Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Is "Moonraker" is the most purely cinematic Bond film?
It's been a while since I wrote one of these but they have typically gone down well on these forums so I thought I'd share some of my recent thought on MR in essay form.
Larger Than Life:
There was clearly a certain degree of trepidation on Albert Broccoli's behalf back in 1977 when he moved into production on "The Spy Who Loved Me". It was his first time producing a Bond picture alone and the weight of expectation was clearly on his shoulders. In order to silence any critics, and to calm any doubts he may have personally had over the longevity of the series, he opted to make a grand spectacle-laden picture to entice as large an audience as possible. Its undeniable that with "Spy", he succeeded. The warm critical embrace the film received and the overwhelming box-office returns were most definitely evidence of that. Therefore, the inevitable question for Mr. Broccoli following this success was: What's next? Where should he take James Bond moving forward?
Well the answer, for better or worse, is "Moonraker". It would seem that the title was chosen mostly as it lent itself towards a more science-fiction orientated story. In the late seventies, the "sci-fi" genre had been given a new lease of life following the monumental successes of films such as "Star Wars" and "Close Encounters". Broccoli, forever the opportunist, was not going to let the chance to capitalise on this and the decision was made to send 007 into space.
One thing was clear when it came to adapting Ian Fleming's novel "Moonraker", the original story, which focussed on a rocket being fired to destroy London, was not spectacular enough to form the basis of a plot. In order to follow the grand and overblown nature of "Spy" a larger story was needed. In order to achieve this it's no wonder that Broccoli turned to two of his key collaborators on "Spy", director Lewis Gilbert and screenwriter Christopher Wood.
Together the pair concocted yet another gargantuan storyline, that eventually involved the use of seven countries, three continents and a budget larger than the first six 007 adventures combined. Somehow "Moonraker" was larger than its predecessor. Broccoli's mantra of "putting the money on the screen" is ever present throughout the 11th Bond film. Never is the film allowed to languish, instead it's full to the brim with grand set-pieces, each implemented with varying degrees of success.
You feel with "Moonraker" that the filmmakers were essentially pitting themselves in competition with their past successes. It was clear that Broccoli and co. were constantly aware of audience expectations, therefore, with "Moonraker" they seem to be in an unnecessary battle to try and top themselves.
By attempting to usurp themselves the filmmakers essentially pushed themselves into a corner. Somewhat inevitably, "Moonraker" bears the scars of the filmmaking team attempting to push everything to the absolute limit as the story and action sequences push the realm of plausibility and taste. It may not be surprising to learn that the spectacle becomes more than a bit contrived and ridiculous as the film progresses.
Spectacle:
"Moonraker" is a particularly restless picture with a new action sequence being ushered in around every seven minutes. Due to the sheer rate of these sequences, there is truly something for all audience tastes. If something doesn't quite tantalise your palette, then don't fear, there is always another sequence waiting in the wings which may be more to your tastes. As a result some of the more successful portions of the film such as scenes at Drax's estate (in particular Corinne's death sequence) are followed by the broad and slapstick gondola chase through Venice. Broccoli in his attempt to entertain his entire cross-section of the audience is serving too many masters, as the film becomes an unusual hodgepodge of disjointed ideas.
There is really very little reliance on plot or story in stringing together any of the action sequences. Often it feels as though the filmmakers merely visited the grand and exotic locales and decided a series of set-pieces first, only then to reverse-engineer a plot to connect all the action dots. It’s slightly depressing to be able to see the framework adopted so transparently. However, it's hard to deny that the sequences are not only brilliant, expertly staged but also thoroughly entertaining.
Most noticeably the opening portion of the film is excellently handled as we witness Bond uncover Drax's insidious plot. Throughout the film's opening hour you are treated to a number of fun sequences and brilliantly executed scenes. It's also nice that for this portion of the film a clear through-line is established: What's Drax up to? In answering this question, we follow Bond as he slowly pieces together all the evidence he requires, also notice that Bond rarely raises a gun and mostly spends his time stalking corridors and breaking into offices. It's rather refreshing to see Bond actually engage in some real espionage work as he tackles the central mystery surrounding Drax's enterprise.
