81 replies to this topic

[Pierce - Daniel]

Ater having recently watched DAF and expecting to hate it, and instead coming out excited and giddy, I decided to give another Bond film I'm not all to keen on another go. This time in the shape of Moonraker.
Well I've come to the conclusion that once again I was wrong, MR is really a great ride, tjose who cant see it for that are really acting foolishly.
first off the pre titles; the ariel stunts are stunning, i mean jaw dropping stuff to watch, I dont think I've seen such startling visuals in any film I've seen. The main titles are great as well and topped by a terrific song to boot.
The first thing I really love about the film is that it really spends it time establishing Drax, the whole first act is all about who the villian is and what he has acheived. It's a well done slow burn way of introducting the nasty, by the end of it you really want to know who Drax is. The sequence of Lonsdale playing the piano as Bond walks in is the best Bond villain introduction I think the series has ever had. The real strength of the film is that the first 2 acts are very much a detective story, this is most on show in the France set scenes. The whole opening dosent rely on big flashy action instead it has small creepy tight moments creating great degrees of tension, for instance Bond in the G-force machine (very well executed by Gilbert), the fessant shooting moment, and finnally Corrine's death (this is done with great potency, and really is a well done moment in the film).
Following this slow vurn introduction to Drax and his operation, the film is a nice little mystery thriller, if not slighly plodding. But regardless of this it is still interesting. One of the most striking things about the movie is how well Gilbery captures the locations, you really get transported to so many great locales and the shift in tone really takes you to that place and you get a sence of really getting all the bang for your buck.
Gilbert's direction is also very visual he really uses the locations well and nows exactly how to put the film together, creating something grand on spectaclar so such so that you dont even notice the story behind it. The script by Christoper Wood is also good, not brilliant, but good. Wood appears to implant a very dry humour into the film which is an interesting shift away from Mankiewicz zingy dialogue.
Roger is also very good and there are moments of real perfection, I find Roger excels in the moments of silence and 'spy' like sequences in the movie, he really is a very strong backhold for the film, and really carries the movie throughout, he never looks bored and the camera really loves him and Gilbert knows it, Roger works the close-up like its no ones business, a leading man through and through. Lonsdale is a great villian and really eats up the screen and clearly Wood saves the best lines for him, though Drax is so flaxed int he second and third acts, the amount fo times he attempts to have Bond killed and then for Bond to thrawt him is unprecedented, this is another example of plodding plot line. Chiles gives a nice 2D performance to a rather bland character, its shame considering how well developed Drax is for the Goodhead to be so dull.
The film does have alot of action, and most of it is great, the Venice boat chase is rather misplaced but its still great to actually see that a chase on the canal, something you dont see in every old action film out there and the Jungle boat chase is also stella. I really think the film excels int he smaller moments of action opposed to the bigger ones, Gilbert is albe to inject an element of tension opposed to the loud proud action sequences where you know Bond will be alright by the end of it.
Now on to space...I liked it. I know , I know, but hear me out. It looks so great I mean jaw droppingly great, i'd say better then CGI standards today, it is so amazing to watch that last action scene really sells the film to the audience as you really get what you paid for, the money is definetly on the screen. It is so awe-inspiring to watch and not to mention that John Barry theme underneath it all, it truly is something quite special to behold. All of this has to be taken into account, you really do need to take brain out gear to enjoy it all. But its such a well timed finale, as so much actually happens in those moments in space and it comes to a crux witht he globe shootout so well.
As mentioned Barry's score is top-notch and Adam's set designs are once again on form. It really is a great watch and I think if you really want a good romp and your moneys-worth an action film then MR really is your calling.

[zencat]

Bravo, Pierce - Daniel! But know you may be preaching to the converted. I think you will find MANY here in agreement. CBn is the home of the Moonraker renaissance and re-apprecation society.

[BoogieBond]

I am glad you appreciate MR more now, Pierce-Daniel, to me its the height of the epic Bond. It has its knockers, but as a movie going experience it is a great one for me.
You are right the Action is great and its really fantasy based OTT action(Cable Car fights, freefall fights etc), unlike the more recent gritty fare.
Taking the silliness in your stride and taking the good stuff, like Ken Adams sets especially Drax's Amazon hideout, John Barry's music, the visual effects, the quality of the production was very high, and you do get some stellar moments, "You missed Mr Bond", "Did I".

[Pierce - Daniel]

Bond does have some great lines, the film has one of my fav Bond lines 'How to do kill 5 hours in Rio if you dont Samba?'

