Moonraker- Why the hate?

Baltimore_007

For about the 42nd time, this 1979 Bond release is a fun ride if you turn off your brain and simply accept it as some buffoonish entertainment. Moore goes from the outrageously flippant to almost serious in no time at all, it has probably the 2nd best teaser of the franchise,(if you take away the embarrassing circus tent ending), and Lonsdale, who is an actor of the highest caliber, puts in a performance that while not of oscar winning, is both believable and is a worthy adversary to Bond

Lois Chiles is up there with Roberts and D'Abo as one of the most forgettable and wooden Bond girls ever brought to screen, Bassey's intro theme is a bit slow and banal, but we do get a more jazzed up disco variation for the end credits

The Saint Marks Square/ Venice scene is fun for kids but generally frowned upon by most genuine Bond enthusiasts, Moore at his silliest. There are some worthwhile bits that keep the interest like the g-force simulator, Moore and Lonsdale at the shooting event and the fight with Chang but once it gets to South America it all seems to go downhill with Bond eventually rocketting off into outer space in a blatant cash-in on the Star Wars boom of the time

Jaws becomes Mr Nice, has a few words to say, Moore gets to play space invaders, we have what could be the best one liner of the series from Llewelyn, and the end credits roll and Moore for all his clowning around, would redeem himself two years later in a more straight faced and serious appearance in For Your Eyes Only

AlexanderWaverly

Imagine was people would be saying if they had filmed the originally scripted jet pack, Bond/Holly get keel hauled and twin minijet sequences....

haserot

Zekidk said:

haserot said:
i dont disagree about the score.. it's one of Barry's best, and the locations are beautiful.... but i personally feel Moore's performances were better in both TSWLM and FYEO

Well... certainly top notch acting from Moore here (4.25>):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PtGwUZ_POM

it still doesn't beat his performance, when confessing to Anya that he did ineed kill her boyfriend - his whole delivery in that scene is honest and heartfelt yet cold and unforgiving... classic Bond IMO... that one scene trumps any scene he had in MR, save for maybe that scene when he shot the guy out of the tree - that was the best bit of the whole film.

Virage

DaltonCraig007 said:
Yes, MR deserves an 20/10 score. It is a magnificient film. A definitive top 3 Bond film for me. Roger Moore is in his absolute prime, the best Bond performance in the entire franchise. A bunch of incredibly sexy girls, a very menacing, cool and memorable villain and henchmen, a lot of fantastic, memorable and entertaining humour. A very quotable Bond film. Top notch soundtrack, cinematography, locations, and out-of-this-world sets. All in all one of the true masterpiece of the cinematic history. One of the only Bond movie I'd bring to film class, alongside DAF and TMWTGG.

There he is...

DarthDimi

I can't believe people keep bashing MR. This film is legendary. It's a testament to one of the most critical moments for the Bond franchise, deciding the future of the film series we all treasure so much. Accepting MR narrows down to one very simple exercise: look back into the past and realise what the world of filmmaking was like in '79. The '70s had been a depressing, grey era but a slew of great young filmmakers were about to turn the tides, culminating in the hypersuccess of Star Wars. Bond couldn't afford to go edgy, tough or dark but instead had to follow the trend of regained joy, epicness and out-of-this-world excitement. I'm so glad we went there. Plus, they gave us the slightly more down-to-earth '80s, didn't they?

But even then, MR has so much to offer. Moore is on fire in this film, Lonsdale is a superb villain who oozes Flemingesque menace. Chilles and Clery are hot as hell and Richard Kiel... wow, what a great find! The stunt work is awesome, production design is about as good as it'll ever get and as for Barry... do I need to put my foot on the ground and remind all you MR haters of Barry's fabulous score? But even the plot doesn't fail to amuse me. Yes, it has some silliness and incredulous moments but then again, so what? If they had given us Bournesque drama, it would have been over for Bond in '79.

I'm pleased we got MR the way we got it. It's a wonderful, joyful Bond film. Sure, there's only a few things they kept from Fleming's novel but again, so what? That only means there's still a full book to be used in later scripts! (If they only would...)

JBFan626

Shark said:

And not forgetting the incredibly sexy Corrine Dufour, Moore's most convenient turn, Jean Tournier's sublime cinematography (easily outdoing Claude Renoir's work for THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, or virtually anything since), John Barry's celestial score, Ken Adam's prophetic sets (the "Mondrian Room" is one giant iPhone), some amazing stuntwork, Derek Medding's out-of-this-world model work (still holds up better than any CGI I've seen in the last 2 and a half decade), and Christopher Wood's incredibly sharp (and off the wall) screenplay.