Nonetheless, it should be noted that "Moonraker" is at its most formulaic during these segments as we witness Bond travel to exotic locations and encounter polite baddies and potentially duplicitous women. Nonetheless, the film really works tremendously well here, with a number of the best action sequences occurring early on. Obviously the opening sequence is the standout piece of the film with the ariel photography proving to be particularly breathtaking. Also the centrifuge test is brilliantly tense and a rare sequence in which Bond is actually presented as vulnerable.
The film closely follows the model employed for "Spy", and that may come as no surprise as much of the technical and creative crew from that film return to work here. In these early moments in "Moonraker" there is an undeniable thrill in watching such a grand and ambitious film take shape regardless of the actual frailties of the story. Other great technical contributions come from Ken Adam's ludicrously brilliant production design (Adam is the true auter of the Bond series), John Barry's haunting and romantic score (which is very atypical of his previous Bond work but still great), Jean Tournier's gorgeous cinematography and Derek Medding's impressive special effects.
By focussing purely on creating spectacle, "Moonraker" really channels into the very essence of cinema. In its purest form cinema as an art-form was conceived to realise the seemingly impossible. Vincent Canby in his review for the New York Times emphatically praised "Moonraker" for this very fact, and even drew parallels to the work of one of cinema's great forefathers Georges Méliès. The filmmaking on show in "Moonraker" may not show much narrative strength, but it does display a complete mastery of technical precision and skill.
It's interesting that many high-brow critics back in 1979 so warmly embraced "Moonraker" for this reason, citing the film's far-fetched nature as its true asset. It's rather amusing than to consider that over 30 years later, this is the very reason the film is often lowly ranked amongst fans. There is certainly a lack of invention throughout the movie, but is this not the case with most of the Bond films? Especially the ones coming from the 1970's. The real reason is that "Moonraker" was a piece of pop-culture so eminently of its time, and by modern standards looks more of an embarrassing pastiche of the series's heyday.
007 into Space!:
Despite Broccoli's claims that "Moonraker" would not be "science-fiction, but instead science-fact", it's undeniable that the final act feels like something ripped out of a 'Star Wars' property. The inclusion of the space battles is baffling and difficult to forgive. The finale was evidently Broccoli's attempt to capitalise on the success of previous films in that genre and as a result I can understand many people's upset and belief that Bond was entering the realms of self-parody.
You can almost sense that Broccoli is bereft of ideas and attempting to translate his previous successes into new areas: "Let's do everything the same again, only this time in space!" Even the poster for the film provides further evidence for this, as you see a tuxedo-clad 007 posing with a gun, only this time in a space suit. This image seems more suited to something you'd see on a Johnny English or Austin Powers one-sheet. Clearly Broccoli did not understand the power of his own brand. While he had a certain degree of success appropriating other genres and transplanting Bond into those stories, the decision to go into space was a confusing move to make narratively.
The real problem is that these sequences really don't belong in the film and provide not only a huge tonal misstep but also an unnecessary switching of genres at too late a point. For the most part, "Moonraker" is, for better or worse, a Bond picture (in fact "Moonraker" is very similar in tone to "Spy", generally considered Moore's best film), however, the final laser battle is totally incongruous with everything that proceeded it.
The other problem is that despite his excursion into space there is little for Bond to actually do once he gets there. He only proves useful at the end when it comes to destroying the globes. Aside from that, 007 is merely a spectator and adds little to the plot by actually travelling to the great beyond. I feel it would have been beneficial for Broccoli and Gilbert to have conjured up a new third act that didn't involve 007 going into orbit. Clearly the budget was there to do something else and more appropriate to the actual story.
The other major issue with the final act is the drawn out pacing. In the most part the first 90 minutes of the film are a breezy and entertaining affair. During this time even some of the smaller grievances that emerge are mostly forgivable, mainly as "Moonraker" moves too quickly to allow anything to dwell on our minds. It's only in the prolonged finale that the issues really begin to glare.
