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
I agree with this 100% and would not want it to be from the same molds as LTK and CR. But some of the ligheartedness, such as Jaws flapping his arms, goes a bit far.
There is no right or wrong on this but for me humor in a Bond film is the equivalent of adding a bit of salt to a meal; it should accent not overwhelm. In MR it's as if, at times, the top came off of the salt shaker.
Totally agree.
Indeed. Everybody who doesn't happen to like something is branded a "hater". What an unenlightened claim.
I have a soft spot for this movie for basically all the reasons so many loathe it. I do think scaling things down considerably with the next one was a wise move though. I love MR but...it definitely marks a point where the series jumped the shark. I'm not even sure how I'd make a movie that goes more outlandish than this. But that's why I enjoy it. Like all the 70s Bond movies (as well as YOLT) it's just a big fun piece of ridiculousness that doesn't seem like it was ever intended to be taken seriously. I just try to enjoy the more serious entries for what they are and the more ridiculous ones for what they are. Variety is the spice of life.
Yes I love some of Drax's lines in this.
"Mr. Bond you defy all my attempts to plan an amusing death for you."
Possibly the worst by an actor in the series.
I take it you've never seen Halle Berry in DAD then?
I'll grant Chiles has a droning voice and zero charisma but she doesn't reach Jinx's level of awfulness.
On the executioner's block if I had my way.
You seem to have stumbled onto some sort of hypothesis here: are all American Bond girls crap? (Performance wise of course. I'm not suggesting that being yanks makes them any less shaggable)
Jill St John - Starts off very well but the script doesn't help her out as it goes on but like everyone working on DAF she seems to lose interest by the end.
Gloria Hendry - Awful.
Barbara Bach - Despite getting handed one of the more interesting Bond girl roles she does nothing with it and is so wooden that by the second half she has taken root.
Lois Chiles - Total lack of charisma.
Lynn Holly Johnson - Extremely irritating but perhaps this is how they wanted the character portrayed and not her fault?
Tanya Roberts - Again the script does her no favours but she's not helped by being a shocking actress.
Carey Lowell - Decent but not great. Light years away from breaking into the top 10.
Teri Hatcher - Soap opera acting when we nearly had Monica Belucci in her prime. Nice one EON.
Denise Richards - Embarassing although I think she did her best with her limited talent.
Halle Berry - F**k off.
A pretty damning lineup IMO. Jill St John in the first half and Carey Lowell are the only ones who aren't awful.
You're making a pretty good case, sir!
Truly luscious. Great word. I agree also that scaling down after MR was a good idea, but as a standalone movie I'm really glad we have it. Great to pop on and munch popcorn and just drink it all in. They don't make 'em like that any more, and also Bernard Lee and Adams' last movie.
I was 11 years old when I saw it in the theater. I think between ages 9-16 is when you are most blown away by whoever Bond is at that time in your life. Hence, Moore movies I am biased towards.
I preferred Holly Goodhead and Pam Bouvier over Jinx by far. Over Christmas Jones (I almost can't even say that) as well.
Both Connery and Moore are just having such a blast in these respective films that it's addictive.
Exactly. It's telling the story without someone (i.e. Tanner) having to come on screen and actually tell the story to the audience.
Yeah, it's like the audience isn't treated with the intelligence to connect two basic scenes together without having a line of dialogue to tell them. It adds to that feeling of being told the story instead of experiencing it yourself. With Moonraker, you choose how much you want to engage with the story, how much you want to connect the dots.