"Attempting re-entry", Moonraker appreciation thread

2456718

Comments

  • Posts: 297
    Appreciation for the entire flick. Initially the goofy parts didn't disturb me much. With the years the Jaws romance and a few other parts left an increasingly uncomfortable stain on the memory of the film. But today I can enjoy the whole of MR again, even the cheesy and silly comedy elements and the holes in the plot. It's one of the better Moore Bonds and plays with a distinctive lightness. It's a classic from an era when Bond films still used to be their own genre instead of a subgenre of brainless action flicks.
  • Posts: 11,175
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Love Moonraker in every way...such a great Bond film. So much going for it and an all-time classic for me. How anyone can prefer it as a Bond film to CR is just baffling

    So?? You love MR but you love CR more right?

    Ah fluffed what I meant to say! Should have said how anyone can prefer CR as a Bond film to MR is just baffling

    Ah, now you ruined it there ;)

    CR may not be perfect but its not "silly" like MR is.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited April 2012 Posts: 15,534
    BAIN123 wrote:
    CR may not be perfect but its not "silly" like MR is.

    I think most agree that CR is a better film than MR... but if you look more in particular at 'Bond films', it's far more subjective.... whether you prefer the more humourous outings, or the more serious ones, your list of favorite Bond films will be totally different. Anyone saying that DAD or MR are cinematic masterpieces, or the best films ever made, are totally out of their minds... but calling them the best Bond films is totally respectable. The franchise is so diverse that ranking films and Bond actors is highly subjective and personal. However ranking them in terms of cinematic greatness, IMO most Bond fans would agree on which outings are the best crafted/made films.
  • BAIN123 wrote:
    Love Moonraker in every way...such a great Bond film. So much going for it and an all-time classic for me. How anyone can prefer it as a Bond film to CR is just baffling

    So?? You love MR but you love CR more right?

    Ah fluffed what I meant to say! Should have said how anyone can prefer CR as a Bond film to MR is just baffling

    It's just as baffling to me that anyone can like a cheesy Matt Helm/Austin Powers-like gag fest and a blatant attempt to cash in on the Star Wars phenomenon more than CR and QOS =))
  • edited April 2012 Posts: 11,175
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Love Moonraker in every way...such a great Bond film. So much going for it and an all-time classic for me. How anyone can prefer it as a Bond film to CR is just baffling

    So?? You love MR but you love CR more right?

    Ah fluffed what I meant to say! Should have said how anyone can prefer CR as a Bond film to MR is just baffling

    It's just as baffling to me that anyone can like a cheesy Matt Helm/Austin Powers-like gag fest and a blatant attempt to cash in on the Star Wars phenomenon more than CR and QOS =))

    I'd agree with you on Royale but Solace I really don't know :-S.

    I'd argue MR, while certainly very silly has more of a "re-watch" factor thanks to the freefall PTS, Michael Lonsdale's Drax, spectacular cinematography of Rio, John Barry's score and Ken Adam's sets.

    I'm saying that as someone who's not overly keen on MR.
  • BAIN123 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Love Moonraker in every way...such a great Bond film. So much going for it and an all-time classic for me. How anyone can prefer it as a Bond film to CR is just baffling

    So?? You love MR but you love CR more right?

    Ah fluffed what I meant to say! Should have said how anyone can prefer CR as a Bond film to MR is just baffling

    It's just as baffling to me that anyone can like a cheesy Matt Helm/Austin Powers-like gag fest and a blatant attempt to cash in on the Star Wars phenomenon more than CR and QOS =))

    I'd agree with you on Royale but Solace I really don't know :-S.

    I'd argue MR has more of a "re-watch" factor thanks to the freefall PTS, Michael Lonsdale's Drax, John Barry's score and Ken Adam's sets.

    I'm saying that as someone who's not overly keen on MR.