I think this is mostly due to a feeling amongst the "Moonraker" team that they needed to showcase Derek Medding's tremendous work. It's understandable that they allow these sequences to play out in their fullest as the craftsmanship is technically groundbreaking. However, in doing so the film really grinds to a halt and arguably becomes rather self-indulgent. Fatally, the problematic nature of the film begins to become more glaring by letting these scenes play out, regardless of how technically accomplished they are.
The Characters of "Moonraker":
Roger is clearly at his most comfortable when working with Gilbert and there is something relaxed and charming about his performance this time out. For me, "Moonraker" was the last film where Roger still looked handsome and debonair before the middle-age spread really kicked in. His lighter touch is evident throughout the film as he comfortably embodies the 007 persona, even if he does take the occasional moment to spoof himself. Gilbert is more than happy to get in on the joke with Roger, and the pair often make the ill-advised trip into slapstick. The 'Bondola' chase is a noteworthy offender, as is the "Jaws falling in love" skit is still as embarrassing as ever.
The central conceit surrounding the Holly Goodhead character is interesting but sadly does not come together as successfully. One of my chief grievances with the Bond franchise is how I'm supposed to believe every young woman is supposedly instantly infatuated with the middle-aged 007. The Goodhead character is refreshing as it would seem she is not attracted to Bond at all despite his seedy advances. It's a nice change of pace and exposes Bond as the lecherous creep he truly is.
Looking over Lois Chiles's remarks at the time it was clear that the "women's lib" movement was a big motivation for her taking the part, as the role was billed as a progression to the Bond girl archetype. In many ways I can understand the incentive she had to sign up as Goodhead is clearly not a bimbo, she's an intelligent woman who is a trained astronaut turned CIA agent. She is strong and confident, and like Bond, she isn't afraid to use her sexuality to get what she wants. It's disappointing that before the third act much of this development is abandoned. It would have been a far braver move to not let Holly succumb to Bond's charm, thusly allowing her to be her own independent woman. In this regard, not too dissimilar to the Gala Brand character from Fleming's "Moonraker" novel.
As for Chiles performance; well considering the Bond series's tendency to cast beauty queens and models, it's quite surprising an actual actress was sort for the role. Despite the fact that Chiles was a rising star with prominent roles in other noteworthy productions, she gives a particularly bland and uninvolving performance in "Moonraker". This may be due to the fact that the film isn't quite sure how to use her, for instance in the third act she's solely there to deliver dry scientific exposition with Holly surprisingly lacking any real emotion following the revelation of Drax's plan. For me it's clear that Chiles's heart was really not into the character or the production.
This all leaves the door wide open for the villains to (once again) steal the show. Michael Lonsdale is terrific in the role of Hugo Drax; there is something very dry, sarcastic and laid-back about his performance. Lonsdale's decision to play Drax as a bored and sardonic billionaire is inspired, with screenwriter Christopher Wood reserving some brilliant villainous speeches for him. Lonsdale's dry and acerbic nature is more than a match for the script, with his line deliveries providing the biggest laughs of the film.
I also admired the brilliance and idiocy behind Drax's absurd plan, the notion of destroying the world, creating a new master-race and, thereby, establishing yourself as a God is rather compelling (if not a little far-fetched). My only real concern is that Drax's plan isn't revealed sooner than the third act, especially after having spent the opening hour establishing the mystery behind his Moonraker operation.
The reprisal of Richard Kiel as Jaws presents many problems, but also in many ways he is one of the great virtues of the film. His reappearance is a clear case of pandering towards fan and audience expectations, even if his inclusion is not wholly necessary to the story. However, Kiel is such a natural physical comedian that it's hard not to enjoy Jaws's return.
