130 replies to this topic

[Turn]

Wood also does a nice job in describing Jaws' back in the TSWLM novelization. It places the monster turned cartoon character into better perspective.

 

I also like his take on Spy's pretitle scenes, describing some grisly stuff as I remember it without the total emphasis being on the parachute escape.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

 

It took a long time for me to warm up to Moonraker but I really enjoy it now on its own cartoony terms.  There are things that bother me about it but I stopped comparing it to the other films and just enjoy it as an adventure. 

 

 

That's exactly the way to enjoy MR. Take it on its own terms, i.e., 2 hours of escapist diversion that never pretends to be anything more than that.

I enjoy reading all these posts that like MR. It's a huge sentimental favorite for me being the first 007 adventure I ever saw in the cinema as a child.

 

This is an enjoyable article by someone who used to be a critic of MR but now enjoys it on its own terms:

http://popculturesha...raker-1979.html

I particularly like this quote from it:

 

"Moonraker is a film I have come to really love after having seen it many times. For some reason, it didn't use to grab me but I can honestly say I was wrong. It's one of the most entertaining, good natured entries in the series with great action, a great villain and a great score by John Barry. Shirley Bassey does a good theme song with an even better version for the end credits (the only time I will ever admit to liking disco) and the end result is a film that is, quite simply, lovable in spite of its flaws".    

[coco1997]

MOONRAKER sits at #2 or #3 on my Moore Bond ranking, behind OCTOPUSSY and possibly FYEO. I certainly enjoy it more than TMWTGG and AVTAK and have always preferred it to TSWLM.

[Professor Pi]

Moonraker has an absolutely heavenly music score.  And great poster artwork.

 

Corrine Clery is one of the sexiest Bond girls.

 

The scientists' getting poisoned in the lab scared the bejeesus out of the 11 year old version of myself.  No other Bond movie has scared me like that.

 

Didn't think about James Bond shooting down satellites being similar to Luke Skywalker shooting at an exhaust vent before.

 

Drax has some of the driest comments of any villain.  "Even in death, my munificence is boundless."  "Why do you always ruin my attempts to plan an amusing death for you?"

 

The Mooreisms--"If it's '69, you were expecting me."  And Q's "I think he's attempting re-entry sir."  Plus Holly's last line.  I admit I didn't catch the meaning of her surname until much later!

 

The witty dialog.  "Do you know him?"  "Not socially.  His name's Jaws.  He kills people."

 

And I met Lois Chiles once, I think the only Bond girl I have.

 

It's also the last non-Craig Bond movie I watched.  Gorgeous film.  As for the double taking pigeon, maybe that's the cameo drunkard's view of it.  I only began to view this movie harshly after reading Raymond Benson's "James Bond Bedside Companion."

 

But MR is proof that lesser Bond is still pretty good.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

 I only began to view this movie harshly after reading Raymond Benson's "James Bond Bedside Companion."

 

I remember seeing MR 3 times after it was initially released: first in the cinema on its first run, the second time at a double-feature re-release of it and TSWLM which my dad took me to(a very fond memory for me) and when ABC broadcast their premiere on their Sunday Night Movie. I thoroughly enjoyed the 1979 007 adventure film each of these times I saw it. It wasn't until after that and reading both Steven Jay Rubin's "The James Bond Films" and Raymond Benson's "James Bond Bedside Companion" that I learned that I was supposed to hate it. I never did come to hate MR and still love it to this day. (Why should I hate something that brought me such happiness and helped cement my being a staunch Bond fan?) It seemed like in the years after its initial release a certain group-think seemed to set it that it was the "worst Bond film of all time" which I never bought into. I can understand the viewers who were fond of Fleming's MR novel being disappointed that they weren't given a faithful screen adaptation of it but as we all know, the 1967-1979 period of Bond film making was the era of throwing most of the literary source material of the Fleming novels for the film versions (with OHMSS being the lone exception to that rule, of course). I also never could understand MR critics who claimed to dislike it for being cartoonish, over-the-top, sci-fi oriented and unfaithful to the Fleming source novel when those very same criticisms could be leveled against TSWLM yet many of these same MR critics seemed to love that one. I actually like both TSWLM and MR myself but I think MR critics would have greater consistency in their reasoning IMHO if they disliked both of the Lewis Gilbert directed 1970s Bond films.

