130 replies to this topic

[rubixcub]

MR is frequently cited as one of the most poorly-reviewed and least favorite films among hardcore Bond fans.  I get the criticisms:

- the humor

- flat leading lady

- making Jaws a good guy in the end

- product placement; marginalization of Bond's character

- not to mention basically remaking TSWLM

 

That said, it has more than its share of good points, IMO:

 

While incredibly similar to TSWLM, both the villain's motivation and methodology are much more clearly defined.  Stromberg's motives for creating "a new and beautiful world beneath the sea" are, forgive the pun, murky, as we don't know what kind of world he hopes to establish, what he dislikes about the world as it is, what would be superior about his world, etc.  In fact, we really don't know much about him at all.  Drax, on the other hand, is a space-age Hitler obsessed with physical perfection.  He has more telling idiosyncrasies:

- controlling his Dobermans with the click of his fingers

- mixing with the cream of society (even down to playing bridge with Britain's Minister of Defense)

- being literate and cultured enough to play Chopin on a grand piano

 

-- as well as more memorable and often wittier dialogue, and benefits from the precise and controlled performance of Michael Lonsdale, making for one of the best villains in the series, IMO.

 

Ken Adam's work on Bond was finally recognized with an Oscar nomination for TSWLM.  His work on MR was no slouch, either, and MR is perhaps the greatest Bond film of all time specifically in terms of its visual style:

- the French chateau in the California desert

- the MR building complex

- the Venini glass factory, museum, and secret lab

- the Brazilian ruins, MR control room, launch pad, subterranean base etc.

- and ultimately the space station itself

 

Finally, while not every action sequence holds up, the fight in the glass museum and the boat chase up the Amazoco still do.  The boat chase, in particular, avoids overstaying its welcome (unlike the boat chases in the two Moore / Guy Hamilton collaborations).

 

There are also little things to commend it

- the grouse shooting scene

- the scene where Bond drags M and the Minister of Defense into Drax's Venice lab only to discover the room not only redecorated but its dimensions completely changed

- the carnival scene where Jaws's attempted killing of Manuela is interrupted by a conga line

- the score

 

Personally, I have a much easier time getting excited about watching this one than some of Moore's other Bonds, such as:

- LALD, which has Bondian elements in spades but the action sequences fall flat and the pacing bores

- OP, which is far cornier & tackier than MR yet doesn't seem to be as criticized for it, has a plot that's murky & all over the map, one of the weaker main villains (Kamal Khan)

- AVTAK, with its pedestrian locales and GF-retread plot

 

And I'd still put it higher than Brosnan's latter two (TWINE with its soap opera dialogue & DAD going even more sci-fi ridiculousness than MR) and Craig's QOS (which sacrificed cohesive action sequences for Bourne imitation and characterization for a shorter running time).

 

Anyway, these are my thoughts on what is still one of my favorite Bond movies to pop in the DVD player on a Friday night.  Eager to hear your thoughts.

 

Dave

[Odd Jobbies]

Double-taking pigeons is where i draw the line.

[AngusMcLean]

You make some good points on the better aspects of the movie, and it's one of the earlier ones I ever saw.

 

I think the whole "James Bond in space" is the overarching killer for the movie. The book itself is a lot more believable, and I think if they'd stuck closer to that rather than throwing old Rog up into the atmosphere, then fans would be more forgiving of the weaker aspects of the film, as you've outlined.

 

For me MR is a bit of a case of two extremes-some great action like the boat chase, with some unbelievable turns like Jaws falling in love and turning into a good guy.

[Baccarat]

My fondness for MR goes beyond the fact that it was the first Bond film I saw on the big screen. Despite some of the worst excesses of the Moore era, there are many aspects to commend it, including one of the best villains in Hugo Drax (character, and actor; Michael Lonsdale is superb), and one of the best Barry scores. The space effects stand up pretty well, and as has already been mentioned, it contains some great Ken Adams design work. Not my favourite by any means, but a solid and entertaining entry in the series that is better than some others that came after in the Dalton and Brosnan eras.

Edited by Baccarat, 17 August 2015 - 12:03 AM.