Initially Jaws was conceived as a "horror movie" character but in many ways it was Lewis Gilbert's great skill in spotting the comic potential in Kiel, with the character naturally stealing the show. On the other hand, it feels like a noticeable line is crossed when the Dolly romance is introduced, once again these moments are completely incongruous with the film and betray the character previously established. The Dolly scenes feel like they belong to a rather unfunny French sketch show and are at odds with the picture.
Summary:
For its purely cinematic thrills there is much to appreciate with "Moonraker". For a good portion of the film I was truly enjoying myself despite the film's occasionally lapses into the ridiculous. However, something of a line is crossed moving into the second act as the narrative begins to crumble away and the overblown spectacle cannot sustain itself over the threadbare narrative.
Larger Than Life:
There was clearly a certain degree of trepidation on Albert Broccoli's behalf back in 1977 when he moved into production on "The Spy Who Loved Me". It was his first time producing a Bond picture alone and the weight of expectation was clearly on his shoulders. In order to silence any critics, and to calm any doubts he may have personally had over the longevity of the series, he opted to make a grand spectacle-laden picture to entice as large an audience as possible. Its undeniable that with "Spy", he succeeded. The warm critical embrace the film received and the overwhelming box-office returns were most definitely evidence of that. Therefore, the inevitable question for Mr. Broccoli following this success was: What's next? Where should he take James Bond moving forward?
Well the answer, for better or worse, is "Moonraker". It would seem that the title was chosen mostly as it lent itself towards a more science-fiction orientated story. In the late seventies, the "sci-fi" genre had been given a new lease of life following the monumental successes of films such as "Star Wars" and "Close Encounters". Broccoli, forever the opportunist, was not going to let the chance to capitalise on this and the decision was made to send 007 into space.
One thing was clear when it came to adapting Ian Fleming's novel "Moonraker", the original story, which focussed on a rocket being fired to destroy London, was not spectacular enough to form the basis of a plot. In order to follow the grand and overblown nature of "Spy" a larger story was needed. In order to achieve this it's no wonder that Broccoli turned to two of his key collaborators on "Spy", director Lewis Gilbert and screenwriter Christopher Wood.
Together the pair concocted yet another gargantuan storyline, that eventually involved the use of seven countries, three continents and a budget larger than the first six 007 adventures combined. Somehow "Moonraker" was larger than its predecessor. Broccoli's mantra of "putting the money on the screen" is ever present throughout the 11th Bond film. Never is the film allowed to languish, instead it's full to the brim with grand set-pieces, each implemented with varying degrees of success.
You feel with "Moonraker" that the filmmakers were essentially pitting themselves in competition with their past successes. It was clear that Broccoli and co. were constantly aware of audience expectations, therefore, with "Moonraker" they seem to be in an unnecessary battle to try and top themselves.
By attempting to usurp themselves the filmmakers essentially pushed themselves into a corner. Somewhat inevitably, "Moonraker" bears the scars of the filmmaking team attempting to push everything to the absolute limit as the story and action sequences push the realm of plausibility and taste. It may not be surprising to learn that the spectacle becomes more than a bit contrived and ridiculous as the film progresses.
Spectacle:
"Moonraker" is a particularly restless picture with a new action sequence being ushered in around every seven minutes. Due to the sheer rate of these sequences, there is truly something for all audience tastes. If something doesn't quite tantalise your palette, then don't fear, there is always another sequence waiting in the wings which may be more to your tastes. As a result some of the more successful portions of the film such as scenes at Drax's estate (in particular Corinne's death sequence) are followed by the broad and slapstick gondola chase through Venice. Broccoli in his attempt to entertain his entire cross-section of the audience is serving too many masters, as the film becomes an unusual hodgepodge of disjointed ideas.
There is really very little reliance on plot or story in stringing together any of the action sequences. Often it feels as though the filmmakers merely visited the grand and exotic locales and decided a series of set-pieces first, only then to reverse-engineer a plot to connect all the action dots. It’s slightly depressing to be able to see the framework adopted so transparently. However, it's hard to deny that the sequences are not only brilliant, expertly staged but also thoroughly entertaining.