Sure it's a flawed, and one or two moments make me cringe (i.e. The Magnificent Seven shtick or Dolly meets Jaws), but then what Bond films aren't?

Some Bond films though are more painfully flawed than others: MR being an example.
I do agree that MR is a great audio-visual experience. It's like going to see fireworks.

My main problem with MR though is not all the whacky gags: pigeons, Jaws wings, Dolly, etc.--though those moments are insult to injury, it's the problem that has plagued other Bond films: action filler in place of plot.

The majority of the middle third of MR is just pointless, mind-numbing action, which all essentially boils down to Bond being chased around in various locations around the world. Some of it doesn't even make any rational sense to the story: the Bondola for example-why spend the time and resources to construct this sophisticated state of the art gondola, when you already know where your lead is, so couldn't you just capture them on the spot? Why have a tricked out gondola in disguise, when the whole scene is in broad daylight? It's just a lame Bond gadget bukake fest. Little Nellie and the Lotus at least served a critical purpose to Bond's mission, as ridiculous as those seemed on the surface.

For the first time in the series, it feels like the film-makers came up with the action scenes independent of the story: like, "Hmmm, how can we work in a boat chase or a cable car sequence into the film? It reminds me of George Lucas and his team sitting around coming up with all these "cool" new planets and aliens they could put into the next Star Wars prequel without giving any thought to the story first. (*But oh, think of all the action toys we could sell!!)

Moonraker's not alone: FYEO is just as guilty of the action filler syndrome, so is QOS and even CR to some degree. But MR just goes overboard.

So, yes all Bond films are flawed, that doesn't mean some are of higher entertainment quality than others.

haserot

DarthDimi said:
I can't believe people keep bashing MR. This film is legendary. It's a testament to one of the most critical moments for the Bond franchise, deciding the future of the film series we all treasure so much.... (then went on to say).....Plus, they gave us the slightly more down-to-earth '80s, didn't they?

So that makes the film good or great all of sudden? - because it yielded a change in direction? - using that same logic would suggest that Die Another Day would be a terrific Bond film as well........ when a change is necessitated like it was after MR, it usually means, that something is bad - and not just bad in a few areas that one could easily gloss over - but BAD, in a way that says we need to reevaluate the way we are making these films *cough cough again, Die Another Day* ..... if the film was so terrific, even for it's time - no doubt they would've continued on in the same vein - but they realized they pushed the envelope a little too far, and it turned a lot of people off, so they went back to basics with the next one...... to praise this film by saying, "see how it effected the next film (FYEO)." - would be to say that they intentionally sought to make one of the worst films in the franchise - and to make it so bad, that the next one we make will be grounded more, and it'll look like a masterpiece....

Moonraker I've discovered is the only Bond film that gets merits off of excuses.

OHMSS69

I disagree with all of you who says this is a better of the Roger Moore era. The movie was just plain old bad!
I was going to swear off James Bond after seeing it and my date actually commented,"these 007 movies are really getting corny".
When I heard that FYEO was going to be a basic old fashioned adventure then I ran down and saw it and I was very happy and impressed with this film.
Of course I am blessed with a good memory and can remember some scenes and how much I hated the film. I liked the PTS, liked Chang, liked Bond in that subterrege (whatever the hell that thing was)
but the dependence on gadgets, the slapstick, the outrageousness of the movie. Makes me sick to think about it.

PrinceKamalKhan

haserot said:
to praise this film by saying, "see how it effected the next film (FYEO)." - would be to say that they intentionally sought to make one of the worst films in the franchise - and to make it so bad, that the next one we make will be grounded more, and it'll look like a masterpiece....

Personally speaking, I've never found FYEO all that great myself. If anything, it tends to get way too much praise along the lines of "It's wonderful because it's not MR!!!" Well, 21 out of 22 Bond films aren't MR either so I fail to see how that's some sort of significant achievement. I've also read FYEO is so great because "it returns Bond to the world of FRWL and OHMSS!!!!" Well, last time I watched FRWL and OHMSS they had the following things FYEO lacked(John Barry music, a magnificent supervillain, a sense of the "benign bizarre") and MR had those 3 aspects as well so that criticism never made any logical sense to me. Add to the fact, FYEO kills off OHMSS's and FRWL's supervillain in the PTS. Change the name of the character Roger Moore plays to Simon Templar and I'd consider FYEO the greatest episode of "The Saint" ever made but it needs MR to exist to get its kudos of "one of the all time greatest Bond films ever made!" IMHO.

haserot

PrinceKamalKhan said:

haserot said:
to praise this film by saying, "see how it effected the next film (FYEO)." - would be to say that they intentionally sought to make one of the worst films in the franchise - and to make it so bad, that the next one we make will be grounded more, and it'll look like a masterpiece....

