Two things spring to mind.
First, earlier posters hark back to the novel and insist the film was poor because it wasn't like the novel. Forgive me, but only a handful of Bond films do resemble the novels. That's final. The novels are brilliant but it is short-sighted to expect the films to give them more than a nod-and-a-wink, they were dated and uncinematic even in 1962.
Second, like the novels, MR the film is a product of its time, glamourous, sexy, exciting, expensive, humourous. "We just had Star Wars," thinks Cubby Brocolli, "lets send Bond into space!". As I understand it, the decision was as simple as that. Everyone is clearly having fun in the film and its lack of plot doesn't detract from the excitement you see on the screen. Yes, it has faults, but so does GF and that's the movie I consider the best.
Yeah you're right chrisno1, the Fleming novels "were dated and uncinematic even in 1962". I mean Casino Royale was published in 1953, how could anyone expect to produce a decent film in 2006 that even somewhat resembles the novel 8-). By the way, just so you know, several of the novels were written after 1962. OHMSS was written in 1963 and made for a terrific movie in 1969. It stayed more true to the novel than any other Bond film. Uncinematic indeed!
The point with my earlier post was not to say that Moonraker should have exactly followed the novel. Of course they would have had to have made changes. My problem is the producers were lazy and only looking to cash in on the success of TSWLM and the Star Wars craze instead of trying to produce an original, quality movie. All they did was take the script from TSWLM, change the title to Moonraker, substitute the names of the characters and change the setting from sea to space. They gave us the same movie back to back.
In additon there are many, many other problems with the movie, only some of which I listed in my previous post. Why anyone thinks associating JB with Star Wars was a good idea is beyond me. Hey, The Dark Knight is a huge hit now. Let's cash in and put Bond in a superhero costume next time, maybe give him some powers or something. The Sixth Sense was big a few years ago. Let's have Bond chasing ghosts next time and seeing dead people.
No thanks. I prefer to see Bond remain a secret agent and set the trend, not copy and follow others.
I don't think MR the film cashed in on Star Wars THAT much. Much of it was the same as the YOLT/DAF formula, only the last 25mins or so was space stuff, and even then much the same sort of thing as the YOLT climax.
Running the risk o repeating what others have said here, but I love Moonraker. I think that given one or tow minor cuts it would be a cracking film. The major critisisms levelled at the film seem to be the Double taking pidgeon, the 'Bondala' and the whole outer space deal.
I think that cutting the silly pidgeon would be enough. The film - and this is purely my own view, I don't expect the FRWL purists to agree - is 2 hrs of pure and wonderful entertainment. Which at the time was all that was needed. FYEO would have failed in 1979. The outer space side of things is believable to a degree, certainly these days as ther actually is a space station.
One thing that'll never be agreed 100% is whether it's a good film or not. Maybe I'm an unusual fan but I love From Russia with Love, I love Moonraker, but also the Fleming books as well.
Hells teeth, even 75% of Die Another Day is good.
Anyway, that's just me.
Duncan
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,818MI6 Agent
WQell, I saw the film first, have also read the book, and love both of them.
I admit, I am partially biased - Derek Meddings did a phenominal job launching the space shuttle before NASA actually did, and he had to work with seven of them in the film! - Comparing the film and the book is not fair, they are two very diferent stories. Moonraker the book is more on a par with Goldfinger (either version) or the mfilms Goldeneye, or DAD in basic plot.
Another factor is the timeframe of the movie. I was four when Moonraker was released, - a year after Star Wars, and the same year as Close Encounters, Star Trek the Motion Picture, and a year before ET. EON knew they would have to do something to try to compete on the bandwaggon. It does have faults, but the end result, although recycling some aspects from notable predacessors, esp the "brave new world" aspect of "Spy Who Loved Me" is not a bad film, and is a solid fixture of the Moore era of Bond.
Michel Longsdale's Drax I find quite a fluid change as a villan. Not physically deformed or a raving looney, he presents an underplayed egotistcal menace that works very well considering the "whizz bang" nature of the environment he is trying to create.
I agree the gadgets were a bit blatent in places here, but lets face it, we all loved the late great Mr Llewelyn as Q, and here Bond spends time with a leading lady who has required skills which he lacks, for the mission. - Lois Chilles makes Dr Goodhead likeable and belivable. The banter between the two is sharp and ammusing.