    CR is a good film but poor James Bond film...but MR was never going to be considered a cinema classic but it's a much better and more memorable James Bond film. there is a difference! It's more enjoyable. CR is a bit too 'real' terrorists and that. The bond films have always avoided politics overtly...but the reboot seems to want to focus on it
  • edited April 2012 Posts: 11,175
    BAIN123 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Love Moonraker in every way...such a great Bond film. So much going for it and an all-time classic for me. How anyone can prefer it as a Bond film to CR is just baffling

    So?? You love MR but you love CR more right?

    Ah fluffed what I meant to say! Should have said how anyone can prefer CR as a Bond film to MR is just baffling

    It's just as baffling to me that anyone can like a cheesy Matt Helm/Austin Powers-like gag fest and a blatant attempt to cash in on the Star Wars phenomenon more than CR and QOS =))

    I'd agree with you on Royale but Solace I really don't know :-S.

    I'd argue MR has more of a "re-watch" factor thanks to the freefall PTS, Michael Lonsdale's Drax, John Barry's score and Ken Adam's sets.

    I'm saying that as someone who's not overly keen on MR.

    CR is a good film but poor James Bond film...but MR was never going to be considered a cinema classic but it's a much better and more memorable James Bond film. there is a difference! It's more enjoyable. CR is a bit too 'real' terrorists and that. The bond films have always avoided politics overtly...but the reboot seems to want to focus on it

    Royale still had that "Bond-ian" sensability though. Glamorous/exotic women, beautiful locations, shots that lingered and classy looking sets (I love the shot of the dining area in the hotel where Bond and Vesper eat after the card game). It tried to contemporise Bond but keep the elements that worked. Couple that with the fact it had a novel to take material from.

    Solace didn't work as well because the supporting characters and political storyline were, frankly, fairly forgettable.
  • edited April 2012 Posts: 3,494
    BAIN123 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Love Moonraker in every way...such a great Bond film. So much going for it and an all-time classic for me. How anyone can prefer it as a Bond film to CR is just baffling

    So?? You love MR but you love CR more right?

    Ah fluffed what I meant to say! Should have said how anyone can prefer CR as a Bond film to MR is just baffling

    It's just as baffling to me that anyone can like a cheesy Matt Helm/Austin Powers-like gag fest and a blatant attempt to cash in on the Star Wars phenomenon more than CR and QOS =))

    I'd agree with you on Royale but Solace I really don't know :-S.

    I'd argue MR has more of a "re-watch" factor thanks to the freefall PTS, Michael Lonsdale's Drax, John Barry's score and Ken Adam's sets.

    I'm saying that as someone who's not overly keen on MR.

    CR is a good film but poor James Bond film...but MR was never going to be considered a cinema classic but it's a much better and more memorable James Bond film. there is a difference! It's more enjoyable. CR is a bit too 'real' terrorists and that. The bond films have always avoided politics overtly...but the reboot seems to want to focus on it

    It's a different world now and politics are everywhere. People vote for politicians on moral and religious grounds. I like the element of realism and some of the early Bond films definitely had political overtones i.e any Cold War plot. Too much escapist fantasy combined with more cheese than the entire Philly Italian Market does not make MR (or DAD) anything but terrible excuses for a Bond movie. I'll happily watch CR 100 times and QOS 10 times more than MR or DAD, who I might watch once a year for laughs.


    BAIN123 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Love Moonraker in every way...such a great Bond film. So much going for it and an all-time classic for me. How anyone can prefer it as a Bond film to CR is just baffling

    So?? You love MR but you love CR more right?

    Ah fluffed what I meant to say! Should have said how anyone can prefer CR as a Bond film to MR is just baffling

    It's just as baffling to me that anyone can like a cheesy Matt Helm/Austin Powers-like gag fest and a blatant attempt to cash in on the Star Wars phenomenon more than CR and QOS =))

    I'd agree with you on Royale but Solace I really don't know :-S.

    I'd argue MR has more of a "re-watch" factor thanks to the freefall PTS, Michael Lonsdale's Drax, John Barry's score and Ken Adam's sets.

    I'm saying that as someone who's not overly keen on MR.