[DaveBond21]

I think you will find that Moonraker has plenty of fans on this site.

 

There are a few threads singing its praises. I also created a thread about the sometimes-forgotten beautiful scenery in the movie.

[Blofeld's Cat]

With all its faults as mentioned above I enjoyed Moonraker for what it was at the time: Star Wars meets Bond.

 

I especially loved the posters.....

 

https://jamesbondpos...moonraker_3.jpg

 

http://movieposters....Moonraker_7.jpg

 

http://cinemasterpie...nrakerapr11.jpg

 

http://www.conancomp...s/moonraker.jpg

[sharpshooter]

I think you will find that Moonraker has plenty of fans on this site.

Yes. I'm one of them. 

[SecretAgentFan]

One of us!  One of us!  One of us!

[tdalton]

I think you will find that Moonraker has plenty of fans on this site.

Yes. I'm one of them.

Same here.

MOONRAKER is never going to be an all-time favorite of mine, but for what it is it's a fun couple of hours. I'll certainly take it over some of the supposed "classics" of the series like GOLDFINGER.

[sharpshooter]

I think a lot of the bad reputation comes from the finale in space. When someone says 'Moonraker', that's probably going to be the first thing they think of. The space sequence - with laser guns, can be viewed as the embodiment of the Moore era's excess and silliness. And mix the humour that isn't for everyone - double taking pigeons, etc, and there you have it.

[Guy Haines]

It sort of gets better for me with repeated viewing, although I admit I don't view it that often. When I first viewed it back in 1979 I came out of the cinema so disappointed that I wondered if this was the new direction for Bond, and if so whether I'd be bothering with the Bond films in future. Of course, it wasn't.

Part of my disappointment was that for years I'd been waiting for a film version of Moonraker. I genuinely didn't understand why Eon kept putting it back - set aside the fact that the story took place wholly within England and it seemed a perfect vehicle for a Bond film to me.

Over thirty five years on I now realise that if a film of the book was going to be released the 1960s would have been the best time, when memories of the Second World War were still all too vivid. But now, if you set aside the worst aspects of the humour - and we have gadgets like the mute button and fast forward for that - much of the film is watchable and has its positives, notably Michael Lonsdale's droll villain and the special effects.

And since real life has caught up with the movie - there is, after all, a monster space station up there, and in December a British astronaut is going to stay aboard it - even the space aspects now seem less outlandish, save for the laser weapons.

One more thing - Moonraker the film is closer to the book than you might think, though not terribly close. Aside from the rocketry and the scene where Bond and Gala Brand..... whoops, I meant Holly Goodhead....have to hide in a ventilation shaft as Moonraker 5 blasts off, we have;

1) the references to the Defence Minister having played bridge with Drax

2) A sort of Nazi view of the world, in Drax's super race project, and Drax wanting to destroy humanity rather than one city and its citizens, though not of course by reason of revenge - rather the old science fiction trope of wanting to destroy the world in order to save it.

3) Bond skulking about Drax's mansion looking for plans - though in the book this was Krebs skulking about trying to find out about Bond.

 

4) Not one but two attempts on Bond's life whilst he's still Drax's guest at the mansion - in the book he and Gala barely survive the white cliffs of Dover falling on them, in the film he barely survives a sabotaged centrifuge and spots an assassin in the trees.

5) For Gala Brand read Holly Goodhead - the government agent planted within the Drax organisation.

None of this makes the film my favourite by a long way, but I'm better disposed to it now than I used to be.

Well, there's something I never thought I'd type out - a reasonably positive post about the film Moonraker! ;-)

[Vauxhall]

The final third (space, etc) completes tarnishes it in my book. The opening portion, particularly Venice and Rio, is right up there as one of my favourites.

[Dustin]

It sort of gets better for me with repeated viewing, although I admit I don't view it that often. When I first viewed it back in 1979 I came out of the cinema so disappointed that I wondered if this was the new direction for Bond, and if so whether I'd be bothering with the Bond films in future. Of course, it wasn't.

Part of my disappointment was that for years I'd been waiting for a film version of Moonraker. I genuinely didn't understand why Eon kept putting it back - set aside the fact that the story took place wholly within England and it seemed a perfect vehicle for a Bond film to me.

