mraculeated
The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.
Mischa Redfern
I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.
Rio Hayward
All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.
Mrbrown43
The family and I have watched all the James Bond films way too many times. They always were mindless fun films that we could watch in a state of dumb happiness. The trouble with this mindset is when we ever question anything the film just falls apart. Moonraker might be one the worst examples of this in the Bond series, it is mindless fun but when you pay attention you realize that this is bad, really bad.After a Drax industries space shuttle "Moonraker" is hijacked from the US in midflight James Bond (Roger Moore) is sent to find out why it was hijacked and what happened to it, this sends Bond on a worldwide race against time to stop a power hungry mad man (Michael Lonsdale) from killing the entire human race.The first of the big problems with this movie is the writing, Bond as usual never really is in any danger as there is always some sort of invention from Q (Desmond Llewelyn) that saves him or just by the villains taking their time killing him or use such convoluted means to kill Bond that are and not limited to: placing him under a space shuttle to fry time, throw him into a pool with Python or send a Asian stereotype in Ninja dress up to beat up Bond. All of these could have been solved by just shooting Bond. The sheer stupidly of the villains is really frustrating because if they were just competent enough all their problems would have been fixed. But no, the film is always on Bond's side and as of a result there is not really much tension as nothing is able to truly harm him. The film is boring as a result if you want to pay attention. Another example would be the after Bond discovers a lethal drug that the villain is going to use to destroy the world. He returns to the factory with his superiors only to find it gone as embarrass himself and the superiors and only then gives them the lethal drug after the humiliation instead of before when it would have helped convince the higher ups that something is up.The second big problem is the dialogue, I know that James Bond tends to make quips and puns in a majority of films in movies, the Roger Moore films in particular are guilty of this but Moonraker takes the cake. I would say that 90% of Roger Moore's dialogue is lame stupid puns. Often one after another and not only that but they are not clever; just predicable things that almost anyone would have thought of as the first thing to write down. A door that would save Bond from death blows up "Bang on time!" Bond exclaims. Bond discovers a killer daily diary "Fairly deadly diary" he mutters with attempted droll. I would like to quote some lines from the villain and ask you to try adding the evil laugh to them "Look after Mr Bond, see that some harm comes to him...." "I am sure Mr Bond is cold after his swim; put him in place where he will be assured of warmth...." Most of the bad guy's dialogue is like that, I half expect him to bust out with maniacal laugher as thunder rolls outside. The villain is a cartoon character that the film does not want to admit is a cartoon because it still wants to be somewhat realistic, even when it is trying to be Star Wars and have Sci Fi elements but no. The film still wants to be taken seriously even with all the stupid punning and cartoon baddies.The third big problem is the acting, Roger Moore sleepwalks though movie, just doing enough to not seem that he is trying but not much more. All the female characters on the other hand give wooden performances. The only one that is on screen for longer than a few minutes is Holly Goodhead(Lois Chiles) who delivers her lines with as much weight and emotion as block of wood in water creates a sizzling chemical compound. Because that is what women are in the pre Daniel Craig (Pierce Brosnan to a lesser extent) they are not so much interesting characters or even allowed to give good performances but rather wooden dolls that Bond leers at and/or sleeps with before throwing them away. The female characters do not need to put in good performances before they are just things that look pretty. This aspect has damaged the films as the years have gone by and Moonraker is one of the worst offenders of this.The special effects are ok; they have aged alright for the most part even if the films idea of zero gravity is a little bit goofy it still looks impressive for a 1970s movie. As I write this I wonder why I have watched Moonraker all those times, on one hand this could go into the Hall of Infamy because of all the stupidity and questionable elements that contribute to the film aging badly. But it is still fun, mindless stupid fun. I doubt it is ever going to be better than that. I doubt history will look kindly on Moonraker. But I can recommend it as being a fun movie you can put on if you do not want something too intelligent.