    CR is a good film but poor James Bond film...but MR was never going to be considered a cinema classic but it's a much better and more memorable James Bond film. there is a difference! It's more enjoyable. CR is a bit too 'real' terrorists and that. The bond films have always avoided politics overtly...but the reboot seems to want to focus on it

    Royale still had that "Bond-ian" sensability though. Glamorous/exotic women, beautiful locations, shots that lingered and classy looking sets (I love the shot of the dining area in the hotel where Bond and Vesper eat after the card game). It tried to contemporise Bond but keep the elements that worked. Couple that with the fact it had a novel to take material from.

    Solace didn't work as well because the supporting characters and political storyline were, frankly, fairly forgettable.

    CR, for a movie that showed the beginning of Bond's journey to becoming the agent we all know and love, definitely hit the right notes in that aspect and showed him progressing towards the established character. QOS was a victim of circumstances. Still, it accomplished closing CR with a bang, that ending and the Bregenz Opera House scene were far more memorable and Bondian to me than either MR or DAD could ever hope to be.

  • Posts: 7,652
    Keep the CR cr*p in thread about CR, this is about hate or appriciate Moonraker.

    Too much CR makes my skin crawl due to lost opportunities.
  • Posts: 1,082
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Love Moonraker in every way...such a great Bond film. So much going for it and an all-time classic for me. How anyone can prefer it as a Bond film to CR is just baffling

    So?? You love MR but you love CR more right?

    Ah fluffed what I meant to say! Should have said how anyone can prefer CR as a Bond film to MR is just baffling

    Agreed. How anyone can prefer CR to MR as an ordinary movie is also beyond me.
    MR is brilliant IMO, CR is just good.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded Riding a white swan to Matera
    Posts: 12,436
    BAIN123 wrote:
    BTW I'm going to go for appreciation. It's by no means one of my favourites and I actually rank it pretty low but that there are some fantasic aspects about it. Namely this



    If you haven't already done it try listening to it in a dark room with your eyes closed. Its sublime.

    Nice posters! And beautiful music; thanks.
    I will add to appreciation, but it is lower on my list.
    I did see it in the theatres way back then and I remember being quite annoyed by Corrine's death, the over the top humor of Jaws and Dolly, and I felt that Holly was not given the right tone - meaning she was stiff and stuffily dressed for a main Bond girl. Overall, I thought it was okay and I did not compare it to Star Wars (which I loved at first viewing); I love Bond but I remember thinking: Roger looks gorgeous, music is good, yeah I'll see it again, but I wish it was better. So Roger and the music saved it for me. But not my favorite by any means.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 I've missed you all.
    Posts: 28,479
    SaintMark wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Love Moonraker in every way...such a great Bond film. So much going for it and an all-time classic for me. How anyone can prefer it as a Bond film to CR is just baffling

    So?? You love MR but you love CR more right?

    Ah fluffed what I meant to say! Should have said how anyone can prefer CR as a Bond film to MR is just baffling

    No more common sense, CR the movie screwed CR royally over, it is one of those movies I prefer the book more. :D

    In the matter of Moonraker I love the novelsiation by mr Wood (based upon his own screenplay), after Fleming my favorite reads bookwise.

    Don't see your CR logic, but when is the book NOT better than the film?
  • Posts: 4,746
    Moonraker is all right, it's about middle of the road for me. I don't hate it as much as I used to, but I don't take it in the top ten. Some things it has going for it are the awesome locations that scream exotic Bond, the haunting soundtrack by John Barry, the grand-scale, larger-than-life plot, and of course, Roger Moore!
  • Posts: 5,634
    It's just going over old ground but Moore's fourth outing is one of the best he ever did, Yes Ok it's sometimes ridiculous and infantile, but there's so much to keep the interest. An impressive and famous pre credits sequence, Bassey is adequate with the music, Michael Lonsdale provides not only some of the best lines in the movie but in the franchise as a whole. Plenty of action to indulge in and you never get bored with a viewing, it's just that sometimes the slapstick goes to far and it's simply embarrassing to watch. Overall rating and everything considered, about a 7.5/10
  • Posts: 297
    Also don't forget that some of MR's OTT ideas didn't seem outrageous at the time the movie was shot. Back then NASA told us all they'd have 24/7 space stations and possibly even a moonbase within five ten years. And we believed them. Had they really delivered we would look at MR and the idea of Bond in space quite differently.
  • ChevronChevron Northern Ireland
    Posts: 370
    timmer wrote:
    Chevron wrote:
    Major plot hole though: if the poison plane grows in the amazon rain forest and the mooraker launch complex is there, then why bother shipping the plants to Italy to get put in the glass containers and then ship them all they way back to the amazon.
    I'll take a stab. I'm not sure the plants were shipped to Italy. I think the glass containers only were shipped to Brazil. But I could be wrong. The scientists may have needed facilities in Europe as opposed to the jungle to get their work done properly, but Drax did have a rather hi-tech set-up in Brazil, so yes I see your point. I'm not sure what was going on actually. Will have to watch the movie again and suss that out.

