There is no problem with Moonraker and it's a good entry in my opinion. I like the humor and the fantastical plot.
A lot of people say they like how For Your Eyes Only goes back to basics and prefer it over Moonraker, but FYEO becomes just another spy action movie, where as Moonraker has a unique quality that is Bond.
I have come to love Roger but his films suffered from too much slapstick to use your word. If it is funny fine but you take a risk with those jokes. In AVTAK for example there is that great ski scene before the credits but they had to put that Beach Boys song in there and it was a cover to boot. I have to admit I enjoyed see Jaws finally get laid but.....
It's probably the humour, which gets a bit too silly in some places. The plot, even with the space part, isn't too fantastical compared to the likes of YOLT and TSWLM, and everything up until they go into space is standard Bond.
I might be unpopular for saying this, but I love Moonraker. It's either the worst or best Bond film, depending on my mood - and it goes to show there's a Bond film for every mood. On one hand it's utterly ridiculous; on the other, it's action-packed, humorous, escapist fun at its peak. It's the film that got me into Bond as a kid, and it still holds a dear place in my inner adolescent fantasy world. Impossible to take seriously, but impossible for me to not enjoy.
Upon reflection, I feel like I got off on the wrong foot with this thread. The original intention was to speculate as to why Moonraker was seen as a weak entry by the general public, critics etc, not to argue that people shouldn't like it. It wasn't my intention to attack anyone who actually holds the film in high regard, but I can see that I did. My apologies. Nothing wrong with a bit of over the top Bond -{
I was only 6 when it came out so I don't know how it was received back then, because reviewing it now with a modern eye its very easy to pick it apart without fully appreciating where the series was heading back then and what they were trying to do to keep the series afloat 40 years ago. I don't think they could have pulled a CR style 180 about turn and changed direction of the series as cinema was a different animal back then when it came to Bond. Or at least that's how it looks to me.
I remember it being a perennial Christmas film in the 80s on uk TV and it holds a lot of happy nostalgia for me, it's a typical Bond film of the day I'd say, doesn't take it self seriously with big set pieces and a typical Moore turn as Bond. Now I'd say both the slapstick and fantastical plot are issues, but slapstick was present from DAF onwards, that's where Bond films were heading. Whilst each plot was trying to top the last. So maybe it was a natural evolution?
I think the problem is definitely the slapstick. The fantastical plot we have seen before in Bond films; more specifically in the movie before which is considered a classic. In fact, probably the plot of spy is even more ridiculous than that of Moonraker.
I still love Moonraker, it is enjoyable, although it is far from the James Bond that comes from the Fleming novels or the early Connery movies. However, it is great fun, fantastic production values, soundtrack, villain, Bond girls, locations and Moore in fine form.
It could have been a much better film if we reduced the silliness, such as the gondola chase, the double take pigeon and making Jaws more threatening and less a giant idiot as he was portrayed here.
I've never had a problem with MRs plot. I don't like the slapstick. I think about 5 minutes could be trimmed from it and it would be much better.
I would agree with you for sure. The plot isn't an issue for me really, I kinda like the outlandish plots! There just needs trimming throughout the flick to get rid of the some of stuff that I find to be silly and it would be completely solid -{
If the Leone trilogy had a counterpart in the Bond movies, it'd be the Spy--->Moonraker era.
Honestly, I never got the love for Spy and hate for Moonraker, both are shining beacons of why the Moore era was so damned awesome. No other Bond can come close to them, the true diamonds in the rough.
Which is superior is another matter, and one of little importance. Both have different problems but the result is two brilliant films.
They're about the most imaginative Bond movies since the early 60s.
Sending Bond to space?
Laser battles?
Purists would argue this isn't Bond at all, but this is film Bond's magnum opus in terms of slapstick and ott outlandishness.
Typically, a new way of making a film is impressive the first time its done that way, because it is original and integral to that films story. When a sequel or imitation turns that once-original idea into formula, its not interesting, its disappointing and suggests the second story is less sincere. In the case of Moonraker we know they threw out 95% of a perfectly good Fleming plot to remake the ...Spy... formula, now In Space. So the repeated elements smack of cynicism.
On the other hand, ...Spy... contrasts strongly with the previous three or four films, and that contrast works in its favour. The lack of Fleming is not such an issue here, because we know they legally had no choice, Fleming himself insisted they come up with a new story, and so they did. The film looks the way it does because that's the nature of the allnew story they came up with.
And FYEO is impressive by how strongly it contrasts with the fantasy world of the previous two films. But whatever MR has going for it, it does not contrast with what had just been done and therefor encourages us just to watch the previous film, where all those ideas were fresh.
(yes I know ...Spy... itself repeats ideas the same director used in YOLT. Ten years later, and with four films in between that did not repeat the formula. The motives in recycling were different.)
But whatever MR has going for it, it does not contrast with what had just been done and therefor encourages us just to watch the previous film, where all those ideas were fresh.
There is a lot to like about MR, but this is its biggest weakness IMO. Like Stromberg's tracing of the British submarine's course, MR's story arc could be overlaid onto that of TSWLM, and very little variation would be seen. This bothers me far more than the space plot or the slapstick.
I think I might prefer Moonraker to The Spy Who Loved Me. I think it is better paced, has more interesting characters and more exciting locations. Jaws is familiar at this point and a bit less frightening (he never was all that frightening in The Spy Who Loved Me), but I think all of the other characters are more colourful. I much prefer Drax to Stromberg and Goodhead to Amasova. And though The Spy Who Loved Me has the better title theme, Moonraker has a much better score.
