Many people do not like this movie. They find the plot too cheesy and
unbelievable. But stop for a second and evaluate the James Bond
character. He also is cheesy and unbelievable, but that's why we love
him. He has escaped certain death numerous times, defeated the foe,
and lived to tell about it; only to do it all again.
This movie occured right in the middle of Roger Moores' Bond era, and in
my opinion represents his admirable talent and wit. It includes amazing
stunts, fine gadgetry by "Q", and a suspensful finish. A Great, solid
performance by Michael Lonsdale as Drax, and a well developed supporting
actress, played by Lois Chiles helps mold the somewhat outrageous plot
into an exciting and fast pace adventure film.
Moonraker has long been reported by many critics, and fans af the James
Bond series as one of the worst. I suppose that when veiwed in comparison to
some of the 007 greats such as: From Russia With Love, Goldfinger,
Thunderball, On Her Majesty's Secret Sevice, and For Your Eyes Only; it may
appear to be just that. But, then why is it, if I may ask, that such lesser
Bond films like You Only Live Twice, and Live and Let Die, are not viewed with
the same attitude? Is it because of its occasional over-the-top cleverness,
and silliness? That quwetion, in my mind, is yet to recieve a good answer.
I, quite honestly, liked Moonraker. It had all the usual nessicary bond
components like gadgets from Q, girls galore, and that classic, and much loved
James Bond carismatic charm, and humor. Also I loved the locations at was
shot in, it want from Venice, Italy all the way to Outer space.
I think, in respect to yours and many others comments on the space station
that has yet to become a possibility even today, let alone in 1979; Your
forgetting that throughout the entire James Bond series their have been too
many futuristic and unbelievable gadgets etc. for one to count. We're as close
to capable to develope an outer space city as we are to developing,
radioactive lint!?!, or the BMW featured in Tomorrow Never Dies. I can't
recall in which one, but in one of the Connery, Bond films, made in the 1960s
, a car Phone was featured (clearly well ahead of its time.) James Bond is all
about futuristic devices, gadgets ect.
So, in closing, when looked at in comparison to ALL of the James bond
films, Moonraker is not such a bad entry. I mean, come on, you can't deny that
Drax was a deliciously sinister Villian. Jaws was even more enjoyable a
henchman then he was in The Spy Who Loved Me, and the exotic locations were
stunninlgy well shot. Lets not forget the fight in Venini Glass, or the
undeniably entertaining battle with the python. So all things considered,
Moonraker was pretty damn good.
Moonraker (to me) is the 2nd best Bond Movie in the series. Being a fan of Star Wars, this movie was excellent! The ending battle was pretty good. As for not being relistic, ILM was the only company that did good special effects. All others were still cheesy. Good parts included the Venice boat chase, the Rio fight with Jaws, and the ending battle with U.S. vs. the Moonraker Elites. The idea of having Drax being shot with the dart gun and then flushed into space was a nice touch. My rating-***1/2 star out of **** stars.
In my opinion, the worst movie of the series. The plot might be
right for a futuristic sci-fi movie such as Star Wars or Star Trek, but not
for a James Bond movie. No one, not even a billionarie such as Hugo Drax,
could have the resources nor the money to send a spaceship nor a
spacestation without the U.S or the russian space agencies realize about
The only thing i liked about this movie was the pre-credit sequence.My
score for this movie is 002/007.