Moonraker was a cracker until the space scenes. Right?

Q and M

i do like moonraker, right up until the space scenes which absolutly ruined it.

Wint and Kidd far-out

I don't dislike Moonraker at all, but I understand where you're coming from. The whole space plot was very far-fetched. The concept of killing off the world's population to re-populate it with physically perfect specimens is not meant to be taken too seriously at all.

I think up till this point in the series the schemes of the villians, while somewhat exaggeratedly larger than life, were at least plausibly believable enough. Imagine all those loving couples freely volunteering to go along with Drax's plan. )

A very enjoyable movie to be taken with a generous measure of salt.

Hardyboy

Actually, Moonraker is a good film up until the appearance of Jaws. Everything is suspenseful, mysterious, and even kind of realistic--then it all becomes a wild cartoon. This problem is encapsulated in the PTS: we're given great action and a hair-raising stunt, but Jaws shows up and falls into a circus.

Tokyo Matt

Hello again Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd.

I've been on this sight a lot today and it's starting to feel like we're the only children in the playground.

Mister Q and Mister M.
Moonraker came out in the late seventies (1979, I think). The latter half of the seventies was the time of Star Wars. There was a flood of science fiction/space movies, they were all trying to cash in on the space movie mania. Bond followed. I was around in the seventies and can well remember how huge the success of Star Wars was.

And it was silly. James Bond flying a space shuttle. Good guys versus bad guys shooting at each other with laser guns.

Daft.

And like so many other things, a product of it's time. In the seventies, after Star Wars, people went and watched it. And enjoyed it. And it was a success.

If Daniel Craig's next movie had him in a space ship with a laser gun, the movie would get a right roasting by the critics. But not so three decades ago.

Like Misters Wint and Kidd said, take it witha pinch of salt. It's a bit of seventies.

Got a feeling a lot of people are going to disagree heavily with me on this.

Better put my gumshield in.

Tokyo Matt

Ooh, ooh.

All that "Star Wars" and "seventies" stuff I said....................I forgot to add," In my very humble opinion".

Thunderbird 2

Personally? I LIKE Moonraker, - in part because of the space scenes!

Was it far fetched? Yes. Was it plausable? No, not a chance in hell. But then, With classic exceptions like FRWL, FYEO (to a degree) and CR, all the Bond films push the envelope to extreme. Look at Goldfinger - Bond in 18 carat excess, but it also revels in its larger than life nature.

You love Moonraker? Great. You hate it? Your choice. However, it is classic Moore era Bond. For a film that had to compete with Star Wars, Star Trek TMP, Close Encounters, Superman, and Alien, I think 007 did the best he could.

With Thanks to The Drax Corporation and of course NASA! - It seems all the more poignat to me since the Space shuttle programme is almost over.

Agent Sidewinder

Moonraker is a cracker up to and including the space scenes. One of my favourite Bond films, and I'll spend plenty of words explaining why if I have to.-{

Barry Nelson

Hardyboy wrote:

Actually, Moonraker is a good film up until the appearance of Jaws. Everything is suspenseful, mysterious, and even kind of realistic--then it all becomes a wild cartoon. This problem is encapsulated in the PTS: we're given great action and a hair-raising stunt, but Jaws shows up and falls into a circus.

My exact feelings, Jaws was the problem. I also didn't care for Lois Chiles, who I thought was rather wooden. Moonraker is near the bottom of my Bond film list.

Andy007

I would say Moonraker is a decent Bond film. unfairly criticised.
The first hour is very good. Drax & Chang were great villains. Holly Goodhead a decent Bond girl too.
It has good action scenes with suspense & tension. It has plenty of telling moments, like Bond being spun around in the space tester. (very well done) & played by Moore. Corinne chased down by the dogs. Bond spied on by Chang & then the fight in museum/tower. I think the film gets worse after Jaws becomes the henchman. Unfortunately Jaws didn't have the menace or fear-factor of TSWLM. Instead playing the role in a camp/comedic manner. The silly girlfriend & space scenes changed the film a lot. But i still say it was successful. But i agree it was very good until the space scenes.

mrbain007

I think SOME of the space stuff works, namely the sets and the John Barry score:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IKahbz75xo

However it certainly does become something of a comic in the latter part of the film (the use of lazer guns doesn't really suit the world of 007 and comes across as gimicky in todays post Star Wars generation rather than cool).

That said, rather cheap comedy and cheesy moments had occured several times before the flight into space (anything with Jaws, the Gondola scene).

I also didn't care for Lois Chiles, who I thought was rather wooden.