I think I might prefer Moonraker to The Spy Who Loved Me. I think it is better paced, has more interesting characters and more exciting locations. Jaws is familiar at this point and a bit less frightening (he never was all that frightening in The Spy Who Loved Me), but I think all of the other characters are more colourful. I much prefer Drax to Stromberg and Goodhead to Amasova. And though The Spy Who Loved Me has the better title theme, Moonraker has a much better score.
I gave this some thought and I tend to agree with you: Spy is a little overrated, although still good fun. MR however is underrated. People slack off MR for maybe 5 minutes of screen time: The gondola chase, the double take pigeon, Jaws flapping his arms and maybe 1 or 2 other slapstick moments. Take these moments out, and it is actually a movie with some great moments. Some highlights are:
- The centrifuge scene: First and maybe only time Moore looks roughed up
- The death of Corinne. Very eerie for such a movie
- The amazing locations: Venice, Rio are some of the most photogenic cities in the world.
- Drax is a great villain with the best lines in the series
- I prefer Anya (specifically her looks) but Holly demonstrates more that she can kick ass and be Bond's equal.
- The soundtrack is evidently better, although like everyone I do have a soft spot for Bond '77
What makes Spy so lovable is due to some key moments:
- The ski jump
- First time Jaws
- The Lotus chase
- The fact that it came after the mediocre Golden Gun and the story seemed more fresh at the time, even though it's plot is similar to you only live twice. Moonraker's problem is that everyone linked it to Star Wars and that plot-wise it is too similar to Spy.
I prefer the classic Bond's but both Spy and MR are great watchable movies to me. They're better/more entertaining than golden gun, Octopussy, AVTAK. FYEO has more Fleming elements, but would watch that less than MR and Spy. LALD remains Moore's favorite to me.
Comments
A lot of people say they like how For Your Eyes Only goes back to basics and prefer it over Moonraker, but FYEO becomes just another spy action movie, where as Moonraker has a unique quality that is Bond.
At least by the standards of video game plots.
I remember it being a perennial Christmas film in the 80s on uk TV and it holds a lot of happy nostalgia for me, it's a typical Bond film of the day I'd say, doesn't take it self seriously with big set pieces and a typical Moore turn as Bond. Now I'd say both the slapstick and fantastical plot are issues, but slapstick was present from DAF onwards, that's where Bond films were heading. Whilst each plot was trying to top the last. So maybe it was a natural evolution?
I still love Moonraker, it is enjoyable, although it is far from the James Bond that comes from the Fleming novels or the early Connery movies. However, it is great fun, fantastic production values, soundtrack, villain, Bond girls, locations and Moore in fine form.
It could have been a much better film if we reduced the silliness, such as the gondola chase, the double take pigeon and making Jaws more threatening and less a giant idiot as he was portrayed here.
1. Connery 2. Craig 3. Brosnan 4. Dalton 5. Lazenby 6. Moore
I would agree with you for sure. The plot isn't an issue for me really, I kinda like the outlandish plots! There just needs trimming throughout the flick to get rid of the some of stuff that I find to be silly and it would be completely solid -{
Honestly, I never got the love for Spy and hate for Moonraker, both are shining beacons of why the Moore era was so damned awesome. No other Bond can come close to them, the true diamonds in the rough.
Which is superior is another matter, and one of little importance. Both have different problems but the result is two brilliant films.
They're about the most imaginative Bond movies since the early 60s.
Sending Bond to space?
Laser battles?
Purists would argue this isn't Bond at all, but this is film Bond's magnum opus in terms of slapstick and ott outlandishness.
On the other hand, ...Spy... contrasts strongly with the previous three or four films, and that contrast works in its favour. The lack of Fleming is not such an issue here, because we know they legally had no choice, Fleming himself insisted they come up with a new story, and so they did. The film looks the way it does because that's the nature of the allnew story they came up with.
And FYEO is impressive by how strongly it contrasts with the fantasy world of the previous two films. But whatever MR has going for it, it does not contrast with what had just been done and therefor encourages us just to watch the previous film, where all those ideas were fresh.
(yes I know ...Spy... itself repeats ideas the same director used in YOLT. Ten years later, and with four films in between that did not repeat the formula. The motives in recycling were different.)
I gave this some thought and I tend to agree with you: Spy is a little overrated, although still good fun. MR however is underrated. People slack off MR for maybe 5 minutes of screen time: The gondola chase, the double take pigeon, Jaws flapping his arms and maybe 1 or 2 other slapstick moments. Take these moments out, and it is actually a movie with some great moments. Some highlights are:
- The centrifuge scene: First and maybe only time Moore looks roughed up
- The death of Corinne. Very eerie for such a movie
- The amazing locations: Venice, Rio are some of the most photogenic cities in the world.
- Drax is a great villain with the best lines in the series
- I prefer Anya (specifically her looks) but Holly demonstrates more that she can kick ass and be Bond's equal.
- The soundtrack is evidently better, although like everyone I do have a soft spot for Bond '77
What makes Spy so lovable is due to some key moments:
- The ski jump
- First time Jaws
- The Lotus chase
- The fact that it came after the mediocre Golden Gun and the story seemed more fresh at the time, even though it's plot is similar to you only live twice. Moonraker's problem is that everyone linked it to Star Wars and that plot-wise it is too similar to Spy.
I prefer the classic Bond's but both Spy and MR are great watchable movies to me. They're better/more entertaining than golden gun, Octopussy, AVTAK. FYEO has more Fleming elements, but would watch that less than MR and Spy. LALD remains Moore's favorite to me.
1. Connery 2. Craig 3. Brosnan 4. Dalton 5. Lazenby 6. Moore