 

I consider MR the best Bond film of the 1970s. It's certainly the most lavish and technically well-made Bond film of its decade. Another aspect I appreciate of MR is that it seemed EON was finally past its "can the 007 series survive without Sean Connery?" anxieties.Plus Roger at his most confident in the role before his age began to show onscreen(I remember being shocked to learn that he was 51 years old in real life at that time), Ken Adams's last Bond sets, John Barry's music, state of the art(by 1979 standards anyway) SFX, dazzling locations and my favorite female cast(Holly, Manuela, Corrine, Drax's girls) to appear in a Bond film since OHMSS.

[David_M]

Really enjoying all these positive vibes for MR, a sentimental favorite of mine from Day One and probably the single most entertaining Bond film I ever saw on the big screen.  In fact, despite the occasional high point here and there, it's fair to say that taken on the whole, the whole "Bond experience" has been on a steady (if gradual) trend downhill for me since 1979.

 

With due respect to Benson and Rubin (and John Brosnan), who are as entitled to their opinions as anyone else is theirs, it's encouraging to see appreciation for this film grow in the internet age, as Bond fandom is no longer "spoken for" by a small handful lucky enough to land a publishing deal.  Now everyone gets a voice (albeit some more easily heard than others) and I think we're getting a much more accurate impression of where certain entries in the series really stand among fans.  I also don't mind at all that MR's popularity waxes and wanes over time.  By their very nature opinions are allowed to change with the passage of time, and in the end I think the place for opinions is here on the internet, which is a "living" thing, and not on the printed page, where they're at best a snapshot of one moment in time.

[Napoleon Solo]

The first draft of the Moonraker script was something to behold -- Bond using a jet pack in the Venice chase sequence, his and her mini-jets, space walks. 

https://hmssweblog.w...oo-big-for-007/

[Napoleon Solo]

Also, lost in the mists of time, is that Moonraker actually got some good reviews. Frank Rich, then writing for Time, liked it. So did Vincent Canby for The New York Times (which has a link you can access)

Sample: "Moonraker, like all of the better Bond pictures, returns us to a kind of filmmaking that I most closely associate with the fifteen-part serials of my youth. Our astonishment depends on the ingenuity by which the writers and directors disentangle Bond from the impossible situations into which he seems to fall every seven minutes." (Canby was born in 1921.)


http://www.nytimes.c...FB0668382669EDE

[sharpshooter]

I think Moonraker would be ripe material for an in-depth making of book in the same style of Charles Helfenstein's two great OHMSS and TLD publications. The making of the film, the promotional side of things, historical reviews and contemporary reviews. Moonraker hasn't gone through a reappraisal as strong as OHMSS, but nonetheless, a book which fights the case for Moonraker would be a fascinating read. It remains one of my favourite Bond films.

[Grard Bond]

About Benson's harsh words about Moonraker.... I can't take that very seriously, because he also said that "Never say never again was one of the best Bond movies", with  -if I remember it well- also "great action scene's" in it.

Edited by Grard Bond, 03 January 2016 - 11:53 AM.

[TheREAL008]

Disagree about MR material being used for DAD. Aside from the identity issues there was little else. 

However, if MR the film had used alittle more elements of the book into the movie I would have had a better experience. Keeping Drax as a card cheating double agent who was building Moonraker ICBM's to target them to destroy major cities throughout the world may have been better. Give Roger a good cold war plot.

Then again it's the same plot of TSWLM....

I don't hate Moonraker, but I barely watch it. It isn't as terrible as DAF, but the space elements are just too much for me.

Plus the movie could have benefitted from the use of Gala Brand.

[Napoleon Solo]

Disagree about MR material being used for DAD. Aside from the identity issues there was little else. 

However, if MR the film had used alittle more elements of the book into the movie I would have had a better experience. Keeping Drax as a card cheating double agent who was building Moonraker ICBM's to target them to destroy major cities throughout the world may have been better. Give Roger a good cold war plot.

Then again it's the same plot of TSWLM....

I don't hate Moonraker, but I barely watch it. It isn't as terrible as DAF, but the space elements are just too much for me.

Plus the movie could have benefitted from the use of Gala Brand.

