57 replies to this topic

[Colossus]

Just was thinking how no one can just agree what the best Bond movie is: is it frwl? ohmss? gf? cr? Or quintessential , dn? gf? tswlm? ge? Every Bond you tout as something someone else comes in saying why it's not quite the best…. this is where Moonraker comes in. The worst someone says about this one is that it is "over the top". Except when someone says this about another Bond movie, like Goldfinger being over the top, this is an apparent reaction against the more down to earth Dr. No or FRWL, or Goldeneye when it is compared to the "down to earth" Daltons, while those better movies face their own never-ending circle of which is better of them.

 

About the other over the top movies, they all also have something to "prove", Goldfinger was trying to top its predecessors as really only the 3rd Bond but now since everyone sees how those predecessors needed no topping, so it is currently mired in this Bond-swamp now amongst us (and also reactionary against being "Best Bond Movie ™" by the public). It was also coming on the heels of "it could do no wrong" as only the 3rd Bond, Thunderball suffers the same fate of an endless tug of war between whether it's as good as FRWL or just secretly GF in FRWL's clothing, and again "could do no wrong" as just the 4th movie. YOLT's critique is heavily reactionary-caused, as it is going against ALL the 60s Bonds as way too OTT and not quite like them, not falling in line with them.

Then you come to the struggle … of the Moores, TSWLM was the ONE that people agree he finally assumed something, and it was also acting a bit against the previous two as trying to make this actor call something its own. The movie is still trying to figure out things on its own, even though it succeeds. It is the obligatory movie that "cements" the actor that he is here to stay. Then comes Moonraker in probably the most unique moment in time for any Bond -- this is before the series got "serious" as a knee-jerk reaction against its excesses [the whole Dalton-Brosnan-Craig era which is like one long Arthurian epoch lol of trying to reach nobility] for 3 reasons:

1. It is not trying to live up to anything, not reacting against anything, at all.
I basically went through all of this in the previous posts, but Moore is given one movie time, right after he finally proved himself in TSWLM and now the series is in this zen state of mind, and before the series would react against itself. The series is now the late 70s, the series has found its foundation, went through born iconistry over a decade ago, went through its "new actor" hurdles already while it grew up, and now the latest actor had cemented himself with his previous movie, now the previous movies already showed it can be serious, it can be zany so there was no shock factor. I guess Star Wars that is merely the laser shootout. But then again Star Wars is credited with "making movies fun again" and Moonraker was the only Bond movie that prospered from this, literally they instantaneously left this with FYEO and that was in prime SW mania! There was topic here once that said "Is Octopussy the most fun Bond?" and many in there actually said Moonraker was the most fun, and they were right! 

 

2. It achieves probably the only equilibrium and balance of over the top. 

This movie cannot be called shamelessly OTT, it was so wholly OTT, and was so confident in its OTT, it believed in itself so much without 1 nanosecond of any second guessing or insecurity, that because of this everything about it just seems so true. It is in this self-made universe where a winking pigeon is treated as pretty normal even. That is how hiddenly strong the world is in this movie. When a talking pigeon was attempted in LTK - it felt as brutally out of place. DAF's craziness reaches parody levels, it is just winking and laughing at itself [yet Connery is owed one of these against his 60s seriousness], however it is not like Moonraker. Moonraker was never laughing at itself -- however unreal and insanely crazy some of the things in this movie were, they were sincere to the utmost of the word. 

Now even the Moore movies after this one, firstly FYEO was extraordinarily reactionary against it; ultra serious, they became too insecure and thought "oh crap what were we thinking", then OP weirdly went off being OTT again but it didn't let go and still remained not quite knowing what was going on, and tried to reel it in. 

