Moonraker- Why the hate?

1356710

Comments

  • Posts: 1,052
    I'm curious what makes some one a "genuine" Bond fan? Is this someone who prefers the books to the films, or thinks OHMSS is the greatest film ever?

    If someone likes Moonraker or Roger Moore does that mean they are not a Bond fan?
  • Posts: 11,189
    Bond fan = anyone who likes James Bond
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,158
    I'm curious what makes some one a "genuine" Bond fan? Is this someone who prefers the books to the films, or thinks OHMSS is the greatest film ever?

    If someone likes Moonraker or Roger Moore does that mean they are not a Bond fan?

    I think being a 'genuine' Bond fan is about being passionate about Bond and having fun learning stuff about the films, the books and the cultural impact of Bond. I don't think it has anything to do with taste.

  • Posts: 3,274
    w2bond wrote:
    The thing about the Gilbert films is that they are exactly the same
    ´

    One word for Gilbert films (unlike many others, Dr.No for example): REWATCHABILITY!

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,158
    Zekidk wrote:
    w2bond wrote:
    The thing about the Gilbert films is that they are exactly the same
    ´

    One word for Gilbert films (unlike many others, Dr.No for example): REWATCHABILITY!

    I for one could easily watch DN every week and never grow tired of it. It's one of the quintessential Bond films.
  • Let's start with my review, which sums up what little is good and all that is bad about this stinker-

    <i>21. Moonraker (1979) - Like I can't understand why Goldfinger isn't in everyone's top 5, I can't understand why this isn't in everyone's bottom five. This movie is as my son says without prompting, "so Star Wars", and Cubby and the writers basically ignore the book and give us just that. Some people divide this movie into two halves, me, I think of it as a movie that let me down every time I started to like it. The PTS is complete nonsense, then it gets good in California with the centrifuge, spying by night, and Corinne's grisly end. Then we go to Venice, Rio, the Amazonian rainforest, and finally into outer space. Beautifully filmed is mostly all I can say after California because for every thing that was good, they throw in the Bondola, sight and sound gags, Jaws, Dolly, and the kitchen sink to kill any momentum. I don't fault Sir Roger at all for the mess, he is the only lead character who has a good performance. Michael Lonsdale is mostly boring as Drax. Lois Chiles should keep teaching because she can't do, I've never seen her in one thing where she was remotely good. Corinne Clery is even worse and not good looking either. All the "astrowomen" who were supposed to be "perfect specimens" were very ordinary, they have had way better. The only woman I liked at all was Emily Bolton as Manuela. Jaws being reduced to a complete joke and a goofy lazer space battle was all I could take, and as a whole the movie reminds me more of a Matt Helm romp than Bond.</i>

    Actually Moonraker might be even goofier than some of the Matt Helm films. I certainly enjoy this film at about the same level.

    Finally, in an attempt to leave work at a reasonable time and sum my opinion of the film in reasonably understandable terms- while Moonraker certainly beats (but not by very much) DAD, compared to either Craig film this movie mostly resembles a steaming pile of monkey poop left behind by King Kong.

    Enough said.
  • Posts: 3,274
    Let's start with my review, which sums up what little is good and all that is bad about this stinker-

    <i> I can't understand why this isn't in everyone's bottom five. .</i>

    Enough said.

    Because "everyone" doesn't share your taste?

    Enough said!
  • Posts: 11,189
    Let's start with my review, which sums up what little is good and all that is bad about this stinker-

    <i>21. Moonraker (1979) - Like I can't understand why Goldfinger isn't in everyone's top 5, I can't understand why this isn't in everyone's bottom five. This movie is as my son says without prompting, "so Star Wars", and Cubby and the writers basically ignore the book and give us just that. Some people divide this movie into two halves, me, I think of it as a movie that let me down every time I started to like it. The PTS is complete nonsense, then it gets good in California with the centrifuge, spying by night, and Corinne's grisly end. Then we go to Venice, Rio, the Amazonian rainforest, and finally into outer space. Beautifully filmed is mostly all I can say after California because for every thing that was good, they throw in the Bondola, sight and sound gags, Jaws, Dolly, and the kitchen sink to kill any momentum. I don't fault Sir Roger at all for the mess, he is the only lead character who has a good performance. Michael Lonsdale is mostly boring as Drax. Lois Chiles should keep teaching because she can't do, I've never seen her in one thing where she was remotely good. Corinne Clery is even worse and not good looking either. All the "astrowomen" who were supposed to be "perfect specimens" were very ordinary, they have had way better. The only woman I liked at all was Emily Bolton as Manuela. Jaws being reduced to a complete joke and a goofy lazer space battle was all I could take, and as a whole the movie reminds me more of a Matt Helm romp than Bond.</i>

    Actually Moonraker might be even goofier than some of the Matt Helm films. I certainly enjoy this film at about the same level.