Originally, the Miranda Frost character was named Gala Brand. 

[Agent Sidewinder]

Hmmm, just realised MR has many parallels with another favourite film of mine:

 

-  a sci-fi film released in 1979 as part of a popular franchise

-  financially successful despite mixed critical reaction

-  widely disliked by fans, but also with many passionate defenders

-  often praised for (mostly) excellent visuals and music

-  climax of both films centres around a "necklace of death around the Earth"

 

....now are we talking about Moonraker, or Star Trek: The Motion Picture? I guess I like my Bond light and over-the-top, and my Trek deep and thoughtful.

[David_M]

But was ST:TMP "financially successful"?  Or at least, up to what the studio hoped for?  My understanding was the b.o. performance was underwhelming, to the point where the follow-up film was being developed as a "made for TV" production, until someone, somewhere decided to "bump it up" to a theatrical release, but even then with a severely slashed production budget.

 

re: Benson's take on MR and NSNA: This mirrors the reaction in 007 Magazine, which was effusive with praise and coverage for NSNA 1983, even though a (comparatively) recent retrospective issue of the same magazine took a much cooler and more critical stance on the film.  IMHO, the giddy praise heaped on NSNA in 1983 was powered almost entirely by the return of Connery, which for some partisans trumped any and all shortcomings the film had in almost every other department.  As far as I'm concerned, a great deal of the "objective criticism" of the Moore era was revealed for what it was: a pro-Connery bias that made certain critics and fans anything but objective.

[MajorB]

IIRC, ST:TMP made a boatload of money, but was so expensive (including the costs of a very long, tortuous development process) that it wasn't as profitable as it might have been.

 

I like many things about MR, which have been lauded by others on this thread. Someone mentioned the grouse-hunting scene, which I always considered fairly dumb (thought funny). They're on Drax's property, with the only witnesses Drax's employees--why hide someone in a tree? And why, when he fails to kill Bond, just let Bond drive away? It's the kind of "Because it's a Bond film" plotting that drives me nuts about some of the films of that era.

 

But I find MR to be a very watchable film, despite its acknowledged flaws.

[Dustin]

re: Benson's take on MR and NSNA: This mirrors the reaction in 007 Magazine, which was effusive with praise and coverage for NSNA 1983, even though a (comparatively) recent retrospective issue of the same magazine took a much cooler and more critical stance on the film. IMHO, the giddy praise heaped on NSNA in 1983 was powered almost entirely by the return of Connery, which for some partisans trumped any and all shortcomings the film had in almost every other department. As far as I'm concerned, a great deal of the "objective criticism" of the Moore era was revealed for what it was: a pro-Connery bias that made certain critics and fans anything but objective.

Just so. At the time the 'true' Bond fan largely defined himself as a fan of the Connery era - few even bothered with Lazenby - and of Fleming, up to a point. LALD and TMWTGG both got film tie-ins with Moore on the cover, but it didn't help that Moore had the weaker books and only really settled into the role with what Anthony Burgess called 'a very unflemingian hotchpotch'. Few readers at the time seemed to picture Moore when reading them.* For those who had experienced the Bond hype of the 60s Connery was the real deal. That generation of fans was in office when Connery returned - and most of them kept NSNA from turning into a financial disaster, mainly for old times' sake.

*Writing this I actually wonder: was Christopher Wood told to mimick Fleming in his two film novels? Wood, according to his own statements, didn't like Fleming and supposedly cannot have been too eager to write - largely successfully, IMO - in a very distinctive slightly updated style compared to Fleming. Moore got the short end of Fleming's œuvre, but definitely some of the best continuations, after a fashion.

[glidrose]

*Writing this I actually wonder: was Christopher Wood told to mimick Fleming in his two film novels? Wood, according to his own statements, didn't like Fleming and supposedly cannot have been too eager to write - largely successfully, IMO - in a very distinctive slightly updated style compared to Fleming. Moore got the short end of Fleming's œuvre, but definitely some of the best continuations, after a fashion.

Wood was more ambivalent about Fleming's books than out and out actually disliking them. I don't think anybody told Wood to write in Fleming's style. I suspect it seemed the natural thing to do. Having read Wood's "serious" semi-autobiographical novels, it wasn't that big a stretch. I for one would never have guessed that the author of "Make it Happen to Me" also wrote those Confessions books. Okay, the humor is similar but the writing style is not. Wood was a satirist - as was Kingsley Amis - and so there may be a natural tendency to ape another writer's style especially when said writer ("IF") has such a distinctive style.

