›

"Attempting re-entry", Moonraker appreciation thread

13567…20

Comments

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    MR is not great, but I cannot bring myself to hate it. GE, TWINE and DUD are much more worthy recipients of my vitriol.

    MR isn't that bad but GE is 1000 times better.

    What, the same GE that your man Rye described as 'dull and colourless'?

    Yep!!
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    MR is not great, but I cannot bring myself to hate it. GE, TWINE and DUD are much more worthy recipients of my vitriol.

    MR isn't that bad but GE is 1000 times better.

    What, the same GE that your man Rye described as 'dull and colourless'?

    Yep!!

    GoldenEye dull and colorless? :O That's not even a feasible thought!
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited May 2012 Posts: 11,189
    00Beast wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    MR is not great, but I cannot bring myself to hate it. GE, TWINE and DUD are much more worthy recipients of my vitriol.

    MR isn't that bad but GE is 1000 times better.

    What, the same GE that your man Rye described as 'dull and colourless'?

    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).
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    @BAIN123: I see what you mean by that, but I've always looked past it, for me, there's just this "golden" splendor that shines through the entire movie!
  • St_GeorgeSt_George Shuttling Drax's lovelies to the space doughnut - happy 40th, MR!
    Posts: 1,699
    Moonraker? Appreciation.

    It's got these three moments in it, therefore it's genius. Well, you know, sort of... :p





  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Moonraker is a rare example for Bond maybe where I could sit through a whole duration and never get bored, Live and Let Die is another, the action never lets up, even if it is damn stupid in parts, you can't turn away from the screen there's so much going on. Probably the second best teaser in the franchise only behind The World Is Not Enough. Lois Chiles is one of the worst bond girls in living memory though, up there with Tanya Roberts and the awful Berry, there can be no dispute
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    @Baltimore_007: Oh indeed, Holly Goodhead is up there with the worst Girls in the series, along with Miss Galore, Jinx, Christmas Jones, and Mary Goodnight.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Moore might as well have took a mannequin around with him that year, you wouldn't know the difference, the woman had as much charisma as a tub of lard
  • KennonKennon
    Posts: 297
    I liked Lois Chiles more in Death On The Nile. But she doesn't annoy in MR the way Richards does in TWINE.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited May 2012 Posts: 11,189
    Kennon wrote:
    I liked Lois Chiles more in Death On The Nile. But she doesn't annoy in MR the way Richards does in TWINE.

    I always thought Denise Richards was more funny than annoying in TWINE. You want annoying try thinking of J**x or Mary Goodnight.
  • KennonKennon
    Posts: 297
    True, annoying isn't really the word for Richards, wouldn't even show on the Jinx scale.
  • ohmss40ohmss40
    Posts: 44
    Moonraker is my guilty Bond pleasure. I remember this being the first film I saw on VHS when I was around 10 in 1981 and it had me hooked.

    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!!!
  • Jones_The_BondJones_The_Bond
    Posts: 344
    Qualified appreciation from me. It is, what it is: gloriously over-the-top, escapist, fluff. I don't think it is any the worse for that. If you attempt to watch Moonraker with a furrowed brow, a critical eye, and with the Fleming novel in one hand, then you are just begging to be disappointed, or even, annoyed. If you just relax, and let the Cubby Team take you on an exotic adventure, and just enjoy the ride, you will find much to amuse and thrill in Moonraker.

    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?
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Kennon wrote:
    Also don't forget that some of MR's OTT ideas didn't seem outrageous at the time the movie was shot. Back then NASA told us all they'd have 24/7 space stations and possibly even a moonbase within five ten years. And we believed them. Had they really delivered we would look at MR and the idea of Bond in space quite differently.

    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.

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited May 2012 Posts: 11,189
    4EverBonded wrote:
    Kennon wrote:
    Also don't forget that some of MR's OTT ideas didn't seem outrageous at the time the movie was shot. Back then NASA told us all they'd have 24/7 space stations and possibly even a moonbase within five ten years. And we believed them. Had they really delivered we would look at MR and the idea of Bond in space quite differently.

    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 :))
  • Our_Man_FlintOur_Man_Flint
    Posts: 5
    Moonraker is easily one of my favorite Bond entries. Roger Moore is at the top of his game, it has the wittiest, funniest and most quotable villian, beautiful scenery, a great script, a landmark stunt, BOND IN SPACE, a mesmerizing soundtrack and it's just fun all the way through.

    Currently it holds the top 4 spot in my Bond films ranking.
  • KennonKennon
    Posts: 297
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Yeah but what about the lazer gun battle at the end. That wasn't OTT at all ;)

    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.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    MR has the cable car scene, or am I mistaken? That's enough in itself to save the movie from complete damnation.
  • sirseanisbondsirseanisbond
    Posts: 2,189
    Getafix wrote:
    MR has the cable car scene, or am I mistaken? That's enough in itself to save the movie from complete damnation.

    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.
  • Signed_By_RogerMooreSigned_By_RogerMoore
    Posts: 643
    The HoverGondola scene alone propels the film above any Bond film since TLD for me. :D
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    sirseanisbond wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    MR has the cable car scene, or am I mistaken? That's enough in itself to save the movie from complete damnation.

    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!
  • sirseanisbondsirseanisbond
    Posts: 2,189
    Signed_By_RogerMoore wrote:
    The HoverGondola scene alone propels the film above any Bond film since TLD for me. :D

    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...
  • Signed_By_RogerMooreSigned_By_RogerMoore
    Posts: 643
    sirseanisbond wrote:
    Signed_By_RogerMoore wrote:
    The HoverGondola scene alone propels the film above any Bond film since TLD for me. :D

    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
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    sirseanisbond wrote:
    Signed_By_RogerMoore wrote:
    The HoverGondola scene alone propels the film above any Bond film since TLD for me. :D

    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...

    Surely a guilty pleasure...?
  • sirseanisbondsirseanisbond
    Posts: 2,189
    Getafix wrote:
    sirseanisbond wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    MR has the cable car scene, or am I mistaken? That's enough in itself to save the movie from complete damnation.

    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!

    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.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Believeability is all very well, but I do think the real skill in crafting a Bond movie is walking the line between fantasy and reality and - within the laws of Bond - making it 'feel' right. I think MR just about gets away with it, although it's far from being one of my favourites.
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    edited May 2012 Posts: 3,494
    Signed_By_RogerMoore wrote:
    sirseanisbond wrote:
    Signed_By_RogerMoore wrote:
    The HoverGondola scene alone propels the film above any Bond film since TLD for me. :D

    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[/quote]

    :))
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    MR is quite fun but, seriously, anyone who thinks it's, in ANY WAY, superior to CR quality-wise needs their head examined ;)
  • Signed_By_RogerMooreSigned_By_RogerMoore
    Posts: 643
    BAIN123 wrote:
    MR is quite fun but, seriously, anyone who thinks it's, in ANY WAY, superior to CR quality-wise needs their head examined ;)

    CR is the better movie
    MR is the better Bond movie

    In my humble opinion
  • sirseanisbondsirseanisbond
    Posts: 2,189
    Signed_By_RogerMoore wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    MR is quite fun but, seriously, anyone who thinks it's, in ANY WAY, superior to CR quality-wise needs their head examined ;)

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.