Thanks! I thought she was rather wooden aswell tbh. Maybe not quite bad as Barbara Bach though.

For me MR is entertaing but still fairly low on my list. I'm suprised as I know some people prefer it to Spy.

Thunderpussy

Moonraker is a great piece of escapist fun, like YOLT. Like many it would be at the low end of my Bond favourites list. But it has some great moments. :007)

James Suzuki

Tokyo Matt wrote:

Hello again Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd.

I've been on this sight a lot today and it's starting to feel like we're the only children in the playground.

Mister Q and Mister M.
Moonraker came out in the late seventies (1979, I think). The latter half of the seventies was the time of Star Wars. There was a flood of science fiction/space movies, they were all trying to cash in on the space movie mania. Bond followed. I was around in the seventies and can well remember how huge the success of Star Wars was.

And it was silly. James Bond flying a space shuttle. Good guys versus bad guys shooting at each other with laser guns.

Daft.

And like so many other things, a product of it's time. In the seventies, after Star Wars, people went and watched it. And enjoyed it. And it was a success.

If Daniel Craig's next movie had him in a space ship with a laser gun, the movie would get a right roasting by the critics. But not so three decades ago.

Like Misters Wint and Kidd said, take it witha pinch of salt. It's a bit of seventies.

Got a feeling a lot of people are going to disagree heavily with me on this.

Better put my gumshield in.

Said well, I couldn't have said it better

dtyndall

I watched Moonraker last night for the second time on Blu-ray and had mixed thoughts about it.

The opening sequence of Bond's descent from the plane was pretty epic and captivating... up until Jaws had to spoil all the fun with his campiness. The shot where he struggles to keep himself from falling is just awkward and embarassing, only further made worse by the jokey music.

I liked the Bond girl in this one, as she was one of the more pure and intelligent Bond girls yet seen in the movies. It's nice to have a change from the ditzy type for once.

The part where Bond fights the snake? Just bad. On the other side of the coin, the boat chase and flight over the waterfall? Very nice. I would have to say that the boat chase in LALD was a notch above this one, but it was cool for what it was. The fight scene with the kendo stick-wielding baddie was okay; I just felt like something was missing. And the Venice speed boat chase was just sick.

I don't want to get into the last thirty minutes of the movie, though. I get that the movie was meant to capitalize on the late 70's space craze, but it just didn't work. I'm not even sure it worked back then all too well?

As a side note, Jaws' main lady Dolly was too cute in her brief role. Anyone agree?

Overall, in my opinion, the movie doesn't stand up as well as other Moore efforts like TSWLM or FYEO, but I would consider it a more interesting and fulfilling affair than other Bond flicks such as DAD, QoS, or any of the Dalton entries.

Napoleon Plural

Loved the space stuff, holds up well imo. Gives the great John Barry a chance to shine and move into new territory with his scores. The poster is iconic really too. Stops us from having another exploding base on the ground type Bond film and it's very well paced overall, the right amount of time in space, unlike the climax of Dr No which really does go on a long time.

Hardyboy

To my mind, the saving grace of Moonraker is Michel Lonsdale's Drax. From beginning to end--in the serious bits and the silly ones--he's giving a deadpan delivery to those great lines. Arguably the best villain of the Moore years; it's just too bad he didn't feature in a better film!

chrisno1

Ahh, Moonraker, always a touchy subject.
IMO, it's one of the Top 10 Bond movies.
Cheesy? for sure. Unrealistic? quite definately. Over the top in the visual humour stakes? probably. OTT in the humour stakes? i guess. Repeat of TSWLM? uhuh. Jaws? pity.
But....
Spectacular - oh yes! Great score - oh yes! Great Bond girls - oh yes! Great villain - oh yes! Great action scenes - oh yes! Great production design - oh yes! Funny - oh yes! Exciting - oh yes! Suspenseful - damn right! Chilling - oh yes! Exotic locations - oh yes!
Do I care that Bond gets blasted into space? Not really. It's plain dumb, but then so was the volcano crater, so was the particle beam laser satelite, so was an oil tanker kidnapping nuclear subs, so was the rebreather. It doesn't really matter that Bond is in space when a movie chooses to be as outlandish as this one. You simply have to go with it and enjoy it (accept it?) for what it is.
What irks me more is when a film chooses to be "realistic" but features elongated oil tanker chases involving sidewinder missiles or James Bond surviving heart failure without so much as a blink.

sambwoy

Some critics have said MR was silly, but this criticism IMO is a bit strong. If you watch MR all the way through like I did when I saw it on TV in 1999, then yes, it only feels silly from a certain point, because a lot of otherwise impressive sequences end on a gag. I don't think the space scenes bother me so much as the fact that good scenes end on a joke, and the film could have been improved with tighter editing.