Having re-read JB,TSWLM recently, I was struck by how closely Wood makes Bond resemble Fleming's own creation in the book's first half, but in the second half makes Bond more closely resemble Richard Stone, Wood's own alter-ego in his first two books, "Make it Happen to Me" and "Terrible Hard, Says Alice". In fact Bond in JBAMR feels like a hybrid of Roger Moore and Richard Stone, with only scant traces of Fleming's Bond.

In fact, the prose in those two novelizations isn't too far removed from what you'll find in Wood's first two serious novels - set in Africa and Cyprus, respectively - and the modern-day action adventure novels he published in the 1980's.

Besides, Wood himself liked the high life: the elegance, the glamour, living large. These two novelizations gave him the perfect outlet to explore this aspect of his own personality and psyche.

[Dustin]

Thanks for going into this detail, glidrose. You mentioned Woods own work in the past, now I really do have to track down those books and one of the 'Confessions' to get an idea.

It just struck me that on the whole Wood did a most remarkable job in merging that particular tone with some by and large pretty outlandish plots. Still my favourites as 'continuations' - though this now gets a bit sidetracked, sorry.

[David_M]

 

 

IIRC, ST:TMP made a boatload of money, but was so expensive (including the costs of a very long, tortuous development process) that it wasn't as profitable as it might have been.

 

I'd forgotten that part.  I think they rolled all the expenses of the on-again, off-again "Star Trek II" TV series (that never happened) into the budget for TMP.  Even so, I doubt it all added up to the catering budget for "Spectre."

 

 

 

I like many things about MR, which have been lauded by others on this thread. Someone mentioned the grouse-hunting scene, which I always considered fairly dumb (thought funny). They're on Drax's property, with the only witnesses Drax's employees--why hide someone in a tree? And why, when he fails to kill Bond, just let Bond drive away? It's the kind of "Because it's a Bond film" plotting that drives me nuts about some of the films of that era.

 

They're no less logical these days.  The only difference is that back then it was a case of "let's find a way to work in this cool scene, or this punch line, and logic be damned."  Today it's major plot points that make no sense.  Skyfall, in particular, is one epic, prolonged WTF in the plot department.

 

 

 

Just so. At the time the 'true' Bond fan largely defined himself as a fan of the Connery era - few even bothered with Lazenby - and of Fleming, up to a point.

 

This is the one thing I think it's hardest for me to convey to younger fans; that there was a time, not so long ago, when "James Bond" was NOT the eternal, immortal archetype screen hero guaranteed to survive longer than all of us.  At one point he was "that 60s phenomenon that didn't know when to quit,"  a franchise with its best days behind it already.  Everyone was waiting for that Blessed Day when Connery came back to reclaim the role, just as surely as they waited for the Beatles to finally announce that reunion tour.  Yes, "Wings" was okay to pass the time but only until Paul and John buried the hatchet. Roger Moore was okay at "keeping the seat warm," but everyone "knew" that the clock was ticking, the series was running out of steam and soon enough it would all be over.  We needed Connery to come back and save the franchise, or at least give it a proper ending.

 

Now everyone just takes it for granted that, barring an asteroid strike, Bond movies will just continue on past the current guy with some actor we don't even know yet, and eventually one who hasn't been born yet.  It's "Too Big To Fail."  In the 70s, it did't seem that way at all, at least from where I sat.  There were those of us (kids and the "great unwashed") who loved the Bond we had and those of us (old-timers, purists and snobs) who were holding out for the "real" Bond to come back.

 

The other thing that's hard to grasp now is that when all this played out, the franchise was still only a little more than a decade old.  

Edited by David_M, 01 February 2016 - 08:48 PM.

[Dustin]

I remember a ride in a streetcar, summer of 79, when we - a bunch of kids - just returned home from MOONRAKER, all of us quite out of our minds about the spectacle we had just seen and discussing the best bits of it. Two oldtimers (mid to late twenties I would say now) couldn't help but overhear our praise and became sidetracked in their own chitchat. Both agreed that Connery would be Bond forever and both admitted they had given up on the films, the one after LALD, the other even after DAF. None of them had even seen TSWLM, much less MR. For them the films had turned into a kids entertainment; not entirely unjustified perhaps.

