Moonraker - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Moonraker Reviews

Page 2 of 112
½ January 2, 2016
What happen when they think bond can be star wars
½ December 12, 2015
Too far. Drax's scheme is good fun in theory (in that 70's, comic-book way), but it's shown in such a silly, eyebrow-cocked way that it never rings true, so the movie is never completely engaging. (Laser guns and double-taking pigeons don't help.) The narrative seems too episodic, and doesn't flow like a good Bond should (a handy clue found in California leads to Venice, a handy clue found in Venice leads to Rio, etc). Lois Chiles is possibly the most boring actress in history, making Holly Goodhead one of the lamest of all the 'girls'. Corinne Clery is a marginally better actor, but her character is pathetic. Chang is one of the crappest henchmen in the series, so it's fortunate that he's replaced by the infinitely superior Jaws halfway through, after his crapness leads to his demise. But, not content with the brilliant simplicity of Jaws as devised in The Spy Who Loved Me, Wood, Gilbert and Broccoli saw fit to give him a love interest and then have him speak...making him almost as crap as the non-event he replaced.

The best thing (or, rather, the good thing) about the movie is the villain. Drax is given the best lines (by far), and Michael Lonsdale's pitch-perfect, smugly deadpan delivery squeezes every drop of juice from them. Like his predecessor, Karl Stromberg (Curt Jurgens, in TSWLM), Drax is a complete megalomaniac, who can't be bought off or swayed from his self-righteous certainty that he's doing the world a favour. He's just a better version of that type than Stromberg, with a more evil plot. Drax is my favourite Bond villain; it's just a shame the movie around him isn't better.
December 10, 2015
So, so shit... But somehow entertaining in its utter ridiculousness. Helped by some wonderful sets and model work by Derek Meddings. Still better a better Bond than Die Another Day.
½ December 6, 2015
Silly. At the end it inspired the g.i. joe cartoon. Blue lazers in space, all they needed were red ones as well.
November 28, 2015
This is as ridiculous as a Roger More James Bond Movie gets. It's silly, it's dumb, it tries to cash in the latest Outer Space War genre and it doesn't even try to hide it.
Super Reviewer
½ November 19, 2015
Beginning with a rousing start that eventually turns into Bond's worst misadventure ever, gratuitous Star Wars cash-in Moonraker mostly proves to be made of cheese. When George Lucas' space saga blasting off into blockbuster status in 1977, it began a misbegotten space race in H'Wood. This 007 adventure might boast the title of an Ian Fleming novel but it gets adapted into something that's dumber than a box of moon rocks. Always on the cutting edge with gadgets and McGuffins, the Bond series loses much credibility with this vehicle, which takes a quantum of no solace leap forward into futuristic sci-fi that's better suited for the world of Buck Rodgers than Peter Gunn. Exhibiting ray guns and Jaws-in-love during the climax, Bond in Space plays out more like a Pigs Ear in Space.

In this PG-rated spy adventure, James Bond (Moore) investigates the mid-air theft of a space shuttle and discovers a plot to commit global genocide.

The only best-forgotten chapter, Moonraker marks the lowest point of both Moore's tenure and the Bond series in general. It remains a horribly calculated attempt for this tiger to change its stripes. Just as it would have been franchise suicide for the producers to turn 007 into a jive-talking hippie in the late '60s to meet with the changing times, it is just as bad an idea to have this iconic character space-walk a mile in Han Solo's shoes. Even if you could toss the Space Shuttle Laser Tag scenes aside (and you can't-just try), the rest of the storyline is strictly standard-issue and redundant spy stuff.