As for the "worst Bond film?" - For me it has to be A View To a Kill. But thats a conversation for another thread!
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
WQell, I saw the film first, have also read the book, and love both of them.
I admit, I am partially biased - Derek Meddings did a phenominal job launching the space shuttle before NASA actually did, and he had to work with seven of them in the film! - Comparing the film and the book is not fair, they are two very diferent stories. Moonraker the book is more on a par with Goldfinger (either version) or the mfilms Goldeneye, or DAD in basic plot.
Another factor is the timeframe of the movie. I was four when Moonraker was released, - a year after Star Wars, and the same year as Close Encounters, Star Trek the Motion Picture, and a year before ET. EON knew they would have to do something to try to compete on the bandwaggon. It does have faults, but the end result, although recycling some aspects from notable predacessors, esp the "brave new world" aspect of "Spy Who Loved Me" is not a bad film, and is a solid fixture of the Moore era of Bond.
Michel Longsdale's Drax I find quite a fluid change as a villan. Not physically deformed or a raving looney, he presents an underplayed egotistcal menace that works very well considering the "whizz bang" nature of the environment he is trying to create.
I agree the gadgets were a bit blatent in places here, but lets face it, we all loved the late great Mr Llewelyn as Q, and here Bond spends time with a leading lady who has required skills which he lacks, for the mission. - Lois Chilles makes Dr Goodhead likeable and belivable. The banter between the two is sharp and ammusing.
As for the "worst Bond film?" - For me it has to be A View To a Kill. But thats a conversation for another thread!
ITA, Thunderbird 2. MR rocks and was Moore's finest hour. He was in his prime and it was as important to his tenure as TB was to Connery's. It's light years ahead of AVTAK.
Why anyone thinks associating JB with Star Wars was a good idea is beyond me. Hey, The Dark Knight is a huge hit now. Let's cash in and put Bond in a superhero costume next time, maybe give him some powers or something.
I'm not disagreeing with your points, but it's undeniable that The Dark Knight's predecessor Batman Begins had an influence on the direction CR took- some press even referred to CR as Bond Begins.
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,818MI6 Agent
Why anyone thinks associating JB with Star Wars was a good idea is beyond me. Hey, The Dark Knight is a huge hit now. Let's cash in and put Bond in a superhero costume next time, maybe give him some powers or something.
I'm not disagreeing with your points, but it's undeniable that The Dark Knight's predecessor Batman Begins had an influence on the direction CR took- some press even referred to CR as Bond Begins.
"Associating" is one thing. Copying blatently is something else. (Setting aside copyright of course!) Besides, one of the reasons franchises like Star Trek, Batman, Star Wars and Bond have survived and endured is they evolve. - "Rebooting" is the big hollywood fad right now and it works, beacuse it makes that evolution a lot easier. - Superman, Batman, Bond, and next year, (I hope) Star Trek. All are major film franchises, and this approach has worked incredibly well for the former. If it didn;t they would be in serious trouble.
There is one thing we can all agree on - love it or loathe it, Moonraker stands out as a unique film in its own right.
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
Even though I have played it back many times on the DVD this quote shows how great Lonsdale was as Drax, and how great Drax is at a Bond villian.
First there was the dream, now there is reality. Here in the untainted cradle of the heavens will be created a new super race, a race of perfect physical specimens. You have been selected as its progenitors. Like gods, your offspring will return to Earth and shape it in their image. You have all served in public capacties in my terrestrial empire. Your seed, like yourselves, will pay deference to the ultimate dynasty which I alone have created. From their first day on Earth they will be able to look up and know that there is law and order in the heavens.
Hilariously brilliant.
I think Christopher Wood really shines in his script here. He has a touch of Mankewikzs comedic and language brilliance, yet of a higher level.
I think TSWLM and MR are Moore at the height of his powers. MR's plot is pretty much the same, only in space, but it's damned iconic and influential. It is spectacle and fantasy through and through. Fun done right.
Interesting how a lot of MR haters out there rank YOLT highly.
YOLT seems even more preposterous with its hollowed-out volcano serving as a hidden base for a rocket that captures space capsules and then returns by landing - VERTICALLY I might add - back onto the Earth's surface. Connery is also phoning in his performance throughout YOLT whereas Moore is a class act throughout MR. YOLT plods along like 007 being featured on the Travel Channel, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone label MR as boring. (I can't think of a single dull moment, for that matter.) And for all those who cringe at the thought of Bond in space, it was actually a few seconds away from happening in 1967 until Blofeld stopped Bond from boarding their rocket.
