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
Moonraker = space battle = no thanks
I enjoyed the movie as a kid and as a teenager, but as an adult NO.
I understand that but you could try and watch it with a different attitude, meaning you pay attention to the music, the technical marvels and the beautiful locations. It helps to get over the random craziness. ;-)
I watched Moonraker on the big screen a few years back, it was probably one of the most enjoyable cinema-going experiences I've ever had. Like you say, the score is lush and epic, the locations are stunningly photographed and the effects are still pretty impressive when you put them in context. The fact Rog just breezes through it and is completely charming throughout just adds to the enjoyment. No, it's not in the same universe as something like FRWL or OHMSS but it's still a grandeose bit of thoroughly enjoyable nonsense.
Only to those who aren't willing to cut it some slack. Like it are not the Oscars are the ultimate benchmark in cinema. Its the highest accolade.
MR is a big puppy knocking you over with its friendliness but it will shit in the kitchen.
Even at age 10 on first cinematic viewing I loved most of it but the misjudged humour sank it for me.
Bond Betamax fan since 1984 present.
Skyfall - give it a year or so until the hype diminishes - I still remember critics/fans exclaiming that Quantum of Solace was the best Bond ever when it was first released.
It is still a good Bond film - but like the recent ones (CR the exception) has it's faults - the last 10 minutes (in my opinion) are criminally slow.
So it's Moonraker for me..
This has probably been said before, but the Oscars are not an indication of a good movie. There have been countless examples of the wrong movie winning.
1. Chicago being the first, beating The Pianist!!
2. Citizen Kane NOT winning, I mean come on!
3. The English Patient beating Fargo ?????
4. The Hurt Locker winning.
5. Martin Scorsese not winning for Taxi Driver and Raging Bull and then finally losing out to Dances With Wolves with the fantastic Goodfellas.
There are countless examples of how the Oscars have been so wide of the mark, yet people still look to them for some guidance on what is good. This has always baffled me
-Its too cartooney and camp (SF is camp at times but its all more grounded).
-It takes Bond away from Fleming
-Its star is more often than not playing himself rather than James Bond
-Its a rip off of Star Wars, which has nothing to do with Bond.
-The photography in MR is great but I don't think it beats Deakins work
I bet in thirty years time it is still well regarded
Just seems like if you don't rate Skyfall as No. 1 people get a bit tetchy
MR has a higher entertainment value for me every time, SF lacks that for me the movie is allright but by no means the ultimate 007 movie.
Unlike some I'm unable to replicate the same joy I found for some films when I was younger, YOLT was another childhood favourite it certainly isn't any more. MR save Barry's terrific score ( it's top tier but no OHMSS), yes it does have great cinematography and Ken Adam's sets are fantastic but I'm afraid the look and the music don't necessarily make a great film.
If you can return to that time when you were a kid and see the film through those eyes then that is probably a good thing for you, unfortunately I can't and my last viewing of MR was like pulling teeth, I just find it an utter embarrassment but then if you associate Moore's Bond with all that you love about the series then maybe it's heaven.
SF is much more enjoyable because I'm not cringing when I watch it, outside of the music although I'm one of the few who likes Newman's score and short of QOS it's better than all of Arnold's (for me) and Adam's work SF aces it in every department, as good as MR cinematography is, Deakins is in another class.
MR is ludicrous but so is Skyfall, all Bond films are in some shape or form but MR is the most OTT of the lot and just feels like they've taken SWLM (which ripped of YOLT) and applied the same blue print with a number of tweaks. SF in comparison is it's own beast and something new for Bond, I don't want to see this kind of thing repeated but as a one off it was most refreshing.
Moore gets ridiculed for his appearance here for some of the absurd humor bits such as Saint Marks Square, Venice, but remember only last year there was some far fetched nonsense such as Bond getting shot off a moving train, falling off a waterfall and surviving freezing water for a considerable time, so are they really that different in terms of nonsense, or however you want to word it. Craig is the better Bond without question, but at least back then Moore gave us a damn fine adventure and while not his best release, there is real fun to be had and the action never lets up. Bringing Richard Kiel back was a poor idea in retrospect, but the background scores, pre credits sequence, other outstanding moments and a great Lonsdale villain more than componsate for the frustrating elements. It did cost more to produce than all the previous Bond movies put together let's not forget, and I think it was money well spent