Moonraker- Why the hate?

1235710

Comments

  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,929
    Murdock wrote: »
    I love Moonraker. It's a charming jolly romp with one of Barry's best scores. Roger is great, everyone is great. It's a Bond film to not take seriously. I have a smile every time I watch it.

    I agree with this 100% and would not want it to be from the same molds as LTK and CR. But some of the ligheartedness, such as Jaws flapping his arms, goes a bit far.

  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,184
    talos7 wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    I love Moonraker. It's a charming jolly romp with one of Barry's best scores. Roger is great, everyone is great. It's a Bond film to not take seriously. I have a smile every time I watch it.

    I agree with this 100% and would not want it to be from the same molds as LTK and CR. But some of the ligheartedness, such as Jaws flapping his arms, goes a bit far.
    Doesn't even bother me. It just adds to the charm. In the same vain as Jaws dropping that massive stone on his foot in TSWLM. :P
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,929
    In a way that's my point; the stone on the foot adds a bit of humor without being heavy handed. Throughout the rest of the movie Jaws is a real threat.
    There is no right or wrong on this but for me humor in a Bond film is the equivalent of adding a bit of salt to a meal; it should accent not overwhelm. In MR it's as if, at times, the top came off of the salt shaker.
  • Posts: 1,092
    I love the film. Haters gonna hate....
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,929
    The use of the words hate and hater is so comical.
  • The good far out ways the bad, its certainly one of the most unusual films in the series. Ken Adams sets alone make this film great for me.
  • talos7 wrote: »
    For me it's not "hate" as much as frustration; take the same script and trim the goofiness, keep Jaws a villain and you have a hell of a fun movie.

    Totally agree.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    Yeah, since Moonraker was based on The Spy Who Loved Me, it was quite close to being another great movie.
    talos7 wrote: »
    The use of the words hate and hater is so comical.

    Indeed. Everybody who doesn't happen to like something is branded a "hater". What an unenlightened claim.
  • Posts: 1,386
    I love MR and I'm glad it's being appreciated. I understand the criticisms, I understand why people hate it, I understand why some people think it's the worst, but I think it's in the top half in terms of quality. I mean that honestly.

    Five years ago I would have ranked it in the bottom 3, but my tastes have changed, as well as my appreciation for cinema. There is so much beauty and entertainment in MR. It is a gorgeous film aesthetically, and the music from Barry is ethereal (id watch the entire film just to hear "Flight into Space").

    Oh, and Drax is a top 5 villain. The lines they give him are legendary and Lonsdale nails it. When it comes to campy-world domination Bond villains he is head and shoulders above the rest.

    I have a soft spot for this movie for basically all the reasons so many loathe it. I do think scaling things down considerably with the next one was a wise move though. I love MR but...it definitely marks a point where the series jumped the shark. I'm not even sure how I'd make a movie that goes more outlandish than this. But that's why I enjoy it. Like all the 70s Bond movies (as well as YOLT) it's just a big fun piece of ridiculousness that doesn't seem like it was ever intended to be taken seriously. I just try to enjoy the more serious entries for what they are and the more ridiculous ones for what they are. Variety is the spice of life.
    Yes I love some of Drax's lines in this.

    "Mr. Bond you defy all my attempts to plan an amusing death for you."
  • JohnHammond73JohnHammond73 Lancashire, UK
    Posts: 4,151
    I don't mind Moonraker for the most part. It beats out some more popular movies in my current ranking. There is a lot of good; Michael Lonsdale as Drax, who delivers his lines in a brilliant way and chews up every scene he's in; the scene of Corrine's death, muck akin to a Hammer Horror movie with the score to match; a great score throughout; the return of jaws, in particular the scene in Rio where he's dressed as a clown; the centrifuge scene and more. The space fight scene is something I'm not overly keen on but this movie is just a fun, popcorn movie that has plenty for everyone to enjoy I think.
  • The performance of the female lead in this film is just horrible.
    Possibly the worst by an actor in the series.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    The performance of the female lead in this film is just horrible.
    Possibly the worst by an actor in the series.

    I take it you've never seen Halle Berry in DAD then?

    I'll grant Chiles has a droning voice and zero charisma but she doesn't reach Jinx's level of awfulness.

  • Neck and neck, yes.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Neck and neck, yes.

    On the executioner's block if I had my way.

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Richards was worse, Bouvier was about on par.