Over thirty five years on I now realise that if a film of the book was going to be released the 1960s would have been the best time, when memories of the Second World War were still all too vivid. But now, if you set aside the worst aspects of the humour - and we have gadgets like the mute button and fast forward for that - much of the film is watchable and has its positives, notably Michael Lonsdale's droll villain and the special effects.

And since real life has caught up with the movie - there is, after all, a monster space station up there, and in December a British astronaut is going to stay aboard it - even the space aspects now seem less outlandish, save for the laser weapons.

One more thing - Moonraker the film is closer to the book than you might think, though not terribly close. Aside from the rocketry and the scene where Bond and Gala Brand..... whoops, I meant Holly Goodhead....have to hide in a ventilation shaft as Moonraker 5 blasts off, we have;

1) the references to the Defence Minister having played bridge with Drax

2) A sort of Nazi view of the world, in Drax's super race project, and Drax wanting to destroy humanity rather than one city and its citizens, though not of course by reason of revenge - rather the old science fiction trope of wanting to destroy the world in order to save it.

3) Bond skulking about Drax's mansion looking for plans - though in the book this was Krebs skulking about trying to find out about Bond.

4) Not one but two attempts on Bond's life whilst he's still Drax's guest at the mansion - in the book he and Gala barely survive the white cliffs of Dover falling on them, in the film he barely survives a sabotaged centrifuge and spots an assassin in the trees.

5) For Gala Brand read Holly Goodhead - the government agent planted within the Drax organisation.

None of this makes the film my favourite by a long way, but I'm better disposed to it now than I used to be.

Well, there's something I never thought I'd type out - a reasonably positive post about the film Moonraker! ;-)

Very good analysis of a somewhat underrated entry in the canon. When I saw it I was 12 and perfectly happy with it, I couldn't understand what the older fans didn't like about it. And Moonraker had been my first Bond novel two years previously. Of course the film was an entirely different kettle of fish, true. But I wasn't fazed by this in the slightest, at 12 the film delivered everything I expected from Bond.

That said in my view the criticism of Moonraker falls in two categories, the things that irked at the time (like the elements of overall silliness) and those we feel fall short from our perspective 35 years onward. I believe in 1979 the first reviewers started bringing up Moore's age, a concern that seems rather premature in light of the fact Moore would stay on bord for another three films until 1987.

Other critics mentioned a lack of internal logic to the tale, an accusation the producers opened themselves to by Broccoli's remark 'Bond hunts Drax - Drax hunts Bond. What more story do you need?' At closer look there is a bit more to the story than that, but Broccoli's point was of course that all Bond films are in the end a fluffy kind of entertainment, much like candy floss. Only here it's made with a few nuts (and shards of their shells, namely a master race idea and global annihilation at their hands). To make this mix palatable for the market of 1979 they had to add a heavy layer of 'fun', double taking pigeons and all. But such was the reality of entertainment cinema at the end of the seventies, many more serious films employed silly elements to lighten up their theme. And since the days of the Aston Martin people expected to laugh a few times during a Bond film.

With time new viewers added their own criticisms. The special effects are often mentioned, by a generation of course that has high definition premium quality displays at their command and can view any film in frame-by-frame mode. All I can say is that at the time the effects were fine, among the finest even by professional standards. If memory serves Moonraker missed out on an Academy Award to Alien, not such a bad second place. Also the idea of the space marines seems to be too far out there for some, just like the whole idea of a secret space station. At the time however, there were numerous reports about the U.S. space program in light of the new shuttle and I remember a feature about NASA's so called 'mission specialists' that mentioned - in hushed tones - a branch of the program under the auspices of the Pentagon. The conclusion you were invited to draw upon this information was that evidently there were steps to build up armed space forces of a kind, if perhaps not in the way we've seen in Moonraker, and surely not with this kind of weaponry either.