[Revelator]

Also, lost in the mists of time, is that Moonraker actually got some good reviews. Frank Rich, then writing for Time, liked it. So did Vincent Canby for The New York Times

 

Canby also gave OHMSS a ludicrously vicious pan, so to hell with him.

 

I don't recall if Benson said NSNA was one of the best Bond films, but I do recall him claiming it would be the sort of Bond film Fleming would like--a real howler, since Fleming would abhor a renegade production from the hated McClory. I agree that NSNA was initially overrated by Connery fans, but it's now overwhelmingly execrated today. But if MR is being reevaluated, NSNA might as well enjoy the same treatment.

 

As for MR, I think it would be enormous fun for a 10 year old, and despite my advanced age it improved on the most recent viewing. However, the film has an air of lethargy that extends even to the performances (Lonsdale is so dry he's teak, while Chiles seems permanently drugged). There are two excellent action sequences--the pre-credits skydiving and the laser battle in space (silly as it is)--and two macabre ones--death-by-dog and the centrifuge. And I really like Binder's hypnotic titles. Barry's score is a little too slow and stately for me--its gravitas doesn't jell with the silliness that infects so much of the film.

[glidrose]

Thanks for going into this detail, glidrose. You mentioned Woods own work in the past, now I really do have to track down those books and one of the 'Confessions' to get an idea.

Sadly, his first two semi-autobiographical novels are out of print and have been so for many decades.

As for the "Confessions" books, I suspect that the first ("...Window Cleaner") may be the best of the lot. Avoid the ones by "Jonathan May". Some other chap wrote those after Wood jumped ship from Sphere to Futura (paperback publishers).

HarperCollins has ebooks available for £1.99 each.

http://www.harpercol...tor=timothy-lea

[David_M]

 

 

I agree that NSNA was initially overrated by Connery fans, but it's now overwhelmingly execrated today. But if MR is being reevaluated, NSNA might as well enjoy the same treatment.

 

Again, I think opinions are shaped by factors outside of the films themselves.  I'd bet a lot of the disdain for NSNA today has to do with its "rogue" status: made by McClory in an effort to usurp -- or at least bloody -- the beloved Eon franchise, and forerunner of numerous attempts at a rival Bond series...surely a bad thing, right?  Whereas in 1983 the same pedigree gave it the heroic appeal of pirate radio.  It was David to Eon's Goliath; if the official series continued to deny us Connery, well then we'd just have to support an unofficial one, wouldn't we?

 

NSNA always struck me as uninspired (or in fairness, legally hamstrung), with a decidedly low-rent feel compared to the Eon series, with almost a "made for TV" quality to it, but on the whole it's no worse than the worst "official" entries.  That said, I don't know that it will ever enjoy a "re-appraisal" since, more than any other Bond film, it's intrinsically tied to a specific moment in time.  In 1983, it was an event; today, you'd have to explain to a new viewer why everyone was so excited (and it had nothing to do with the film itself).  You kind of had to be there.

 

 

 

There are two excellent action sequences--the pre-credits skydiving and the laser battle in space (silly as it is)--and two macabre ones--death-by-dog and the centrifuge. 

 

You know, the laser battle never really impressed me that much, and it's not because it's "silly."  It's because Bond isn't in it.  It's like someone sat around thinking "How do we re-do the underwater fight from TB and make it even less involving for the viewer?"

 

 

 

Barry's score is a little too slow and stately for me--its gravitas doesn't jell with the silliness that infects so much of the film.

 

 

I feel just the opposite: I think the "gravitas" added by Barry's score saves the whole enterprise from collapsing under its own outlandishness.  The "Flight Into Space" track especially adds a grandeur that encourages the suspension of disbelief for long stretches of Derek Meddings' model work (which, while excellent even by modern standards, was not really what most viewers were expecting from a Bond film).  When the space station is revealed in the sunlight, it's an awesome moment.  We could probably make out the wires if we tried, but Barry made us WANT to believe it.  Compare it to the scene in "Goldeneye" when the satellite dish (more fine Meddings work) rises up from the lake to a big, fat, "So what," thanks to Eric Serra's underwhelming score.  The contrast between those two scenes demonstrates just how essential the right music can be to a scene.

