Rating: 
Summary: Gadget-heavy, low-water mark for Roger Moore
Review: The year was 1979 and America had rediscovered its fascination with laser guns and space battles, courtesy of "Star Wars" a couple of years earlier. This movie is clearly intended to ride that wave.
This movie relies too much on its visual effects and gadgets and is missing the intrigue and intelligence that marks the better Bond pictures. This movie also takes the prize for most egregious product placements. Defintely Moore's worst outing, who would have known he would come back for his best two years later in "For Your Eyes Only."
Bond fans will want it to complete their collection, others may want to pass it by.
Rating:
Summary: If your a true bond fan
Review: This movie is not worth seeing unless you are a die hard James Bond Fan(Me).
Most of the stuff in this goes way over the top:
The whole space sequence-had to be the worst scene; way too farfeched
Too much comical crap-Roger Moore lacked seriousness in this one
Jaws falling in Love-Very wierd (another reason why the move was comical)
This Movie had it's good points too:
Lots of BEAUTIFUL WOMEN, LOTS!!!
The wrist watch was cool
The boat chase in mexico was the most memerable scene
Thats Really much it for this one. It's only worth seeing if you are a true die hard James Bond fan(ME).
Rating: 
Summary: Bond in Space
Review: James Bond (Roger Moore) is dispatched to stop Drax (Michael Lonsdale) and his plans to destroy the world and create a new super-human race on the moon. Set in France, Brazil and outer space, it is action packed and entertaining if a little lame on the dialogue.
Bond goes to Drax's palace in France where he meets his Drax's beautiful mistress Corinne Clery, who has a stunning figure in her low-cut dress.
Her murder at the hands of Drax, as a punishment for helping Bond, shows the cruelty of Drax.
Drax had Corinne savaged by his vicious Dobermans. Though I never like it when the bond girls are murdered. I always prefer them to be rescued, as is the gorgeous sultry Brazilian Manuela (Emily Bolton) who has a close run-in with Jaws ( Richard Kiel)
He also runs into Drax's thug Chang (Toshiro Shuga) who fails to exterminate Bond, and ends up the worse for it.
Then there is Dr Holly Goodhead, the scientist, a CIA girl infiltrating Drax's plans-stiff but pretty and with a great figure in a space suit.
The main theme of this movie is the many gadgets and the adventures in the space shuttles - this is Bond in Space.
Rating: 
Summary: Don't bother
Review: In a series of painfully absurd Bond films this is the absolute worst. Nothing in this film makes one want to watch it. From the ridiculous acting to the most wooden, unappealing Bond girl ever (even though Lois Chiles is beautiful she's hardly the hottest babe in the film), by way of the most boring Bond nemesis ever, this is completely uninspired dreck.Only one of the usual suspects is at the rendez-vous: beautiful scenery (with yet another visit to the Rio festival). As a bonus you do get a cartoonish appearance by Jaws who finally finds true love with a cute blonde. Ya right!!! If you never watch this film you will miss nothing from the Bond universe and you will have saved 2 hours to do something worthwhile. It doesn't even deserve the few words I have devoted to it. Shame on me! The overall rating of 4 stars for this film shows up Amazon's ratings for what they really are: unreliable and best served with a mound of salt.
Rating: 
Summary: Good Book, OK Movie
Review: Moonraker the movie isn't really horrible. I think the filmakers were going for a certain level of camp and light-heartedness (which is really all you can do with Roger Moore-he's not cut out for the intensity Connery brought to the role.) There are lots of cool gadgets, beautiful women, the visually frightening Jaws and pretty good special effects. But if you want genuine Bond action, read the book. It was Ian Flemmings third Bond novel, quick-paced, full of action and less cliched characters. I'm only sorry MGM saved it for the late seventies. I would have loved to see what Connery could have done with it......
Rating:
Summary: A great opening is marred by a poor ending
Review: Another Bond movie with promise that (like Die Another Day) instead seems to lose focus and in turn the audience around halfway through. After a simply excellent precredits sequence and some detective work in California (I love the g-force sequence) the movie moves to Venice and also into slapstick and parody.
And it gets worse - in Brazil Jaws meets Dolly and )okay its too painful to go on). Suffice to say the movie makers bowed to audience pressure to turn Jaws into a goodie and in doing so eliminated any menace the character had not just in this movie but in its brilliant iconic predecessor The Spy Who Loved Me.
Indeed this movie seems to be an attempt to remake The Spy Who Loved Me which was in fact a remake of You Only Live Twice. One bright spot this movie does hold is the always enjoyable and watchable Michael Lonsdale as Drax. Lonsdale gives us probably the best villain since Auric Goldfinger with some wonderful lines - Like a lord of the Manor with "May I press you to a cucumber sandwich?" to the classic instruction to Chan "Look after Mr. Bond, make sure some harm comes to him!"