 

3. Timing: this is purely luck factor but luck belongs in here too, before the series started to get revisionist against itself, and before other movies so strongly would react against it even, there was given one movie window of opportunity; Moore was the Bond in this time, the most unflappable -- what did Moore have that was SOOO beloved by the producers ? What was his hidden uniqueness? I cannot describe but only every moment of him in this movie is why, he is basically walking on top of the world in his form. Every other of his Bond movies, there are glimmers and figments of other Bond actors, you could say "oh this guy could have done this scene i see it", none in Moonraker, it his him in his most purest of essence, he goes "fuggit, this is just me guys". No other time could a movie like this be made, definitely not in this day and age. Even Die Another Day could not pull it off as it still lapsed into moments of seriousness and "drama". Moonraker was given free reign with itself -- there are moments in here that are surreal in a good way, the whole Cowboys arriving on horseback, the coffin attackers, even Moore accidentally killing the scientists and reacting by merely looking confused at the canister, Moore shooting Drax's henchman in front of him just driving off, the opening, the cable cars. And they're not treated as "this is us being serious" or "this is being zany and crazy", but just "this is just this". Only in the late 70s this could occur, before the cold war made things more serious in the 80s. Could the series still achieve a Moonraker? Yes actually! I am an optimist, even though we are currently mired in the "darkness is good" phase of movies -- there will be as perfect a movie as Moonraker, but the timing will be there when one will be wholly and truly over the top without pulling any stops.

Best movie of 1979, alien? apocalypse now? no i'll just take Moonraker thanks. Moonraker, an anomaly of the entire series and probably the best Bond movie because of this.

I leave just this, #9 18:04 on this person's top 25 Bond moments and leave it at that:
https://www.youtube....h?v=RNLLPbMThGM

[Grard Bond]

Well, it's certainly MY favorite Bondmovie.

It's the most spectaculair of them all. Moore is at his best, he's looking the part perfectly (in Spy he looks sometimes too young, in the next one sometimes too old).

His acting is great, whatever happens he stays believable as Bond.

It's beautifull shot all around the world and also has a terrific score from John Barry.

Micheal Lonsdale is an exellent villian, one of the best, maybe the best since Gert Frobe as Goldfinger.

Yes, I realy love it and can watch it everyday. It never becomes boring.

 

Great movie and ofcourse: it's out of this world!

[AMC Hornet]

CC'd from my post about 'How to Write a Professional Bond Movie Review":

 

Moonraker: If you don’t like Bond films generally, then this is the one you refer to as a ‘typical’ entry. If you’re a Star Wars fanboy, it’s the best of the lot. It was either side-splittingly funny – as a Bond film should be – or a cringe-inducing embarrassment. Winking pigeons (see YOLT re: use of plurals). Drax best villain since Goldfinger. Jaws was either cute and endearing or a cartoon.

[Colossus]

Hm never did realize this is for the general public. Waitaminute there was a winking pigeon in YOLT??

[Turn]

Colossus, good stuff; one of the most interesting thread topics in a while.

 

MR is the film that took me from casual Bond fan to Bond fanatic after seeing it in the summer of '79. I saw it sadly maligned for several years after, but I've always enjoyed it for what it is. It's a film that never fails to entertain me and one that doesn't make me question the numerous outrageous things going on the way something like YOLT does.

[plankattack]

I've got to say, MR is always somewhere near the bottom for me but........

But I'll say this for it - it is perhaps one of the few Bond films that is truly comfortable in it's own skin. It knows what it is - OTT, slightly inane, tongue firmly-in-cheek. It's doesn't want to be anything else, it doesn't try to be anything else, it doesn't have pretensions beyond its station. It knows that it's part caper, part epic-spectacular, part groaning humor.

I'll give it that, though I still find those contrasts a problem for me, but that's on me, not MR. And Colossus, I hand it to you, for making the case!!!

[Colossus]

Thanks Turn, this'll be enough for me, my load for the next months lol.

Thanks plank it appeared that there were always nuggets of commending on the boards one here and there, that i had to just encapsulate it in a euphoric sense the way when watching this flick…. this freewheeling euphoria.

[Guy Haines]

MR isn't the greatest Bond film ever, imho, but then again I'm not sure there is such a film. All the Bond movies have their pros and cons, and I'm not sure one can give an objective view, at least if you are a fan. Your "greatest film ever" tends to come from the era you first started watching the Bonds, and everything else after that is measured against it and sometimes found wanting (Or before that if, say, you've come into Bond post Connery or Moore and are playing catch up.)

