Moonraker deserves better praise

Kronsteen

I am in the process of watching all the films in random order befor QOS comes out. So far I have seen DN, FYEO, LALD,TMWTGG, TSWLM and TB.

So I watched Moonraker the other day. In my mind this was the "silly" Bond movie and I had low expectations.

Well, wafter watching it I can safely say the I have put MR much higher in my favourites' list than where it was before.

The first hour of the movie is just as good as it gets, if you take away Jaws flapping his arms in the PTS. Every scene is first class, the PTS features a great stunt, the locations are great (Drax's estate, Venice, Rio).
The tension in the laboratory in Venice is very well presented on screen, Drax has great lines ("may I press you to a cucumber sandwich", "see that some harm comes to him"...).

The tone of the movie in the first part is very serious and does not rely on slapstick like FYEO does in its first part.

The scene in the Venice hotel room could have been done without, especially the part with all the gadgets, rather silly if you ask me, but the rest of the Venice action is great, and we are fortunate enough to see Bernard Lee get a fair share of screen presence, which I think was wonderful for his last outing.

Then comes a rather disappointing part of MR between the end of the cable car fight, when Jaws meets the girl, and Bond's arrival inro the pyramid. That part is rather poor, with all the 7 Up ads and the silly ambulance scene.
How does Bond manage to land right next to Drax's lair ? That's rather lucky. Jaws does not improve the boat chase either.

Then after Bond is captured I find the movie goes back on track, and the finish is great. I love the scene when the space station rotation is stopped and everyone is floating, including Drax.

Finally, Drax's demise is good, much better than Stromberg's (but that's my humble opinion).
And the last part where the globes are destroyed is filled with tension and briliantly topped with one of John Barry's best efforts in the whole franchise. I happen to have bought the CD and it's been running constantly in my car for a week.

So, all in all, I was very pleased to have picked Moonraker off the shelf, and I had a great 2 hours.

Now, I'd like to know if there are other people who think that Moonraker is underrated and too often dismissed as a silly Bond film.

Railer 505

Yeah I actually find Moonraker kind of underrated... it did get a 64% on RottenTomatoes so its "fresh". I mean, the movie had merit in many different places, especially the scenes in space. I mean, if anything is a hitch, it could be Bond's gondola-turned-hovercraft in Venice, but I usually get influences too much by what I read about the critics' opinions after I watched the movie. For instance, I never really knew the machine gun-spamming scenes in the flooding mine in AVTAK was too bad until I learned how dismayed Roger himself was about that.

DrMaybe

I think using "Jaws" back-to-back was an errant strategy. It kind of made Moonraker an anticipatory film, making the audience wonder, "When will he pop up next?". I would much have preferred him to pop up, say at the final 15 minutes of View to a Kill, with a classic toss-off line from Moore, like "Not you again!"

Michael Lonsdale was not exactly a great choice for lead villain, either. He was an international flavor of the month, at that time, and definitely not visually impressive enough for the role. Max Von Sydow or Klaus Kinski would have been much better suited for the part.

blueman

MR has good parts, arguably better good parts than TSWLM's good parts. But it's also more extreme in how bad it gets at points, so pretty much a wash between the two of them, although the Jaws double-dip lessens the latter effort for me.

I always thought MR without Jaws would've been less campy and therefore a better Bond film, but JMHO. It was what it was, and at the time it clicked well with audiences. Definitely a better film in there somewhere IMO, FWIW.

ycpchief

I must respectfully disagree. I feel that Moonraker is an insult to Bond fans and Fleming himself. The producers were lazy on this one and gave us TSWLM all over again. Change the villians name, and the setting from the sea to space and it is essentially the same plot. Yes Bond movie materials have been recycled before, but not immediately back to back.

Think about it. A submarine/space shuttle goes missing. Bond is called in to investigate. A well known industrialist with a passion for sea/space exploration and development is suspected. Bond teams up with a female KGB/CIA agent. He is confronted by the henchman Jaws. Bond finds out that the bad guy wants to wipe out humanity via the sea/space and re-imagine the world. Bond and/or the female agent is captured. A final battle begins between the bad guys minions and the military (space marines8-))Bond saves the day and beds the female agent in view of the MI6 brass.

