Moonraker- Why the hate?

1246710

Comments

  • edited February 2016 Posts: 1,386
    The 70s Bond films take place in a universe with more resemblance to a cartoon than the universe of Fleming's novels and with Moonraker Christopher Wood seems to have said "Look, if we're going to make a live action cartoon, why bother with pretending to be anything than just that?" With MR right from the PTS you're told this film is going to throw all pretense of being a serious and gritty real world spy thriller out the window and in my opinion it feels like a purer distillation of what every other 70s Bond film from Roger Moore plays at being: a live action cartoon. And God bless it.
  • MooseWithFleasMooseWithFleas Philadelphia
    Posts: 3,369
    I use to not like Moonraker, but it now ranks as #1 on my list. There is so much to love here and provides the ultimate escapism experience for me. Nothing makes me happier film wise than popping Moonraker in and that's what it's all about in my opinion. No matter how incredibly silly it seems, I get legitimately emotional every time Dolly jumps into Jaws arms, one of my favorite scenes of the series now.

    I completely understand those who hate it, I was one of them! As I get older, I appreciate the differences in all the Bonds. This is all personal taste, so no reason to get mad at what someone likes or dislikes. One thing I do find to be true though: Whether you like serious bond, silly bond, or a mix, if the Bond series didn't change tones and styles throughout the years it would be dead. If every film was made in the same vein as Dalton/Craig's serious Bonds or Moore/Brosnan's sillier Bonds, it would wear on all casual fans and even many Bond fans.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,592
    It's my favorite Moore film and #6 overall. I love the fact that I can sit down with a huge bowl of popcorn and watch two hours of just plain dumb fun and when it's over, just restart it again.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I use to not like Moonraker, but it now ranks as #1 on my list. There is so much to love here and provides the ultimate escapism experience for me. Nothing makes me happier film wise than popping Moonraker in and that's what it's all about in my opinion. No matter how incredibly silly it seems, I get legitimately emotional every time Dolly jumps into Jaws arms, one of my favorite scenes of the series now.

    I completely understand those who hate it, I was one of them! As I get older, I appreciate the differences in all the Bonds. This is all personal taste, so no reason to get mad at what someone likes or dislikes. One thing I do find to be true though: Whether you like serious bond, silly bond, or a mix, if the Bond series didn't change tones and styles throughout the years it would be dead. If every film was made in the same vein as Dalton/Craig's serious Bonds or Moore/Brosnan's sillier Bonds, it would wear on all casual fans and even many Bond fans.
    This!

    Thank you!
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    It's my favorite Moore film and #6 overall. I love the fact that I can sit down with a huge bowl of popcorn and watch two hours of just plain dumb fun and when it's over, just restart it again.

    This is how I feel about DAF. For some reason, MR doesnt work on me the same way. I think it's because there are some moments in MR that are brilliant and to be taken seriously, and it creates a disjointed film. DAF doesn't pretend to be anything other than ridiculous.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Yes, I agree that DAF is more tonally consistent. It's a riot from start to finish. MR is hiding a great premise and film just behind the overt humour and farce. That's what frustrates me about it more than anything.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    There is so much to love here and provides the ultimate escapism...

    ...I completely understand those who hate it, I was one of them! As I get older, I appreciate the differences in all the Bonds. This is all personal taste, so no reason to get mad at what someone likes or dislikes. One thing I do find to be true though: Whether you like serious bond, silly bond, or a mix, if the Bond series didn't change tones and styles throughout the years it would be dead. If every film was made in the same vein as Dalton/Craig's serious Bonds or Moore/Brosnan's sillier Bonds, it would wear on all casual fans and even many Bond fans.

    This.

    But not this:
    I get legitimately emotional every time Dolly jumps into Jaws arms, one of my favorite scenes of the series now.

    Now I love MR and would always defend it but whichever way you cut it that's a simply appalling embarrassment of a scene.