    You seem to have stumbled onto some sort of hypothesis here: are all American Bond girls crap? (Performance wise of course. I'm not suggesting that being yanks makes them any less shaggable)

    Jill St John - Starts off very well but the script doesn't help her out as it goes on but like everyone working on DAF she seems to lose interest by the end.

    Gloria Hendry - Awful.

    Barbara Bach - Despite getting handed one of the more interesting Bond girl roles she does nothing with it and is so wooden that by the second half she has taken root.

    Lois Chiles - Total lack of charisma.

    Lynn Holly Johnson - Extremely irritating but perhaps this is how they wanted the character portrayed and not her fault?

    Tanya Roberts - Again the script does her no favours but she's not helped by being a shocking actress.

    Carey Lowell - Decent but not great. Light years away from breaking into the top 10.

    Teri Hatcher - Soap opera acting when we nearly had Monica Belucci in her prime. Nice one EON.

    Denise Richards - Embarassing although I think she did her best with her limited talent.

    Halle Berry - F**k off.

    A pretty damning lineup IMO. Jill St John in the first half and Carey Lowell are the only ones who aren't awful.








  • Birdleson wrote: »
    Richards was worse, Bouvier was about on par.

    You seem to have stumbled onto some sort of hypothesis here: are all American Bond girls crap? (Performance wise of course. I'm not suggesting that being yanks makes them any less shaggable)

    Jill St John - Starts off very well but the script doesn't help her out as it goes on but like everyone working on DAF she seems to lose interest by the end.

    Gloria Hendry - Awful.

    Barbara Bach - Despite getting handed one of the more interesting Bond girl roles she does nothing with it and is so wooden that by the second half she has taken root.

    Lois Chiles - Total lack of charisma.

    Lynn Holly Johnson - Extremely irritating but perhaps this is how they wanted the character portrayed and not her fault?

    Tanya Roberts - Again the script does her no favours but she's not helped by being a shocking actress.

    Carey Lowell - Decent but not great. Light years away from breaking into the top 10.

    Teri Hatcher - Soap opera acting when we nearly had Monica Belucci in her prime. Nice one EON.

    Denise Richards - Embarassing although I think she did her best with her limited talent.

    Halle Berry - F**k off.

    A pretty damning lineup IMO. Jill St John in the first half and Carey Lowell are the only ones who aren't awful.








    You're making a pretty good case, sir!
  • edited February 2016 Posts: 1,595
    RC7 wrote: »
    I love MR and I'm glad it's being appreciated. I understand the criticisms, I understand why people hate it, I understand why some people think it's the worst, but I think it's in the top half in terms of quality. I mean that honestly.

    Five years ago I would have ranked it in the bottom 3, but my tastes have changed, as well as my appreciation for cinema. There is so much beauty and entertainment in MR. It is a gorgeous film aesthetically, and the music from Barry is ethereal (id watch the entire film just to hear "Flight into Space").

    Oh, and Drax is a top 5 villain. The lines they give him are legendary and Lonsdale nails it. When it comes to campy-world domination Bond villains he is head and shoulders above the rest.

    What you say about 'quality' is true. In terms of craft; I'm talking production design, cinematography, costume, score, special effects, art direction, sound design... it is a stunning piece of work. It's truly luscious.

    Truly luscious. Great word. I agree also that scaling down after MR was a good idea, but as a standalone movie I'm really glad we have it. Great to pop on and munch popcorn and just drink it all in. They don't make 'em like that any more, and also Bernard Lee and Adams' last movie.
  • Posts: 107
    The MI6 rating of 3.5 out of 10 stars is way too harsh. Should be 9 out of 10.

    I was 11 years old when I saw it in the theater. I think between ages 9-16 is when you are most blown away by whoever Bond is at that time in your life. Hence, Moore movies I am biased towards.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I don't care what anybody says. Bach rocked as Amasova. Particularly in that black dress.
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,184
    bondjames wrote: »
    I don't care what anybody says. Bach rocked as Amasova. Particularly in that black dress.
    Agreed. I liked her as well. Especially in that red bikini. ;)

  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited February 2016 Posts: 1,984
    Barbara was actually good in the Egypt scenes. Her acting was always strangely forced, though, but at least she was hot.