[jrcjohnny99]

I'm a huge fan of Moonraker for many of the reasons you mentioned;
I believe if a few minor things had been trimmed (The end of Gondola chase, Dolly, space shootout) it would rank right up there for most Bond fans.
The first half of the movie is as good as any other Bond movie out there; I think with Spy and MR Gilbert did a hell of a job with the locations and slowly building great plots.
Technically it's probably the best of the whole series and the visual effects are top notch. Ken Adam and John Barry are at their very best (the score remains my joint fave along with Barry's OHMSS) and Tournier's photography is the best of the series bar none.
Truthfully it's a terrific movie with a bad rap, the humour is no more over the top than DAF or OP, Moore is outstanding and if it goes OTT, that's nothing the movies weren't doing for a decade and a half before MR.

[AMC Hornet]

Granted, I dis MR on occasion, but I don't hate it. I hate AVTAK. Moonraker I can enjoy for its parts - its only the sum I don't like.
MR has the right momentum to carry the action to its 'logical' conclusion, but you can tell that the script was written backwards ("what has to happen in order to end the film with a battle in space?"). If you put aside logic, logistics and physics and approach the film as a naive teenage Star Wars/Star Trek fan with no grounding in espionage or the real world, then this Bond was made for you.

The parts of MR that I like are the lushness of the cinematography, especially in Rio (where I had been two years earlier) and the second boat chase (love that Glastron Scimitar!). I even enjoy the audacity of the EVA battle, made even more bombastic by John Barry's epic score. It's just the ridiculous scale of everything that challenges my ability to suspend disbelief. Why pay to move a castle to California when you intend to take over the world anyway?

And what's all this talk about Drax's character? Nothing was said about his background apart from his being obsessed with the conquest of space. His megalomania becomes apparent, but as far as I can see all they did was take the neon sign that flashes 'villain' from wherever Curt Jurgens left it and put it around Michel Lonsdale's neck. If he'd at least selected only tall, blonde nordic types to repopulate the Earth we could assume he was some sort of neo-nazi, but the racial diversity of his crew makes me feel (in my more pessemistic moments) that he was onto something.

Some people call DAD Pierce Brosnan's MR. I disagree. DAD was his YOLT and MR is Roger Moore's YOLT - only more so.

Edited by AMC Hornet, 10 September 2010 - 05:15 PM.

[Safari Suit]

Actually these days I wonder if MR isn't one of the more popular films around these parts. Maybe contempt should simply be inferred on the part of most members, a kind of silent majority if you will, but MR actually seems to have more vocal fans here than most post-Thunderball (or even FRWL!), non-Casino Royale (2006, natch) efforts.

[Bryce (003)]

Bravo, Pierce - Daniel! But know you may be preaching to the converted. I think you will find MANY here in agreement. CBn is the home of the Moonraker renaissance and re-apprecation society.

What he said and I echo. Zencat and I have been the proud defenders for many years and nobody talks any smack on our watch. Yes, some have and to each their own, but just not to our faces.

Wonderful bit there Pierce-Daniel and thank you.

[zencat]

Dumping on Moonraker is old school dogma -- the kind of thing you read in Entertainment Weekly. It's lazy pre-packaged Bond "expertise". "It's just a rip-off of Star Wars, you know!" Yeah, yeah, yeah. When I hear that from a "Bond fan", I know I'm either talking to an old stuck in his ways, a new punk who hasn't learned to form his own opinions, or someone who is faking it and doesn't know jack about 007. If you think you hate MR, watch it again. And if you watch it for the first time and question why you don't hate it like Entertainment Weekly says you should -- know that YOU are right.

But even if you truly don't like it (and admittedly the silly humor does go way too far in spots), as a true Bond fan you've gotta at least appreciate the Ken Adam sets, John Barry score, and the pure Cubby Broccoli audacity and scope of the movie. This is when Bond was BOND. It's the '70s Thunderball. Not nearly as good as it's trendsetting predecessor, but such a celebration of the 007 phenomena of the day, how can a true fan not dig it on some level? Also, in this era of some very poorly crafted scripts, Moonraker's clear concise storytelling and wit has only made it BETTER. And the special effects are stunning and still hold up today. And it did not end the series, nor send it spiraling into camp, so you can relax your purist assault. The purists won. We got back to the "serious" 007 (and how ).

The men who made Moonraker were the Gods of the Bond series working at the top of their game during a magic time in Cinema history. Just one of many reasons I love the RAKE!

