Brent A
50% rating ... The plot of this was simply absurd. It had its moments where it was fun, but overall the storyline was lackluster. Also, I wasn't a fan of the character Jaws. I was ok with that character in the previous Bond film, but could not stand the use of him in Moonraker.
Rated 2.5/5 Stars •
Rated 2.5 out of 5 stars
04/21/24
Full Review
DanTheMan 2
With the recent rise in popularity of sci-fi thanks to a little movie called Star Wars, it's only natural that the filmmakers would abandon their original intentions to give us James Bond in Space! It's easy to see why so many people dislike Moonraker, it features one of the most ludicrous and dangerously thin plots of the entire franchise, remaining a generally slower-paced affair right up until its insane final act, however, it's got a special brand of camp absurdity that remains unmatched by any other entry. Yet. it's exactly that ridiculousness that makes it so enjoyable, hitting just the right stride between silly and spectacular, an exercise in bombastic overblown excess. Despite the often predictable nature, outlandish comedic moments and bizarre editing choices, Lewis Gilbert keeps his usual flair and thrills amidst the joyous chaos. Ken Adam's last contribution to the series offers even more stunning set work as we've come to expect from him, while John Barry delivers yet another fantastic score, even though a string selection has replaced his usual brass, it's one of his more underrated Bond scores; Derek Meddings, a member of the Gerry Anderson crew, delivers some truly magnificent model effects sequences. The film isn't without a plethora of likeable performances, Roger is still on top form as our favourite suave super spy, Michael Lonsdale makes for one of the series' best megalomaniacal villains in the form of Hugo Drax and Richard Kiel once again is brilliantly charming as Jaws even if his more terrifying aspects have been toned down. Despite so many moments that threaten to annihilate its thinly held together presentation, Moonraker is a freefall of fun-filled entertainment, the excitement has gone all the way up to giddy and never comes down, not even attempting re-entry.
Rated 3.5/5 Stars •
Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars
04/19/24
Full Review
alan g
Outlandish plot. Some good moments. Good special effects. Space stations and laser weapons were science fiction then but now sre reality. Who knew?
Rated 3/5 Stars •
Rated 3 out of 5 stars
04/10/24
Full Review
Brennan E
I only saw one portion of the film, but it is just excellent. The second best Bond film.
Rated 5/5 Stars •
Rated 5 out of 5 stars
02/04/24
Full Review
Kay C
I love it for the camp
Rated 3.5/5 Stars •
Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars
01/19/24
Full Review
Allan C
It is not the worst James Bond movie, but it is probably the goofiest of all Bond movies. I will say I enjoyed MOONRAKER, but it's the least serious of any Bond picture. This entry has 007 facing off with another egomaniacal billionaire bent on taking over the world, this time by planning to kill off the entire world population and repopulating it with his chosen exceptional humans whom he has safely orbited in a private space station. The Roger Moore cycle of Bond pictures is often criticized as being too jokey, relying too much on spy gadgets, and straying too far from the source material. Those are all valid criticisms, but MOONRAKER takes the jokiness to a whole new level, especially when it comes to Richard Kiel as the metal-mouthed Jaws, who was a legitimately scary henchman in THE SPY WHO LOVED ME but who in MOONRAKER is primarily used for comic relief and who by the end of the film (SPOILER ALERT!) get to be heroic. Also, the influence of STAR WARS coming out the year before cannot be ignored, where spaceship, laser battles, and other sci-fi elements were added to the usual James Bond mix. The original Ian Fleming novel, Moonraker is a prototype missile designed to defend England being built by Drax, but unknown to Bond, Drax is an ex-Nazi working for the Soviets and planning to fire it at London, which is pretty far astray from this film. Originally, the producers planned to make FOR YOUR EYES ONLY as the next Bond film (the least jokey and possibly the best Roger Moore Bond film), but after the success of STAR WARS decided to go with MOOKRAKER to capitalize off of Star-Wars-Mania. But as silly as this film is, it's still entertaining. Lois Chiles is terrific and is an uncharacteristically strong Bond Girl, though she's given a pretty unfortunate name, and Michael Lonsdale is very good as the menacingly cool and collected villain Drax. Overall, this is one of the weaker Bond pictures, but it's still better than THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH (where Denise Richards plays a nuclear scientist) and OCTOPUSSY (the Circus Bond movie). Below are two prior reviews if you're interested.
8-25-17
James Bond makes a play for Star Wars audience members.
Moonraker (1979) ***
"Star Wars" came out two years before this and was a massive hit, so why not give James Bond a laser blaster and put him in space? The answer is that it would be stupid. There are a few memorable scenes; Roger Moore trapped in a g-force simulator, Richard Kiel as Jaws biting everything in sight, and the catchy Shirley Bassey theme song. There is admittedly a lot I like about this Bond film, but it also represents the beginning of the end when the series shifted to overly relying on improbable spy gadgetry and far too much humor. "For Your Eyes Only" was terrific, but I do think "Moonraker" signaled the end of good Bond pictures during the Roger Moore era, most of which only got worse.
4-12-15
Moonraker (1979) ***1/2
James Bond meets "Star Wars." This was probably the start of James Bond getting too silly. I have to admit that Richard Kiel is a lot of fun to watch as the villainous Jaws, returning after his popularity in "The Spy Who Loved Me," but this film kind of comes off as a parody of a Bond film. I do like the big Ken Adam sets, Michael Lonsdale is a good Bond villain and Lois Chiles is a solid Bond Girl, but the final laser blaster battle in space is just way too silly.
Rated 3/5 Stars •
Rated 3 out of 5 stars
12/31/23
Full Review
Read all reviews
Post a rating
>
