Moonraker in Review

Eager to cash in on the late-'70s sci-fi craze, producer Albert Broccoli decided to launch James Bond into space ASAP. What he and his team came up with was the ludicrous but enjoyable Moonraker.

The disappearance of the titular space shuttle in mid-flight prompts Bond (Roger Moore) to track down the techno-baron Hugo Drax (Michael Lonsdale), whose corporation manufactured the shuttle. A typically Bondian jaunt around the world follows, during which 007 digs up evidence of Drax's nefarious plans involving vials of nerve toxin, a massive bunker deep in the Amazon, a fleet of space shuttles, a space station impervious to radar detection, and a cadre of strapping men and nubile women eager to re-populate a decimated Earth.

Moore further etches out his version of Bond as a lethal punster-cum-foppish action hero to enjoyable effect, and Michael Lonsdale is as droll and suave a villain as any in the franchise. What recommends Moonraker though is the world-class input of Bond veterans -- set designer Ken Adam and composer John Barry -- along with effects master Derek Meddings, whose shuttles and stations were Oscar-nominated. When the film finds itself inside Ken Adam's ingenious sets -- which recall his outsize designs from You Only Live Twice, and feel like beautiful, brilliant mash-ups of Star Wars and 2001 -- it takes a qualitative leap to the next level. Likewise whenever Barry's music kicks in, you've entered a richer cinematic realm, one that endows Bond, both the character and the series, with the sophistication and élan they aspire to. Indeed, it's the work of these master artists that lifts Moonraker out of terminal goofiness and reminds us that Bond, in spite of everything, can be a pretty cool cat.

(Jay Antani)

It's the biggest, it's the best, it's.... oh wait. Is it? Write your review for Moonraker here

Repost of my official review of Moonraker:

Let's Get on With This Farce
A Review of Moonraker by Fairbairn-Sykes

Moonraker was the eleventh James Bond film made by EON Productions and the fourth to star Roger Moore as the superspy. It carries on many similar elements from the previous installment, The Spy Who Loved Me, including large over-the-top action setpieces, the direction of Lewis Gilbert, the presence of (in)famous henchman Jaws, and having only the title in common with the Ian Fleming novel.
What's interesting is that Spy is one of the generally best liked films from the Roger Moore era, but Moonraker is almost universally reviled. Ignoring the obvious, the main difference between Moonraker and The Spy Who Loved Me is one of mood -- despite a few chilling moments, Moonraker is clearly a comedy. From the circus gag in the PTS, to the use of gag music like the main theme from The Magnificent Seven, the existence of films like Austin Powers becomes almost redundant when the Bond series does a fine job of parodying itself in this entry.
Of course, it would be irresponsible for me not to mention that Moonraker is Bond's entry into science fiction. Now, while the original novel had perhaps the most over-the-top plot Fleming had used to that point, it has nothing on this film, which includes Bond going into space and fighting with lasers (though it is worth mentioning Bond himself never wields one). Moonraker was made in 1979, however, during the era of such blockbuster science-fiction films as Star Wars, Close Encounters of the Third Kind (also referenced in a gag in the film), and Alien.
The movie's "original" plotline is formulaic to the point of boredom, it really is cut and paste from the previous film only drop the interesting subplot of co-operating with a Russian agent and add space travel. It's taken me this long to review the film because I got bored often watching it and shut it off, and kept putting off finishing it.
One of the few saving graces is the score from John Barry, which often manages to take moments that are campy or stupid and give them at least some sense of grandeur and respectability.
However, ignoring Bond in space, the comedic tone, and the immensely formulaic plot, let us see how Moonraker stacks up to Bond's own criteria for good adventure -- "physical exertion, mystery, and a ruthless enemy."
PHYSICAL EXERTION (ACTION): Moonraker has many, many action sequences, in fact the plot is for the most part the string in the film's candy necklace, weakly holding together the various chases and shootouts. Some of these sequences are memorable, but mostly for how ridiculous they are -- case in point, US Space Marines engaged in an outer space laser battle with villain Hugo Drax's minions. Several of them however, are forgettable -- including a property-destroying fight with a pathetically sub-par henchman in a glass museum, a boat chase along the Amazon River, and a badly matted cable car fight. Moore himself actually doesn't do much fighting, he mostly stands to the side while destruction happens around him, appearing unphased and still smirking. One of his few convincing sequences is his reaction after being nearly killed by G-Forces in an astronaut training device early in the film. Other than that, Moore is coasting by this film. In all, the film's action sequences are many, but they are so polished that they are unconvincing, and mainly serve as opportunities for gags -- like a double-taking pigeon. Score: 3/10.
MYSTERY (PLOT): Moonraker really missed an opportunity by choosing to ignore the plotline of Fleming's novel, which was really one of his best. Elements have since been used here and there, notably in Die Another Day, but EON has long missed the boat on this one. Instead we get a very standard Bond plotline -- megalomaniacal man with large corporate empire seeks to destroy the world. Employs various henchmen who fail to kill Bond, but engage in various chase scenes in locations around the world. Eventually defeated in large fight scene in over-the-top lair. Lewis Gilbert was really the master of the OTT Bond film, and he reaches the apex in Moonraker -- mostly by adding the outer space element. I'm sure Fleming never expected his character to get in a space suit, climb in a space shuttle, and fight on a space shuttle in a laser battle. One of the problems I had watching the film was I was unable to follow Bond's train of thought. He seems to know exactly where to go to find the next clue on the Drax trail, but how he knew it was there is often unexplained or very weakly explained. It seemed to me that the Producers were thinking "let's have a scene in Rio!" and after filming it wrote lines later to explain why Bond went there. Indeed, the magnitude of locations often makes the film seem haphazard. It was hard for me to follow the narrative thread, despite the simplistic plot. Also contributing to this was the Bond girl for this entry, Dr. Holly Goodhead [sic], dropping in and out of the story at seeming random points. Also -- the formulaic "MI6 catches Bond with his pants down" joke ending reaches it's ludicrous height here -- with the PM and President of the US getting live video of Bond "attempting re-entry." Ugh. Moonraker's confused, slapped together, and formulaic plot gets a 2/10 from me.
A RUTHLESS ENEMY (DRAMA): Well, if you thought this review couldn't get any more negative, you're wrong buster. My main problem with Moonraker isn't even the stupid story or Bond in space, it's that I find it boring. And this is mostly because I think by this point the series was "coasting", repeating earlier successes but trying at the same time to outdo it. I believe the same thing can be seen in You Only Live Twice and Die Another Day -- and it is why after all three of these films the franchise toned back and tried to be more lowkey and realistic in the next entry (On Her Majesty's Secret Service, For Your Eyes Only, and Casino Royale respectively). There are a few chilling moments -- Corrine Defour being eaten by Drax's dobermans being a stand-out example, but they are mostly defused by Bond with a poncho, Jaws and his girlfriend, and all the silly music references. Moore is clearly coasting and disinterested in playing Bond except for a paycheck and a good laugh by this point. Something I noticed as lacking in Moore's Bond, despite all the claims he played Bond for humour, was while Connery's Bond would brazenly mock a villain and deride his lunacy, Moore's Bond mostly quietly stands still while the plot happens around him. Meanwhile, Drax's laid back and "cool" demeanour as played by Michael Lonsdale is interesting at first, but gets exceptionally repetitive each time he opens a scene saying "Ah, Mr. Bond, we seem to keep running into each other" or some such variation. And Lois Chiles gives perhaps one of the worst performances ever as Bond Girl Dr. Goodhead. Her voice is annoyingly monotone, she maintains the same expression on her face regardless of what situation she's in. She starts the film as a tour guide to Bond, and maintains that tone throughout the whole film, monotonely describing everything around her as if it was oh-so-interesting. "This room's nice, this room's nice too..." Possibly the most boring and aggravating performance I'd ever seen from an actress. On that note, there must be some sort of problem when the girl I thought was best looking in the film was Jaws' little girlfriend!!
For barely raising my pulse even after I'd taken various chemical stimulants, Moonraker gets a 1/10.
I said I found the film boring -- this even applies for me to it's uninspired and bland title song. Everything in this film just suggests to me that no one was really trying and that everything done in comes from two directives: copy The Spy Who Loved Me and cash in on Star Wars.
Obviously someone at EON must've released how far gone the series was when it was actively making fun of itself, and decided to tone back for the next film, For Your Eyes Only, thank heavens.
In Fleming's largely ignored original novel, Bond is captured and tortured by Drax. Growing largely irritated at having to hear Drax talk ad nauseum about himself and his brilliant plan, Bond mocks him and his plan, and says "Now let's get on with this farce, you great hairy-faced lunatic."
And that is what Moonraker is -- a farce, of James Bond in particular and action films in general.
Moonraker (1979) -- 2 out of 10

NO EON IMAGES PYTHON

Moonraker (1979) - 5.5/10
The first half of Moonraker (barring the Bondola) is actually great. Classic scenes are aplenty: the centrifuge, Bond’s pheasant hunt and a truly chilling implied mauling of one of Drax’s female aides come to mind. Even Sir Roger Moore is at the top of his game, here. However, it goes without saying that once Jaws falls in love, the movie begins a giant downward spiral. By the time Bond rides a horse to the Magnificent Seven theme (I don’t get it, either), I was almost turned off completely. And while outer space is concerned: the way it was done was fine, but by the time space is presented in the film, it just adds another layer of silliness that I can’t handle. What really pains me is how great the first half was and how quickly it becomes lame. Yet ever since I’ve been a Bond fan, I’ve put Moonraker in dead last place, no exceptions. I’ve realized, though, I cannot simply ignore the strong first half of this film, and it is for that reason it has wedged itself about of the dreaded last place position. As you can see however, Moonraker is still fairly close.

