Why I like Moonraker better than SF

124»

Comments

  • Posts: 229
    Moonraker = the boat chase and the pigeon stuff = No thanks
    Moonraker = space battle = no thanks

    I enjoyed the movie as a kid and as a teenager, but as an adult NO.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,449
    maxcraig wrote:
    Moonraker = the boat chase and the pigeon stuff = No thanks
    Moonraker = space battle = no thanks

    I enjoyed the movie as a kid and as a teenager, but as an adult NO.

    I understand that but you could try and watch it with a different attitude, meaning you pay attention to the music, the technical marvels and the beautiful locations. It helps to get over the random craziness. ;-)

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    DarthDimi wrote:
    maxcraig wrote:
    Moonraker = the boat chase and the pigeon stuff = No thanks
    Moonraker = space battle = no thanks

    I enjoyed the movie as a kid and as a teenager, but as an adult NO.

    I understand that but you could try and watch it with a different attitude, meaning you pay attention to the music, the technical marvels and the beautiful locations. It helps to get over the random craziness. ;-)

    I watched Moonraker on the big screen a few years back, it was probably one of the most enjoyable cinema-going experiences I've ever had. Like you say, the score is lush and epic, the locations are stunningly photographed and the effects are still pretty impressive when you put them in context. The fact Rog just breezes through it and is completely charming throughout just adds to the enjoyment. No, it's not in the same universe as something like FRWL or OHMSS but it's still a grandeose bit of thoroughly enjoyable nonsense.

  • Posts: 1,548
    If Dan Craig ever comes up against a Jaws-like henchman he'll look a damn sight more convincing than Moore and his eyebrow!
  • Posts: 1,492
    SaintMark wrote:
    OHMSS69 wrote:
    How dare you compare that train wreck MR to the oscar winning Skyfall.

    Easy, some people prefer MR over SF because they feel that the current 007 does not represent their taste in 007ness.

    And SF has enough flaws itself mostly the fact that 007 gets his boss killed and the baddie wins. The fact that SF won some oscars does not mean the movie is better.

    Only to those who aren't willing to cut it some slack. Like it are not the Oscars are the ultimate benchmark in cinema. Its the highest accolade.

    MR is a big puppy knocking you over with its friendliness but it will shit in the kitchen.

    Even at age 10 on first cinematic viewing I loved most of it but the misjudged humour sank it for me.

  • Moonraker love from me also. Skyfall is & forever will be a great Bond film but as I've been used to the older ones more it will take a few more viewings to really stamp its franchise value.

    Bond Betamax fan since 1984 present.
  • Moonraker - take away the double take pigeon, comedy Jaws moments and you have a classic big screen Bond film.

    Skyfall - give it a year or so until the hype diminishes - I still remember critics/fans exclaiming that Quantum of Solace was the best Bond ever when it was first released.
    It is still a good Bond film - but like the recent ones (CR the exception) has it's faults - the last 10 minutes (in my opinion) are criminally slow.

    So it's Moonraker for me..
  • actonsteve wrote:
    SaintMark wrote:
    OHMSS69 wrote:
    How dare you compare that train wreck MR to the oscar winning Skyfall.

    Easy, some people prefer MR over SF because they feel that the current 007 does not represent their taste in 007ness.

    And SF has enough flaws itself mostly the fact that 007 gets his boss killed and the baddie wins. The fact that SF won some oscars does not mean the movie is better.

    Only to those who aren't willing to cut it some slack. Like it are not the Oscars are the ultimate benchmark in cinema. Its the highest accolade.

    MR is a big puppy knocking you over with its friendliness but it will shit in the kitchen.

    Even at age 10 on first cinematic viewing I loved most of it but the misjudged humour sank it for me.


    This has probably been said before, but the Oscars are not an indication of a good movie. There have been countless examples of the wrong movie winning.

    1. Chicago being the first, beating The Pianist!!
    2. Citizen Kane NOT winning, I mean come on!
    3. The English Patient beating Fargo ?????
    4. The Hurt Locker winning.
    5. Martin Scorsese not winning for Taxi Driver and Raging Bull and then finally losing out to Dances With Wolves with the fantastic Goodfellas.