Personally, I would rather watch a double-taking pigeon any day.
And for all those who cringe at the thought of Bond in space, it was actually a few seconds away from happening in 1967 until Blofeld stopped Bond from boarding their rocket.
I think they handled that scene perfectly. The film borders on the edge of excess but never really crosses the line. A Moore film, however, can. And we expect it to, that's why I love TSWLM and MR. So going into space, armed with laser guns mind you, is quite fine. It’s on another level of fantasy, and it is damned fun.
Criticizing MR and elements of the Moore films for their cartoon extravagance is like shooting fish in a barrel and grows extrememly wearsome after a time.
I think Moonraker's a hoot, great matinee popcorn stuff. Sure the plot's campy and extremely predictable--there are large gaps in logic, the clues are easily laid out, a 12 year old can play the Venetian glass detective, (I know I did), and Jaws is turned into a child's best friend. (I liked him) Not to mention Mr. Fleming, I'll take a wild guess and say he'd probably have been flabergasted over what they changed from his wonderful novel. (then again maybe not after receiving his royalties) All this counts up as quite a bad list, but for non discriminating 70s boys I couldn't care less.
Drax is one of the best villains, creepy and vastly intelligent, all his parts he plays straight. It's as if he is the only one in the cast who isn't affected by the ham that pop up from time to time.
All the actresses you can take seriously, even before Corrine's death (which is eerily and wonderfully filmed) her lines are delivered well. Goodhead is a believable character with a dry humour, and Manuella (besides being INCREDIBLY sexy) has a strong acting voice for one so petite (well next to Jaws anyway)
The pretitle sequence (up until Jaws flaps his arms) is one of the best pieces of editing ever. Real stunts, extremely dangerous. Enough said.
The space station's unveiling, Moonraker liftoff, the streams of salt used as exhaust, the destruction of the station, and the haunting score, all this is so well done, with so much care for detail, and with such resourcefullness for tackling what anyone without ILM would consider a lofty task, that it can strongly weigh out the jokes and tongue in cheek attitude.
Moonraker is exactly what it claims to be, a time capsule of fun, such painstaking work to put up on the screen has to be rewarded, not as an obligation -- but a well deserved achievement of excellence. (yes it still drops done in the list, because of the overall non serious approach and outlandish story,...still, there's something about that I love. Call it meticulous attention to love of alternative fantasy cinema, which speaks from the heart and doesn't batter away with a condescending statement that this is important art reflecting the serious woes of the times.
Imagine how better Moonraker would have been if they were able to conquer nature and film the waterfall boat drop with real stuntwork.
Criticizing MR and elements of the Moore films for their cartoon extravagance is like shooting fish in a barrel and grows extrememly wearsome after a time.
I think Moonraker's a hoot, great matinee popcorn stuff. Sure the plot's campy and extremely predictable--there are large gaps in logic, the clues are easily laid out, a 12 year old can play the Venetian glass detective, (I know I did), and Jaws is turned into a child's best friend. (I liked him) Not to mention Mr. Fleming, I'll take a wild guess and say he'd probably have been flabergasted over what they changed from his wonderful novel. (then again maybe not after receiving his royalties) All this counts up as quite a bad list, but for non discriminating 70s boys I couldn't care less.
Drax is one of the best villains, creepy and vastly intelligent, all his parts he plays straight. It's as if he is the only one in the cast who isn't affected by the ham that pop up from time to time.
All the actresses you can take seriously, even before Corrine's death (which is eerily and wonderfully filmed) her lines are delivered well. Goodhead is a believable character with a dry humour, and Manuella (besides being INCREDIBLY sexy) has a strong acting voice for one so petite (well next to Jaws anyway)
The pretitle sequence (up until Jaws flaps his arms) is one of the best pieces of editing ever. Real stunts, extremely dangerous. Enough said.
The space station's unveiling, Moonraker liftoff, the streams of salt used as exhaust, the destruction of the station, and the haunting score, all this is so well done, with so much care for detail, and with such resourcefullness for tackling what anyone without ILM would consider a lofty task, that it can strongly weigh out the jokes and tongue in cheek attitude.
