The worst Bond film? - Moonraker (1979) Discussion

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

No it is not, although I'd say all of the Brosnan movies except for Goldeneye qualify as crap.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

I disagree! " Goldeneye" had many pluses that " Moonraker" did not. Good supporting actors like Bean and Dench, fairly coherent script for a Bond film, and a star who wasnt obviously bored with his job.

Plus, it's named after a duck.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

I did NOT say Goldeneye was crap. Read my previous post again.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

Sorry. I kinda liked most of the Brosnan films. Some were meh, but none were nearly as godawful as "Moonraker"!

I mean "Moonraker" had about the same level of believability as a trip to the Wonka chocolate factory.

reply

[–] kwestmo (4385) 4 years ago

You are correct. The Brosnan films are as camp, or more. than the Moore films and pretend they aren't. They are really unwatchable.

reply

[–] doomydoomdoom (34) 6 years ago

Uh no not even close to being the worst Bond film. Try anything with Daniel Craig except maybe Skyfall. And Dalton was awesome.

reply

[–] yatzo376 (7717) 5 years ago

Hmmmmm

reply

[–] christomacin (4655) 4 years ago

Dalton himself was awesome... the films themselves were considerably less so. It's a shame Dalton's tenure didn't begin a little earlier with For Your Eyes Only. The tone of that film would have fit a darker, younger Bond much better than it did Moore.

reply

[–] R_Kane (15828) 6 years ago

Except for Woody Allen’s Casino Royale, it was. Moore was a travesty as Bond, but he was hindered by the effete “camp” approach to Bond, which ignored the Superman and focused on the ludicrous super-gadgets. I reject all the Moore films from the Bond series. Regarding Craig: Skyfall was a worthy 50th Anniversary of the most successful film series thus far in history—not perfect, but worthy. What would have been perfect? A digitized young Connery saving a dead Desmond Llewellyn?

Footnote: Dalton was good. License to Kill was a quintessential Bond story, with James in full-on vengeance mode over the sadistic mutilation on his friend, Felix.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

Hey, another person who uses "effete" to describe Roger Moore's Bond!

It's absolutely the last quality James Bond ought to have, yet it did creep into the Moore films.

reply

[–] R_Kane (15828) 6 years ago

With all due repect, I think the last two qualities for describing the James Bond that Ian Fleming created are “gay” and “not white,” but “effete” is a close runner-up.

“Effete”: an adjective, meaning “effeminate” and/or “weak,” popularized by Vice-President Spiro T. Agnew, who served under President Richard M. Nixon until Agnew was driven from office for having taken bribes when he was governor of Maryland, and before Nixon was impeached and removed from office for being a criminal. The speech in which Agnew used the word was ghost-written and fed to him by linguist and columnist William Saffire, who almost certainly had to tell Agnew what the hell the word meant.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

Hey, Bond went to old-fashioned all-male English boarding schools. He may not be gay, but there's no way he hasn't had same-sex experiences! I always thought of Bond as a man who might try anything, and I do mean anything, but who has never had an effete moment in his life. What WERE they thinking, during the seventies.

And I might be willing to accept a Bond who isn't white, but I'm aware I'm probably the only one. It'll never happen.

reply

[–] wearsalan (5554) 6 years ago

And I might be willing to accept a Bond who isn't white, but I'm aware I'm probably the only one. It'll never happen.

Yeah, and we'll never have a female Doctor Who

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

The BBC might be willing to give it a go, but the BBC isn't making the Bond films.

No, the Bond films cost hundreds of millions of dollars/pounds each and need to earn more hundreds of millions back, and when that kind of money is involved nobody takes chances in casting!

reply

[–] wearsalan (5554) 6 years ago

Jane bond, i can see it now!

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kwestmo (4385) 4 years ago

You need to look up the actual definition of effete

reply

[–] LordBAElish (2015) 6 years ago

Moonraker is silly, fun movie. I can tell a lot of fans have a take it or leave it approach with Moonraker, but its far from the worst Bond movie. I can more than 5 that are worse:

Diamonds Are Forever
The Man With The Golden Gun
Octopussy
A View to A Kill
The World is Not Enough
Die Another Day
Quantum of Solace

This movie is peak Bond humor and cheez. Jaws was turned into a joke and humor is over the top, but its a fun adventure.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8142) 6 years ago

If you don't love Moonraker you don't love James Bond movies.

You might as well go and watch Daniel Craig's "James Bond" films...

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

I like the Craig films. Craig is as hot as hell, and unlike the Moore films, there's enough realism that you totally believe a that a dead weight in the balls feels like a dead weight slamming into the balls.

The Moore films got to about as realistic and believable as Roadrunner cartoons.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8142) 6 years ago

Each to their own I guess. Nothing sums up my own particular loathing of Daniel Craig "Bond" films as well as this:-
https://youtu.be/h6CoNUE5Zho

"Forget it mate, it's not the 80s. He'd rather kick you in the face" 😂

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

I agree with "to each their own", but I still can't understand why anyone with a triple-digit IQ would like "Mooneaker".