What's worse is that Fleming's novel is a good one and the producers abandoned his story for a recycled TSWLM. I mean come on, the MR novel contains one the the best chapters ever written by Fleming-Dinner at Blades. And Drax was a far, far better character and villian in the book. I felt Londsdale's version was poor. We all deserved better than this cheap effort to cash in on the good buzz from TSWLM and the Star Wars craze.

There are other problems with MR too. Holly Goodhead is one of the least memorable Bond girls ever. Jaws is played strictly for laughs in this movie and is turned into a complete dope. The Q branch Gondola gets my vote as the worst Bond gadget ever. The wrist dart gun is awful too. You're almost afraid that if Roger sneezes he migh shoot himself. How about the space station that is invisible to radar....how did they build it first without anyone seeing??? Just the whole idea of James Bond flying around in space shooting his laser. Fleming must have rolled over in his grave.

In all fairness, as some have pointed out there are some really good moments too. But for me there is not nearly enough to overcome the OTT, recycled story, especially when the source material is so good.

Dan Same

DrMaybe wrote:

Michael Lonsdale was not exactly a great choice for lead villain, either. He was... definitely not visually impressive enough for the role.

Exactly, that's why he was so good IMO. He wanted to create a world of perfect beings, yet he wasn't perfect himself. It's like with alot of utopian genocidal maniacs; they are determined to create their ideal society even, or especially, if it involves killing, but they themselves probably wouldn't meet the standard if they weren't in control. Drax has often contrasted to someone like Hitler, and while there are of course many differences, one thing that Drax and Hitler (or anyone else of their ilk) do have in common was that neither were blond haired and blue eyed, yet that was essentially what they wanted. A magnificent villain IMO. -{

Napoleon Plural

Hard to see how they could have used the source material really though it got used for DAD. It's a rare one; good hi-tech missile story but it's in Blighty and it's not been hijacked, unlike the TB, YOLT etc blueprint. The book is all set in England, which isn't exactly globetrotting, still they rejigged Casino Royale enough and got away with it.

I love MR yet I acknowledge all that's 'wrong' with it also. Oddly, the serious moments in it convince unlike (for me) other more serious flms like TLD and CR.

Shady Tree

I remember seing Mooonraker and FYEO in a cinema double-bill a few months after FYEO's first run had come to an end. The movies' different styles threw each other into stark relief when viewed in this back-to-back screening. I enjoyed watching both - but remember marginally prefering Moonraker to the grittier, OHMSS-influenced FYEO.

As the first poster here has said, Moonraker actually includes a range of moods. Yes, it works to the same formula as TSWLM, but then again both movies are a re-working of YOLT: TND resurrected the same formula again, for the 1990s, and when I first saw TND it made me feel all nostalgiac for those Lewis Gilbert classics.

Moonraker has many magic moments as well as some undeniably duff ones. Ken Adam and John Barry go a long way in making it a classic.

Colonel Shatner

Moonraker had magnificient sets that have held up well and very decent special effects for the time, Mike Lonsdale was very snarky and passive aggressive in his role as Drax (he was average looking, but not a physical freak by any means, and for the record had greyish green eyes), Jaws was always a larger than life jokey henchman anyway, while his pint sized girlfriend was surprisingly foxy, and Roger Moore is a likable presence. I'd rather sit through Moonraker than the overtly incoherent Die Another Day.

Lazenby880

ycpchief wrote:

What's worse is that Fleming's novel is a good one and the producers abandoned his story for a recycled TSWLM. I mean come on, the MR novel contains one the the best chapters ever written by Fleming-Dinner at Blades. And Drax was a far, far better character and villian in the book. I felt Londsdale's version was poor. We all deserved better than this cheap effort to cash in on the good buzz from TSWLM and the Star Wars craze.

Interesting post ycpchief. Moonraker is one of my favourite Fleming novels. The writing is uniformly excellent, the characterisation particularly strong (Gala Brand is a classic Bond girl), the book has a bittersweet ending and a superb plot. A superb plot for a book. As NP wrote above, I think it would be exceedingly difficult to film in an exciting way as a straight adaptation with the technical advances in movie-making by the 1970s. Had it been filmed in the 1950s it could have been a classic. I can imagine the cliff/beach scene having a real sense of danger at the time. However, with the story set entirely in England, the plot revealed at a comparatively slow pace and the danger (a missile at London) quite low-key it would not have worked in 1979. I can almost see made now as a period thriller for BBC4 or something like that, however for a blockbuster picture it is rather tame.