Most noticeably the opening portion of the film is excellently handled as we witness Bond uncover Drax's insidious plot. Throughout the film's opening hour you are treated to a number of fun sequences and brilliantly executed scenes. It's also nice that for this portion of the film a clear through-line is established: What's Drax up to? In answering this question, we follow Bond as he slowly pieces together all the evidence he requires, also notice that Bond rarely raises a gun and mostly spends his time stalking corridors and breaking into offices. It's rather refreshing to see Bond actually engage in some real espionage work as he tackles the central mystery surrounding Drax's enterprise.
Nonetheless, it should be noted that "Moonraker" is at its most formulaic during these segments as we witness Bond travel to exotic locations and encounter polite baddies and potentially duplicitous women. Nonetheless, the film really works tremendously well here, with a number of the best action sequences occurring early on. Obviously the opening sequence is the standout piece of the film with the ariel photography proving to be particularly breathtaking. Also the centrifuge test is brilliantly tense and a rare sequence in which Bond is actually presented as vulnerable.
The film closely follows the model employed for "Spy", and that may come as no surprise as much of the technical and creative crew from that film return to work here. In these early moments in "Moonraker" there is an undeniable thrill in watching such a grand and ambitious film take shape regardless of the actual frailties of the story. Other great technical contributions come from Ken Adam's ludicrously brilliant production design (Adam is the true auter of the Bond series), John Barry's haunting and romantic score (which is very atypical of his previous Bond work but still great), Jean Tournier's gorgeous cinematography and Derek Medding's impressive special effects.
By focussing purely on creating spectacle, "Moonraker" really channels into the very essence of cinema. In its purest form cinema as an art-form was conceived to realise the seemingly impossible. Vincent Canby in his review for the New York Times emphatically praised "Moonraker" for this very fact, and even drew parallels to the work of one of cinema's great forefathers Georges Méliès. The filmmaking on show in "Moonraker" may not show much narrative strength, but it does display a complete mastery of technical precision and skill.
It's interesting that many high-brow critics back in 1979 so warmly embraced "Moonraker" for this reason, citing the film's far-fetched nature as its true asset. It's rather amusing than to consider that over 30 years later, this is the very reason the film is often lowly ranked amongst fans. There is certainly a lack of invention throughout the movie, but is this not the case with most of the Bond films? Especially the ones coming from the 1970's. The real reason is that "Moonraker" was a piece of pop-culture so eminently of its time, and by modern standards looks more of an embarrassing pastiche of the series's heyday.
007 into Space!:
Despite Broccoli's claims that "Moonraker" would not be "science-fiction, but instead science-fact", it's undeniable that the final act feels like something ripped out of a 'Star Wars' property. The inclusion of the space battles is baffling and difficult to forgive. The finale was evidently Broccoli's attempt to capitalise on the success of previous films in that genre and as a result I can understand many people's upset and belief that Bond was entering the realms of self-parody.
You can almost sense that Broccoli is bereft of ideas and attempting to translate his previous successes into new areas: "Let's do everything the same again, only this time in space!" Even the poster for the film provides further evidence for this, as you see a tuxedo-clad 007 posing with a gun, only this time in a space suit. This image seems more suited to something you'd see on a Johnny English or Austin Powers one-sheet. Clearly Broccoli did not understand the power of his own brand. While he had a certain degree of success appropriating other genres and transplanting Bond into those stories, the decision to go into space was a confusing move to make narratively.
The real problem is that these sequences really don't belong in the film and provide not only a huge tonal misstep but also an unnecessary switching of genres at too late a point. For the most part, "Moonraker" is, for better or worse, a Bond picture (in fact "Moonraker" is very similar in tone to "Spy", generally considered Moore's best film), however, the final laser battle is totally incongruous with everything that proceeded it.
