On the surface, Diamonds Are Forever is a terrible film. It marked Connery’s comeback, after a four year absence, and unfortunately he no longer seemed to fit the role. By then, he was a little pudgier, less dynamic, and he often looked bored on screen. Perhaps Connery was attempting to play off the film’s overall tone. Diamonds was the first Bond film to delve into camp and comedy. The results would appear mixed, at best. Though the film has received its share of positive reviews over the years, it is mostly ranked in the “bottom tier” on critics’ and fans’ Bond lists.
Some Bond films are so different that is hard to believe they are part of the same franchise at all. If you were to compare Diamonds Are Forever to On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (which came out just two years beforehand) you would be hard pushed to find any similarities at all.
As much as I enjoy Daniel Craig’s more gritty and realistic portrayal of the character, I always find myself leaning towards Roger Moore’s Bonds when I just want to sit down and be entertained. The same goes for Diamonds Are Forever as outlined in the linked article.
It shouldn’t work, and to the majority of people it doesn’t work, but I really enjoy Bond movies that don’t take themselves too seriously. What Bond films have I seen most? Probably Moonraker and The Man With The Golden Gun - both of which are consistently ranked at or near the bottom of the Bond films.
That’s what’s great about the Bonds. Some people can’t stand Roger Moore. Some people think Timothy Dalton is the unsung hero. Others think anything before Daniel Craig’s films can be disregarded. There’s something for everyone.