    Finally, in an attempt to leave work at a reasonable time and sum my opinion of the film in reasonably understandable terms- while Moonraker certainly beats (but not by very much) DAD, compared to either Craig film this movie mostly resembles a steaming pile of monkey poop left behind by King Kong.

    Enough said.

    So not a big fan then? ;)
  • Posts: 562
    QBranch wrote:
    Exactly. That was the way Drax' character was meant to be. It had nothing to do with bad acting or direction.

    I recall Hugo "Hugger" Drax of the novel being boisterous, ostentatious, grating, and almost always on the edge of losing his temper. Lonsdale, on the other hand, was quiet, understated, and almost always on the edge of falling asleep.

  • 002002
    Posts: 581
    I'm curious what makes some one a "genuine" Bond fan? Is this someone who prefers the books to the films, or thinks OHMSS is the greatest film ever?

    If someone likes Moonraker or Roger Moore does that mean they are not a Bond fan?

    no its someone that loves both the books and the movies :)

  • Posts: 11,189
    Agent005 wrote:
    QBranch wrote:
    Exactly. That was the way Drax' character was meant to be. It had nothing to do with bad acting or direction.

    I recall Hugo "Hugger" Drax of the novel being boisterous, ostentatious, grating, and almost always on the edge of losing his temper. Lonsdale, on the other hand, was quiet, understated, and almost always on the edge of falling asleep.

    The character in the book was like a mad dog (he even foamed at the mouth at one point). Very different from Lonsdale's version.
  • edited December 2011 Posts: 1,497
    After reading several threads on Moonraker here over the past year, having seen the film a handful of times and having read many critical reviews, I've come to the conclusion that you either like it for what it is or you don't. Me personally, I don't care for it; I prefer more character driven stories with a building plot, ala DN, FRWL, TLD, so I don't think there is much more that could convince me to like this film.

    But I'm coming to the understanding of why those who like it do: it's a spectacle, it's taking the Bond formula to the max as far as it possibly can go. If the ultimate grand escape of Bond fantasy is what you are looking for in a Bond film, then Moonraker is for you. No one else on here can sway you differently. New York Times Film Critic Vincent Canby summed the movie up nicely:

    "What's it about? It's about movie-making of the kind Georges Méliès pioneered in films like Voyage to the Moon (1902) and Twenty Thousand Leagues under the Sea (1907). It's the unimaginable most satisfactorily imagined."

    I am at least personally seeing the perspective of those who do like it even if I don't.
  • edited December 2011 Posts: 3,494
    Zekidk wrote:
    Let's start with my review, which sums up what little is good and all that is bad about this stinker-

    <i> I can't understand why this isn't in everyone's bottom five. .</i>

    Enough said.

    Because "everyone" doesn't share your taste?

    Enough said!

    And I never said everyone had to, did I?
    DarthDimi wrote:
    Zekidk wrote:
    w2bond wrote:
    The thing about the Gilbert films is that they are exactly the same
    ´

    One word for Gilbert films (unlike many others, Dr.No for example): REWATCHABILITY!

    I for one could easily watch DN every week and never grow tired of it. It's one of the quintessential Bond films.

    Seconded Dimi. DN is way more watchable and far better than any of the Gilbert films, although with the exception of <i>Moonraker</i> I do mostly enjoy the Gilbert entries.

    In literary form, <i>Moonraker</i> is one of my favorites. I understand that the plot needed to be tweaked and made more timely by the time the movie was released, but all the rampant stupidity ruined whatever made it to the screen. This film was a product of the time, what with the space craze and all the big budget productions, but I hated <i>Star Wars</i> and as much as it pains me to say it, <i>Moonraker's </i>final battle is a blatant ripoff of what sucked to begin with.
  • Posts: 11,189
    One could argue Bond films have always been "a product of the time" though. They've often cashed in on current trends right up to today. I'm not a huge fan of MR but you could say they simply did what they did b4.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited December 2011 Posts: 14,556
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Agent005 wrote:
    QBranch wrote:
    Exactly. That was the way Drax' character was meant to be. It had nothing to do with bad acting or direction.