Moonraker is exactly what it claims to be, a time capsule of fun, such painstaking work to put up on the screen has to be rewarded, not as an obligation -- but a well deserved achievement of excellence. (yes it still drops done in the list, because of the overall non serious approach and outlandish story,...still, there's something about that I love. Call it meticulous attention to love of alternative fantasy cinema, which speaks from the heart and doesn't batter away with a condescending statement that this is important art reflecting the serious woes of the times.
Imagine how better Moonraker would have been if they were able to conquer nature and film the waterfall boat drop with real stuntwork.
Great post Alex, and one with which I completely agree! {[]
Criticizing MR and elements of the Moore films for their cartoon extravagance is like shooting fish in a barrel and grows extrememly wearsome after a time.
I think Moonraker's a hoot, great matinee popcorn stuff. Sure the plot's campy and extremely predictable--there are large gaps in logic, the clues are easily laid out, a 12 year old can play the Venetian glass detective, (I know I did), and Jaws is turned into a child's best friend. (I liked him) Not to mention Mr. Fleming, I'll take a wild guess and say he'd probably have been flabergasted over what they changed from his wonderful novel. (then again maybe not after receiving his royalties) All this counts up as quite a bad list, but for non discriminating 70s boys I couldn't care less.
Drax is one of the best villains, creepy and vastly intelligent, all his parts he plays straight. It's as if he is the only one in the cast who isn't affected by the ham that pop up from time to time.
All the actresses you can take seriously, even before Corrine's death (which is eerily and wonderfully filmed) her lines are delivered well. Goodhead is a believable character with a dry humour, and Manuella (besides being INCREDIBLY sexy) has a strong acting voice for one so petite (well next to Jaws anyway)
The pretitle sequence (up until Jaws flaps his arms) is one of the best pieces of editing ever. Real stunts, extremely dangerous. Enough said.
The space station's unveiling, Moonraker liftoff, the streams of salt used as exhaust, the destruction of the station, and the haunting score, all this is so well done, with so much care for detail, and with such resourcefullness for tackling what anyone without ILM would consider a lofty task, that it can strongly weigh out the jokes and tongue in cheek attitude.
Moonraker is exactly what it claims to be, a time capsule of fun, such painstaking work to put up on the screen has to be rewarded, not as an obligation -- but a well deserved achievement of excellence. (yes it still drops done in the list, because of the overall non serious approach and outlandish story,...still, there's something about that I love. Call it meticulous attention to love of alternative fantasy cinema, which speaks from the heart and doesn't batter away with a condescending statement that this is important art reflecting the serious woes of the times.
Imagine how better Moonraker would have been if they were able to conquer nature and film the waterfall boat drop with real stuntwork.
Great post Alex, and one with which I completely agree! {[]
Cheers! MR = "a ruddy good time" (TM L880)
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Interesting how a lot of MR haters out there rank YOLT highly...Personally, I would rather watch a double-taking pigeon any day.
Well, you're certainly welcome to it! {[] I'm one of those 'interesting' people who prefers YOLT to anything that came out between 1973 and 2006...but I'm no 'hater.'
Nobody who knows me has any questions about how I feel about this era of Bond---but I re-watch MR (as I do all Bond films) from time to time, and I never fail to enjoy it.
It is what it is: Fun :007)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I'm one of those 'interesting' people who prefers YOLT to anything that came out between 1973 and 2006...but I'm no 'hater.'
As with me. It isn't From Russia with Love, Goldfinger or even Thunderball, but it's old school Connery Bond, so obviously it's still a good time. And Moonraker, I take pleasure in the first three quarters of the movie. I've managed to overlook the sheer absurdity of the space scenes and put it down to simple escapist fantasy.
I certainly know the joy that comes with watching a movie one has not seen in a while and picking up all of its redeeming qualities. For Moonraker however, it seldom makes its way into my DVD player because I have loathed it for sometime. Many of these reasons have explained at various times in various threads, but I'll just make a note of a few big ones for me:
Lack of originality: This movie is a recycled version of The Spy Who Loved Me and You Only Live Twice offering little creative value to the series and certainly no suspense.
Complete Abandonment of Source Material: The Moonraker novel is, in my view, one of Fleming's best books. This movie completely disregards the plot, premise, and most of the characters. A real shame.
Bond should not be in space period leave that genre to star wars,and we will all be better off.