From a purely aesthetic standpoint (score, cinematography, production, women), MR may actually be the most appealing and interesting Bond film. And although Star Wars' influence is obvious, I also detect a good deal of 2001 a Spacy Odyssey in it. Were it not for some naff acting (especially from Lois Chiles), stilted dialogue, and the stretch of unwonted silliness from Bond in Goodhead's hotel room to the Magnificent Seven theme, MR would be in the upper half of Bond films. Ah, what if. We can say that about several Bond films.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

And although Star Wars' influence is obvious, I also detect a good deal of 2001 a Spacy Odyssey in it.

Harry Lange was one of the art directors on 2001 and assisted Adam on MR with the NASA/space stuff, which is probably why there is a visual echo of the Kubrick in control panels and coloration.

SPY WHO was the first time I saw a Bond film and utterly hated it, but MR was the first time I saw a Bond film, hated it, and went right on hating it for years afterward (I still find SPY to be the most schizophrenic Bond film, veering from looney slapstick to the insanely 'off' moment of Bond pumping round after round into Stromberg (which is cut very strangely, probably because nobody knew what to do with it.) Probably wasn't till laserdisc era that I finally reassessed it, on the basis of Ken Adam, Medding and Barry alone, as there's precious little else that I can recommend about it.

That would explain the 2001 echoes. And I suspect Barry's score recapitulated something of the spirit of the earlier film, too.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

That would explain the 2001 echoes. And I suspect Barry's score recapitulated something of the spirit of the earlier film, too.

Comparing & contrasting Barry's scores in 79 for THE BLACK HOLE and MOONRAKER is kinda interesting ... because in a lot of ways, I feel like he could have switched them and been more effective. The loopiness of TBH's title cue seems very Moore-like, whereas a lot of the darker stuff in MR would feel more useful to TBH.

TBH, I've never even seen TBH. And I'm not sure I even recall its existence. Any good?

Perilagu Khan wrote:

TBH, I've never even seen TBH. And I'm not sure I even recall its existence. Any good?

Until recently, TBH could not be seen. It could only be detected through its effects on its environment..

Phantom Commander wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

TBH, I've never even seen TBH. And I'm not sure I even recall its existence. Any good?

Until recently, TBH could not be seen. It could only be detected through its effects on its environment..

Explains why it didn't win any Oscars.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

TBH, I've never even seen TBH. And I'm not sure I even recall its existence. Any good?

I was absolutely crushed by my disappointment with the first TREK movie in Dec 79, devastated. My burden was lightened two weeks later when I laughed myself silly at how mega-stupid THE BLACK HOLE turned out to be. There's a line where they say the mission is to 'search for habitable life' -- are they humans or some kind of parasites? Oh, it is SOOOO bad. Many VFX are good, but that was a year when almost all the films deserved to win (ALIEN, TREK, MR, 1941 and TBH.)

I picked the DVD up for a buck or so a few years back (cheaper than trying to find the soundtrack), and some of the FX are still very good. I feel so bad for Robert Forster having to be in it -- at least with ALLIGATOR, he was riding a John Sayles script that knew it was a dumb movie, but this ... whew! (There's a double issue of CINEFANTASTIQUE on the film and there was a kernel of a good movie in there, but they bleached out everything of interest before shooting or during editing, including a Hitler reference that is disguised as Goethe. The special camera rig for the VFX resurfaced years later to used on STAR TREK 5 - the one where everybody hates the fx -- so I guess it is cursed as well.)

Here's a link to the article -- very techy, but if you skip through or just concentrate on the writing and early design aspects, it may be of interest to non-VFX heads: https://www.dix-project.net/item/2450/cinefantastique-issue-9-3-4-inside-the-black-hole
(CFQ did a lot of great articles on 80s hits and misses, ranging from BLADE RUNNER to SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES, they are often very good reads with frank opinions from the makers (total anti-PR feel to most of them, completely different from what usually comes through this century, and seriously missed by me.)