    I recall Hugo "Hugger" Drax of the novel being boisterous, ostentatious, grating, and almost always on the edge of losing his temper. Lonsdale, on the other hand, was quiet, understated, and almost always on the edge of falling asleep.

    The character in the book was like a mad dog (he even foamed at the mouth at one point). Very different from Lonsdale's version.

    Haven't read the novel yet, but Drax' character in the film was the way Drax' character was meant to be in the film. That's what I meant to say.
  • I haven't read the novel either, I'm actually more Bond film fan than Bond book lover, but no less a Bond enthusiast

    I think Lonsdale gave a fair enough and sometimes fun ride with the Drax character, most of the best lines of the film do come from him after all.

    The only real time He ever got animated was when he told Jaws to -EXPEL THEM, on the space station, other than that, Mr Lonsdale never really got too agitated and seemed rather phlegmatic and at ease, he reminded me of Curt Jurgens before him to that extent

    Bond villains don't have to raise their voices, stamp their feet and holler at the tops of the voices to pose a threat or seem intimidating

  • edited December 2011 Posts: 1,310
    I've posted this before, but I think the first half of Moonraker (everything up to the cable car fight) is Top 5 Bond film worthy. There are so many classic Bond scenes, the skydiving pre-titles, the centrifuge, pigeon hunting, Corrine getting mauled by dogs, the glass fight with Chang...even the little scene where M talks to Bond after their embarrassing meeting with Drax is really well done. ("...or we're both in trouble.") Even with that silly Bondola thing, the first half of Moonraker is superb.

    But, for me, it just falls apart at the cable car fight. Firstly, that fight was embarrassingly fake looking. But what comes after just makes my skin crawl. I will never be able to get over Jaws falling in love (and that music too). I just don't get it. Some of you have been claiming that Moonraker should not be taken seriously to be enjoyed, but I don't think that is James Bond anymore. Yes, Bond films should not be looked at the same way a film concerning the holocaust would be looked at, but when you get so far into self parody as Moonraker did, what do you have? Is it James Bond - 007? In my opinion, no. What happened to the gritty fights a la From Russia With Love? The brutal killings a la Dr. No? The genuine emotion at the end of On Her Majesty's Secret Service? We've traded it in for double taking pigeons, Magnificent Seven music and Jaws falling in love.

    The crazy thing is that Moonraker does have a lot of elements of classic Bond (the scenes I previously mentioned), but by film's end, they've been replaced by space laser battles and Jaws & his girlfriend running to each other in slow motion. I'm not trying to be mean, and I'm not bashing MR's fans...like I've said there is a lot to like in this film. But for me: the negatives are so unsightly that I cannot hold Moonraker in high regard overall.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited December 2011 Posts: 14,556
    SJK91 wrote:
    ...Jaws & his girlfriend running to each other in slow motion.

    This scene should be in every Bond film since MR. :-S (ducking for cover)
  • Posts: 4,762
    Shark wrote:
    What about the confrontation with Orlov in OP, the City Hall office framing scene in AVTAK, "Killing Tibbett was a mistake", persuading Melina to go home, Bond meets Colombo, the death of Locque, "That's detente, General", Bond managing to turn Jaws over by questioning Drax's standards of physical perfection, or the brilliant non-verbal post-centrifuge bit?

    Yeah, that's a great collection of classic Roger Moore at his best! I love that City Hall scene- "Brilliant-I'm almost speechless with admiration."
  • Posts: 3,274
    Zekidk wrote:
    Let's start with my review, which sums up what little is good and all that is bad about this stinker-

    <i> I can't understand why this isn't in everyone's bottom five. .</i>

    Enough said.

    Because "everyone" doesn't share your taste?

    Enough said!

    And I never said everyone had to, did I?