    Jaws and Dolly, California Girls, the elephant pushing JW in the canal and the kung fu schoolgirls are probably the only times I genuinely cringe.

    Oh and obviously about 80% of DAD.
  • MooseWithFleasMooseWithFleas Philadelphia
    Posts: 3,369
    Not the way I cut it though! Again, definitely understand the dislike for a moment like that, but I can't help but love our favorite baddie turned goodie finding his love amidst all the danger of an exploding space station.

    I don't cringe anymore, I try to embrace every moment no matter how absurd. The last two moments that last made me cringe were probably "Christmas only comes once a year" and "Welcome to my nuclear family" but even those I end up bursting out laughing at how ridiculous the lines and context are.

    California Girls was just a missed opportunity because it was before snowboarding was well known and those moments of action were quite good, but they went for a campy surfing reference instead.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,592
    TripAces wrote: »
    It's my favorite Moore film and #6 overall. I love the fact that I can sit down with a huge bowl of popcorn and watch two hours of just plain dumb fun and when it's over, just restart it again.

    This is how I feel about DAF. For some reason, MR doesnt work on me the same way. I think it's because there are some moments in MR that are brilliant and to be taken seriously, and it creates a disjointed film. DAF doesn't pretend to be anything other than ridiculous.

    I feel the same way about DAF as I do MR. They fall in the same boat for me.
  • Posts: 11,189
    I think if I were to choose between DAF and MR, I'd honestly choose MR.

    I know MR is dumb nonsense but from a production value its solid. In much the same way as YOLT I can enjoy the spectacle and the exceptional music by John Barry. Those aspects still stand up fairly well.

    DAF (to me) just feels sloppy in terms of how its made. Like the film-makers rushed to get it finished.
  • Posts: 533
    I don't love "MOONRAKER". Then again, I don't hate it. It's okay. I think Roger Moore had put it best when he said that the movie was pretty decent, until the setting shifted to outer space.
  • Posts: 7,507
    Oh ,I much prefer MR to DAF. The problem with DAF is that it is very boring at times. The whole sequence with Tiffany Case being followed by Leiter, it literally grinds to a halt! if it wasn't for Connery and villains Wint and Kidd it would be unwatchable!
    MR is mad as a bag of badgers, but is just great entertainment, and its pre-credits sequence is one of my favourites, and I'm not just talking about the freefall stunts, I love the hijacking of the shuttle, great scene!
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    I think if I were to choose between DAF and MR, I'd honestly choose MR.

    I know MR is dumb nonsense but from a production value its solid. In much the same way as YOLT I can enjoy the spectacle and the exceptional music by John Barry. Those aspects still stand up fairly well.

    DAF (to me) just feels sloppy in terms of how its made. Like the film-makers rushed to get it finished.

    Absolutely. MR is a gloriously indulgent spectacle with every single cent there for you to see.

    With DAF most of the money ended up in Sean's pocket rather than on the screen.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    With DAF most of the money ended up in Sean's pocket rather than on the screen.
    Actually it may have ended up in Scotland from what I heard.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited February 2016 Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »
    With DAF most of the money ended up in Sean's pocket rather than on the screen.
    Actually it may have ended up in Scotland from what I heard.

    Well not much of Mr Patriotic's tax money did.
  • Why the hate?
    Well, apart from the obvious fatal missteps - Bondola, Jaws and Dolly and space laser fight - Holly Goodhead must be one of the worst Bond girls ever. Annoying, grating, and Chiles can't act at all. Listen again to the line 'hold on James' which is said in such a flat and fake way it is actually funny. The whole sequence is a joint embarrassment for everyone involved.
    I'm actually having trouble thinking of a worse Bond girl. Even Jones and Sutton aren't as bad. Jinx... now that is debatable.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited February 2016 Posts: 1,984
    bondsum wrote: »
    Sorry, @FYEO, but I have to totally disagree with that last statement. MR is most definitely not easily compared to DAF. The only slight comparison anyone can make between these two movies is that they both contain humour, but then so did TSWLM and LALD and pretty much every 007 picture before and after. I understand that you have a downer on DAF and therefore like to lump it into any "awful bottom ranking" category that surfaces here, but there is zero logic in claiming that these two movies are comparable. MR is far more akin "tonally" to TSWLM than any other Bond picture. It's pretty much the same movie but with the humour dialed up just a notch.