[Bryce (003)]

Dumping on Moonraker is old school dogma -- the kind of thing you read in Entertainment Weekly. It's lazy pre-packaged Bond "expertise". "It's just a rip-off of Star Wars, you know!" Yeah, yeah, yeah. When I hear that from a "Bond fan", I know I'm either talking to an old stuck in his ways, a new punk who hasn't learned to form his own opinions, or someone who is faking it and doesn't know jack about 007. If you think you hate MR, watch it again. And if you watch it for the first time and question why you don't hate it like Entertainment Weekly says you should -- know that YOU are right.

But even if you truly don't like it (and admittedly the silly humor does go way too far in spots), as a true Bond fan you've gotta at least appreciate the Ken Adam sets, John Barry score, and the pure Cubby Broccoli audacity and scope of the movie. This is when Bond was BOND. It's the '70s Thunderball. Not nearly as good as it's trendsetting predecessor, but such a celebration of the 007 phenomena of the day, how can a true fan not dig it on some level? Also, in this era of some very poorly crafted scripts, Moonraker's clear concise storytelling and wit has only made it BETTER. And the special effects are stunning and still hold up today. Also, it did not end the series nor send it spiraling into camp, so you can relax your purist assault. The purists won. We got back to the "serious" 007 (and how ).

The men who made Moonraker were the Gods of the Bond series working at the top of their game. Just one of many reasons I love the RAKE!

I was just re-reading the post I was drafting, but you summed it up old buddy. So all I can do now is chime in. Well done!

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

But even if you truly don't like it (and admittedly the silly humor does go way too far in spots), as a true Bond fan you've gotta at least appreciate the Ken Adam sets, John Barry score, and the pure Cubby Broccoli audacity and scope of the movie. This is when Bond was BOND. It's the '70s Thunderball. Not nearly as good as it's trendsetting predecessor, but such a celebration of the 007 phenomena of the day, how can a true fan not love it? Also, in this era of some very poorly crafted scripts, Moonraker's clear concise storytelling and wit has only made it BETTER. And the special effects are stunning and still hold up today. And it did not end the series, nor send it spiraling into camp, so you can relax your purist assault. The purists won. We got back to the "serious" 007 (and how ).

I agree with this as well.
I love MR it's brilliant. It just gets on with it and entertains in spades. It's confident and doesn't worry what it's doing. The calibre of people behind the camera is as impressive as ANY film could wish for and Moore is the leading 70's man.

[Genrewriter]

I definitely love the movie more than I used to. For all the silliness, it's still a pretty damn cool flick.

[Colossus]

TMWTGG-TSWLM-Moonraker is Moore at the top of his game.

[Loomis]

Dumping on Moonraker is old school dogma -- the kind of thing you read in Entertainment Weekly.

Well, to be fair, the old school Bond fans also ripped on MOONRAKER. Raymond Benson absolutely eviscerates it in his BEDSIDE COMPANION.

Me, I'm more than happy to be "wrong" on MOONRAKER (and THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN). It's a splendid flick, and indeed I find it a more entertaining watch than the more critically-praised SPY WHO LOVED ME.

[Colossus]

When i was younger before any reviews or internet or anything i thought Golden Gun was absolutely mesmerizing and entrancing and very stylish and TSWLM to be this corny hokey @$$ movie with toy figures in boats, cheesy music and a villain who looked absolutely plastered, now though i DO like TSWLM but i like Golden Gun even more!

[Dr. Metz]

The funny thing is, my Moonraker Blu-Ray came in the mail today, so i watched it again, and I found it to be a very fun film, and probably one of the best 70's bond films. While some bond fans say the movie is bad, i only found a couple of things annoying, and one of them was very minor. Roger Moore is in his own in this film, and this is probably his one of his best bond films performance-wise. The wise cracks/one liners are pretty funny most of the time, and he pulls them off very well. It also never really bothered me that they went into space. I found the space station scenes to be some of the most intresting in the film, and considering the movie really didn't follow the novel anyway, why not go with it? It wasn't as cheesy as everyone says, trust me. The score was haunting and beautiful at the same time, something only Barry could do. I also love the lazer gun, i still cant get the sound of it out of my head.

Edited by Dr. Metz, 10 September 2010 - 10:06 PM.

[AMC Hornet]

My opinion of Golden Gun and SPY have never changed - I loved them then, and I love them now. Last time I watched GG I even forgave the return of Sherrif Pepper (I was half plastered at the time). Moreover, my regard for TB, OHMSS, DAF, LALD, OP and DAD remains unshaken - I love them as well.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Well, to be fair, the old school Bond fans also ripped on MOONRAKER. Raymond Benson absolutely eviscerates it in his BEDSIDE COMPANION.