And while Moonraker the film probably doesn't stand up to much analysis it is incredibly good fun. The script is sharp. The well-judged humour allows Moore to play to his strengths and there are some fantastic humorous moments (such as the 80-year-old line, the gas-masks, the jibe about Britain's contribution to the civilised world being little more than afternoon tea with cucumber sandwiches). Juxtaposed with this are several quite disturbing moments, notably the centrifuge scene and Miss Dufour being hunted down by dogs. Yes, it has been made for a laugh. The rampant commercialism is very evident throughout (British Airways got great exposure from this film). Yet the whole enterprise is executed with such aplomb and such tongue in cheek that the film-makers get away with it.

Would I want every Bond film to be akin to Moonraker? Absolutely not. I prefer Casino Royale and The Living Daylights. But to coin a tired cliché variety *is* the spice of life: Moore playing with eyebrow raised all the way through, the luxirious cinematography, the brilliant jokes; I cannot deny that Moonraker can be relied upon to bring a smile to my face.

Moores Left Eyebrow

I was originally in the 'MR gets some unfair press' gang, but having read the Fleming novel for the first time (i finished it two days ago) i have to say, and it may be wrong of me to compare novel to film, but the film representation is a massive let down. The last three pages of the book is beautiful and almost brings a tear to the eye. The film is tongue in cheek through the best part and not particually believable. I actually found the action scenes in the book far, far better. I don't HATE MR the film, but i would say to anyone out there who calls themself a Bond fan, Read the book and then come back and argue the films corner. You'll find it hard.

Lazenby880

Moores Left Eyebrow wrote:

I don't HATE MR the film, but i would say to anyone out there who calls themself a Bond fan, Read the book and then come back and argue the films corner. You'll find it hard.

That's exactly what I did! As I said I love the novel, but I also love the film. I view them as entirely separate enterprises. The ending of the novel is very moving, but I would still contend that there is litle chance of filming the novel successfully as a blockbuster film.

Moores Left Eyebrow

Lazenby880 wrote:

Moores Left Eyebrow wrote:

I don't HATE MR the film, but i would say to anyone out there who calls themself a Bond fan, Read the book and then come back and argue the films corner. You'll find it hard.

That's exactly what I did! As I said I love the novel, but I also love the film. I view them as entirely separate enterprises. The ending of the novel is very moving, but I would still contend that there is litle chance of filming the novel successfully as a blockbuster film.

Agreed.
Thats how i am now looking at the majority of the Bond films/novels! I've owned all the films for years now, but only just got around to owning all of the novels. I started reading them in order and i must say, out of the first three Moonraker is my favourite novel. Its difficult to compare film to novel though as they're so different. The film is entertaining, but in my opinion, the book is better!

zaphod

ycpchief wrote:

I must respectfully disagree. I feel that Moonraker is an insult to Bond fans and Fleming himself. The producers were lazy on this one and gave us TSWLM all over again. Change the villians name, and the setting from the sea to space and it is essentially the same plot. Yes Bond movie materials have been recycled before, but not immediately back to back.


Could not agree Moore
Think about it. A submarine/space shuttle goes missing. Bond is called in to investigate. A well known industrialist with a passion for sea/space exploration and development is suspected. Bond teams up with a female KGB/CIA agent. He is confronted by the henchman Jaws. Bond finds out that the bad guy wants to wipe out humanity via the sea/space and re-imagine the world. Bond and/or the female agent is captured. A final battle begins between the bad guys minions and the military (space marines8-))Bond saves the day and beds the female agent in view of the MI6 brass.

What's worse is that Fleming's novel is a good one and the producers abandoned his story for a recycled TSWLM. I mean come on, the MR novel contains one the the best chapters ever written by Fleming-Dinner at Blades. And Drax was a far, far better character and villian in the book. I felt Londsdale's version was poor. We all deserved better than this cheap effort to cash in on the good buzz from TSWLM and the Star Wars craze.