    Remember that Roger leaves one of the glass containers out of the pod thing in the lab. When it falls and shatters on the ground the poison stuff gets out and kills all the scientists as Roger watches, no doubt thinking 'Oops! My bad, fellas!' it's a sample of the poison stuff that leads them to the plant in the amazon.

  • Posts: 1,052
    I have mixed feelings about Moonraker, probably my least favrouite of the Rog films, going into space and Jaws being a numpty taked it down a bit but it still has a lot of classic Bond elements and it looks beautiful, I still enjoy just not as much as the other Moore films and also I think this film kind makes people think the enitre Rog era was this silly but it really wasn't.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Well at the risk of TheWizardOfIce ripping into me I’m going to say that I love a bit of MR!

    I think I would probably rate it as my second fave Rog film after OP.

    Its got everything you would want from a Rog Bond film. Yes there are dumb moments which are well documented but I think its not as comedic as people think. The whole first half is pretty dark – the centrifuge, death of Corinne, death of the scientists. The only stupid things before Bond goes to Brazil is the Jaws flapping and the whole gondola scene. I can stomach the gondola chase but if they round it off with a great stunt rather than the crappy hovercraft and pigeon then by the time we get to Brazil there isn’t much to complain about.
    The Brazil scenes go off the rails a bit largely due to Jaws being turned into a clown but when we move into space the laughs are kept to a minimum (I suppose they had to be really as double taking piegons in space would be a step too far).

    Its easy to say that Bond going into space is bullsh*t and to be honest it is. They could have just had a battle at the launch base with Bond blowing up fully fuelled shuttles all over the place and maybe a final battle with Drax in a shuttle as it launches with Bond ejecting out and Drax crashing into the sea or something but at the end of the day (and considering Star Wars fever) its hard to see that Cubby could avoid sending Bond into orbit without the audience feeling a bit short changed. And at least most of the space stuff has a reasonable grounding in reality and the effects are fantastic.
    timmer wrote:
    Chevron wrote:
    Major plot hole though: if the poison plane grows in the amazon rain forest and the mooraker launch complex is there, then why bother shipping the plants to Italy to get put in the glass containers and then ship them all they way back to the amazon.
    I'll take a stab. I'm not sure the plants were shipped to Italy. I think the glass containers only were shipped to Brazil. But I could be wrong. The scientists may have needed facilities in Europe as opposed to the jungle to get their work done properly, but Drax did have a rather hi-tech set-up in Brazil, so yes I see your point. I'm not sure what was going on actually. Will have to watch the movie again and suss that out.
    You are right this is somewhat illogical.

    I presume the way it works is Drax ships the orchid to Venice where it is processed and distilled into the poison. Then it is put in the glass containers and shipped back to where it came from, so this does indeed beg the question why not just do it on site?
    Seeing as money is obviously no object then why not make the distillation lab part of the launch site? And to say they need specialised facilities in Europe is a bit dubious seeing as Drax has seemingly infinite wealth and that the lab can be dismantled overnight so it cant be that complicated.

    My only explanation is that to have enough of that poison to kill everyone on the planet on the same site as enough rocket fuel for 6 shuttles is really asking for trouble.