Today we know of course none of NASA's high-flying ambitions (I remember plans for a space station and a moon base till ca.1985, a trip to Mars by 1990) were to become reality in so short a time. But don't mistake this fact for proof such things were not possible. The NASA, like any other branch of bureaucracy, has learned to tell their masters what they wanted to hear. In order to get further funds for their projects they had to bait politics with fast results, with success after success. It may seem laughable today, but for the audience of 1979 a space station in the Drax mould, with it's own artificial gravity, seemed less outlandish than it would today. *

The one thing I personally don't like about the film is not Jaws turning on his employer; that is in fact a very logical step if you consider Drax' aspirations (and wouldn't need the Lolita-girlie character they invented for this purpose). Bond turning into James Skywalker to destroy the final poisoned sphere is the deal-breaker for me, there should have been some other solution for this. But apart from this - and about a hundred other little details that irk me - I still like Moonraker. Not as much as I did at 12, I admit it. But still more than some other entries that came after it.

*After all, the central element in all this planning, the space shuttle, was originally presented as offering trips into orbit at a fraction of the old Saturn V rockets of the Apollo program, namely for a lean $200 per kilogram. They ended up with $16.000 per kilogram, yet nobody felt it was time to pull the plug on it. Not then anyway.

[Turn]

I will never hesitate to admit MR was the film that made me the die-hard Bond fan I am today. I was 12 and the irresistible combination of James Bond and space in the wake of Star Wars mania was too much not to be influenced by. I also hadn't seen TSWLM at that point, so I didn't have to view MR as a repeat (and as a possible consequence I've never found TSWLM to be as interesting).

 

It was only in the next few years that I found MR wasn't good for me according to writers and critics. While not near the top of my list, I have also never knocked it because of where the majority thinks I should place it. Same as I am not influenced to put GF at the top.

 

MR knows what it is - an over-the-top film that sets out to entertain. I find the goofy humor easier to take in this and the harder-edged scenes stand out more than in something like AVTAK, where that blend doesn't work nearly as well. Maybe that's a different thread.

[Bondage007]

You know what? If I can enjoy DAF as a guilty pleasure, why should I be ashamed of saying I enjoyed MR this time around. I've been surrounded by so much negativity about this film so I watched it with an unbiased view. I was mostly in awe of the stunning sets and locations of MR, perhaps the best collection in the series.

 

There are several lines it crosses which everyone knows about but one that isn't mentioned often is how convenient the plot moves along. Jaws happens to know where Bond and Manuela are, Bond stumbles upon the Amazon hideout, the villains try to kill bond for no reason...these conveniences apply to all of Gilbert's films. I didn't have a high opinion of Gilbert before, but he does know how to direct an epic adventure. On the other hand, my thoughts on Hamilton's films have worsened.

 

So 11 films in MR is at number 5. However the 80's bring even more fun so who knows what will happen

[Grard Bond]

I've said it already in a couple of other topics: Moonraker is my all time favorite Bond movie!

Last night were the last hours of my summervacation and guess what I've been watching.... Moonraker ofcourse! It looks especially great on blu ray!

Edited by Grard Bond, 17 August 2015 - 05:52 PM.

[Guy Haines]

Just in answer to Dustin - and thank you for your positive comments on my analysis of MR - the 'mission specialists" mentioned in the real shuttle, the military ones at least, were I think "payload specialists" trained for a particular mission and payload. There were several US military officers trained though I think only two ended up actually flying missions, both in 1985 I think.

All reminded me a little bit of the USAF "Manned Orbital Laboratory" program of the 1960s - basically a two man spy satellite - which was cancelled in 1969. Ironically some of the astronauts trained for that transferred to NASA and ended up flying the Shuttle in the 1980s - indeed one ended up as the head of NASA.

All of which has nothing to do with Moonraker - except that the space marines shuttle takes off from Vandenberg AFB in California, and there were plans to launch military shuttle missions from there - which after the 1986 Challenger accident were never continued with.

Another real life link with MR, and more proof that Guy Haines really should get out more often! :-))

[Dustin]

Hah!

[The Krynoid man]

I like it. The first two thirds are classic Bond.

[HoneyDiamond]

Double-taking pigeons is where i draw the line.

 

Lol!

 

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. 