 

Never once when watching MR in 1979 did I think the music was boring or sedate.  That didn't come until I bought the soundtrack album later that year, and thought to myself, "Wait, are we sure this is from the movie I saw? I'm pretty sure that was an exciting film..."  In the context of the movie, the score is perfect.  On its own I'm alternately enraptured or put to sleep, depending on my mood.  So anyway it's not one that gets a lot of play on car trips.

[DaveBond21]

 

 

 

I agree that NSNA was initially overrated by Connery fans, but it's now overwhelmingly execrated today. But if MR is being reevaluated, NSNA might as well enjoy the same treatment.

 

Again, I think opinions are shaped by factors outside of the films themselves.  I'd bet a lot of the disdain for NSNA today has to do with its "rogue" status: made by McClory in an effort to usurp -- or at least bloody -- the beloved Eon franchise, and forerunner of numerous attempts at a rival Bond series...surely a bad thing, right?  Whereas in 1983 the same pedigree gave it the heroic appeal of pirate radio.  It was David to Eon's Goliath; if the official series continued to deny us Connery, well then we'd just have to support an unofficial one, wouldn't we?

 

NSNA always struck me as uninspired (or in fairness, legally hamstrung), with a decidedly low-rent feel compared to the Eon series, with almost a "made for TV" quality to it, but on the whole it's no worse than the worst "official" entries.  That said, I don't know that it will ever enjoy a "re-appraisal" since, more than any other Bond film, it's intrinsically tied to a specific moment in time.  In 1983, it was an event; today, you'd have to explain to a new viewer why everyone was so excited (and it had nothing to do with the film itself).  You kind of had to be there.

 

 

 

 

NSNA was the first Bond movie I saw at the cinema. It was for my 9th birthday. Obviously my parents had a choice between that one and its rival Octopussy and chose NSNA. I didn't ask them at the time and they don't remember now. I wonder what made them choose it? Or maybe it was just showing times that influenced their decision.

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[David_M]

 

 

NSNA was the first Bond movie I saw at the cinema. It was for my 9th birthday. Obviously my parents had a choice between that one and its rival Octopussy and chose NSNA. I didn't ask them at the time and they don't remember now. I wonder what made them choose it? Or maybe it was just showing times that influenced their decision.

 

 

I'm pretty sure OP had left my local theaters by the time NSNA finally showed up in October  of '83, so the "Battle of the Bonds" never really happened in my neck of the woods.  That said, just a couple years earlier, "Raiders of The Lost Ark" had spent a whopping 6 months on local screens, and in '83 "Return of the Jedi" was in the process of doing the same, so I've no doubt your parents could've had a real choice between the Bonds for your birthday.

 

That said, given that OP got the jump on NSNA by several months, it's entirely possible the reason they chose the Connery film for you was because they'd already seen the Roger flic.

 

And for the record, any parents that would take you to a Bond for your 9th birthday are pretty cool.

[DaveBond21]

 

 

 

NSNA was the first Bond movie I saw at the cinema. It was for my 9th birthday. Obviously my parents had a choice between that one and its rival Octopussy and chose NSNA. I didn't ask them at the time and they don't remember now. I wonder what made them choose it? Or maybe it was just showing times that influenced their decision.

 

 

I'm pretty sure OP had left my local theaters by the time NSNA finally showed up in October  of '83, so the "Battle of the Bonds" never really happened in my neck of the woods.  That said, just a couple years earlier, "Raiders of The Lost Ark" had spent a whopping 6 months on local screens, and in '83 "Return of the Jedi" was in the process of doing the same, so I've no doubt your parents could've had a real choice between the Bonds for your birthday.

 

That said, given that OP got the jump on NSNA by several months, it's entirely possible the reason they chose the Connery film for you was because they'd already seen the Roger flic.

 

And for the record, any parents that would take you to a Bond for your 9th birthday are pretty cool.

 

 

 

Ha ha thanks. And yes, you could be right. Maybe Octopussy had already left theatres. I saw Return of the Jedi that year too.