    No. But although I prefer the vanilla shake over the strawberry, I wouldn't go around saying that "I can't understand why everyone doesn't prefer the vanilla shake."
    DN is way more watchable and far better than any of the Gilbert films

    Likewise...that's your opinion. It's certainly not a fact!
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited December 2011 Posts: 4,399
    BAIN123 wrote:
    One could argue Bond films have always been "a product of the time" though. They've often cashed in on current trends right up to today. I'm not a huge fan of MR but you could say they simply did what they did b4.

    true.. that is how Bond has evolved and stayed current..... but.... with the success of Star Wars in 1977, this film was fast tracked into production in order to capitalize... what would've been the harm in just doing FYEO first, and then MR.... IMO, had they done that, maybe then a scaled back MR could've worked.. but because they just finished TSWLM, they felt they immediately had to outdo themselves, and push the boundaries even farther...

    as much as I rip Moonraker apart, I do not hate it - it's Bond on an overblown comic book scale... it's pure escapist fun, but so simple minded that it does all the thinking for you... i can watch, and enjoy it.... but for myself, it's not my definitive Bond movie - and it's not the way i think the movies should be made IMO... do we sometimes need an overblown clown show?.. i guess, just to break things apart a bit - but still - IMO, TSWLM proved you can go big and over the top, and still maintain a certain level of dignity
  • Posts: 7,653
    I prefer MR to TSWLM any day of the week and in the weekend twice. MR was simply the better movie of the two imho.
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    Posts: 3,262
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Lonsdale was great in MR agreed.

    However I always thought MR was Moore at his most smug. He pretty much smirks his way through the film.

    Which is why I love Moore in it.
    I'm curious what makes some one a "genuine" Bond fan? Is this someone who prefers the books to the films, or thinks OHMSS is the greatest film ever?

    If someone likes Moonraker or Roger Moore does that mean they are not a Bond fan?

    I think anyone who enjoys the films and/or the books. Personally speaking, I'm not much for purity tests or the "if you're a true fan, you must think A, B, or C." mentality. I like it best when each fan thinks for himself and just likes the film and/or book because it entertains him. Simple as that.
    JBFan626 wrote:
    After reading several threads on Moonraker here over the past year, having seen the film a handful of times and having read many critical reviews, I've come to the conclusion that you either like it for what it is or you don't. Me personally, I don't care for it; I prefer more character driven stories with a building plot, ala DN, FRWL, TLD, so I don't think there is much more that could convince me to like this film.

    It's not always either/or. For example, MR and TLD sit in my top 5 comfortably with no problem. Variety, as they say, is the spice of life.
    JBFan626 wrote:
    But I'm coming to the understanding of why those who like it do: it's a spectacle, it's taking the Bond formula to the max as far as it possibly can go. If the ultimate grand escape of Bond fantasy is what you are looking for in a Bond film, then Moonraker is for you. No one else on here can sway you differently. New York Times Film Critic Vincent Canby summed the movie up nicely:

    "What's it about? It's about movie-making of the kind Georges Méliès pioneered in films like Voyage to the Moon (1902) and Twenty Thousand Leagues under the Sea (1907). It's the unimaginable most satisfactorily imagined."

    I am at least personally seeing the perspective of those who do like it even if I don't.

    Indeed. Canby said GF and MR were the top 2 Bond films in his opinion.
    HASEROT wrote:
    true.. that is how Bond has evolved and stayed current..... but.... with the success of Star Wars in 1977, this film was fast tracked into production in order to capitalize... what would've been the harm in just doing FYEO first, and then MR.... IMO, had they done that, maybe then a scaled back MR could've worked.. but because they just finished TSWLM, they felt they immediately had to outdo themselves, and push the boundaries even farther...

    The thing is if EON had done FYEO first and MR afterwards, would either film turn out the way they did in reality? I believe that EON in 1978 firmly wanted to repeat the huge success of TSWLM(the first post-Harry Saltzman Bond film).Bond 11(whether it was called FYEO or MR) with Lewis Gilbert directing, Christopher Wood scripting and Ken Adam designing would've turned out to be another sci-fi/fantasy spectacle along the lines of the 1st 2 Gilbert films.
    SaintMark wrote:
    I prefer MR to TSWLM any day of the week and in the weekend twice. MR was simply the better movie of the two imho.

    Agreed. Of course, I saw MR first of the two so I freely admit that probably influences my perspective. However, I see MR in many ways as an improvement over TSWLM. The John Barry music I'm sure plays a huge factor in my decision.

  • Posts: 1,497
    JBFan626 wrote:
    After reading several threads on Moonraker here over the past year, having seen the film a handful of times and having read many critical reviews, I've come to the conclusion that you either like it for what it is or you don't. Me personally, I don't care for it; I prefer more character driven stories with a building plot, ala DN, FRWL, TLD, so I don't think there is much more that could convince me to like this film.

    It's not always either/or. For example, MR and TLD sit in my top 5 comfortably with no problem. Variety, as they say, is the spice of life.

    Agreed of course, this is coming from the guy who's top 2 Bond films are OHMSS and DAF!

