beckman307

I remember watching it for the first time during the ABC Sunday Night movie slot. I loved what I saw of it, and I remember pleading to stay up past my bedtime to watch the whole thing. No dice - it was off to bed after the centrifuge scene. Then after my family got a VCR, Moonraker was the only Bond film that was consistently never in at the video store.

Eventually I saw the whole movie, and while there were some cool scenes, overall it just seemed kind of silly. Dr. Goodhead? Seriously? I realize that previous Bond films had featured Pussy Galore and Plenty O'Toole, but at least those were clever. Plus, the last act featured a huge laser gun battle in space! If I'm Bond, once I get back to earth, I'm trading in my Walther PPK for a laser pistol.

While I appreciate OP's enthusiasm for this one, if I'm in the mood for a campy Bond movie, give me A View to a Kill every time.

Supermallet

Moonraker is the film that, in my mind, defines Moore's run as Bond. It's not my favorite (that would be a tie between The Man With The Golden Gun and The Spy Who Loved Me), but it is the last good Moore Bond (I agree with the OP that starting with FYEO Moore simply looked too old for the part).

Moonraker is loud, silly, and ultimately a lot of fun. It barely bothers to take itself seriously, but not going as far as Octopussy (Bond as a clown? Come on). Moore is perfectly suited to this kind of over the top action comedy, and he has a lot of fun jetsetting and sparring with his CIA counterpart, one of the tougher Bond girls.

There's plenty of silliness to the film (Jaws has a girlfriend, for Pete's sake), but the film pulls it off with a smirk that disarms the audience, making almost all of it work. The ending is ridiculous, but the vast majority of the film takes place on Earth and is great fun. The movie is sheer spectacle and shows Roger Moore doing what he does best. I've grown to love the movie over the years. For a long time I considered it the beginning of Bond's worst years, but now can see that it is in fact the last gasp of the classic run of Bonds, going all the way back to Dr. No. Not nearly as bad as its reputation would suggest. This was originally going to be Moore's last outing as Bond, and had it been, his tenure as Bond might not be the subject of so much ridicule.

Rad14

Sorry, didn't like any of Moore's Bond Movies. Always thought he brought far too much comedy and light-heartedness to the role. And INMHO, Moonraker was probably the worst he ever made.

B5Erik

Moonraker is ridiculously over the top in it's 2nd half. The movie is silly and really turns itself into a spoof (which Bond movies are not supposed to do - sometimes they flirt with spoofing themselves, but other than Moonraker they rarely ever cross that line).

It's not horrible, but it's one of the weakest entries in the series. Hell, the only Bond movie I rank lower than this one is Live and Let Die.

Moore had some very good Bond movies (Spy, FYEO), and some mediocre ones (MWTGG, OP, AVTAK), but this one and Live and Let Die are two that really tarnish his tenure as Bond, IMO. Although he looked WAY too old to play Bond by the time of OP and AVTAK, which is another thing that he is remembered for as James Bond.

But even with all my criticism of Moonraker I still enjoy watching it. It's entertaining - even if it is fairly ridiculous.

dhmac

Here are my rambling, random thoughts on seeing “Moonraker” again the other night…


I rented Moonraker (Blu-ray) and watched the entire movie for the first time in at least a decade. I really enjoyed it – it’s for me a better type of blockbuster spectacle than something like the Transformers movies. It’s just as big and far-fetched, but it’s epic in style and doesn’t seem to be aimed at 14-year-olds with ADD. (For me, seeing Venice, Rio, and the Amazon all filmed beautifully easily beats watching ginsu-edited fight scenes between robots.)

Now, the movie. The opening segment with Bond being pushed out of a plane without a parachute is a good one, though somewhat marred by the silly Jaws circus tent gag. And the opening credits sequence was good to see again. Although I think the credit images are not among the best done by Maurice Binder, seeing his work again feels like “Old School” Bond. And hearing Shirley Bassey sing the main theme was also “Old School” Bond, as this was the 3rd and final time she sang a Bond theme.

There were a lot of other “Old School” Bond-isms in this. Such as Bernard Lee as M – he’s still by far the best M of the Bond series and really shows how the part should be played as well as how much of a P.C. disaster Dame Judi Dench has been in the role (IMO, of course). That this was Lee’s final appearance in the role stayed in the back of my mind throughout, so I watched all of his scenes very nostalgically. Another “Old School”-ism is John Barry’s score, which, while not his strongest Bond score, definitely made this movie feel like a Bond movie.

And I thought the full title of the movie actually being “Ian Fleming’s Moonraker” in the opening credits was a bit humorous because, having actually read the original novel, I couldn’t think of a single thing from the novel that even made it into this movie aside from the villain’s name. (For example on how different they are, the “Moonraker” in the original novel is a nuclear missile, not a spacecraft.)