When I was very young I loved this movie and hated For Your Eyes Only but as I got older (and wiser) this movie steadily dropped to the bottom of the list, and For Your Eyes Only climbed to the top.
Rating: 
Summary: A great remake of TSWLM
Review: I am one of those hardcore "renegades" that actually considers this to be one of the very best Bond films.
The logic is easy. The Spy Who Loved Me is my favorite Bond film, and this is basically a remake of it. Although it is different enough to seem like a totally new movie. The only detractions are DOLLY, 7-up advertising, and the double-taking pidgeon.
I have no problem with Bond going into space.
Overall, my 2nd favorite Moore film, and 7th overall. (closely followed by LALD and OP)
Rating:
Summary: A Bond Space Bonanza
Review: Reviewers unfairly criticize this film as being one of the worst Bond movies ever. I find it hard to believe that this film could be worst than the Timothy Dalton films or "On Her Majesty's Secret Service." Even in Moore's career as Bond, this movie is hardly as shallow as "Live and Let Die." As a matter of fact, this movie is no more a leap in imagination than "The Spy Who Loved Me"; indeed, it's pretty much the same story except that space shuttles disappear instead of nuclear submarines: both Stromberg and Drax had the same plan of creating a new world and a master race.
Reviewers who bash on this film as being too futuristic with credibility gaps are either irrational; blind hippocrites; or simply lack the courage of admitting that they don't like Roger Moore in the role of Bond. I mean please, as if space capsules gobbling each other to land into a volcano base in Connery's 'You Only Live Twice' is credible but space shuttles flying to an orbitting space station isn't? The last I heard, space capsules upon reentry have almost no propulsion and simply splash into an ocean with a parachute: they don't land vertically with reverse thrusters to fit nicely into a narrow volcano chimney like a car backing into a cozy garage. Is Moonraker's space station any less credible than Stromberg's submersible city and tankerhip in 'The Spy Who Loved Me'? Are the laser guns in 'Moonraker' any less credible and entertaining than those of SPECTER and Scaramanga in 'Diamonds are Forever' and 'The Man With The Golden Gun'? As far as gadgets go, Bond's dart wrist watch in 'Moonraker' is probably one of the most credible gadgets presented throughout the entire franchise! Finally, in terms of special effects and their realism, it's completely ludicrous on the part of some reviewers to bash this film for its effects and at the same time praise Connery films in which the technologies depicted are horribly obsolete and the special effects for them even more so.
This is perhaps a good place to reveal to such snobbish Bond fans pontificating about how 'Moonraker' went overboard into fantasy about some basic premises in storytelling and film types. First of all, the entire idea of Bond as a story format is complete fantasy from the get-go: Bond films were never intended to be 'realistic' and always remained more in the domain of a humorous action-fantasy genre: otherwise it would be fictional suspense-drama and we have Tom Clancy's novels for such a substitute. That's what happens when you define your main character with super-hero-like nerves of steel who seemingly knows everything about everything and goes through the story in over-the-top action sequences involving submarine cars and countless other far-fetched gadgets no nation's intelligence service could ever have no matter how advanced their defense technology might be. Such a plot and theme take a story outside of plausible fiction (i.e. action-drama or tragedy) and into the domain of action/fantasy. 'Star Wars' isn't a proper comparison with this film because Star Wars, although also fantasy, is more specifically science-fiction fantasy as opposed to strict action-fantasy: therefore even further removed from any resemblance to reality. Almost all of the Bond films have been in the range of action-fantasy with the exception of perhaps 'Dr. No'; 'From Russia..'; 'Live and Let Die'; 'For Your Eyes..'; 'Octopussy'; and 'The Living Daylights'; that tended to come closer towards a standard adventure/action theme and plot structure. This being said, I suggest to those narrative-illiterate reviewers who want Bond to be less fantasy and more realistic to stop torturing themselves with their distorted narrative expectations. They just need to switch their allegiances to Jack Ryan's character of Tom Clancy's more realistic novels and films instead so as not to disappoint themselves when watching fantasy-action films such as James Bond.
As for 'Moonraker', I thought the cinematography was great and the action sequences fun: yes, perhaps Jaws becomes a little too indestructible in this film but, again, that's why James Bond is in the domain of action-fantasy as opposed to action-drama or tragedy. Overall, the humor is just as crisp and dry as all of the Moore films. So to those of you who aren't in conflict with the fantasy spy genre, buy or rent this film and have a great time in watching Bond's outer-space escapades with all of the quips, Bond Bunnies, and high-tech action adventures that make this film franchise one of the most loved and watched in the entire world.
Rating:
Summary: I Liked This Movie!
Review: I haven't seen that many James Bond movies and in fact I only saw two of them, Moonraker, and Never Say Never Again. By reading these reviews it seems that most fans of The James Bond movies aren't too fond of Moonraker but I can honestly say that I liked this movie and I thought Roger Moore was good and so was Richard Kiel as the Villain who looked like he had metal teeth, I think they called him Jaws or something like that.
|