    If you start analysing MR too much youre going to be there all day –
    Why is there a fully fuelled shuttle on the back of a 747?
    Why does Drax even steal the shuttle? Because one of his developed a fault? He owns the factory FFS surely just repairing it is less conspicuous than alerting the British and US governments?
    How does Drax build the space station without being noticed from earth? Even if his radar jamming is in operation from day one don’t the US and Soviets wonder who the f**k is launching shuttle after shuttle for years? Does Drax just say they are all commercial satellites?

    But hey its MR guys. Just sit back and enjoy.

    actonsteve wrote:
    And why is a Mayan pyramid in the Amazon jungle? The mayans didn't get south of Honduras. Unless it a timeshare holiday home...


    Love that with all the things there are to moan about with MR that someone can spot this!

    Maya, Inca, Aztec - whatever.
  • Posts: 278
    actonsteve wrote:
    And why is a Mayan pyramid in the Amazon jungle? The mayans didn't get south of Honduras. Unless it a timeshare holiday home...

    And of course, building a space station under the radar without anyone knowing made a lot more sense :)
  • Posts: 1,082
    Drax must have had cloaking devices on all the shuttels that he sent up with equipment.
    Then, the space station had a cloaking device until the radar jamming system was installed. ;) There is an explaination for everything. :))
  • Kennon wrote:
    Also don't forget that some of MR's OTT ideas didn't seem outrageous at the time the movie was shot. Back then NASA told us all they'd have 24/7 space stations and possibly even a moonbase within five ten years. And we believed them. Had they really delivered we would look at MR and the idea of Bond in space quite differently.

    EXACTLY!

    Couple this with an understanding of the styles and tastes of the 1970s disco era, and Cubby Broccoli's desire to produce a big spectacular family movie that catered to the audience that loved Star Wars, and you can see why the film is as it is.
  • Posts: 278
    I've always defended it.
    As a Bond film against those that appeared before (and most instances since) its pretty far fetched.
    As a film its very entertaining and visually stunning.
    In fact if you did a poll of which Bond film delivers the most to the screen visually, against the production costs, then MR is pretty much near the top.
    Compare it to GE where a lot looks like a studio shot or a model.
  • Posts: 297
    Kennon wrote:
    Also don't forget that some of MR's OTT ideas didn't seem outrageous at the time the movie was shot. Back then NASA told us all they'd have 24/7 space stations and possibly even a moonbase within five ten years. And we believed them. Had they really delivered we would look at MR and the idea of Bond in space quite differently.

    EXACTLY!

    Couple this with an understanding of the styles and tastes of the 1970s disco era, and Cubby Broccoli's desire to produce a big spectacular family movie that catered to the audience that loved Star Wars, and you can see why the film is as it is.


    At the time it was really the natural thing to do, let Bond go into space. Nobody considered this over the top back in the day. To the contrary, when Connery was denied access to the space capsule in YOLT that was already a huge disappointment to us. We really thought there was nothing extraordinary about future in space. If they had given us OHMSS on a space station, with Bond escaping just in a space suit, we wouldn't have been very disappointed. For Moore's Bond to take this step was just what everybody wanted at the time. Or it seemed so, which is just as well.
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 3,494
    SaintMark wrote:
    Keep the CR cr*p in thread about CR, this is about hate or appriciate Moonraker.

    Too much CR makes my skin crawl due to lost opportunities.

    You are right, forgive me. I'll stick to the subject, unlike in the QOS appreciation thread where a small amount of people complain where they shouldn't and make statements such as "QoS appriciation................... A turd might have feelings too".

    Moonraker (the movie) is mostly a steaming pile of monkey dung compared to the novel and is only exceeded by DAD as the worst film in the series. I don't buy the outdated argument for even one second, very weak. If the MR novel was so outdated as the defenders of the film version claim, then why was GoldenEye able to use a villain with a scarred face who hated England and other key elements of the novel successfully 16 years later, including a storyline also based in part in space? Let's all accept MR for what it is, a very lazy and unoriginal cash-in on the Star Wars craze with little to no resemblance to the novel. A big budget film that mostly wastes those dollars on entertaining children (or those with that mentality) with characters such as Jaws and Dolly, excessively stupid sight and sound gags, unrealistic stunt work, tons of poor acting and lack of character development, etc, etc, etc.