There are other problems with MR too. Holly Goodhead is one of the least memorable Bond girls ever. Jaws is played strictly for laughs in this movie and is turned into a complete dope. The Q branch Gondola gets my vote as the worst Bond gadget ever. The wrist dart gun is awful too. You're almost afraid that if Roger sneezes he migh shoot himself. How about the space station that is invisible to radar....how did they build it first without anyone seeing??? Just the whole idea of James Bond flying around in space shooting his laser. Fleming must have rolled over in his grave.

In all fairness, as some have pointed out there are some really good moments too. But for me there is not nearly enough to overcome the OTT, recycled story, especially when the source material is so good.

Prince Kamal Khan

Lazenby880 wrote:

And while Moonraker the film probably doesn't stand up to much analysis it is incredibly good fun. The script is sharp. The well-judged humour allows Moore to play to his strengths and there are some fantastic humorous moments (such as the 80-year-old line, the gas-masks, the jibe about Britain's contribution to the civilised world being little more than afternoon tea with cucumber sandwiches). Juxtaposed with this are several quite disturbing moments, notably the centrifuge scene and Miss Dufour being hunted down by dogs. Yes, it has been made for a laugh. The rampant commercialism is very evident throughout (British Airways got great exposure from this film). Yet the whole enterprise is executed with such aplomb and such tongue in cheek that the film-makers get away with it.

Would I want every Bond film to be akin to Moonraker? Absolutely not. I prefer Casino Royale and The Living Daylights. But to coin a tired cliché variety *is* the spice of life: Moore playing with eyebrow raised all the way through, the luxirious cinematography, the brilliant jokes; I cannot deny that Moonraker can be relied upon to bring a smile to my face.

Well stated. Lazenby880. ITA. It's true that MR basically clones TSWLM(which itself cloned YOLT). However, I saw MR prior to seeing TSWLM so I didn't notice that the first time. MR is a very fun film. Yes, TLD, CR, OHMSS, and FRWL are better films. But MR's so good natured and fun, it's impossible for me to hate it.

I think MR's critics should show a little more consistency. The things they criticize MR for is pretty much the same things EON did throughout the 1970s, i.e., jettisoning the Fleming source material and playing up the fantasy and comical elements. If a viewer disliked all the other 1970s Bond films, then MR probably won't be his cup of tea either. However, if the viewer enjoyed the other 1970s Bond films, I don't see why that same viewer would all of a sudden dislike MR. IMHO, MR is the best 1970s Bond film.

Shae D Tree

I'd best disclose my bias here and now: I was young lad in "Moonraker's" day, and it readily satisfied my young appetites - clever lines, savvy heroics, model effects, explosions, etc. The cinematic Bond appeals to many people because they wish they could be 007, and when you're an adolescent male, this notion takes on immense dimensions. The statement, "If I were James Bond, I think I'd commandeer a space shuttle, infiltrate an orbiting stronghold, blow it up real good, etc.," seems completely reasonable. So maybe my soft spot for Bond 11 isn't coming from an altogether mature place. Still, I'll see if I can note the film's strong points:

1) The opening aerial sequence still holds up very well. Very few films since have managed such a cool skydiving scene without relying heavily on digital or bluescreen effects to acheive a similar outcome.

2) The globetrotting factor is excellent for a 70's Bond. The locations in Rio and especially Venice are well-used. (I acknowledge the gondola may be dopey and the cable car melee is distractingly soundstagey. Sue me.) While we know that the other locales (space, the jungle, and "California") are partially or completely fabricated, the overall sense of spectacle befitting a Bond epic is there.

3) Drax may not be the most inspiringly written Bond villain, but I do believe actor Michael Lonsdale puts in a sharp, nuanced performance. Right to the end, he conveys Drax's utter confidence that his montrous plot will succeed.

4) Another career highlight for Ken Adam.

5) One of my favorite Maurice Binder title designs, right up there with "The Spy Who Loved Me." Even the TV version is erotic.

6) Perhaps a redundant statement, but John Barry is just one of a kind for giving both visceral gravitas and class to a sprawling action picture score. (I hope a more complete soundtrack will be released.)