From what I remember although Benson made some good points when he wrote that book he passed a far too critical eye on the series in general IMO. A film like MR is every inch the cinematic James Bond because it is an EXPERTLY made romp and something the public liked and remembered. Fair enough that it may not be every one's cup of tea, but ask anyone over a certain age about the film where Bond went into space with Jaws and they will instantly recognise the movie, and films that resonate like this must surely help sustain the series popularity.



I don't know if I would put MR over SPY, although I'd definitely put GG over it. I think I will like SPY more when it's (eventually) released on BR. If it's as good as the MR transfer I hope it will completely transform how I rate the film.

[Guy Haines]

As a film there is quite a lot that's right about MR. Lois Chiles is an improvement on Barbara Bach as the leading lady. Michael Lonsdale is a convincing villain - what a convincing Blofeld he might have made in a different movie. The locations are indeed stunning. In their day the special effects were very good. Roger Moore's Bond is as good as in his previous three films. The centrifuge scene is impressive, as is the soft focus murder of Corrine.

But for me, I regret to say, that is about it. I don't "hate" MR. I just think it could have been so much better if a different approach had been taken. Such as - if he had to return - keeping the Jaws character as a menacing henchman instead of the cartoonish, and later on lovesick individual he became. Filming the Venice boat chase as a boat chase instead of an excuse for obvious visual gags and inappropriate music cues. And - in a film described as "science fact not science fiction" - having some other way of taking on the bad guys in space besides firing laser hand guns.

Also - at that time, the late 1970s, a "Bond in space" film was, I suppose, almost inevitable. I just think it is a pity they chose the Moonraker novel as its basis. You might argue, well, why not, it was one of Fleming's most science fiction orientated stories. I just wish the film makers had left it alone. Cubby Broccoli, contemptously, called it a story about a "piddling little rocket". Call me old fashioned or alarmist but such a story about a nuclear weapon aimed at London is disturbing even now. A perfectly good film could have been made around the original Fleming novel. Another unused Fleming title could have been adopted for a Bond in space film, or they could have invented one. (YOLT the novel had nothing to do with the 1960s space race, yet somehow a screenplay was written around it, and still included the Japanese locations, leading lady and chief villain.)

I wanted to see on screen how the film makers would have Bond and Gala Brand tackle Sir Hugo Drax and his nuclear terrorism plan disguised as philanthropy. Unless the films are re-made around the Fleming novels I doubt I will ever see it. Pity.

Anyway, as they say in my neck of the woods, that's my two penneth. I don't think I'm "acting foolishly". I'm just adding some praise and some constructive criticism.

Edited by Guy Haines, 10 September 2010 - 11:47 PM.

[Lachesis]

I'm not sure any Bond is worthy of hate and its always nice to see folks find a way to enjoy something they previous could not, for myself TMWTGG is the only one I struggle to find anything positive to say about it... but even that had Christopher Lee so that offers hope for one day finding some appeal...mybe?

Hope you continue to be pleasently surprised by the overlooked gems in Bonds canon

[Turn]

I hate to admit that "old school dogma" Zencat mentioned was prevelant 30 years ago and it wasn't until about 10 years ago or so MR starting getting the love it deserved.

Sadly, I was dissuaded by it for a time. Seeing MR on the big screen in 1979 turned me from a casual Bond fan into the rabid fan I am today. I loved the film, and considering I was 12 that summer it had all the ingredients a kid that age would be attracted to. Although I'd always liked Bond movies and watched almost every new one in a cinema or when they were on ABC, I was losing the love, skipping FRWL without a care on a rerun earlier that year.

Then came MR and my interest jumped big time. When the first wave of books about the films came out in the early '80s, John Brosnan's James Bond in the Cinema and Steven Jay Rubin's The James Bond Films, the anti-MR sentiment began.

Brosnan called it "the most expensive slapstick since It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" and Rubin called the film a result of The Harry Houdini Syndrome, please the audience at all costs and said the film borrowed from previous films for most of its sequences (TSWLM did just as much, if not more, though).

The previously mentioned Raymond Benson said in The James Bond Bedside Companion called MR "the least artistically successful film in the series" as well as saying it had the most absurd and slapstick humor in the series.

It was reading these types of comments that made me question my enjoyment of MR and for a long time began to dismiss it, although I never let such views diminish my love for DAF. The consistent theme those writers were harkening back to the early days of the series, claiming Bond was a non participant in the film and all seemed thrilled with what FYEO set out to accomplish.

By contrast, I find FYEO to be dull and full of as many, if not more, borrowed or recreated scenes than MR had.