Also I think watching Lewis Gilbert’s Bond films in order would be interesting because I did notice a clear reference to his earlier Bond film You Only Live Twice in Moonraker. Specifically, in YOLT, the bad guy’s secret hideout has a small pond with a metal bridge across it. And a button can cause the bridge to open up and the person on it to fall in the water to be killed by some predatory animal(s). So in Moonraker, there’s also a bridge across a small pond and Bond is motioned to cross it. Remembering the bridge from YOLT, Bond opts to walk around the outside of the pond. But a rock on the side flips up and flings him into the water, where he has to fight an anaconda. (This scene is followed by what I think is the best line in the movie when Drax says “Mr. Bond, you defy my attempts to plan an amusing death for you.”) Noticing that connection makes me wonder if I would've noticed more if I had watched both YOLT and The Spy Who Loved Me before this.

Speaking of Drax (played by Michael Lonsdale), I think he is one of the very best Bond villains. His droll delivery of his lines works very well. And I like that he never really tries too much to befriend Bond and is very threatening to Bond from the first scene they meet. Given how terrible a lot of Bond villains have been in the films released after Moonraker, I appreciate this return to form of a having memorable villain worthy of Bond. And Drax’s plans, although far-fetched in execution, are among the most evil of any Bond villain given that he’s not just out for money but wants to wipe out virtually the entire human race and start over again with his own master race. (Given that the Drax in the original novel was secretly a Nazi, I wonder if this evil scheme was inspired somewhat by that.)

And, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I really like all of Bond’s gadgets in this film. The interesting part is that, unlike earlier Bond films in which Q demonstrates most of the gadgets so the viewer already knows Bond has them before he uses them in the field, in this film only the wrist dart gun gets demoed. So most of the gadgets were a surprise on what they could do: the x-ray safecracking device, the explosive-carrying watch, the amazing speedboat loaded with gadgets. All were unexpected until Bond used them for the first time. And then there’s the CIA pen with a blade in it, which is not a Q-branch gadget so it’s a bit of a surprise when Bond still has it later, which meant he stole it in an earlier scene.

The Bond girls in this were ok, but none really stood out for me. I did, however, think it was an interesting reflection of the "women's lib" times of the late 1970s that it was very noticeable that none wore a bra. And at least Lois Chiles as Holly Goodhead seemed a lot more believable as a scientist than Denise Richards as Christmas Jones did two decades later.

As for the downsides of the movie, first and foremost for me is the overdone tongue-in-cheek humor. From the double-takes done by everyone (including a pigeon) when Bond’s gondola converted to a hovercraft, to the Magnificent Seven theme when Bond is riding a horse (and dressed in a poncho like The Man With No Name), to most of Jaws’ scenes – the tongue-in-cheek humor is too prevalent and ultimately hurts the movie. I think there was enough good humor in just the dialogue for these sight gags to be necessary. (However I do like the humor of when the Close Encounters theme shows up in the movie - that gag still works!)

And, as for Jaws being in this, for me the worst part of his role in the movie was his switch to being “good” in the final act and helping Bond out. All done for the love of his new girlfriend, who despite the attempts to make her look dorky, is very apparently hot. I personally only like Jaws as a villain, so the turn to “good” didn’t work for me at all. (The same goes for Darth Vader in the Star Wars movies too.)

And the final act of the movie is both dumb and too short (if being both at the same time is possible). The whole secret space station sequence is what I think most people think of when they knock this movie. The existence of it begs the question of why build the space station to house the master race when an isolated and insulated secret base on earth could do the same thing for a lot less hassle. Anyway, getting past the whole existence of a space station thing, destroying it was surprisingly easy. One minute, it’s working fine, but the next, it’s falling apart. I know it was attacked by the astronaut army guys from the American shuttle (which was able to launch in record time, BTW), but still would the station start falling apart so quickly?

I also think making the Moonrakers look exactly like the Space Shuttle was a mistake. I think it would’ve been better to base them on the conceptual space plane designs, which were a lot slicker and more futuristic-looking even in the 1970s than what the severely compromised design for the shuttle ended up being. I think this movie would look less dated now with a better-looking Moonraker spacecraft in it.

Another thing in thinking about Moonraker is that it falls into being a part of the “Return to Fleming” pattern in which the next Bond film goes back to being closer to the spirit of Ian Fleming’s novels after a Bond movie goes a bit overblown. After the overblown You Only Live Twice, there was a “Return to Fleming” in spirit with the following On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. After Moonraker, there was another “Return to Fleming” with For Your Eyes Only. And, more recently, after the over-the-top silliness of Die Another Day (my pick for the worst Bond film ever), there was a “Return to Fleming” with Casino Royale. I think it’s interesting that some of the better Bond films seem to be a direct result of the producers thinking the previous film went too far, so they intentionally scale things back in the following film. It makes me wonder if the later films would even exist the way they do without the previous overblown film having first been made.