    You're misunderstanding me. I'm not comparing DAF to MR in terms of sheer quality (I actually think DAF is still better), I'm comparing them as types of film, and that's very difficult to explain because, as you said, MR is closer to TSWLM tonally than DAF.

    I did mention that MR is basically TSWLM gone overboard. That's not the way I'm comparing it to DAF, though, because I understand that DAF is more serious than MR and doesn't revel in its self-parody - it's very much a GF with more humour. DAF was disappointing for many people (and me) mostly because it wasn't a satisfactory follow-up to OHMSS. Again, however, that's not what I'm trying to compare here, since story-wise, DAF and MR are really not that related. DAF is, from what I know, commonly known for being Connery's cash-in, where, despite demonstrating more interest than YOLT, he really wasn't all that interested in helping along the franchise anymore. He really just did it for the sake of doing it, but at least he looked like he had more fun than in YOLT. That's basically Moore in MR - he does still have an interest in Bond, of course, but in this movie, it's obvious that he's really just having fun.

    In short, my comparison is that they're both Bond movies where Bond just seems more carefree than usual, and the way the Bond actors play their humour, or just play whatever they want, is rather unrestrained in both movies (obviously Connery and Moore have different styles of humour and play Bond in different ways). That type of Bond is entertaining, but in my opinion, not necessarily good.

    My problems with DAF mostly relate to how it follows up OHMSS and its treatment of Blofeld, but otherwise, I'm mostly fine with it -it is better than MR in every way other than sheer spectacle, IMO, and on my current list I have it above MR by a couple of places.

    Anyway, this might be exclusive to me (I did mention it as being my opinion) but when I watch films like DAF and MR, I get into a different mindset to something like FRWL, GF, or even TSWLM. I'm there to be entertained by what the film has to offer, not to be amazed by a cinematic masterpiece.
    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.

    FYEO isn't really a serious movie, I agree. It's just one of Moore's serious efforts (for the most part, since both the prologue and the epilogue are Moonraker-tier), but the idea is that the main storyline is more down-to-earth than MR. It's unlike Moore's other adventures (except TMWTGG, somewhat), since he really doesn't have any gadgets to rely on in the field except his pistol and his survival skill.
    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.

    In fairness, you are right - TSWLM does hint at the later absurdity in Moore's reign as Bond. It's just not unbearable in the movie itself, which is why I'm fine with it. I do agree with what you said about MR being cause-and-effect of Moore's take on Bond and TSWLM, I'm just elaborating on my position.
  • edited February 2016 Posts: 1,386
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I can't believe this is coming up again. I'll just throw out that, for the fiftieth time, but the first time on this thread, you'll notice that for the most part (not all) those of us that were teenagers or older in 1977 seem to hold the lowest opinions of MOONRAKER.

    Until now I have yet to meet a male Bond fan who was a teenager when this film came out and did not absolutely love it. You're making generalized assumptions & neglecting an entire sampling of people who are Bond fans, were teenagers in 1979, and either don't get online that much or haven't joined this forum. If you dislike MR, more power to you. I have a vast appreciation for both ends of the spectrum in the Bond franchise from the serious to the more absurd outings. It seems to me your time would be much better spent singing the praises of movies you love rather than apparently coming to threads designed by people who seem to love a film to constantly share your negativity towards it over and over again (by your own admission).
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    It's interesting, because the people who saw Moonraker in theatres (that I know of), seem to enjoy it more than those who didn't see it in theatres and were generally born after, because those people tend to despise it.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    Frankly, I think the MR hate is deserved, it is utterly goofy. But it being a Star Wars rip-off as well, is also off-putting (not being a fan of the Star Wars films).
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    Frankly, I think the MR hate is deserved, it is utterly goofy. But it being a Star Wars rip-off as well, is also off-putting (not being a fan of the Star Wars films).