Personally speaking, I've never found FYEO all that great myself. If anything, it tends to get way too much praise along the lines of "It's wonderful because it's not MR!!!" Well, 21 out of 22 Bond films aren't MR either. I've also read FYEO is so great because "it returns Bond to the world of FRWL and OHMSS!!!!" Well, last time I watched FRWL and OHMSS they had the following things FYEO lacked(John Barry music, a magnificent supervillain, a sense of the "benign bizarre") and MR had those 3 aspects as well so that criticism never made any logical sense to me. Add to the fact, FYEO kills off OHMSS's and FRWL's supervillain in the PTS. Change the name of the character Roger Moore plays to Simon Templar and I'd consider FYEO the greatest episode of "The Saint" ever made but it needs MR to exist to get its kudos of the "all time greatest Bond films ever made".

well FYEO's PTS was a really a slap in the face to McClory for all the trouble with Blofeld and SPECTRE... it's a bizarre PTS, because it has nothing to do with the rest of the film, it felt tacked on...

i don't feel like FYEO is one of the best Bond films, it's full of it's odd moments as well - but it's a big step back in the right direction... the point I was making, is that by making a comment that essentially says MR should be judged by the direction of change it facilitated is a bizarre way of thinking - not only that, but it's back handed compliment... that's like walking up the film as if it were a person and saying "Thank you, you were so wonderful at being bad that you changed the way that films immediately following you were made." ..... it's like giving praise to George W. Bush for ruining the United States - thanks W, and thank you MR ;-)

PrinceKamalKhan

haserot said:
well FYEO's PTS was a really a slap in the face to McClory for all the trouble with Blofeld and SPECTRE... it's a bizarre PTS, because it has nothing to do with the rest of the film, it felt tacked on...

Agreed. And oddly it's probably my favorite scene in the film.

haserot said:
i don't feel like FYEO is one of the best Bond films, it's full of it's odd moments as well - but it's a big step back in the right direction... the point I was making, is that by making a comment that essentially says MR should be judged by the direction of change it facilitated is a bizarre way of thinking - not only that, but it's back handed compliment... that's like walking up the film as if it were a person and saying "Thank you, you were so wonderful at being bad that you changed the way that films immediately following you were made." ..... it's like giving praise to George W. Bush for ruining the United States - thanks W, and thank you MR ;-)

I don't think that analogy completely works for me. Even though FYEO's a midrange series entry IMHO and not one of my favorites, I still prefer it vastly to Barack Hussein Obama. ;)

SaintMark

Baltimore_007 said:

The Saint Marks Square/ Venice scene is fun for kids but generally frowned upon by most genuine Bond enthusiasts, Moore at his silliest.

You give your own opinion too much credit by discrediting people who enjoy James Bond for what he is essentially: Escapist entertainment. Roger Moore did realise that a shedload more than most genuine Bond enthousiasts. If you are really so pure you should stick to the Fleming books because the films are a whole different universe of themselves as any Bond enthousiast would realise. Each era got his 007 that fullfilled the needs of that time. Roger Moore and MR are clearly a product of his time and can still today easily wipe most adventure movie of the playingfield. It is also the strength of this franchise longevity that adaptations to the time and general mood. I lived the Moore times and there was no discussion who was the 007 and nobody did it better.

Shark

"Genuine Bond fans?" What kind snobbish crap is that?

JBFan626 said:
My main problem with MR though is not all the whacky gags: pigeons, Jaws wings, Dolly, etc.--though those moments are insult to injury, it's the problem that has plagued other Bond films: action filler in place of plot.

Plot is overrated. Bond is more about colourful characters, atmosphere, gripping setpiecess, and sharp writing. Much like the Fleming novels themselves. Despite admittedly meandering in the 2nd act, MR never fails to entertain. Once Bond hits the Amazon, the film picks up enormously.