7) Marvelous model and pyrotechnic work from Derek Meddings and company that holds up quite well yet.

blueman

I think I was getting at a balance more than outright it-all-sucks. MR overdoses on the camp IMO. LALD is my fav 70s Bond, although I thought Moore had better moments in TMWTGG.

Between YOLT, Gilbert's two 70s retreads TSWLM and MR, and the most obvious re-retread on that template since then in TND, I prefer TND.

domin007

I actually really enjoyed Jaws comingback in MR and loved that he and bond became friends. As a movie, MR was great for up until the last 1/3rd when they went out to space and started to fight like they were in star wars. That was a bit too far fetched for me.

Sweepy the Cat

I think it was alright except for Jaws & going into space

ATPrescott

I think it was a rather well done film. I wasn't ever really keen on the overall lack of mystery and suspense in Moonraker, but it certainly wasn't a real low-point for the series.
One thing for sure is that Moonraker was very well suited for Moore's portrayal - it wouldn't have worked out with anyone else but with Roger all the silliness seems in some weird way almost natural to me.
Anyways, a Great Bond film that I appreciate and like, with all of it's strenghts and weaknesses.

:x 8-)

Railer 505

Yeah I know it is quite underrated... but how out of whack is a virus designed to destroy only the human race? Is it even biologically possible?

Napoleon Plural

Fair point. That does put MR into the 'impossible' category, though as a kid that sort of thing went over my head.

Dan Same

Railer 505 wrote:

Yeah I know it is quite underrated... but how out of whack is a virus designed to destroy only the human race? Is it even biologically possible?

Does it truly matter? Personally, I can accept anything in a film as long as it is convincing, and although MR is not a great film, I found the whole plot about the virus to be pretty convincing. I don't know; maybe it didn't convince you, but personally, regardless of its scientific metit, it very much convinced me.

rennervision

MR has had a long history with me. It was the first Bond film I saw as a kid, because I was such a sci-fi fan with the whole Star Wars craze. The sci-fi hook may have been a gimmick to attract viewers like me, but it definitely worked. And it also succeeded in arousing my curiousity for the rest of the series.

I soon become as huge a Bond fan as I was a Star Wars fan. I eventually caved in to pressure from others, and decided that MR was too silly to ever be ranked higher than the bottom three.

Then I watched it again on DVD after having not seen it in years. And to my surprise I realize I loved it. Maybe it was the nostalgia of watching my first Bond film again, but it was a lot of fun.

There's one thing you can't deny about MR. It knows it's a big, OTT 1970s popcorn film. And it succeeds marvelously at that.

I would argue that Bond films like TMWTGG or AVTAK are far worse. They don't know what they want to be, and they don't feel like they're trying very hard to entertain. MR is the perfect finale for the 70s era Bond.

Andy A 007

I'll share my opinion briefly and with all due respect to yours; Moonraker is crap. End of story.

Golrush007

I am a little biased in favour of MR because it was my first Bond experience (on video, mind you, not in cinema ). It grabbed me from the first scene and didn't let go. The opening skydive sequence remains possibly my favourite action sequence in the Bonds. I hadn't seen TSWLM at this point, but Jaws in MR was possibly the biggest pulling factor for me when I first saw the film. I found the character menacing, funny and fantastic.

Looking at the film more objectively it is not one of the best, but as others have said it has many strong points. In fact, I would go as far as to say that there are only really a couple of places where the standard really falls. The St. Marks Square scene is the key one, as it is really silly.
The strong points include the death of Corinne, which is beautifully filmed and scored. I find Lonsdale a great villain - outwardly cool and controlled, but with an insane appetite for power. He is understated in his peformance but this improves the character as far as I'm concerned. The special effects are pretty impressive, especially the space shots. Derek Meddings really excelled himself in this film, showing what can be done without the aid of digital technology. And of course, Roger Moore is on good form in this one, and if any one aspect is the film's downfall, it certainly isn't Sir Roger. Finally, John Barry's score is a good one - more classically inspired than many of his other ones, but it works particularly well - especially in space!

Railer 505

Dan Same wrote:

Railer 505 wrote:

Yeah I know it is quite underrated... but how out of whack is a virus designed to destroy only the human race? Is it even biologically possible?