Sure, I wouldn't be repeating it any time soon. Probably never. I'd never have the laser guns back either. Moonraker's scene is just a one off moment of cartoonish fun, and I can live with it.
I Enjoyed Moonraker when i first saw it, and i still enjoy it now. I don't think itis a low-point in the series,i'm glad there was at least one humourous film in the series but i am glad that the humour (see FYEO) was toned down from then on.
All in All MR is a fun, exciting and Bondian 2 hours. MR Gets 6.5/10
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Bond should not be in space period leave that genre to star wars,and we will all be better off.
Sure, I wouldn't be repeating it any time soon. Probably never. I'd never have the laser guns back either. Moonraker's scene is just a one off moment of cartoonish fun, and I can live with it.
Here's one Flemingist who wants Bond to go into space again some day---if it's done right (and by that I mean Apollo 13 instead of Star Wars).
I think he should go to the moon...because that's where the bad guy has gone to 'get away' from it all... :v
No worries, though, everyone. They rarely (if ever) take my advice )
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
MR has some good things going for it, I haven't seen it in a while, but as I remember, Draxs is a good villian and Corinne Clery is beautiful, in a role that deserved more screen time. John Barry's score is enjoyable also.
Unfortunately it also had Jaws flapping his wings like a cartoon character and surviving a fall from an airplane. Lois Chiles stiff as a piece of wood as the leading lady and some of the most blatant product placements ever.
Did I laugh, sure did, did I enjoy the movie, yes, do I think it is a good "Bond" film, no.
Bond should not be in space period leave that genre to star wars,and we will all be better off.
Sure, I wouldn't be repeating it any time soon. Probably never. I'd never have the laser guns back either. Moonraker's scene is just a one off moment of cartoonish fun, and I can live with it.
Here's one Flemingist who wants Bond to go into space again some day---if it's done right (and by that I mean Apollo 13 instead of Star Wars).
I think he should go to the moon...because that's where the bad guy has gone to 'get away' from it all... :v
No worries, though, everyone. They rarely (if ever) take my advice )
I guess it would work if they did do one a in the spirit of apollo 13 and it be very realistic. I just dont think Bond should be going from planet to planet shooting ray guns:)):))
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.
Excellent post, L880, and one with which I am in concurrence. Moonraker is not the best James Bond movie, but it is a highly entertaining romp that has often not been appreciated for exactly what it is. If you sit through Moonraker and expect a well-written plot along the lines of that of From Russia With Love, then you are obviously not going to like ths movie.
But if you want a movie to make you laugh and smile, then Moonraker is a pretty good one for that. Moreover, as L880 has pointed out, the cinematography is sumptuous and Moonraker also has one of the better screenplays in the series. The dialogue is sharp and witty throughout and Roger Moore delivers the lines like a hand slipping into a tailor-made glove.
The musical score is also an interesting one, though I much prefer the disco version of the title song to the slow ballad at the beginning of the film. I also like the gunbarrel music: sharp and heavy.
All in all, a highly entertaining adventure, even with all the plugs for Air France and Christian Dior.
Comments
First, earlier posters hark back to the novel and insist the film was poor because it wasn't like the novel. Forgive me, but only a handful of Bond films do resemble the novels. That's final. The novels are brilliant but it is short-sighted to expect the films to give them more than a nod-and-a-wink, they were dated and uncinematic even in 1962.
Second, like the novels, MR the film is a product of its time, glamourous, sexy, exciting, expensive, humourous. "We just had Star Wars," thinks Cubby Brocolli, "lets send Bond into space!". As I understand it, the decision was as simple as that. Everyone is clearly having fun in the film and its lack of plot doesn't detract from the excitement you see on the screen. Yes, it has faults, but so does GF and that's the movie I consider the best.
The point with my earlier post was not to say that Moonraker should have exactly followed the novel. Of course they would have had to have made changes. My problem is the producers were lazy and only looking to cash in on the success of TSWLM and the Star Wars craze instead of trying to produce an original, quality movie. All they did was take the script from TSWLM, change the title to Moonraker, substitute the names of the characters and change the setting from sea to space. They gave us the same movie back to back.