Evidently some critics when the film came out embraced the carefree spirit of the film, so it wasn't hated by all critics. MR is not a 'bad' film in the same sense as what a really bad film is. It is not cheaply made or badly acted- it is well made and is sometimes nice to look at.

Sir_Miles_Messervy

Hardyboy wrote:

To my mind, the saving grace of Moonraker is Michel Lonsdale's Drax. From beginning to end--in the serious bits and the silly ones--he's giving a deadpan delivery to those great lines. Arguably the best villain of the Moore years; it's just too bad he didn't feature in a better film!

I'd have to agree that he was a singular highlight of the film (though I'd place Lee's Scaramanga above him).

I actually enjoy Moonraker quite a bit up until the space bit.

mrbain007

I rewatched MR the other week and I'd now say the film does suffer from an overt silliness throughout, not just the space scenes. Jaws, the Venice speedboat chase (which features THREE gags including the hovercraft sequence) and a slightly too smug performance from Moore. I watched OP soon after and, despite its silliness, its actually the better film.

hegottheboot

Maybe it's just that I have seen MR way too many times but I've never found it as bad as others have claimed.
The space bits aren't bad. Aside from the space marines being able to magically reach the space station in 5 minutes and the laser pistols it's relatively realistic and theoretically could happen.
Drax is a great villain, but the script suffers from the main plot virtually being TSWLM in space. (Of course TSWLM was YOLT underwater.) Pre-Jaws introduction into the main story, the film is down to earth and features Bond actually doing some spying. Great dialogue, memorable scenes and then...cartoons invade somewhat in the second half. Bond in Rio works well, and Jaws in Carnival works (although his being carried away still looks a bit suspect) The boat chase starts well and then becomes goofy. The Magnificent Seven theme wasn't necessary and Bond is too much of an expert about extremely rare botany.
If you count the good scenes they far outweigh the bad. First and foremost MR was a product of its time: 1979. Also it is important to note that the film was made in France. This lends a certain air to the production but especially in the more luxurious look and feel to the film.
Unlike Octopussy it never really lags. And it has more escapism than FYEO which with each passing year gets more bogged down in its 1981 "we've got to scale everything back" mentality.

sambwoy

The special effects are good for 1978-79, and considering that the studio turned down many of the great special effects companies to make the effects, and they overcame that problem. I don't totally buy the space thing entirely either, but Moonraker is for the most part a fun extravaganza and I have no problem with that.

I wouldn't reccommend it too highly or to everyone but I do think some are quick to knock it.

I went and got a Corgi model of the MR shuttle a few weeks ago. I rather like it.

pyrat

Tokyo Matt has it pegged. MR was the first Bond film following the release of Star Wars. A bad attempt to cash in on the craze. I'd agree with the evaluation of the Jaws character as well. It was also the first Bond film following the release of the movie Jaws. Basically they pimped the whole Bond concept to do some tie-ins to these other very successful films. Sorry guys, MR, IMHO, competes for the top spot on the list of worst Bond films.

I agree regarding the special effects which were very good, but ill served the Bond franchise. On the bright side, the plot of Ian Fleming's novel is still virgin territory, so while I'm not a fan of remaking the early films, this one has possibilities.

Higgins

Most of the people, who criticize MR most possibly have not grown up in the 70s.

In the late 70s, movies in the cinema had to be entertainment, they had to be bigger and spectacular.
Jaws was highly popular after TSWLM and the movie made a HUGE success at the box office.

Seeing the space scenes 30 years later makes look them a bit silly, but look at Star Wars and be the judge.

Hard edged films became popular after "First Blood", but that was 3 years later.

Thunderpussy

Most of the people, who criticize MR most possibly have not grown up in the 70s.

In the late 70s, movies in the cinema had to be entertainment, they had to be bigger and spectacular.
Jaws was highly popular after TSWLM and the movie made a HUGE success at the box office.

Seeing the space scenes 30 years later makes look them a bit silly, but look at Star Wars and be the judge.

Hard edged films became popular after "First Blood", but that was 3 years later.

well said Bondtoys -{

Moonraker was a product of its time. areal 70's Spectaular B-)

Higgins

-{ TP

Let me add, that if they would have kept the formula from the first 3 Connery movies, EON would have been broke at that time.

Thunderbird 2

There is another aspect of Moonraker that stands out to me. - Right now Atlantis is in the middle of her final mission, docked at the ISS. - Soon Moonraker will be a period reminder of two pieces of ariel engineering that has passed into noted history. The Space Shuttle Programme, and Concorde.