Is there any chance you can put the reason you like it into words, or is it one of those inexplicable things?

reply

[–] ebhaynz (3688) 6 years ago

It was a lot of fun, it flowed very well. The astronaut trainees were coed featuring men/women of different races, very progressive for the times. After Bond survives Chang's attempt to kill him in the Centrifuge Bond recovers quickly enough to give Ms. Goodhead a thorough shagging.
There were lighthearted moments that really cracked me up, such as the code to get into the Bio Lab was the Close Encounters of the Third Kind contact with alien sound. Bond refusing to bash Chang in the head with the million dollar bowl because it triggered the security alram..and then Chang destroying said million dollar bowl without triggering the alarm at all. The DOP made the flick look great, perfect lighting and the wardrobe dept. made the clothes look great on everybody. Drax made a neat villain. It was an all out gadget/sci-fi Bond flick with zero boring moments and overall more entertaining than the other 1979 holiday flicks(Star Trek, Black Hole blah) at the time. I will agree the Jaws scenes were too silly for me and the Gondola chase scene was awful.
To sum it up; Moonraker was a fun, lighthearted Sci-Fi themed Bond flick perfect for the Star Wars movie era. Moviegoer's flocked to see it in the winter of 1979 and didn't go away disappointed, it was one of the most successful Bond flicks of the decade.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8142) 6 years ago

I don't think bringing IQ into the equation is particularly relevant when one's preference includes Skyfall, which would insult the intelligence of a walnut.

However, as to why I'd rather watch this or pretty much any other Bond film over Craig's efforts, I think the key word is probably the one you used, "realism". I'm not interested in watching Bond films attempting to mimic generic "gritty" action films and thus become bland themselves. I'm happy for Bond films to be Bond films, to be both thrilled and laugh out loud at seeing the particular incarnations of the various tropes that define Bond in each of the films.

Moonraker probably represents the absolute zenith of a Bond film being Bond film.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

Taste is indeed subjective, and sometimes I can understand why people like something I don't, and sometimes I am so baffled by other people's tastes that I ask what they can see in something I can't stand. Sometimes I even ask politely!

As for "Skyfall", I'm willing to forgive a movie quite a lot, if it contains something as awesome as that monologue about rats on an island.

And yeah, I've thought about the grittiness issue, and decided that a Bond film does need at least a little grit to work. They're action films with certain deliberately unrealistic elements, and action just isn't exciting unless it has a certain grounding in reality. If you take away the laws of physics, the reality of action and reaction, the action becomes cartoonish rather than exciting, and the later Moore films erred in that direction IMHO.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9544) 6 years ago

I have been looking for that song for ages! I remember it when QoS first came out and couldn't find it back! You are my hero for today!

Regarding the overall discussion, I'd say that Quantum of Solace is the worst Bond film. It all but lacks any sense of Flemming's world (with the exception of the opera scene). That said, I'm not a big Moonraker fan, either. There is a middle ground between "gritty Bond" and "silly Bond" that I like.

My favourite Bond is From Russia with Love.

reply

[–] mitzibishi (1835) 6 years ago

Never say never again is quite bad with Connery old as hell and on autopilot.

reply

[–] TheUltimateHippo (2250) 6 years ago

Yeah this movie is bad, I actually ranked it second to last behind Diamonds Are Forever. In the end Goldeneye's plot was just as ludicrous just a solid villain performance by Bean makes it more tolerable (I didn't hate Goldeneye but I don't love it like everyone else seems to).

reply

[–] ebhaynz (3688) 6 years ago

I think people liked Goldeneye because after a 6 year break audiences were happy to see Pierce Brosnan instead of too serious Timothy Dalton..good enough for the time.

reply

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 6 years ago

Diamonds are Forever and Die Another Day are worse.

Equally bad as Moonraker are:
Man with the Golden Gun
Octopussy
Skyfall

The rest, though of mixed quality, are better than Moonraker ... of course IMO.

reply

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

I disagree about "Skyfall", that one had a few great scenes even if it was a mess overall.

reply

[–] Roguemail (1614) 6 years ago

Not for me, that honour goes to View To A Kill. That's when that particular era of Bond started to look tired and outdated, as did Moore himself.

With Moonraker I felt it was a 'kitchen sink' affair, with literally everything thrown into the mix. There is a lot to like, some great set pieces, effects and model work.

And I love Michael Lonsdales laid back portrayal of Drax.

And ultimately with the space station and star wars style battle at the end, they took the series as far as it could go at that time. It was after that when the rot set in for me.

reply

[–] illnagas (457) 5 years ago

No way in hell Octopussy is as bad as moonraker. I’ve no idea why it inspires such hate here but it’s way better than moonraker

reply