In additon there are many, many other problems with the movie, only some of which I listed in my previous post. Why anyone thinks associating JB with Star Wars was a good idea is beyond me. Hey, The Dark Knight is a huge hit now. Let's cash in and put Bond in a superhero costume next time, maybe give him some powers or something. The Sixth Sense was big a few years ago. Let's have Bond chasing ghosts next time and seeing dead people.
No thanks. I prefer to see Bond remain a secret agent and set the trend, not copy and follow others.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I think that cutting the silly pidgeon would be enough. The film - and this is purely my own view, I don't expect the FRWL purists to agree - is 2 hrs of pure and wonderful entertainment. Which at the time was all that was needed. FYEO would have failed in 1979. The outer space side of things is believable to a degree, certainly these days as ther actually is a space station.
One thing that'll never be agreed 100% is whether it's a good film or not. Maybe I'm an unusual fan but I love From Russia with Love, I love Moonraker, but also the Fleming books as well.
Hells teeth, even 75% of Die Another Day is good.
Anyway, that's just me.
Duncan
I admit, I am partially biased - Derek Meddings did a phenominal job launching the space shuttle before NASA actually did, and he had to work with seven of them in the film! - Comparing the film and the book is not fair, they are two very diferent stories. Moonraker the book is more on a par with Goldfinger (either version) or the mfilms Goldeneye, or DAD in basic plot.
Another factor is the timeframe of the movie. I was four when Moonraker was released, - a year after Star Wars, and the same year as Close Encounters, Star Trek the Motion Picture, and a year before ET. EON knew they would have to do something to try to compete on the bandwaggon. It does have faults, but the end result, although recycling some aspects from notable predacessors, esp the "brave new world" aspect of "Spy Who Loved Me" is not a bad film, and is a solid fixture of the Moore era of Bond.
Michel Longsdale's Drax I find quite a fluid change as a villan. Not physically deformed or a raving looney, he presents an underplayed egotistcal menace that works very well considering the "whizz bang" nature of the environment he is trying to create.
I agree the gadgets were a bit blatent in places here, but lets face it, we all loved the late great Mr Llewelyn as Q, and here Bond spends time with a leading lady who has required skills which he lacks, for the mission. - Lois Chilles makes Dr Goodhead likeable and belivable. The banter between the two is sharp and ammusing.
As for the "worst Bond film?" - For me it has to be A View To a Kill. But thats a conversation for another thread!
ITA, Thunderbird 2. MR rocks and was Moore's finest hour. He was in his prime and it was as important to his tenure as TB was to Connery's. It's light years ahead of AVTAK.
I'm not disagreeing with your points, but it's undeniable that The Dark Knight's predecessor Batman Begins had an influence on the direction CR took- some press even referred to CR as Bond Begins.
"Associating" is one thing. Copying blatently is something else. (Setting aside copyright of course!) Besides, one of the reasons franchises like Star Trek, Batman, Star Wars and Bond have survived and endured is they evolve. - "Rebooting" is the big hollywood fad right now and it works, beacuse it makes that evolution a lot easier. - Superman, Batman, Bond, and next year, (I hope) Star Trek. All are major film franchises, and this approach has worked incredibly well for the former. If it didn;t they would be in serious trouble.
There is one thing we can all agree on - love it or loathe it, Moonraker stands out as a unique film in its own right.
First there was the dream, now there is reality. Here in the untainted cradle of the heavens will be created a new super race, a race of perfect physical specimens. You have been selected as its progenitors. Like gods, your offspring will return to Earth and shape it in their image. You have all served in public capacties in my terrestrial empire. Your seed, like yourselves, will pay deference to the ultimate dynasty which I alone have created. From their first day on Earth they will be able to look up and know that there is law and order in the heavens.
Hilariously brilliant.
I think Christopher Wood really shines in his script here. He has a touch of Mankewikzs comedic and language brilliance, yet of a higher level.
"Better make that two."
YOLT seems even more preposterous with its hollowed-out volcano serving as a hidden base for a rocket that captures space capsules and then returns by landing - VERTICALLY I might add - back onto the Earth's surface. Connery is also phoning in his performance throughout YOLT whereas Moore is a class act throughout MR. YOLT plods along like 007 being featured on the Travel Channel, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone label MR as boring. (I can't think of a single dull moment, for that matter.) And for all those who cringe at the thought of Bond in space, it was actually a few seconds away from happening in 1967 until Blofeld stopped Bond from boarding their rocket.
Personally, I would rather watch a double-taking pigeon any day.