Bottom line: The Empire Strikes Out
½ November 16, 2015
The last half hour, which bases itself on Star Wars sci-fi, is not necessarily my objection at all. In fact, it's one of the most unique bits in the series. The space station may very well be the series' most realized evil lair and the climax is satisfying. The issue was the obligary hour and a half before the climax which I found slow, dull, predictable and going through the motions. Aside from scenes wonderful scenes with the returning Jaws, that you can start the film an hour in and miss nothing vital.
½ November 14, 2015
Another Bond film I hadn't fully seen before. I liked it, yes the movie is silly, but it's entertaining. Jaws is back, and he's great in it. Moore gorgeous locations and decent SFX. Worth watching!
½ November 13, 2015
(No. 11)
Often chastised by Bond aficionados, Moonraker's 1979 release hoped to capture the hearts of the same audience as Star Wars by riding on the latter's mammothly successful coattails. To do this, Director Lewis Gilbert introduces slapstick comedy and quirky characters (ie: Jaw's girlfriend, Dolly, to name but one) with the intention of appealing to an adolescent viewership. Yet all this is acceptable right up to the third act which is when things shift closer to the ridiculous. Still, this 00-Adventure may be zany and more than a little left field, but at the base of it, there's an interesting story, cool sets and exciting action scenes, not to mention one of the franchise's most fantastic opening sequences in a parachute-free midair fistfight. Whoo-whee Nelly!
½ November 11, 2015
'Moonraker' is a much less awful film than most Bond fans would have you think. Sure, it's very silly (what Bond film isn't at some point?) and the film seems like they really wanted to cash in on 'Star Wars' with a cheap space film. Somehow though, the film doesn't leave as bad a taste in my mouth as I thought it would. Roger Moore's James Bond does his usual quips and action sequences and Hugo Drax, the film's villain isn't all that interesting. So, why is it that I return to 'Moonraker' over and over again? Well, the action scenes are top notch as always, the quips do make me laugh in this one, actually more so than usual, and the final scene on the space shuttle is a very interesting set piece. I have a lot of fun with the film and I tend to ignore the little problems the film has. You may not feel the same and that's why I can only recommend a rental for most people and for Bond fans I think the film is quite a hit or miss for them.
November 10, 2015
How much money did they have that they tried to cram so much shit into one film? Don't get me wrong, it's still enjoyable but really, come on. They had everything they could think to put into one movie plus fucking lasers. Too bad the attempts at jokes wasn't that great, the score was all over the fucking place, the villain sucked, the Bond girl was adequate, at best, and the gadgets were coming out of everyone's asses. It just didn't feel like a Bond film. Oh well, it kept my interest. At least it's not 'Octopussy'.
November 8, 2015
It's great to see Jaws back, but hands down the most campy Bond of the bunch.
November 7, 2015
Way too much camp in outer space no less, along with gadget laden Venetian canal boat and more lasers than star wars. Aweful.
November 5, 2015
The most ridiculous and fun installement.
November 4, 2015
Moonraker is absolutely absurd but it has several entertaining moments.
½ November 3, 2015
So I enjoyed Moonraker more than I probably should have. This Bond outing finds Moore in a somewhat oddly structured film that climaxes with Jaws as a Robin type sidekick doing space battle alongside 007. Laughably upsetting and confusingly fun all at once...
Super Reviewer
½ October 30, 2015
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 farfetched 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 favourite.
½ October 26, 2015
The most expensive and most absurd of the Bonds, Moonraker is hard to take serious. One moment you can be watching a thrilling action scene, only to have it ruined by cheesy dialogue and/or a poor attempt at comedy. The inconsistent performance from Moore and a weak villain show that Moonraker is one of the worst Bond efforts in the franchise.
½ October 24, 2015
Campy? Yes. Silly? Yes. Fun? Yes. Entertaining? Yes.
Super Reviewer
October 20, 2015
Can we all be honest and just admit that 80 percent of the Bond villains to this point are pretty much the same in motivations, setting, and their presence. I don't know why it took this long for me to be bothered by this. Perhaps because Moonraker to be begin with isn't all that fun. After all, you can only get away with normalcy and cliches if you have a great movie around them. Moonraker just didn't do enough for me to be distracted by the same old Bond story.

The 4th and least interesting Roger Moore Bond film was fast tracked after the success of 1977's Star Wars. It's pretty crazy that the day after the Star Wars: The Force Awakens trailer releases I find out that Moonraker was made early due to capitalize on the success of the first film in the Star Wars franchise. They even had a scene in which an MI6 agent shoots a gun that resembles a stormtrooper's. Which is later shown at its full potential later on as each astronaut have these said guns. Most of the film doesn't take place in space at all, in fact, the opening sequence before the credits is nothing short of magnificent film making. I'm amazed they were able to pull off the stunts and special effects needed to make that plane scene work so well. I immediately thought of Mission Impossible when I saw what they were able to accomplish with what looked like minimal CGI.

Sadly, that's about as good as the film gets. We do however get another go around with a fan favorite villain, Jaws. If it wasn't clear in the first film, Jaws is virtually indestructible. He literally survives anything thrown at him. I'm honestly surprised they didn't drop him out of a spaceship at the end of Moonraker only to show up in For Your Eyes Only. But there comes a point when he's so unrealistic that you're taken out of the film by him. Although, I do like where his character ends up in this film. The villain we really focus on here is named Drax. He doesn't particularly standout at all. In fact, he's overshadowed by his own henchman, Jaws, for a good portion of this film. It's quite puzzling why a guy like Drax who wants to create a perfect race would target someones like Jaws to be one of it's members.

The film comes off as boring and dull which is surprisingly for a plot that includes Bond going to outer space. It's so outrageous of a plot on its own, but there is nothing special at all about its characters, plot, or execution. Lois Chiles' 'Holly Goodhead' seemed to be a rehash of Barbara Bach's Anya, and really a far less interesting or polished character I may add. I love Roger Moore's Bond and I love watching Jaws, but I'm getting tired of those Bond villains and girls that do nothing but spill exposition and give us eye candy respectively. Moonraker contains better special effects, better action, but a far less interesting story and characters. But I will say it was entertaining to watch actors try and exhibit zero gravity by moving in slow motion. So bad it's good.

+Jaws is back and better than ever

+Opening sequence

+Star Wars nods

-Same old same old villain

-Why Bond in space, why.

-For a different setting, everything plays out exactly the way you'd expect

Page 2 of 112