PrinceKamalKhan

Shark said:
"Genuine Bond fans?" What kind snobbish crap is that?

JBFan626 said:
My main problem with MR though is not all the whacky gags: pigeons, Jaws wings, Dolly, etc.--though those moments are insult to injury, it's the problem that has plagued other Bond films: action filler in place of plot.

Plot is overrated. Bond is more about colourful characters, atmosphere, gripping setpiecess, and sharp writing. Much like the Fleming novels themselves. Despite admittedly meandering in the 2nd act, MR never fails to entertain. Once Bond hits the Amazon, the film picks up enormously.

Agreed. Except I think Gilbert keeps MR's pace flowing smoothly and quickly throughout, another huge plus in its favor.

00Beast

It has a good first half, but then when Bond gets to Rio, it goes downhill quickly. And they either should have either dropped Jaws altogether and kept Chang throughout the movie or kept him as a menacing assassin in TSWLM style. Also, cut out Lois Chiles and play up Hugo Drax a little more. Lonsdale seemed so bored and out of it the entire movie.

BAIN123

Moonraker is entertaining, there's no doubt about that. The score is great and the model work is excellent but for me its just a bit too silly and cartooney. I found myself cringing on several occasions the last time I saw it. Thats the reason its ranked fairly low in my list. Spy may have its flaws and I know @Shark isn't a fan but at least that takes itself relitively seriously. It doesn't "jump the shark" so to speak.

JBFan626

Shark said:
Plot is overrated. Bond is more about colourful characters, atmosphere, gripping setpiecess, and sharp writing. Much like the Fleming novels themselves. Despite admittedly meandering in the 2nd act, MR never fails to entertain. Once Bond hits the Amazon, the film picks up enormously.

Bond is also about intriguing stories. Plot moves the story along. When you are stuck in the mire of continuous actions sequences that do nothing to move the plot along other than to move Bond from one geographic location to another, the film gets boring and drags. This is what happens with MR. There are plenty of Bond entries that have interesting plots that move right along: DN, FRWL, TLD, stand out immediately for me. Dr. No for example, while perhaps drier in tone keeps building and building, characters are revealed and developed until the whole set-up is revealed. A good story offers new and relevant details with each scene.

Bond films benefit from the hallmark signature touches of the likes of John Barry, Ted Moore, and Ken Adam. However, you need a foundation with a well-developed story, without unnecessary action filler to begin with. As great as Barry's, Gilbert's, Meddings and Moore's contributions are, MR needs a better executed story to hold it all up.

haserot

Shark said:
Plot is overrated

:)) =))

Shark

BAIN123 said:
Moonraker is entertaining, there's no doubt about that. The score is great and the model work is excellent but for me its just a bit too silly and cartooney. I found myself cringing on several occasions the last time I saw it. Thats the reason its ranked fairly low in my list. Spy may have its flaws and I know @Shark isn't a fan but at least that takes itself relitively seriously. It doesn't "jump the shark" so to speak.

SPY takes itself much more seriously, but it's also a much duller experience. Aesthetically dull (minus Atlantis), Robo Bond girl, a bored villain, and Moore's most annoyingly smug performance.

PrinceKamalKhan

BAIN123 said:
Moonraker is entertaining, there's no doubt about that. The score is great and the model work is excellent but for me its just a bit too silly and cartooney.

I consider MR the best live action Saturday morning cartoon ever made. I enjoy many relatively more serious entries as well(FRWL, OHMSS, TLD, CR) but still appreciate MR for the unpretentious fluff it is. I also think it improves upon TSWLM in many ways(lead villain, leading lady, music score to name a few).

haserot

Shark said:
and Moore's most annoyingly smug performance.

but enough about Moonraker..

Shark

That the best ya got?

haserot said:

Zekidk said:

haserot said:
i dont disagree about the score.. it's one of Barry's best, and the locations are beautiful.... but i personally feel Moore's performances were better in both TSWLM and FYEO

Well... certainly top notch acting from Moore here (4.25>):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PtGwUZ_POM

it still doesn't beat his performance, when confessing to Anya that he did ineed kill her boyfriend - his whole delivery in that scene is honest and heartfelt yet cold and unforgiving... classic Bond IMO...

It's not that great. Barbara Bach ruins the scene, and Moore's monologue lacks conviction. The Glen Bonds contain Moore with his most gravitas.

haserot

but i never mentioned Bach's performance did I - i strictly speaking on Moore's ..... and the 180 he does from smug and normal, to cold and unforgiving is brilliant - and i dont need all the fingers on one hand to count how many times Moore gave equally as strong of performance.....