    MR, though seems the most divisive. As much as I love all the goodies it throws in: locations, the music, the effects, etc., I can't get over the fact that the middle third of the movie feels like pointless action filler; that combined with all the gags. I just don't think I can be convinced that there is a good movie in there...but I'm warming up to the idea ;-)
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    edited December 2011 Posts: 3,262
    JBFan626 wrote:
    JBFan626 wrote:
    After reading several threads on Moonraker here over the past year, having seen the film a handful of times and having read many critical reviews, I've come to the conclusion that you either like it for what it is or you don't. Me personally, I don't care for it; I prefer more character driven stories with a building plot, ala DN, FRWL, TLD, so I don't think there is much more that could convince me to like this film.

    It's not always either/or. For example, MR and TLD sit in my top 5 comfortably with no problem. Variety, as they say, is the spice of life.

    Agreed of course, this is coming from the guy who's top 2 Bond films are OHMSS and DAF!

    Really? You'll like what some of my friends and I are doing. We watched OHMSS the other night and as a follow up we're going to watch DAF next month.
    JBFan626 wrote:
    MR, though seems the most divisive. As much as I love all the goodies it throws in: locations, the music, the effects, etc., I can't get over the fact that the middle third of the movie feels like pointless action filler; that combined with all the gags. I just don't think I can be convinced that there is a good movie in there...but I'm warming up to the idea ;-)

    Great! My definition of a good movie is as follows: if it entertains me, it's good. If it fails to do so, it's not. For example, as different as they are, MR, TLD, TB, CR, YOLT, OHMSS and DAF all entertain me. Hence, I think they're good. However, QOS for example failed to do so for me. Hence I don't find it good.
  • Posts: 1,386
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I can't believe people keep bashing MR. This film is legendary. It's a testament to one of the most critical moments for the Bond franchise, deciding the future of the film series we all treasure so much. Accepting MR narrows down to one very simple exercise: look back into the past and realise what the world of filmmaking was like in '79. The '70s had been a depressing, grey era but a slew of great young filmmakers were about to turn the tides, culminating in the hypersuccess of Star Wars. Bond couldn't afford to go edgy, tough or dark but instead had to follow the trend of regained joy, epicness and out-of-this-world excitement. I'm so glad we went there. Plus, they gave us the slightly more down-to-earth '80s, didn't they?

    But even then, MR has so much to offer. Moore is on fire in this film, Lonsdale is a superb villain who oozes Flemingesque menace. Chilles and Clery are hot as hell and Richard Kiel... wow, what a great find! The stunt work is awesome, production design is about as good as it'll ever get and as for Barry... do I need to put my foot on the ground and remind all you MR haters of Barry's fabulous score? But even the plot doesn't fail to amuse me. Yes, it has some silliness and incredulous moments but then again, so what? If they had given us Bournesque drama, it would have been over for Bond in '79.

    I'm pleased we got MR the way we got it. It's a wonderful, joyful Bond film. Sure, there's only a few things they kept from Fleming's novel but again, so what? That only means there's still a full book to be used in later scripts! (If they only would...)

    Agreed. I didn't use to like this one but it's really started to grow on me as of late. It's become one of my go-to Bond movies to pop in when I just want to kick back and relax and have some fun!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I just watched it last night. It's a hoot. Such great fun. However, it's biggest crime is it doesn't take itself seriously. It's a self-joke. A parody of TSWLM, including turning the Jaws character on its head.

    It's like everyone involved know's they're remaking the previous film, and just decided to have a laugh during the process. Don't take it too seriously and you'll have a whale of a time. Turn it on looking for CR, SF or FRWL & you'll be sorely disappointed.

    In a way, it's very much like SP (also made by essentially the same team as the previous blockbuster film). Like SP, just don't try to take it too seriously or even bother to analyze it. Turn your brain off and have fun with it. Period.
  • Posts: 7,653
    MR does deliver in grandness, its special effects can still be considered brilliant compared with quite a few modern movies. MR contains some of the darkest scenes from the franchise and while Roger keeps the story easily on his feet and makes the better looks far better than TSWLM in the end it is in essence 007 over the top. But looking at all the various actors who had their moment with the over the top movies, MR does it better than any of them. And the music is bloody brilliant shows Newman & Arnold how it should be done.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited February 2016 Posts: 1,984
    Moonraker's entertaining, but whether or not it's good is an entirely different affair, and that depends entirely on the type of Bond you enjoy.

