It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
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.
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.
<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.
Because "everyone" doesn't share your taste?
Enough said!
So not a big fan then? ;)
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.
no its someone that loves both the books and the movies :)
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.
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.
And I never said everyone had to, did I?
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.
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 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
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.
This scene should be in every Bond film since MR. :-S (ducking for cover)
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."
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."
Likewise...that's your opinion. It's certainly not a fact!
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
Which is why I love Moore in it.
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.
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.
Indeed. Canby said GF and MR were the top 2 Bond films in his opinion.
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.
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.
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 ;-)
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.