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
Yep!!
GoldenEye dull and colorless? :O That's not even a feasible thought!
As much as I love GE it is quite a drab film for the most part. Other than a few scenes in Monte Carlo the action takes place in grey buildings or dark looking surroundings like the statue park, St.Petersberg or the military archives. I don't really see this as a bad thing though - it suits the story quite nicely IMO.
There's still a sense of scale and spectacle thats essential for Bond. The large sets, the fancy control rooms (i.e. in Mi6, Servenya and Alec's base).
It's got these three moments in it, therefore it's genius. Well, you know, sort of... :p
I always thought Denise Richards was more funny than annoying in TWINE. You want annoying try thinking of J**x or Mary Goodnight.
Now I cannot watch it enough times, I know it's cheesy in parts but OMG it is entertaining. How can you not adore the pre-title skydiving sequence. FAB!!!
One thing Moonraker is NOT is 'lazy'. The amount of work put in by Ken Adam with production design, Derek Meddings with the models, John Richardson & co with the special effects (Academy Award nominated, remember), Dicky Graydon, Bob Simmons and Martin Grace, with some jaw-dropping stunts, is quite remarkable.
Love it or hate it (and I understand both reactions) Moonraker is a giant. A lumbering, yet gloriously audacious leviathan of a movie.
As Cubby himself said on set: "Nobody else can do this. WE can do this."
Plus, it is the final Bond bow for the great Ken Adam. What other reason do you need, to cast an eye over the film occasionally?
Good points to all your posts, Kennon. Yes, back then it was definitely (in my neck of the woods anyway) acceptable and not OTT to get Bond into space.
Yeah but what about the lazer gun battle at the end. That wasn't OTT at all ;)
Another thing about MR. There's one line near the end that, when I last saw it, cracked me up. It's near the end of the space battle when one of the good astronauts says to his Commander:
"It's hopeless Sir...the corridoor's blocked they can't get to us now!"
The actor REALLY hams it up :))
Currently it holds the top 4 spot in my Bond films ranking.
I remember in Wood's book that fight was with X-ray lasers. These "X-asers" were supposed to be part of the SDI of the time and Edward Teller promoted the idea as early as 1979. People (including Pentagon and later President Reagan) really believed these toys were just waiting around the corner.
Not when the movie ends with a battle in space. It's a Bond film, not Star Wars, which was it's competition at the time. Today it looks very dated and too over the top.
It's certainly pretty daft, but the special effects are not that bad and for some reason the whole space sequence has never particularly bothered me. It's actually done quite well, which redeems the film in the end. And there are Ken Adam sets and a Barry score. It simply cannot be all bad!
Oh god I forgot about that. No that scene brought only further shame to the movie, thank you for making my point. It was just too silly, as was a lot of what Roger did in his films...
Is a great scene in a great Bond movie. The whole Venice sequence in Moonraker beats the one in Casino Royale imo by a million miles
Surely a guilty pleasure...?
I agree, it's all very well done and it all looks amazing. I did really enjoy the parts in space. It's just that it brought toe Bond films to a level that could not be surpassed, and it really made films like FYEO and Octopussy necessary because they needed to reign in the franchise and make it a bit more believable again.
CR is the better movie
MR is the better Bond movie
In my humble opinion
As much as I may dislike the more camp aspects of MR, I think you have a very strong point here. I never felt that CR or QoS were true Bond films because the character wasn’t fully formed yet. Hopefully that’s different with Skyfall.