exist in 1971: it arguably wasn't until 'The Godfather: Part II', later in the 70s, that a cutting-edge template for sequels was established. The Bond series wasn't interested in high levels of continuity between films until CR/QOS, and even then the effectiveness of this approach (in QOS) was debatable. (In this respect, of course, the films differed from the novels, as 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service', 'You Only Live Twice' and 'The Man With The Golden Gun' have significant continuity.) I think the mainstream audiences of 1971 were just loving having Connery back as 007 in a fun-filled movie. That's my recollection, anyway. Although John Brosnan, whom I've quoted above, was writing in 1972, I'd hazard that his objections to DAF represented minority dissent. I suspect, ironically, that his complaints are more likely to resonate with the notional Bond fan of today, whose reified, critical experience of seeing DAF is typically alone, out of time, hankering for non-existent story arcs within a close-knit series of DVD viewings of the 60s/70s Bond movies as a set.
Kudos to you, Shady Tree! That was terrific! {[]