I think Moonraker's a hoot, great matinee popcorn stuff. Sure the plot's campy and extremely predictable--there are large gaps in logic, the clues are easily laid out, a 12 year old can play the Venetian glass detective, (I know I did), and Jaws is turned into a child's best friend. (I liked him) Not to mention Mr. Fleming, I'll take a wild guess and say he'd probably have been flabergasted over what they changed from his wonderful novel. (then again maybe not after receiving his royalties) All this counts up as quite a bad list, but for non discriminating 70s boys I couldn't care less.
Drax is one of the best villains, creepy and vastly intelligent, all his parts he plays straight. It's as if he is the only one in the cast who isn't affected by the ham that pop up from time to time.
All the actresses you can take seriously, even before Corrine's death (which is eerily and wonderfully filmed) her lines are delivered well. Goodhead is a believable character with a dry humour, and Manuella (besides being INCREDIBLY sexy) has a strong acting voice for one so petite (well next to Jaws anyway)
The pretitle sequence (up until Jaws flaps his arms) is one of the best pieces of editing ever. Real stunts, extremely dangerous. Enough said.
The space station's unveiling, Moonraker liftoff, the streams of salt used as exhaust, the destruction of the station, and the haunting score, all this is so well done, with so much care for detail, and with such resourcefullness for tackling what anyone without ILM would consider a lofty task, that it can strongly weigh out the jokes and tongue in cheek attitude.
Moonraker is exactly what it claims to be, a time capsule of fun, such painstaking work to put up on the screen has to be rewarded, not as an obligation -- but a well deserved achievement of excellence. (yes it still drops done in the list, because of the overall non serious approach and outlandish story,...still, there's something about that I love. Call it meticulous attention to love of alternative fantasy cinema, which speaks from the heart and doesn't batter away with a condescending statement that this is important art reflecting the serious woes of the times.
Imagine how better Moonraker would have been if they were able to conquer nature and film the waterfall boat drop with real stuntwork.
Well, you're certainly welcome to it! {[] I'm one of those 'interesting' people who prefers YOLT to anything that came out between 1973 and 2006...but I'm no 'hater.'
Nobody who knows me has any questions about how I feel about this era of Bond---but I re-watch MR (as I do all Bond films) from time to time, and I never fail to enjoy it.
It is what it is: Fun :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Lack of originality: This movie is a recycled version of The Spy Who Loved Me and You Only Live Twice offering little creative value to the series and certainly no suspense.
Complete Abandonment of Source Material: The Moonraker novel is, in my view, one of Fleming's best books. This movie completely disregards the plot, premise, and most of the characters. A real shame.
All in All MR is a fun, exciting and Bondian 2 hours. MR Gets 6.5/10
Here's one Flemingist who wants Bond to go into space again some day---if it's done right (and by that I mean Apollo 13 instead of Star Wars).
I think he should go to the moon...because that's where the bad guy has gone to 'get away' from it all... :v
No worries, though, everyone. They rarely (if ever) take my advice
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Unfortunately it also had Jaws flapping his wings like a cartoon character and surviving a fall from an airplane. Lois Chiles stiff as a piece of wood as the leading lady and some of the most blatant product placements ever.
Did I laugh, sure did, did I enjoy the movie, yes, do I think it is a good "Bond" film, no.
I guess it would work if they did do one a in the spirit of apollo 13 and it be very realistic. I just dont think Bond should be going from planet to planet shooting ray guns:)):))
'Moonraker deserves better prays'
Excellent post, L880, and one with which I am in concurrence. Moonraker is not the best James Bond movie, but it is a highly entertaining romp that has often not been appreciated for exactly what it is. If you sit through Moonraker and expect a well-written plot along the lines of that of From Russia With Love, then you are obviously not going to like ths movie.
But if you want a movie to make you laugh and smile, then Moonraker is a pretty good one for that. Moreover, as L880 has pointed out, the cinematography is sumptuous and Moonraker also has one of the better screenplays in the series. The dialogue is sharp and witty throughout and Roger Moore delivers the lines like a hand slipping into a tailor-made glove.
The musical score is also an interesting one, though I much prefer the disco version of the title song to the slow ballad at the beginning of the film. I also like the gunbarrel music: sharp and heavy.
All in all, a highly entertaining adventure, even with all the plugs for Air France and Christian Dior.