The other problem is that despite his excursion into space there is little for Bond to actually do once he gets there. He only proves useful at the end when it comes to destroying the globes. Aside from that, 007 is merely a spectator and adds little to the plot by actually travelling to the great beyond. I feel it would have been beneficial for Broccoli and Gilbert to have conjured up a new third act that didn't involve 007 going into orbit. Clearly the budget was there to do something else and more appropriate to the actual story.
The other major issue with the final act is the drawn out pacing. In the most part the first 90 minutes of the film are a breezy and entertaining affair. During this time even some of the smaller grievances that emerge are mostly forgivable, mainly as "Moonraker" moves too quickly to allow anything to dwell on our minds. It's only in the prolonged finale that the issues really begin to glare.
I think this is mostly due to a feeling amongst the "Moonraker" team that they needed to showcase Derek Medding's tremendous work. It's understandable that they allow these sequences to play out in their fullest as the craftsmanship is technically groundbreaking. However, in doing so the film really grinds to a halt and arguably becomes rather self-indulgent. Fatally, the problematic nature of the film begins to become more glaring by letting these scenes play out, regardless of how technically accomplished they are.
The Characters of "Moonraker":
Roger is clearly at his most comfortable when working with Gilbert and there is something relaxed and charming about his performance this time out. For me, "Moonraker" was the last film where Roger still looked handsome and debonair before the middle-age spread really kicked in. His lighter touch is evident throughout the film as he comfortably embodies the 007 persona, even if he does take the occasional moment to spoof himself. Gilbert is more than happy to get in on the joke with Roger, and the pair often make the ill-advised trip into slapstick. The 'Bondola' chase is a noteworthy offender, as is the "Jaws falling in love" skit is still as embarrassing as ever.
The central conceit surrounding the Holly Goodhead character is interesting but sadly does not come together as successfully. One of my chief grievances with the Bond franchise is how I'm supposed to believe every young woman is supposedly instantly infatuated with the middle-aged 007. The Goodhead character is refreshing as it would seem she is not attracted to Bond at all despite his seedy advances. It's a nice change of pace and exposes Bond as the lecherous creep he truly is.
Looking over Lois Chiles's remarks at the time it was clear that the "women's lib" movement was a big motivation for her taking the part, as the role was billed as a progression to the Bond girl archetype. In many ways I can understand the incentive she had to sign up as Goodhead is clearly not a bimbo, she's an intelligent woman who is a trained astronaut turned CIA agent. She is strong and confident, and like Bond, she isn't afraid to use her sexuality to get what she wants. It's disappointing that before the third act much of this development is abandoned. It would have been a far braver move to not let Holly succumb to Bond's charm, thusly allowing her to be her own independent woman. In this regard, not too dissimilar to the Gala Brand character from Fleming's "Moonraker" novel.
As for Chiles performance; well considering the Bond series's tendency to cast beauty queens and models, it's quite surprising an actual actress was sort for the role. Despite the fact that Chiles was a rising star with prominent roles in other noteworthy productions, she gives a particularly bland and uninvolving performance in "Moonraker". This may be due to the fact that the film isn't quite sure how to use her, for instance in the third act she's solely there to deliver dry scientific exposition with Holly surprisingly lacking any real emotion following the revelation of Drax's plan. For me it's clear that Chiles's heart was really not into the character or the production.
This all leaves the door wide open for the villains to (once again) steal the show. Michael Lonsdale is terrific in the role of Hugo Drax; there is something very dry, sarcastic and laid-back about his performance. Lonsdale's decision to play Drax as a bored and sardonic billionaire is inspired, with screenwriter Christopher Wood reserving some brilliant villainous speeches for him. Lonsdale's dry and acerbic nature is more than a match for the script, with his line deliveries providing the biggest laughs of the film.
I also admired the brilliance and idiocy behind Drax's absurd plan, the notion of destroying the world, creating a new master-race and, thereby, establishing yourself as a God is rather compelling (if not a little far-fetched). My only real concern is that Drax's plan isn't revealed sooner than the third act, especially after having spent the opening hour establishing the mystery behind his Moonraker operation.