    MR has quite a few strengths. Its effects were great for its time, the stuntwork in the pre-title sequence is probably the best in the franchise, the locations are nice, the score from Barry is great, and there are a couple of good moments like Corinne's death. The film is pretty heavily inspired by The Spy Who Loved Me, and once again the combination of Lewis Gilbert's large-scale directing and Ken Adam's sets makes the whole film just seem bigger.

    What sets this apart from The Spy Who Loved Me, though, is one crucial difference - in TSWLM, everything is pushed to the max, but not beyond. In this movie, things are completely over-the-top. Everything is sacrificed for humour to the point of self-degradation - except it doesn't even care about that. In a sense, it's conscious of how ridiculous and outrageous it is, but it keeps going. It's not shy about it's self-parodying nature, so if that's the Bond you want to roll with, then this is the one for you. If you're a Fleming purist, you won't find anything of value here.

    Like all the 70's Bond films, it draws from the cultural phenomena of the time. Just as LALD drew on blaxpoitation and TMWTGG drew from martial arts and the solar energy crisis, MR drew from the science-fiction blockbusters of the late 70's, specifically Star Wars and Close Encounters of a Third Kind. And if you like your Bond to be cultural, then you won't mind this, but personally, I felt that all these excessive attempts to replicate the culture of the time just didn't work - as a result, I'm not a particular fan of LALD, TMWTGG or MR. The finale in space draws so heavily on this sci-fi culture that it basically sacrifices the culture of Bond, and that's what this movie is - a Bond flick. Of course, people of the time loved this, which is why Moonraker was easily Moore's most financially successful outing, but it's now often considered his worst because it sacrifices so much (character development, a good plot, a genuine sense of tension or suspense) in the second half of the movie.

    And that's my biggest complaint with this movie. The first half is good and feels like Bond - in fact, it almost feels en route to becoming another TSWLM, though the absurdity to come is definitely hinted at repeatedly. But then it just gives up in the second half of the film. There isn't a fight scene in Bond history that looked more fake than the cable car one. Jaws falling in love and the fact that the finale was centralized on the space laser battle was just destructive of everything that Bond stood for, IMO. I'm fine with Bond being humorous, and this is Roger Moore after all - I like his tongue-in-cheek approach, and for that reason, even the gondola scene was bearable. As difficult as it is for me to accept that the main highlight of the finale was the space lasers, it's understandable that it would've been a major attraction in 1979. But there's nothing funny or entertaining about Jaws falling in love. There isn't the slightest reason for that except "oh, we've gone overboard with the comedy here, and it just won't work to have a genuinely terrifying Jaws, so we might as well turn him into a comedy character too".

    I think MR is most easily compared to DAF - except it's even more extreme. It's outrageous in every way and it knows it, and it isn't shy about it. As a Bond fan, I don't want to completely shun any of EON's offerings. So when I watch Moonraker, I have a different mindset. I watch it to be entertained, to laugh, to basically forget everything else. I know I'm not watching Casino Royale or From Russia With Love, and I don't think of it that way. That's how I can watch the film without being sorely disappointed. But at the end of the day, when it comes to ranking the Bond films for how good they are as Bond films, I can't bring myself to raise Moonraker above rank 20. I don't watch it knowing that it encapsulates Bond perfectly, I watch it knowing that I'll be entertained.
  • Posts: 3,333
    I think MR is most easily compared to DAF - except it's even more extreme.
    Sorry, @FYEO, but I have to totally disagree with that last statement. MR is most definitely not easily compared to DAF. The only slight comparison anyone can make between these two movies is that they both contain humour, but then so did TSWLM and LALD and pretty much every 007 picture before and after. I understand that you have a downer on DAF and therefore like to lump it into any "awful bottom ranking" category that surfaces here, but there is zero logic in claiming that these two movies are comparable. MR is far more akin "tonally" to TSWLM than any other Bond picture. It's pretty much the same movie but with the humour dialed up just a notch.

    MR is simply a matter of "cause and effect" due to the success of TSWLM, which was a much more lighthearted adventure than any of its predecessors. Sadly, even FYEO suffered from this very same slapstick hangover, relinquishing any suggestions that FYEO was a serious Bond movie, too.

    I recall my first viewing of TSWLM back in the summer of 1977 and being very concerned, at the time, about the film's self-mockery and in which direction the series might ultimately be heading afterwards. Sadly, my fears weren't unfounded.
Sign In or Register to comment.