I had forgotten about the bit in TMWTGG (when I made my other statement about the scene from MR)... the scene where he threatens to break Maud Adam's arm - arguably his most ruthless and domineering performance as Bond, but I prefer the subtly to the scene in TSWLM because of it's context - a close second is the scene in LALD, when he figures out that Rosie is a double agent.

Shark

What about the confrontation with Orlov in OP, the City Hall office framing scene in AVTAK, "Killing Tibbett was a mistake", persuading Melina to go home, Bond meets Colombo, the death of Locque, "That's detente, General", Bond managing to turn Jaws over by questioning Drax's standards of physical perfection, or the brilliant non-verbal post-centrifuge bit?

haserot

confronting Orlov in OP... good scene

City Hall framing scene in AVTAK... Moore was outshined by Walken all the way through this film, so no..

Pursuading Melina to go home in FYEO... an alright scene, nothing special - felt more fatherly than classic Bond IMO...

Meeting Columbo... another good scene..

kicking Loque off the cliff I like, and shows that rarely seen ruthless side of Moore - but with only one line of dialog - i can't quite put it with the other dialog scenes that I think are superior... but action speak louder than words, and it is a nice "F-U" moment

Bond questioning Drax in MR...... nope - it's ok.... but does nothing for me..... just more pointless plot exposition that any viewer with half a brain could already have surmised in the first 30 minutes of the film - considering the hard-on Drax showed for physical perfection from the very beginning..

.....okay, so maybe i need all 5 fingers to count lol.... but still - those moments all come from films other than MR..

DarthDimi

haserot said:

DarthDimi said:
I can't believe people keep bashing MR. This film is legendary. It's a testament to one of the most critical moments for the Bond franchise, deciding the future of the film series we all treasure so much.... (then went on to say).....Plus, they gave us the slightly more down-to-earth '80s, didn't they?

So that makes the film good or great all of sudden? - because it yielded a change in direction? - using that same logic would suggest that Die Another Day would be a terrific Bond film as well........ when a change is necessitated like it was after MR, it usually means, that something is bad - and not just bad in a few areas that one could easily gloss over - but BAD, in a way that says we need to reevaluate the way we are making these films *cough cough again, Die Another Day* ..... if the film was so terrific, even for it's time - no doubt they would've continued on in the same vein - but they realized they pushed the envelope a little too far, and it turned a lot of people off, so they went back to basics with the next one...... to praise this film by saying, "see how it effected the next film (FYEO)." - would be to say that they intentionally sought to make one of the worst films in the franchise - and to make it so bad, that the next one we make will be grounded more, and it'll look like a masterpiece....

Moonraker I've discovered is the only Bond film that gets merits off of excuses.

To be fair, you should have included the rest of my post where I clearly stated that MR also has a lot to offer by itself, irrelevant of its historical significance in the franchise. I never claimed MR to be the Batman & Robin of the Bond series. When you cut my post in half, you can only comment on the first half of my thoughts. Drawing conclusions from that is a little presumptuous.

w2bond

The thing about the Gilbert films is that they are exactly the same, right down to the swallowing submarine/rocket thing. Wooden Bond girls, wooden (main) villains. However, there are elements from each film that deserve praise, for example, despite the flat dull performance by Lonsdale (which I suppose is intentional) he gets some of the best lines. In the end, I don't hate any Bond film, maybe except for YOLT

Shark

w2bond said:
The thing about the Gilbert films is that they are exactly the same, right down to the swallowing submarine/rocket thing. Wooden Bond girls, wooden (main) villains.

Anyone who considers Michel Lonsdale's performance in MR as wooden, quite frankly needs their head checked.

FYI, Being dry is not the same as lacking conviction.

BAIN123

Lonsdale was great in MR agreed.

However I always thought MR was Moore at his most smug. He pretty much smirks his way through the film.

QBranch

Shark said:

w2bond said:
The thing about the Gilbert films is that they are exactly the same, right down to the swallowing submarine/rocket thing. Wooden Bond girls, wooden (main) villains.

Anyone who considers Michel Lonsdale's performance in MR as wooden, quite frankly needs their head checked.

FYI, Being dry is not the same as lacking conviction.

Exactly. That was the way Drax' character was meant to be. It had nothing to do with bad acting or direction.

Categories

In this Discussion

Announcements