[Guy Haines]

Another link to the original novel has just dawned on me. When Bond is being flown to the Drax HQ and spots the "astronaut trainees", Corinne tells him that the training program is being financed "out of his own pocket". And in the Christopher Wood novelisation I think at one point we're told that cutbacks at NASA were such that Drax was paying for the shuttle program as well.

Sounds a lot like Sir Hugo finding £10M to fund the Moonraker missile program in the original book.

For all the total change of basic plot, I accept that the screenwriter - Christopher Wood - had more than likely picked out bits from the novel and re-worked them. But, as a 17 year old who had read Moonraker more than once and had hoped for a screen version of the book, these things didn't register at the time.

[B. Ret Smythe]

They saved the story from the actual book of MOONRAKER for Pierce Brosnan in DIE ANOTHER DAY.

 

Thats why there are no control mines in that movie because the book was written before GOLDENEYE came out.

 

GOLDENEYE was just the house ian fleming wrote his books in and not the satellite of russia

[tdalton]

You learn something new everyday.

[Dustin]

They saved the story from the actual book of MOONRAKER for Pierce Brosnan in DIE ANOTHER DAY.

Thats why there are no control mines in that movie because the book was written before GOLDENEYE came out.

GOLDENEYE was just the house ian fleming wrote his books in and not the satellite of russia

The Internet is such a vast space, offering fora for practically every kind of fetish. I think you will find some steamy place where you can discuss your ideas with like-minded folk, probably of the knife-and-napalm flavour. Some other place. Bon voyage.

[Logie]

I always thought Moonraker was a much darker film than most give it credit for. Drax setting the dogs on Corinne; Roger's face nearly melting in the centrifuge; Drax's first henchman (Chang? Char?) thrown off a building and landing head-first through piano strings... pretty gruesome stuff, really. Perhaps it's easier and less upsetting to remember the double-taking pigeons and gondolas-that-turn-into-a-hovercraft etc. 

[SecretAgentFan]

It does go much more Grand Guignol than its predecessor, indeed.

[Guy Haines]

Yes, you could say it was a film of extremes - the only gruesome bit for me in TSWLM was the death of Stromberg's female PA in the shark pool and Bond spotting her hand in the fish tank. Corrine's death by dobermans is suggested, which in horror movie terms makes it worse for the viewer imagining it.

But because MR has these humourous extremes we the audience tend to focus on those. The opposite is true of OHMSS - it has a deserved reputation as a more serious Bond film because of the romance between Bond and Tracy and her shocking assassination at the very end. We forget the funny side of the film - "Sir Hilary" meeting the "Angels of Death" and the saucy goings on between Bond and Ruby.

[Logie]

Blimey, yes - the hand in the fish tank; ghastly when you think about it but I remember watching that as a wee lad and thinking it was actually quite cool!

 

I'm a big fan of Christopher Wood. He should've done more.

[Guy Haines]

It's worse than what happened to Helga Brandt in YOLT - at least when the pihrana fish got her we didn't see what was left afterwards, although Blofeld's explanation of the fishes appetite was pretty gruesome.

I liked the Christopher Wood novels of the films, particularly for TSWLM. he seemed to be genuinely trying to craft Fleming style thrillers out of some at times outlandish film material. His version of Stromberg in the novel is a truly bizarre villain, closer to Donald Pleasance's Blofeld than Curt Jurgens' Stromberg, a character who is genuinely disturbed and disturbing, and who seems to loathe his fellow human beings. His novel of the MR script sticks quite closely to it without lapsing into the funnies which we saw in the film.

I agree about Wood. Pity he wasn't commissioned to write a few original Bond novels.

[Logie]

Excellent point about Brandt and the piranhas - I suspect with Wood or Mankiewicz at the typewriter things would have been a little more graphic.

 

Come to think of it, with things like the skulls and voodoo and Baron Samedi getting half his head blown off in LALD, that guy at the karate school who's stabbed to death with a katana sword in TMWTGG, the aforementioned instances from TSWLM and MR... was Roger's era actually the most macabre? I can't think of any other Bond films reaching those levels of grisliness (I won't count Krest's exploding head in LTK - that was just poorly done).