    They didn't just go after Star Wars. They also riffed on Close Encounters of the Third Kind, with the keypad's five-note tune to gain entrance to the lab in Venice.
  • Posts: 4,325
    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.

    I think we may be at a similiar juncture now with the humour in Spectre.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I thought the self mockery started far earlier than TSWLM. "You just killed James Bond!"
  • Posts: 4,325
    bondjames wrote: »
    I thought the self mockery started far earlier than TSWLM. "You just killed James Bond!"

    Yes, Diamonds Are Forever is a turning point in the series for me - that's where we start seeing campy humour etc.
  • edited February 2016 Posts: 3,333
    Good response, @ForYourEyesOnly.

    Of course, @bondjames, the earlier Bond's always had their tongue firmly in their cheek, so to speak. I think what you've just highlighted is what's known as a quip. Though it did serve some purpose as it made it clear to everybody that 007 had just switched his wallet and ID with that of Peter Franks. Simply put, it's not much different to: "This never happened to the other fella." Both are nods and winks to the audience.

    For the record, I don't dislike TSWLM, as it has some great one-liners. "Can you play any other tune?" But I can't deny that when I first sat in my cinema seat back in '77 that I was more than alittle apprehensive about the level of tomfoolery in the movie, plus the blatant theft of the YOLT storyline. That said, I still enjoyed it.

    Which brings me to MR. The fact that they simply regurgitated and switched the action from the high seas to deep space (again!!!) was more than enough to send what goodwill remained in me far out into the stratosphere. Yes, MR is beautifully shot, but then it was the most expensive Bond picture made up to that date. The money is most definately all up there on the screen. It's just sad that the end results were just a lukewarm rerun of TSWLM, which in turn was a disco-version of YOLT with FRWL bolted-on. But I guess some folk like insipid reruns, hence the success of The Force Awakens.

  • I love MR and I'm glad it's being appreciated. I understand the criticisms, I understand why people hate it, I understand why some people think it's the worst, but I think it's in the top half in terms of quality. I mean that honestly.

    Five years ago I would have ranked it in the bottom 3, but my tastes have changed, as well as my appreciation for cinema. There is so much beauty and entertainment in MR. It is a gorgeous film aesthetically, and the music from Barry is ethereal (id watch the entire film just to hear "Flight into Space").

    Oh, and Drax is a top 5 villain. The lines they give him are legendary and Lonsdale nails it. When it comes to campy-world domination Bond villains he is head and shoulders above the rest.
  • It's just too much of a comedy for my taste. The flapping-arms Jaws is one of the most horrible moments in the series.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    I love MR and I'm glad it's being appreciated. I understand the criticisms, I understand why people hate it, I understand why some people think it's the worst, but I think it's in the top half in terms of quality. I mean that honestly.

    Five years ago I would have ranked it in the bottom 3, but my tastes have changed, as well as my appreciation for cinema. There is so much beauty and entertainment in MR. It is a gorgeous film aesthetically, and the music from Barry is ethereal (id watch the entire film just to hear "Flight into Space").

    Oh, and Drax is a top 5 villain. The lines they give him are legendary and Lonsdale nails it. When it comes to campy-world domination Bond villains he is head and shoulders above the rest.

    What you say about 'quality' is true. In terms of craft; I'm talking production design, cinematography, costume, score, special effects, art direction, sound design... it is a stunning piece of work. It's truly luscious.

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,220
    For me it's not "hate" as much as frustration; take the same script and trim the goofiness, keep Jaws a villain and you have a hell of a fun movie.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    I love Moonraker. It's a charming jolly romp with one of Barry's best scores. Roger is great, everyone is great. It's a Bond film to not take seriously. I have a smile every time I watch it.
Sign In or Register to comment.