 

Film critics try to be objective, but too often in decades of Bond watching and reading the reviews I've noticed that they, too have their prejudices - during the 70s and 80s it seemed some of them sorely missed Sean Connery. One film I can recall being praised to the skies was TLD - in 1987 at least. But read the pocket review of it in The Radio Times now and the critic gives it two out of five and complains that Timothy Dalton "phones in" his performance as Bond. So much for that as Bond's greatest film!

 

The Craig era has produced two movies - CR and SF - which have been hailed as the greatest. But who is to say that verdict will stand the test of time? And as for the subject of this thread - MR - it has its good points, mainly in the very good leading cast and the special effects, but its humour is way too much for me. One thing I will say now is that the time for a MR based on the novel was past by the time it was filmed. Given the backstory of the Second World War, the best time to have produced a film like the book would have been the early to mid 1960s, but it didn't happen.

 

Who knows what "Bond 24" will turn out to be, or what a new era with a new man as Bond will reveal? So, is there a greatest Bond film ever? Reminds me of Chou En Lai's comment about whether the French revolution had been a success - "It's too early to tell."

[hilly]

For me, it isn't one of the greats.

Lewis Gilbert has stated that, after the success of TSWLM, the studio wanted the nearest thing to it, without it being direct plagiarism (although at times it gets close). 

In his defence, Broccoli never shied away from admitting that they were cashing in on Star Wars, but, in trying to combine the successful elements of TSWLM with the science fiction of Star Wars, they managed to produce a movie which didn't manage to emulate either.

 

The pros are Roger, the sheer scale of the production, the soundtrack, some of the set-pieces ( the PTS, the centrifuge trainer, death of Corinne.)..and the bizarre inclusion of Alfie Bass in Venice!

 

The cons include the slow pace at times, the pointless return of Jaws, the laboured humour, the blatant re-tread of TSWLM at times and some seriously bad performances (Corinne, Manuela)

[AMC Hornet]

Hm never did realize this is for the general public. Waitaminute there was a winking pigeon in YOLT??

Also CC'd from 'How to Write a Professional Bond Movie Review" :

 

N.B.: When mentioning OTT elements (or lack thereof), be sure to pluralize those elements (e.g.: ‘hollowed-out volcanoes, invisible cars, etc.

 

(As if one of any of them wasn't enough.)

 

BTW, all henchmen are mute.

[New Digs]

But I'll say this for it - it is perhaps one of the few Bond films that is truly comfortable in it's own skin. It knows what it is - OTT, slightly inane, tongue firmly-in-cheek. It's doesn't want to be anything else, it doesn't try to be anything else, it doesn't have pretensions beyond its station. It knows that it's part caper, part epic-spectacular, part groaning humor.

I agree. For me, the main attraction of the film is its self confidence. You don't sense there were any deliberations about the approach of Moonraker given the film is such a spectacular entertainment production. The talent, particularly behind the camera, was staggering. I don't think umpteen films like Moonraker would sustain the series, but as the original poster mentioned, it was the perfect film for the time.  

[Janus Assassin]

Moonraker sits at #5 on my list. it always has been one of my favourite Moore films. I had LALD at number 5 for awhile, then I watched Moonraker a few times and realized that it is one of my favourites.

[glidrose]

Yes, it was the perfect film for its time. And it still works. Definitely in my top five. Dunno what Hilly means when he says "slow pace". This film's got solid pacing. It also oozes confidence, something the series hadn't had since at least DAF.

[hilly]

For me, the fight around an on the space station has exactly the same effect as the underwater fights at the end of Thunderball... Both slow the pace, as they are hampered by their respective environments ( underwater and zero gravity)
I also find that the boat/hang glider chase goes on a bit.

[glidrose]

For me, the fight around an on the space station has exactly the same effect as the underwater fights at the end of Thunderball... Both slow the pace, as they are hampered by their respective environments ( underwater and zero gravity)
I also find that the boat/hang glider chase goes on a bit.

Never understood either argument about space/water fights.