B***er.

Agent Sidewinder

Thunderbird 2 wrote:

There is another aspect of Moonraker that stands out to me. - Right now Atlantis is in the middle of her final mission, docked at the ISS. - Soon Moonraker will be a period reminder of two pieces of ariel engineering that has passed into noted history. The Space Shuttle Programme, and Concorde.

B***er.

Very true, TB2, very true indeed.

So, if Star Wars hadn't come around, and MR had been adapted say, after For Your Eyes Only, how much of Fleming's novel would have made it into the film? Would it have been faithful (with some things changed, maybe) or would it have been a half-adaptation in the way DAF and LALD were?

pyrat

It seems that following Goldfinger they started going further afield. This is partially attributable to changes in technology. For example, the guy on the motorcycle with a grenade in the Thunderball novel, to the girl on a motorcycle with rocket launchers in the movie. I believe B&S had some doubts that the MR novel material would translate to the screen which was their stated reason for deviating so much from the novel. I found this unfortunate since the MR novel so fills out the Bond character. One line of though is the Bond movies irrevocably changed the instant Connery ejected the Korean guard through the roof of the Aston.

sambwoy

Bondtoys wrote:

Most of the people, who criticize MR most possibly have not grown up in the 70s.

In the late 70s, movies in the cinema had to be entertainment, they had to be bigger and spectacular.
Jaws was highly popular after TSWLM and the movie made a HUGE success at the box office.

Seeing the space scenes 30 years later makes look them a bit silly, but look at Star Wars and be the judge.

Hard edged films became popular after "First Blood", but that was 3 years later.

Mmm. I was born in '87. The first time I was ever aware of Bond was just in the year that GoldenEye came out, and back then ITV didn't show the Bonds in chronological order week after week like they have done more recently- I guess it was a case of whatever the network could get. TLD is saw first, then DAF- both totally different films.

But people just need to be aware of the situation in Hollywood at that time before they knock MR.

The decision to take Bond out into space was a seductive idea from both a financial and creative standpoint, because it was just after Star Wars and there was that sci-fi boon.

I don't think the space scenes are as bothersome about the film as much as the emphasis on comedy, because that is the real fault with it.

bigzilcho

Judging from the responses so far, no one seems to embrace the space sequences. At best, there is a grudging respect for the last third of the film.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. If Bond HAS to go into space (a function of the influence of Star Wars) then the plot for MR is as perfect an excuse as any for that to happen.

Consider Drax's plan (another underrated aspect of the film): wiping out humanity to create a new master race. It would seem that space would be the ideal place to initiate this plan.

Anyone who thinks this is a far-fetched improbable caper should do some research into the thinking and ideology of the rich and powerful who believe in eugenics. Drax is not some standard two-bit villian, but one of the greatest bad-guys in Bond history. The man has a philosophy and an agenda that is truly chilling and should never be underestimated.

The scary thing is that Drax wouldn't be out of place in our world.

Prince Phillip was once asked what he would like to come back as if he was reincarnated. His response? A bacteria that would wipe out the majority of humanity.

Drax and MR are in serious need of re-appraisal by the Bond community. Even generous Bond-fans who see this as top-flight popcorn entertainment can never seem to wrap their heads around the fact the MR is more than a cartoon.

It is a cartoon of the highest caliber. A fun-house ride with thills, chills and more than a hint of darkness.

Bond in space? Not only is it NOT ridiculous but I would venture to say it is the most inspired aspect of the film.

MR is the bottle of wine in the Roger Moore 007 wine cellar that will only get better with age.


"Jaws, you obey ME!!!"

Thunderpussy

I think alot of the ideas in Moonraker could still be used today,

A larger than life Villain,a kind of newage avangalist. using cells of followers across the world to release a powerful toxin to kill off the human race, except for his chosen followers. Leave out the space angle and it could be a good thriller, keeping the world domination/ world in peril idea from the old series ( IMHO, Bond is only as good as the villain he has to fight ) . using the Bourne camera work and Conspiricy Organisation Like QUANTUM, as Backers. with the villain revealed as a Quantum member who'll double cross his own followers for Quantum, really only Killing the majority population of the west leaving it open for Quantum who owns controlling shares in all the major companys,and corrupt politicians to take over as a coup.
Just stick in a couple of big action/stunt sequences, a few funny one-liners and several drop-dead-gorgeous women.
Of course I'd have to direct,and have full control of the project as I'm very temperamental ) and will throw my toys out of the pram if I don't get my way.