--- title: "Diamonds Are Forever: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/diamonds-are-forever/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/diamonds-are-forever" critics_score: 59 critics_reviews: 13 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Diamonds Are Forever (1971): what the critics said Critics' score 59 from 13 reviews: 7 positive, 2 mixed, 4 negative. Most critics like Diamonds Are Forever more than they admire it. Seven of the thirteen reviews are broadly positive, and the praise gathers in the same places: Sean Connery’s dry, unflappable return; the Las Vegas car chases; and a script with more good lines than the plot deserves. Several reviewers treat the film as knowing self-parody and enjoy it on those terms, calling it wry, absurd and fun rather than tense. The reservations cluster just as neatly. Positive and negative reviews alike fault a plot that drifts away from the diamonds, a camp and unconvincing Blofeld, and a clumsy oil-rig climax. The spread is wide: Film Stories calls for the film to be reappraised as glamorous, witty spectacle, while Radio Times ranks it among the weakest Bonds and The Telegraph argues it made a fool of Connery. The contemporary reviews split the same way, with RogerEbert.com and The New York Times enjoying it and Variety finding it short of flair. ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 1971. The film excels at delivering the pleasures expected from a James Bond movie, with Sean Connery perfectly embodying the unflappable, dryly witty spy. It prioritizes exhilarating moments, gadgets, and chases over a coherent plot. [Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/diamonds-are-forever-1971) ## The Guardian — Xan Brooks Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 27 September 2012. The critic calls it their favourite Bond film despite its flaws, praising its jaded, uncertain tone and blackly comic moments as a fitting transition in the series. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2012/sep/27/favourite-bond-diamonds-are-forever) ## The Independent — Geoffrey Macnab Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 26 February 2021. The film marks a turning point toward camp, self-parodic humour and Americanised extravagance in the Bond franchise. It remains highly entertaining with chases, fights and witty lines but went too tongue-in-cheek. [Read the review](https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/culture/diamonds-are-forever-james-bond-50-anniversary-b1807218.html) ## The New York Times — Vincent Canby Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 18 December 1971. The movie is a nostalgic, absurdly fun return to Bond form that knows exactly what it is doing with its gadgets, décor, and cast, including Connery and director Guy Hamilton. It offers speedy sensations and escapes rather than logic, making it comparatively benign and enjoyable escapism. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/1971/12/18/archives/a-benign-bond007-stars-in-diamonds-are-forever.html) ## Time Out — PG Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 30 August 2012. The critic calls it a wry and exhilarating bit of entertainment apart from a clumsy climax. They praise the self-parody, intelligent script, handling of Las Vegas locations, and Jill St. John's presence, while noting the plot's weaknesses and overly elaborate escapes. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/diamonds-are-forever) ## Total Film — Nick Setchfield Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 5 July 2012. The pre-titles deliver a vicious, vengeful tone with Connery's return; the film shifts to a low-rent Vegas setting and features a camp, incongruous Blofeld performance amid the series' ongoing adventures. [Read the review](https://www.gamesradar.com/bond-50-diamonds-are-forever/) ## Empire — Ian Nathan Fi1m's normalised score 50/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 2000. Connery's return shows cracks with his ageing appearance and failure to recapture full swagger; the plot founders on a comic Blofeld and weak oil-rig finale despite some strong elements like the Vegas setting and henchmen. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/diamonds-forever-review/) ## Radio Times — Adrian Turner Rating 2/5. This is described as one of the weakest Bonds, with a tiresome plot and Connery going through the motions. The Las Vegas sequences have some dash, and the gay hitmen Wint and Kidd make an intriguing double act. [Read the review](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-yrwup6/diamonds-are-forever/) ## The Telegraph Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 4 January 2022. The piece criticizes the film as overblown, daft and Americanised, arguing it made a fool of Sean Connery, though noting it was a commercial success with some positive contemporary reviews. [Read the review](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/overblown-daft-americanised-diamonds-forever-made-fool-sean/) ## Variety — Variety Staff Rating **. 31 December 1970. James Bond still delivers action and scantily-clad companions, but this entry lacks the quality and flair of its predecessors despite Connery's return and lively sequences in Las Vegas and the desert. The plot drifts away from the diamonds into a generic world-saving mission. [Read the review](https://variety.com/1970/film/reviews/diamonds-are-forever-1200422521/) ## Film Stories — Chris Oatten Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 23 February 2021. The critic calls for reappraisal of the film as a glitzy, glamorous, witty spectacle and joyous romp that delivers fantastic entertainment. He singles out the sharp script by Tom Mankiewicz and Connery’s mature, unflappable performance for particular praise. [Read the review](https://filmstories.co.uk/features/diamonds-are-forever-saluting-an-underappreciated-james-bond-film/) ## Den of Geek — Max Williams Fi1m's normalised score 65/100 (inferred from the text). 23 March 2015. The critic sees the film as a lightweight, cartoonish step backwards from the emotional weight of its predecessor, with a moribund Connery and garish Vegas setting underscoring a series in decline. Yet its implausible, dysfunctional elements give it a battered panache and wry smile that the reviewer rather likes. [Read the review](https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/diamonds-are-forever-was-a-step-backwards-for-the-james-bond-franchise/) ## Eye for Film — Stephen Carty Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 26 August 2009. The critic finds the film flawed and tired without being completely unwatchable, describing it as fun in a so-bad-it’s-good way but not the send-off Connery deserved. He singles out the Mustang chase through Vegas and some classic 007 one-liners for praise while lamenting the return to formulaic sci-fi trappings. [Read the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/diamonds-are-forever-film-review-by-stephen-carty) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/diamonds-are-forever.md