Still, warts and all, I’ll take Moonraker over the Bond films of the 1980s (with the notable exception of For Your Eyes Only) because I really like Lewis Gilbert’s epic look in his Bond films to the small, almost TV-movie look and feel of director John Glen’s Bond films (who directed every “official” Bond film in the 1980s). And Moonraker is an “Old School” Bond film in so many ways that I mentioned above with more pluses than minuses that I think it’s a must-see for any Bond fan.

.

Paul_SD

Thanks for that great, very thoughtful, write-up dhmac.

I feel the film definitely has flaws. I'm not a fan of how Bond's sleuthing and subsequent discoveries are developed.
For instance, finding one safe in a vast mansion- and in that safe only making a record of something that has absolutely no blatant connection with his area of investigation. "I'm sure Drax's interest in Venetian glass must have something to do with why his shuttle was hi-jacked".
If Bond were more clearly portrayed as using the thinnest of clues to support a hedonistic lifestyle on his governments dime ("hey, why not go to Venice...I can use this as an excuse" ) and only then stumbling into associations that lead him to the answers, that would be one thing.
But here the story is propelled not by logical cause and event, but by a screenwriter moving pieces around the board in a more or less arbitrary fashion, with the thinnest of connective tissue. If there were a 40 man investigative team, by all means send a couple agents over to Venice to snoop around. Otherwise to put all your resources into following a blind lead makes not a lick of sense.
For this reason, I find it hard to fault the film for not 'playing it straight' in other aspects. In fact, I think it those things that help mask it's far more significant shortcomings.

OTOH, I still love Drax and the performance by Lonsdale. The thing I really like about this character is that his evil 'rule the world' plan is in the pursuit of a narcissistic aesthetic ideal, rather than in pursuit of power for its own sake, or simply more worldly goods. I find this both humorously perverse, and logically plausible at the same time. As is clear from the beginning of the film- he wants to be surrounded by beauty. Now he has the money and the means to remake the entire world along those lines- and as he says upon arrival to the space station- he will be for all intents and purposes, the new god of this new super-foxy race. It's that whole 60's/70's Bond/hedonist/Playboy Club ethos taken to its ultimate preposterous conclusion.
I don't know whether that was an intentional riff on the nazi Drax of the book (who from what I recall was motivated more out of revenge), but it does make for an interesting connection.
Speaking of the book, this has been the only Bond book I've read, and I can't say I was impressed enough to soldier on with any more of Flemings original works. In the case of Moonraker, I found the movie conception of Drax far more interesting and entertaining that the book version.

Another thing I like about this movie is the Lois Chiles Goodhead. She is usually criticized as being too cold, icy and unlikable for the romantic lead. For me, those are strengths for the character here. Those qualities help make her far more believable as a covert CIA agent, especially compared to willowy, soft spoken, frequent damsel in distress Barbara Bach passed off as a super effective Soviet agent in SWLM. I also wouldn't buy Goodhead being charmed so quickly by a 50 yr old smarmy quipster, even if they are in the same line of work- unless/until he proved himself in action -which he ends up doing on the sky car, and which then merits the change in her behavior towards him.

nightmaster

I love all the Bond films, no matter how "bad" they are. Moonraker is big fun and I've watched it more times than I can count since its release. Jaws is a great villain, Chiles is beautiful. Sure there are better Bond films, but this one seemed very indicative of the way Moore played 007.

moonraker

I have to disagree, Paul. The very fact that Drax has gone to all the trouble of hiding these blueprints inside a very hidden and secured safe is enough to suggest that they are very important and something that he does not want discovered. Drax has already made an attempt on Bond's life (the centrifuge chamber) so Bond has reason to suspect that Drax is up to no good. Since these blueprints are obviously something Drax wants kept secret, it makes perfectly good sense for Bond to suspect that they may play a key part in whatever Drax is up to. And since they are marked as coming from the Venni Glass Company, it's off to Venice to investigate.

In fact, I think MOONRAKER is one of the strongest 007 films of them all in terms of Bond actually following a trail of clues to arrive at and deduce the villains scheme. In FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, for example, the only reason that 007 is able to locate the villain's hideout is because a parrot happens to tell him. A parrot! Now THAT is an example of lazy screenwriting! No need for 007 to actually do any detective work, just wait for an animal to voluntarily give him the answer he needs! Just another reason, of the many, that FYEO ranks as one of the worst Bond films for me. In fact, only A VIEW TO A KILL is worse in my opinion.

dhmac

I was actually OK with the loose connections leading to each development in the story because almost all Bond movies are like that. With the possible exception of From Russia With Love, they all are quite poor on being proper "Spy Movies" and instead are more like "Thrillers" in structure.