    There are countless examples of how the Oscars have been so wide of the mark, yet people still look to them for some guidance on what is good. This has always baffled me
  • edited March 2013 Posts: 11,189
    I like MR in a guilty pleasure sort of way but I REALLY don't understand how some people can seriously think its a better overall film than SF

    -Its too cartooney and camp (SF is camp at times but its all more grounded).
    -It takes Bond away from Fleming
    -Its star is more often than not playing himself rather than James Bond
    -Its a rip off of Star Wars, which has nothing to do with Bond.
    -The photography in MR is great but I don't think it beats Deakins work
  • Posts: 1,492

    Skyfall - give it a year or so until the hype diminishes -

    I bet in thirty years time it is still well regarded
  • Didn't say it wasn't regarded. It's only a matter of opinion my friend -and as big Clint Eastwood said in the DeadPool "opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one." It was only my opinion - which is why these sites thrive.

    Just seems like if you don't rate Skyfall as No. 1 people get a bit tetchy
  • Posts: 7,653
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I like MR in a guilty pleasure sort of way but I REALLY don't understand how some people can seriously think its a better overall film than SF

    -Its too cartooney and camp (SF is camp at times but its all more grounded). Fair enough
    -It takes Bond away from Fleming most eon movies have done so, what is new.
    -Its star is more often than not playing himself rather than James Bond Roger Moore is an unique individual and one of it most vocal supporters of the EON franchise
    -Its a rip off of Star Wars, which has nothing to do with Bond. It is NOT a rip off of SW, it did sail on the popularity of scifi movies at that time so in essence a smart financial move by EON
    -The photography in MR is great but I don't think it beats Deakins work Once again a matter of perception. I do not find his work on SF that great and visually MR is the better movie imho. Its special effects have rarely been bettered in this franchise certainly not in the Brosnan or Craig era.

    MR has a higher entertainment value for me every time, SF lacks that for me the movie is allright but by no means the ultimate 007 movie.

  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited March 2013 Posts: 4,043
    Personally I enjoyed MR as a kid when I first saw it on the big screen back in 1979 and subsequently after for a number of years.

    Unlike some I'm unable to replicate the same joy I found for some films when I was younger, YOLT was another childhood favourite it certainly isn't any more. MR save Barry's terrific score ( it's top tier but no OHMSS), yes it does have great cinematography and Ken Adam's sets are fantastic but I'm afraid the look and the music don't necessarily make a great film.

    If you can return to that time when you were a kid and see the film through those eyes then that is probably a good thing for you, unfortunately I can't and my last viewing of MR was like pulling teeth, I just find it an utter embarrassment but then if you associate Moore's Bond with all that you love about the series then maybe it's heaven.

    SF is much more enjoyable because I'm not cringing when I watch it, outside of the music although I'm one of the few who likes Newman's score and short of QOS it's better than all of Arnold's (for me) and Adam's work SF aces it in every department, as good as MR cinematography is, Deakins is in another class.

    MR is ludicrous but so is Skyfall, all Bond films are in some shape or form but MR is the most OTT of the lot and just feels like they've taken SWLM (which ripped of YOLT) and applied the same blue print with a number of tweaks. SF in comparison is it's own beast and something new for Bond, I don't want to see this kind of thing repeated but as a one off it was most refreshing.
  • Posts: 5,634
    I saw it on release in '79 also and can remember how outlandish it was, in at least James Bond went into space, but that was largely due to the damn Star Wars boom of the time and it did get a lot of money for them, but it was a lousy idea for a Bond movie

    Moore gets ridiculed for his appearance here for some of the absurd humor bits such as Saint Marks Square, Venice, but remember only last year there was some far fetched nonsense such as Bond getting shot off a moving train, falling off a waterfall and surviving freezing water for a considerable time, so are they really that different in terms of nonsense, or however you want to word it. Craig is the better Bond without question, but at least back then Moore gave us a damn fine adventure and while not his best release, there is real fun to be had and the action never lets up. Bringing Richard Kiel back was a poor idea in retrospect, but the background scores, pre credits sequence, other outstanding moments and a great Lonsdale villain more than componsate for the frustrating elements. It did cost more to produce than all the previous Bond movies put together let's not forget, and I think it was money well spent
  • Posts: 6,432
    Moonraker gets my vote.
Sign In or Register to comment.