It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I could describe Diamonds much more simply...oops we cant swear in here lol.
Just wonderign your thoughts on the following I do agree with this, but you left out Live And Let Die I assume because the set pieces all too often are detached from the narrative,( a trend that seemed to pick up steam with Lewis Gilbert's later Bond films).
Why is this do you think?
What I think is grossly overlooked is the tone in this film as you articulately lay out. No, it's not an OHMSS follow up, but it never establishes itself to be. All of the elements from the Mankiewicz writing to the Hamilton direction to the characters, sets and cinemetography all mesh together to form a cohesive and even narrative. I give this film top marks. And though, when I measure this film, against say OHMSS, GF or FRWL, I see those as definitive Bond-60's cool + Fleming espionage, and DAF is in another world and perhaps not up to par. But the comparison is not fair. Diamonds stands alone and defines it's own way. So on a good day, DAF is arguable my favorite of the series.
As for DAF, I've come to appreciate it as a guilty pleasure film. There's so much in this film that my mind calls rubbish but my heart never fails to warm up for everything else.
It's far down my list in rankings but I can put it in and have fun watching it.
One thing that's forgotten, or maybe not mentioned very much, is that it was David Picker who personally became a major influence on Diamonds Are Forever, not so much the producers. He got Connery back. He selected Tom Mankiewicz to do re-writes on the script. He almost succeeded in getting the film made in Hollywood where studio supervision would have been even more apparent. Most of all, Picker declared that what he wanted, and what he believed audiences wanted, was more Goldfinger and more humor. Alas, the lighthearted approach was a UA studio response for the lower than expected BO receipts for OHMSS.
@ZorinIndustries has edited the post and deleted it himself.
Too bad as I believe it was beautifully written and well done!
Looks like i missed something here.
I don't dislike DAF myself, I actually consider it a pretty good Bond movie, despite its muddled storyline and it's preposterous laser satellite. It has a great score, some excellent Bond moments, and has Connery back - a big deal back in 71. Picker might well have been right about a slightly campy Bond in the early 70s, but, just like the success of SP hides an underlying dissatisfaction amongst Bond fans that didn't particularly care for the movie, despite having good BO results, the same could be said of the later Moore Bonds.