Does it truly matter? Personally, I can accept anything in a film as long as it is convincing, and although MR is not a great film, I found the whole plot about the virus to be pretty convincing. I don't know; maybe it didn't convince you, but personally, regardless of its scientific metit, it very much convinced me.

Don't get me wrong; I thought Moonraker was a great movie with some quality settings and effects. I'm just stating that the villains' plot is a little more unrealistic than the other films (i.e. in AVTAK the Silicon Valley earthquake/flood and the heroin domination in TLD). Or in TMWTGG Bond taking down a prized hitman.

Prince Kamal Khan

rennervision wrote:

MR has had a long history with me. It was the first Bond film I saw as a kid, because I was such a sci-fi fan with the whole Star Wars craze. The sci-fi hook may have been a gimmick to attract viewers like me, but it definitely worked. And it also succeeded in arousing my curiousity for the rest of the series.

I soon become as huge a Bond fan as I was a Star Wars fan. I eventually caved in to pressure from others, and decided that MR was too silly to ever be ranked higher than the bottom three.

Then I watched it again on DVD after having not seen it in years. And to my surprise I realize I loved it. Maybe it was the nostalgia of watching my first Bond film again, but it was a lot of fun.

Stick by your guns. Don't ever give into anti-MR pressure again. It's a great Bond film. James Bond meets Star Wars was an irrestible combination to late 1970s filmgoers. It's still a fun film today.

rennervision wrote:

There's one thing you can't deny about MR. It knows it's a big, OTT 1970s popcorn film. And it succeeds marvelously at that.

I would argue that Bond films like TMWTGG or AVTAK are far worse. They don't know what they want to be, and they don't feel like they're trying very hard to entertain. MR is the perfect finale for the 70s era Bond.

Agree on both points. Although I would rank TMWTGG as a mid range Bond film. AVTAK is the weakest. How anyone can prefer it to MR I don't understand. MR shows Moore is his prime and is easily the most underrated Bond film of all.

Mailfist

I'm with ycp chief and andy a 007, in fact I could not have put it better than Andy A 007 - MR is crap. I love YOLT and TSWLM so it is not that MR is too far fetched, its that the producers didn't know where to stop.

The pre credit sequence is one of the best in any bond movie and they go and ruin it by including Jaws, and then add the flapping arms.

The gondola chase is good if not brilliant and they ruin it by turning the gondola into a hovercraft and shooting around St. Marks Square to the amazement of double taking pidgeons.

And Jaws love interest - pass the sick bag.

Add to this the references - the Magnificent Seven music, the Close Encounters theme the producers might as well have said we can't think of any new ourselves.

Also why does Bond not carry his Walther in the entire movie. If he did he could have just shot jaws when he was on top of the other cable car and done us all a favour.

Napoleon Plural

Don't get me wrong; I thought Moonraker was a great movie with some quality settings and effects. I'm just stating that the villains' plot is a little more unrealistic than the other films (i.e. in AVTAK the Silicon Valley earthquake/flood and the heroin domination in TLD). Or in TMWTGG Bond taking down a prized hitman.[/quote]

Well yes, and I submitted a lengthy post on this a while back. Was disgruntled to find it only got one reply, from Alex, and that was only to make up for him flying off the handle at me that week if I recall!

I think some of the comedy/racial stereotypes might have sunk it.

http://www.ajb007.co.uk/index.php?topic=29715

bailorg

Maybe it's because I'm too young to have seen MR in its original release, but I'd vehemently disagree with those claiming that MR's special effects hold up today.

The whole fight in space is not just bad, but bad to the point where the whole scene is more comical, even farcical, than suspenseful.

That being said, while it's by no means the worst Bond film out there, there are many little things, and one big point, that bring this movie down for me. First, the little things: the all too obvious product/billboard placement, the action sequences that are set up more for comedy than tension (fight in the glass store, gondola ride, etc.), and the whole recycled feel with this movie coming right after TSWLM.

My big point that I realize not everyone here would have a problem with: in terms of Bond characterization this film just bugs me as a Bond realist. For me Bond is a professional international operative first and foremost. This film, arguably more than any other official Bond movie, takes an entirely different view, namely that Bond is a jet-setting playboy who just happens to carry a gun and an array of humorous gadgets with which he just happens to foil ridiculous plots in between beddings of all too willing women.