    Does MR have some good things? Yes. And so does DAD, and so does QOS. And CR is a series classic to nearly everyone but a very small minority and that seems by way of opinion to include the general public.








  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited May 2012 Posts: 9,117
    Kennon wrote:
    If they had given us OHMSS on a space station, with Bond escaping just in a space suit, we wouldn't have been very disappointed.

    Speak for yourself Sir.
  • Posts: 7,652
    SaintMark wrote:
    Keep the CR cr*p in thread about CR, this is about hate or appriciate Moonraker.

    Too much CR makes my skin crawl due to lost opportunities.

    You are right, forgive me. I'll stick to the subject, unlike in the QOS appreciation thread where a small amount of people complain where they shouldn't and make statements such as "QoS appriciation................... A turd might have feelings too".

    Moonraker (the movie) is mostly a steaming pile of monkey dung compared to the novel and is only exceeded by DAD as the worst film in the series. I don't buy the outdated argument for even one second, very weak. If the MR novel was so outdated as the defenders of the film version claim, then why was GoldenEye able to use a villain with a scarred face who hated England and other key elements of the novel successfully 16 years later, including a storyline also based in part in space? Let's all accept MR from what it is, a very lazy and unoriginal cash-in on the Star Wars craze with little to no resemblance to the novel. A big budget film that mostly wastes those dollars on entertaining children (or those with that mentality) with characters such as Jaws and Dolly, excessively stupid sight and sound gags, unrealistic stunt work, tons of poor acting and lack of character development, etc, etc, etc.

    Does MR have some good things? Yes. And so does DAD, and so does QOS. And CR is a series classic to nearly everyone but a very small minority and that seems by way of opinion to include the general public.

    I admit dear Sir you got me there, but there still is a difference I still spoke about QoS while some remarks were solely about QoS in a MR thread.

    And does MR have good things, yes most of them worked at the time and still do. 007 in space was bound to happen and it could not have been done better than MR did. QoS did some things right but it does not feel like a 007 movie more like one from the competition and they did a much better job. I do not mind stealing/borrowing but do something constructive with it and QoS failed to do so without much grace. The Opera scene was good but that does not make a good movie. Like Arnold who does do some good tunes but the end result is neither here or there. Now MR has an awesome and easily identifiable sound and soundtrack which still sounds utterly brilliant.

  • edited May 2012 Posts: 3,494
    One thing I will never fault Moonraker for is the soundtrack. I certainly listen to that far more than I watch the movie. It just unfortunately can't save the rest of the train wreck.

    Obviously I largely disagree with your and other people's assessments of QOS being the worst Bond movie, although I do understand the disappointment in comparison to CR and thoroughly agree with the opinion that it could have been so much better. I can forgive most of it's faults because in general the movie didn't omit the important points coming out of CR (unlike OHMSS/DAF) and acted like a sequel and thoroughly aced said points. I'll never say QOS was more than a very average type of Bond film because it was not, but at least when I left the theater I could honestly say that the CR story was efficiently wrapped, the character was grown, and a formidable criminal organization for Bond and MI6 to deal with was made clearer than it was in CR. Of course I was hoping for more, but at least the important questions for me were answered and that worked for me.


  • Posts: 11,425
    MR is not great, but I cannot bring myself to hate it. GE, TWINE and DUD are much more worthy recipients of my vitriol.
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 11,175
    Getafix wrote:
    MR is not great, but I cannot bring myself to hate it. GE, TWINE and DUD are much more worthy recipients of my vitriol.

    MR isn't that bad but GE is 1000 times better.
  • Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    MR is not great, but I cannot bring myself to hate it. GE, TWINE and DUD are much more worthy recipients of my vitriol.

    MR isn't that bad but GE is 1000 times better.

    What, the same GE that your man Rye described as 'dull and colourless'?
Sign In or Register to comment.