[Revelator]

Again, I think opinions are shaped by factors outside of the films themselves.  I'd bet a lot of the disdain for NSNA today has to do with its "rogue" status: made by McClory in an effort to usurp -- or at least bloody -- the beloved Eon franchise, and forerunner of numerous attempts at a rival Bond series...surely a bad thing, right?  Whereas in 1983 the same pedigree gave it the heroic appeal of pirate radio.  It was David to Eon's Goliath; if the official series continued to deny us Connery, well then we'd just have to support an unofficial one, wouldn't we?

 

Good points. And NSNA certainly succumbs to lethargy by its climax. I'm slightly more optimistic that its reputation might slightly rise as sort of bootleg Bond. It has several great assets: Connery's warmest Bond performances, Klaus Maria Brandauer's Largo, and the greatest evil Bond girl, Carrera's Fatima Blush. Though there are no great action sequences,the motorbike chase coupled with Fatima's death is highly memorable. And I must confess to liking the video game scene--it's a neat way of updating the usual sports/gambling duel between Bond and the villain and the game itself now has a wacky retro glamour. The rest of the casino scene, with Bond breaking the bad news to Domino during a tango, is another highlight, a true "Let's Face the Music and Dance" moment. Anyway, I'm starting to highjack the thread so I'll stop discussing NSNA.

 

You know, the laser battle never really impressed me that much, and it's not because it's "silly."  It's because Bond isn't in it.  It's like someone sat around thinking "How do we re-do the underwater fight from TB and make it even less involving for the viewer?"

 

That's certainly a defect, though it doesn't reduce the technical impressiveness of the scene. And perhaps the silliness--the thousands of "pew-pew" lasers--even works in its favor. I might even backtrack and say that the weird dissonance between Barry's somber music and the gonzo visuals creates a compelling frisson.

[David_M]

I agree NSNA has its strong points, especially Brandauer: much as I enjoy the Moore era, it's really short on great villains, and this version of Largo, hammy as it is, is great fun.  I also agree Fatima is wonderful, with GE's Xenia a pale imitation.

 

I don't know that I'd agree there's no great action sequences.  Sean's fight with Pat Roach at Shrublands certainly isn't up there in Red Grant territory, but it felt pretty intense after all those years of Roger kicking people with his loafers while never mussing his hair.  Of course it's kind of ruined by the "pee" joke at the end, which leapfrogs over Moore into flat-out Benny Hill territory.

 

The video game bit seems incredibly short-sighted, but again it adds to the feel that this film was targeted at October 1983, with no pretense of lasting significance.

 

Back to MR's space battle, I think what marrs it for me is that the shuttle is so far off-scale.  It looks like they could maybe fit six to eight Marines in there -- sitting down -- and not the dozens we end up with.  But compare it to Medding's portrayals of astronaut EVA's just a few years earlier on the UFO television show, and you can see that the guy's skills were growing in leaps and bounds.  Or maybe it was just a matter of getting a proper budget for once.

[Revelator]

Of course it's kind of ruined by the "pee" joke at the end, which leapfrogs over Moore into flat-out Benny Hill territory.

 

I have another confession to make--I quite like that gag. It works for me because it's plausible and slightly macabre and nasty. And hey, urine in the eyes is a pretty good weapon, no matter who belongs to. The fact that Bond and his bodily fluids team up to defeat Lippe is weirdly funny. It's also set up earlier in the film, when the nurse asks for a urine sample and Connery says something like "now?" (or was it "here?").

[David_M]

She says, "Fill this beaker for me," and he answers, "From here?"  Which is not only Benny Hill-esque, it's actually FROM Benny Hill.  I've always hoped for an extended version where Bond chases the nurse around the examining room to the tune of "Yakety Sax."

 

I'm not saying I didn't laugh at the "pee" joke, myself, and Connery sells it with his incredulous scowl at the specimen jar ("Damn!  How unhealthy AM I, anyway?") before we learn the real cause of death.  I'm just saying that it keeps the fight from making into the Red Grant/Oddjob/Peter Franks pantheon.

 

NSNA is funny: it starts with the interesting premise of "what if Bond got old," trades on the "We got Connery back!" gimmick and even throws in a cameo by the Bentley.  Then it gets down to the business of trying to be a Roger Moore movie, and never looks back.

Edited by David_M, 03 February 2016 - 08:45 PM.