Even by 1992 when Lee Pfeiffer and Philip Lisa released The Incredible World of 007 in 1992 they claimed MR rivaled TMWTGG for the least sayisfying entry in the series and also trotted out the criticisms the other three did. However, they differ in admitting it has many positive aspects and is never dull, also praising Michael Lonsdale and, shockingly, Moore for certain moments such as the shooting scene at the Drax estate.

By the time Kiss Kiss Bang Bang by Alan Barnes and Marcus Hearn came out in the late '90s, the MR revival was underway. Each of the categories they ranked got 3, 4 or 5 stars, save for the Bond character and teaser, which both earned 2 each (although I can't understand how they can underrate that teaser). The film itself got 3 stars, seeing it as epic entertainment.

I too have regained my enjoyment of MR as great Bond entertainment in recent years and am glad I have. There's nothing wrong with have a great time with an MR and still say you can be thrilled by FRWL, OHMSS or CR.

[zencat]

Good summation there, Turn.

To be fair to those great pioneer Bond scholars, they were writing in the late 70s and early 80s and a lot of their criticisms/observations about Moonraker in comparison to the rest of the series up to that time have validity. They're also all Connery partisans.

[Matt_13]

Terribly underrated movie. One of Moore's best and one of the most entertaining in the series. The hate leveled against it is so ridiculous, though you'll seldom see that hate on CBn.

[sharpshooter]

It’s just accepted that everybody hates Moonraker. If you dislike Moonraker, you’re a member of the honorable and right task force. You know, because it’s so camp and an embarrassment to the Bond name.

Well, I say this to those folks. You don’t get it. Slamming the comic book aspects misses the point. Don't be so self conscious. I have always enjoyed Moonraker and I take it for the entertainment it is.

Seriously, it's been roasted more than OHMSS. And both times the roastings have been absurd and uncalled for. Their loss, not mine. It's one hell of a good Bond movie.

[Colossus]

There has been an increase in positive MR threads lately. And this is THE most fun Bond movie and not the big thread on OP that was on here.

[Guy Haines]

Are you sure that MR is the most "fun" Bond film? I was under the impression that it was Casino Royale - 1967 David Niven/Peter Sellers version, of course. Well, the cast seemed to be having fun, anyway (whether the audience did is another matter entirely - I know of someone who, when it was shown on ITV recently, tried to watch it and turned it off after five minutes.)

I've taken aim and fired at some of the excesses of MR on this site, but compared to CR 1967, MR is a model of restraint!

[Turn]

Are you sure that MR is the most "fun" Bond film? I was under the impression that it was Casino Royale - 1967 David Niven/Peter Sellers version, of course. Well, the cast seemed to be having fun, anyway (whether the audience did is another matter entirely - I know of someone who, when it was shown on ITV recently, tried to watch it and turned it off after five minutes.)

I've taken aim and fired at some of the excesses of MR on this site, but compared to CR 1967, MR is a model of restraint!

If you go by one popular thread here in the Moore section, Octopussy is considered teh most fun Bond film.

[AMC Hornet]

Moonraker was a great spoof, made by the people best qualified to satirize the Bond series. Far more enjoyable than '67's Casino Royale, at times Moonraker almost passes for a legitimate entry, then veers off into brilliant self-parody.

Without Moonraker, the wow finish in TSWLM would have been difficult to top. As it is, FYEO didn't have to try; it took advantage of the opportunity to have a refreshingly modest climax, allowing OP's finale - though more modest in scale compared to TSWLM's - to top that of its immediate predecessor.

People who compare DAD to MR unfavourably are doing DAD a disservice. DAD is an homage, not a parody.

[zencat]

People who compare DAD to MR unfavourably are doing DAD a disservice. DAD is an homage, not a parody.

Hey, that's an interesting observation. I'm going to think on that one for a spell.

[jaguar007]

I guess I'm going to have to rain a little on the MR lovefest. I don't hate MR by any means, in fact I loved it when I was 11 years old in 1979. My biggest problem with the movie is not the cheesiness or outer space battle (although it does bother me a bit) but that they Drax is so damned stupid for such a smart guy. Bond visits Drax at the beginning of his investigation, Drax is not yet a suspect. However Drax tells Chang "Make sure some harm comes to Mr. Bond" WHILE ON DRAX's PROPERTY! As I mentioned, Drax was not yet a suspect, well something happening to Bond sure would make Drax (or someone at Drax industries) a suspect. Why would Drax want to call that attention to himself??? It also has far too many scenes put in the film just for the sake of adding a scene that does nothing to further the plot (all Bond movies are guilty of this, but MR does it in a bit of excess).

That said, it is a fun romp not to be taken seriously and is a very well made film. Technically the crew were at the top of their game.