    I preferred Holly Goodhead and Pam Bouvier over Jinx by far. Over Christmas Jones (I almost can't even say that) as well.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe Given the circumstances
    Posts: 7,346
    I like how Drax's plan is already completely in motion before the film even begins, with the astronaut being trained casually outside his country retreat. That is one admirable thing I have noticed about this film and other like it in the series - they don't beat you over the head with exposition and explanations. You can kinda follow the thread if you're concerned with doing so, but by and large you are invited to simply enjoy the ride.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    MR is moving up my rankings with a bullet of late. Same goes for DAF. Both films I didn't have too much time for a few years ago, but they are just so much fun and I do miss that these days. Hence the reassessment.

    Both Connery and Moore are just having such a blast in these respective films that it's addictive.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe Given the circumstances
    edited April 2017 Posts: 7,346
    Yeah, I'm changing my tune on Moonraker too. It was my least favourite Bond film the last time I ranked them, but the more I watch it the more I realise that underneath under all the silliness there is genuine artistry here. I'm finding things that I would love to see in a future Bond film and that relaxed method of storytelling is definitely one. Some might call it lazy, but I think it was intentional by the filmmakers.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 2,998
    Yeah, I'm changing my tune on Moonraker too. It was my least favourite Bond film the last time I ranked them, but the more I watch it the more I realise that underneath under all the silliness there is genuine artistry here. I'm finding things that I would love to see in a future Bond film and that relaxed method of storytelling is definitely one. Some might call it lazy, but I think it was intentional by the filmmakers.

    Exactly. It's telling the story without someone (i.e. Tanner) having to come on screen and actually tell the story to the audience.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe Given the circumstances
    Posts: 7,346
    Yeah, I'm changing my tune on Moonraker too. It was my least favourite Bond film the last time I ranked them, but the more I watch it the more I realise that underneath under all the silliness there is genuine artistry here. I'm finding things that I would love to see in a future Bond film and that relaxed method of storytelling is definitely one. Some might call it lazy, but I think it was intentional by the filmmakers.

    Exactly. It's telling the story without someone (i.e. Tanner) having to come on screen and actually tell the story to the audience.

    Yeah, it's like the audience isn't treated with the intelligence to connect two basic scenes together without having a line of dialogue to tell them. It adds to that feeling of being told the story instead of experiencing it yourself. With Moonraker, you choose how much you want to engage with the story, how much you want to connect the dots.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 38,268
    In agreement that there's a lot more to MR than meets the eye. In the last year or so, I realized that the woman working the Venini Glass place is one of Drax's assistants - totally insignificant, but that's what is great about it: the pieces are there if you want to connect them. MR doesn't get as much credit as it deserves, and alongside DAF and TMWTGG, it has jumped up in the enjoyment department for me. They may not be flying up in my rankings, but I love the three of those a lot more than I did years back.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe Given the circumstances
    Posts: 7,346
    Kinda reminds me of Mad Max Fury Road from the visual storytelling aspect.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 22,005
    MR has always been one of my (guilty) favourites. The visual spectacle, the almost OurManFlint-like investigation Bond is running, the increasingly more exotic locations (culminating in space) and of course John Barry's perfect score, all contribute to my undying loyalty towards the film. Granted, it is a fantasy film in many ways, starting with traps and hidden rooms in still somewhat normal places such as Venetian museums, progressing into more challenging phenomena such as exotic carnivals, distressing heights and the jungle, and ultimately beyond the ordinary entirely, in this case space. There are "monsters" (Jaws), damsels in distress and unusual toys and bits of technology. The villain is larger than life and spiritual motifs, such as Noah's ark, a new and prosperous beginning for mankind, an extra-terrestrial empire, are omnipresent. MR almost represents the same joyous Bond parody which several films, such as IN LIKE FLINT, had thrived on in the 60s. But it's exactly that element of sweet, innocent fun that makes me enjoy MR so much, especially given how the film overall still manages to retain at least some seriousness and doesn't completely fall into the trap of the "anything goes" method. Almost anything goes though. Ah well, I understand why many reject this film and I too would still love to see a proper adaptation of Fleming's novel made, but the child in me, loving MR like it's the best thing ever made, is easily awoken within the first few seconds after pressing 'play'.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 6,929
    For me it's not hate but frustration; there is so much to like in Moonraker that it can't help be entertaining. Unfortunately a potentially great film is continuously undermined by moments of goofiness that reduce it to a good to very good film.
Sign In or Register to comment.