cinemajesty
Movie Review: "007: Moonraker" (1979)The fourth assignment for actor Roger Moore (1927-2017) as MI6 spy James Bond turns out to be another over-thrown comic action film directed by Lewis Gilbert, who already had indesivie "007" picture under his rooster with "You Only Live Twice" (1967). An exorbite budget raise from 14 Million U.S. Dollar for well-accomplished "The Spy Who Loved Me" to 34 Million U.S. Dollar for "Moonraker", which certainly did not help to create suspense to an boring script by screenwriter Christopher Wood (1935-2015).This Bond movie brings some magnificient stunts from jumping out of planes with no parachute, a boat chase with gadgets as the cars, a Lotus sportscar in 1977 and an Aston Martin in 1964 before, a cable car hand-combat balancing act over the city of Rio De Janeiro with reprising character of "Jaws", portrayed by mute-staying actor Richard Kiel (1939-2014) in constantely more tiresome confrontation of huge destruction scene as circus tents, cable car station or a laser-fight at a space station that throw relationship of balance between the character of James Bond and actress Lois Chiles, given face to the active "007" sidekicking character of Holly Goodhead. Together they bring it up into space of another "Spectre" departed antagonist. This time underminingly performed by actor Michael Lonsdale, who lets voluntarily leading actor Roger Moore win in all the on-screen battles that Lonsdale's interpration of the character Drax stays behind expectations. Director Lewis Gilbert is unable to make use of the major production budget given by producer and film presenter Albert R. Broccoli (1909-1996), who brings in future producer (from 1985 on) Michael G. Wilson as executive support for the company of Eon Productions to handle finance and acquisition."Moonraker" has a inbalanced stand with international audiences, even thought it brings in the highest U.S. domestic box office gross in history of the "007" movie series at that point in time. The spectators, who cherish "The Spy Who Loved Me" will be disappointed even so the picture had been produced with almost the same major crew members. The third title by Shirley Bassey is magnificient. But even the returning composer John Barry (1933-2011) after an highly experimental 1970s soundtrack for the predecessor, hardly delivers with further one-dimensional staggered dialogue lines in "Moonraker" to an just overlong editiorial by editor John Glen, especially in center minutes of James Bond walking through a South American jungle as the fight with a too-small water anaconda snake, which takes out the suspense on this "007" movie completely, leaving it to the harcore fans of franchise cinema and pro-speakers of Roger Moore to enjoy. © 2017 Felix Alexander Dausend
(Cinemajesty Entertainments LLC)
stormhawk2018
I have gone through many feelings toward Roger Moore as James Bond, and although this is one of the weakest films of the franchise, there is just something so enjoyable about the cheesy action scenes that this portion of the films seem to bring to the table. A little overlong, even though most of them run about 10-20 minutes too long in general. "Moonraker" begins as the remains of the moonraker ship are lost and Bond must investigate. This is the simplest idea of the bond films, yet I was lost as to how far-fetched this film became. Jumping from ski lifts and going to space has never felt like the grounded film a bond picture should be. Overall, I did not care for this film very much. For it's characters or it's story. Some of the action is fun, but that's about it. One of my least favorite.
KineticSeoul
After "The Spy Who Loved Me" I thought just maybe just maybe the next James Bond movie with Roger Moore wouldn't be a "007" spoof. Where Roger Moore wouldn't be a caricature of the silliness that applies to the Bond films he is in. I thought he would be out of that stage and it was smooth sailing from there on...Well I was wrong. I just didn't think the title "Moonraker" would literally apply to the films plot. This film starts out alright despite the campy and ridiculous intro of James Bond parachuting and Jaws (the villain from the previous film) returning and trying to kill bond. It's quite obvious they got the idea from that scene from D. B. Cooper. It was actually kind of cool to see Jaws again as one of the villains, he was like a menacing figure in the first one. In this he is like Nemesis from "Resident Evil 3" minus the intimidation, he is actually more goofy than a intimidating figure in this. Mainly because of the set ups and Jaw's facial expressions during certain parts. It just made him look like a dumb tall guy at a children's party that just didn't know what was going on. There is one scene where Jaw's falls for a woman after their eyes intertwine, it was sweet but it was very laughable. Anyways like I said this installment started off alright until the Venice chase scene where Bond uses his pimped out Venetian row boat to escape by also being able to move on land as well. The whole super car being able to go under water is alright, but a Venetian row boat that moves on land was comedic for the wrong reasons. There is also other ridiculous parts, but lets just skip to Bond going into outer space. I guess after "Star Wars" was such a mega hit, the producers probably wanted to take some ideas from that film. There is even a laser gun in this as well, with the similar guns the stormtroopers have. As for the main villain, it didn't seem like they were trying anymore. Some of the really standout villains are the ones you can sort of understand why they are the way they are. Or at least understand their motives, not necessarily agree with it but understand where they are coming from. That is far from it in this, the past villains was about world domination, money or just killing people. In this one it's the whole "Noah's Ark" scenario. Except a human guy that is out of his mind, chooses only certain people that fit his terms of human perfection onto his spaceship. Than wipe out the whole human race so only people he deems perfect can repopulate the world. Overall this is probably my least favorite Bond film compared to the previous one. At least "The Man With The Golden Gun" was amusing. Like in some previous Bond films there is a climatic battle scene, well this one is with a band of astronauts and laser guns *sigh*. I like Star Wars as well but some universes should not mix.3.5/10