While the boat/hang glider chase is not the film's best sequence - it's merely okay - if you want something that goes on a bit try the car chase in TSWLM. Could have chopped the entire never-ending sequence from the film and nothing would have been lost.

[BoogieBond]

Yes, I am rather fond of old MR. It fits the old formula, it is the perfect example of an epic Bond film. It is glamorous locations, girls, gadgets, great stunts and action sequences, some of them pretty ambitious(and not all of them come off) All topped off with Ken Adam's sets and John Barry music. I gotta say I do turn off a bit after about 90 minutes, and I know its silly, but I just don't care. Watching it is pure escapism.

[SirCliff]

Have to say i agree with much of what has been said as moonraker relishes in the humour elements and fully commits to them. There are some stand out moments in the film i love too. The clay pigeon shoot, the pre titles, the cable car.

BUT....for me the film just seems like several interconnected action scenes and yes i think the humour elements do go too far. So for me personally it is one of weaker films.

However i admire the case you're all making for a much maligned Bond movie : )

[AMC Hornet]

If only the plot and narrative had been geared towards an audience over the age of 12....

[Guy Haines]

A film geared for over 12 year olds could have been made out of MR with not much tweaking. Restrain the at times broad, slapstick visual humour, use Jaws a bit more sparingly, drop the love interest for him - and drop the gondola-hovercraft vehicle. In fact, was there any reason for Bond to go to Venice at all in the film? Drax's secret laboratory could have been anywhere in the world. I'm not sure how the space battle scene could have been handled differently - hand to hand combat in bulky space suits would be difficult, I'd have thought. But something not involving hand held laser guns could have been dreamt up.

 

Moonraker is an improvement on TSWLM in one respect - Drax has at least thought through how he's going to re-populate Earth, even though the gene pool seems relatively small and overwhelmingly white (As someone commented about this in a retrospective about Bond decades later - "how very Nazi!" - and you can see how the Nazi element from the book has been included, albeit in a rather different way. Perhaps this could have been taken further - Drax praising Hitler for example, and saying that he too needs living space - Earth - for his master race.)

[Grard Bond]

In The Netherlands this month is a James Bond marathon on Dutch television, from Dr. No to LtK. and last evening they aired Moonraker. Although I have all films in different formats I couldn't resist and watched it on TV. It realy was an enjoy again. What a great, fun and exicting movie. Moore is brilliant in it! Yeah, it realy is my favorite!

[Colossus]

 

Hm never did realize this is for the general public. Waitaminute there was a winking pigeon in YOLT??

Also CC'd from 'How to Write a Professional Bond Movie Review" :

 

N.B.: When mentioning OTT elements (or lack thereof), be sure to pluralize those elements (e.g.: ‘hollowed-out volcanoes, invisible cars, etc.

 

(As if one of any of them wasn't enough.)

 

BTW, all henchmen are mute.

 

Even friggin Chang, who btw was the most blatantly evil henchman even when they're standing around speaking with Bond. He just ogled everyone evilly which was friggin HILARIOUS.

[triviachamp]

I'm not sure that you can claim MR is not reacting or living up to anything when the film is clearly a cash-in on Star Wars.

 

I would assume Drax's Nazi sentiments were toned down because it wouldn't be very fun if it were made explicit.

 

One thing I don't like is how lazy the set-up is with Bond going to Drax's estate for no reason and Drax trying to kill him for no reason. I mean Bond hadn't even found anything. I notice that the detective work of the early Bond films were forgotten in later films in order to ramp up the spectacle. It's also true that the narrative seems to be a bunch of setpieces loosely tied together which however could be said for a lot of (all?) Bond films. Bit too much of Bond going from A to B to C to D.

 

And can someone explain why a flight going from LA to England would be flying over the Yukon?

[Janus Assassin]

 

 

Hm never did realize this is for the general public. Waitaminute there was a winking pigeon in YOLT??

Also CC'd from 'How to Write a Professional Bond Movie Review" :

 

N.B.: When mentioning OTT elements (or lack thereof), be sure to pluralize those elements (e.g.: ‘hollowed-out volcanoes, invisible cars, etc.

 

(As if one of any of them wasn't enough.)