The reprisal of Richard Kiel as Jaws presents many problems, but also in many ways he is one of the great virtues of the film. His reappearance is a clear case of pandering towards fan and audience expectations, even if his inclusion is not wholly necessary to the story. However, Kiel is such a natural physical comedian that it's hard not to enjoy Jaws's return.
Initially Jaws was conceived as a "horror movie" character but in many ways it was Lewis Gilbert's great skill in spotting the comic potential in Kiel, with the character naturally stealing the show. On the other hand, it feels like a noticeable line is crossed when the Dolly romance is introduced, once again these moments are completely incongruous with the film and betray the character previously established. The Dolly scenes feel like they belong to a rather unfunny French sketch show and are at odds with the picture.
Summary:
For its purely cinematic thrills there is much to appreciate with "Moonraker". For a good portion of the film I was truly enjoying myself despite the film's occasionally lapses into the ridiculous. However, something of a line is crossed moving into the second act as the narrative begins to crumble away and the overblown spectacle cannot sustain itself over the threadbare narrative.
^ 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
A perfect way to wind up the 1970's Moore period, for me, this film marks an end of an era in so many ways.
1. the last time we saw a Ken Adam set
2. the last time Roger Moore looked young enough for Bond
3. the last time Shirley Bassey did a title track
4. the last time we saw Bernard Lee
5. the last time they really went all out for spectacle in that grand, larger than life way
6. the last time (until SF) that they filmed a Bond movie in the panoramic, Lean'esque manner that so characterized the earlier films
I personally am always very frustrated by this film. It has the potential to be great, but I think it lets itself down by poking fun at itself (the Jaw's turn for example) and not taking itself seriously enough (the joke at the start as Jaws parachute release snaps, as well as all the silly gadgets that get Bond out of a fix just when it's getting interesting, the useless gondola sequence, the double taking pigeon etc. etc).
We have to combine that above nonsense with strokes of brilliance, like the legendary centrifuge scene, Corinne's death, the poison gas scene at Drax's factory etc. etc., not to mention the marvelous scenery & absolutely breathtaking visuals. I'm probably in the minority, but don't mind the space stuff at all, although I could have done without the laser fight.
I know many may disagree, but I also think Moore works very well with Gilbert. He was effortless in MR and really seemed to be enjoying himself.
All in all, I like MR a lot, but it is a frustrating experience because they decided to parody themselves.
It's certainly for me the last of the larger than life Bond films that Roger Moore did so well. I don't count TND or DAD in that circle.
Oh, and for my money, the most cinematic Bond film is OHMSS. Just gorgeous.
For Me MR is pure spectacle, great fun and I love Drax as a villain
He has some of the best lines of the series. :)
Mark Gatiss makes some interesting comments about MR here, that I mostly agree with: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02x2hg4
For the first half hour or so you really believe that the filmmakers have done it again and we are on to a winner. However, once the film goes beyond the Venice sequence and into the Rio scenes it comes off the boil slightly. And as the film progresses it's clear the thing is veering off course as it desperately tries to be more spectacular.
The Venice sequences are beautiful but the whole 'Bondola' scenes fell too slamstick-y, even though a boat chase through the canals is a great idea (maybe Christopher Wood's idea of a boatbike chase would have been more fitting).
With Moore's era in particular, it always going to be more over the top and more humorous than Connery's, but certain films seemed to try and take each of those two elements too far.
My problems with MR go along these lines, too. There are some truly great moments in MR, and Drax is a good villain. But it all gets wasted on an awful space story and an "Ah, we knew Jaws had a heart of gold" subplot. What a disaster.
One of my favorite scenes with Roger is the moment he takes down a badguy out of a tree while shooting pigeons.
Drax: 'You missed Mr. Bond.'
Bond: 'Did I?'
MR is a very good Bond-film up untill the final space act.
Two of my favourite lines in the series
- "His name's Jaws he kills people"
- "Hang on James". "The thought had occurred to me"
^What I came here to say. The best cinematography, the best directed, the best locations, the best score.