 

BTW, all henchmen are mute.

 

Even friggin Chang, who btw was the most blatantly evil henchman even when they're standing around speaking with Bond. He just ogled everyone evilly which was friggin HILARIOUS.

 

 

Didn't Chang have a speaking line?

[AMC Hornet]

 

Didn't Chang have a speaking line?

 

That's the point: a lot of film critics assume that all henchmen are mute, so it simply doesn't register with them when someone like Gobinda speaks in both English and Urdu, or when Loque mutters something to Kriegler, then screams as he's pushed off a cliff. I don't doubt that there are some who assume that Patrice was mute, simply because he had no lines (although if he did, he would still be assumed by many to be mute, because everyone knows that all Bond henchmen are mute).

[glidrose]

he would still be assumed by many to be mute, because everyone knows that all Bond henchmen are mute.

Boris in GoldenEye was mute, right? I win the prize! I win the prize! I named the most mute henchman!

[Double-Oh Agent]

 

 

Didn't Chang have a speaking line?

 

That's the point: a lot of film critics assume that all henchmen are mute, so it simply doesn't register with them when someone like Gobinda speaks in both English or Urdu, or when Loque mutters something to Kriegler, then screams as he's pushed off a cliff. I don't doubt that there are some who assume that Patrice was mute, simply because he had no lines (although if he did, he would still be assumed by many to be mute, because everyone knows that all Bond henchmen are mute).

 

Yes he did. Chang spoke to Dr. Holly Goodhead at the Moonraker facility informing her that Hugo Drax wanted to see her. But AMC Hornet's right about casual film fans/critics assuming most, if not all, 007 henchmen are mute.

[rubixcub]

Still my favorite to watch for sheer fun and escapism, though I acknowledge its flaws (mainly: under-utilization of Bond himself, flat performances from many of the Bond girls, and some very corny & poorly done effects).  I also appreciate the scale, the look of the film, the design from Ken Adam (among his best), the locations and how well they were used, and one of the best villains in the series.  Great way to spend a Friday night, IMO.

 

Dave

Edited by rubixcub, 27 May 2014 - 02:04 AM.

[tdalton]

I would definitely rank Moonraker as one of the most underrated entries in the franchise, just behind Licence to Kill and Quantum of Solace.  As for it being the best, I can't go that far, but it generally hovers somewhere around #10-13 on my list.  It's certainly not one of the worst films in the franchise, as many like to label it.

[RedsBaron]

 

One thing I don't like is how lazy the set-up is with Bond going to Drax's estate for no reason and Drax trying to kill him for no reason. I mean Bond hadn't even found anything. I notice that the detective work of the early Bond films were forgotten in later films in order to ramp up the spectacle. It's also true that the narrative seems to be a bunch of setpieces loosely tied together which however could be said for a lot of (all?) Bond films. Bit too much of Bond going from A to B to C to D.

 

And can someone explain why a flight going from LA to England would be flying over the Yukon? 

 Good point about the flight path. I also doubt that the Moonraker would have been fully fueled when being transported.

 Other than the presence of Corrine Clery I didn't care for the Drax estate scenes. There was no reason at that point for Drax to try to kill Bond and the whole hunting pheasant scene was silly.

[saint mark]

I would assume Drax's Nazi sentiments were toned down because it wouldn't be very fun if it were made explicit.

 

One thing I don't like is how lazy the set-up is with Bond going to Drax's estate for no reason and Drax trying to kill him for no reason. I mean Bond hadn't even found anything. I notice that the detective work of the early Bond films were forgotten in later films in order to ramp up the spectacle. It's also true that the narrative seems to be a bunch of set pieces loosely tied together which however could be said for a lot of (all?) Bond films. Bit too much of Bond going from A to B to C to D.

 

And can someone explain why a flight going from LA to England would be flying over the Yukon?

 

IN SF the baddie was able to obtain a military helicopter to flatten Bonds estate and is the head of the secret service allowed to be the bait without having some SAS around as back up. So when it comes to believability lets not get on a too high a horse, the average Bond movie is not meant to be logic. Still not to this day.