VividSimon Simply Perfect

Nonureva Really Surprised!

Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

lord-of-the-lez I honestly don't understand why this movie is ranked so low compared to the Bond movies that came before it. It has everything that previous Bond films had AND so much more! This movie has a variety of different settings, an intriguing mystery of a plot, some heart-warming moments between unexpected characters, jaw-dropping action scenes that are fun to watch, the most capable Bond girl than any of the previous Bond girls, and a Bond villain whose goals make Hitler look tame in comparison! It also has some of the best practical effects I've ever seen! And unlike the previous Bond films with space themes, this one is a true sci-fi in its own right (or rather, "spy-fi"). Do not be fooled by the relative low rating. This Bond film is one of the best in the series.

Mrbrown43 The family and I have watched all the James Bond films way too many times. They always were mindless fun films that we could watch in a state of dumb happiness. The trouble with this mindset is when we ever question anything the film just falls apart. Moonraker might be one the worst examples of this in the Bond series, it is mindless fun but when you pay attention you realize that this is bad, really bad.After a Drax industries space shuttle "Moonraker" is hijacked from the US in midflight James Bond (Roger Moore) is sent to find out why it was hijacked and what happened to it, this sends Bond on a worldwide race against time to stop a power hungry mad man (Michael Lonsdale) from killing the entire human race.The first of the big problems with this movie is the writing, Bond as usual never really is in any danger as there is always some sort of invention from Q (Desmond Llewelyn) that saves him or just by the villains taking their time killing him or use such convoluted means to kill Bond that are and not limited to: placing him under a space shuttle to fry time, throw him into a pool with Python or send a Asian stereotype in Ninja dress up to beat up Bond. All of these could have been solved by just shooting Bond. The sheer stupidly of the villains is really frustrating because if they were just competent enough all their problems would have been fixed. But no, the film is always on Bond's side and as of a result there is not really much tension as nothing is able to truly harm him. The film is boring as a result if you want to pay attention. Another example would be the after Bond discovers a lethal drug that the villain is going to use to destroy the world. He returns to the factory with his superiors only to find it gone as embarrass himself and the superiors and only then gives them the lethal drug after the humiliation instead of before when it would have helped convince the higher ups that something is up.The second big problem is the dialogue, I know that James Bond tends to make quips and puns in a majority of films in movies, the Roger Moore films in particular are guilty of this but Moonraker takes the cake. I would say that 90% of Roger Moore's dialogue is lame stupid puns. Often one after another and not only that but they are not clever; just predicable things that almost anyone would have thought of as the first thing to write down. A door that would save Bond from death blows up "Bang on time!" Bond exclaims. Bond discovers a killer daily diary "Fairly deadly diary" he mutters with attempted droll. I would like to quote some lines from the villain and ask you to try adding the evil laugh to them "Look after Mr Bond, see that some harm comes to him...." "I am sure Mr Bond is cold after his swim; put him in place where he will be assured of warmth...." Most of the bad guy's dialogue is like that, I half expect him to bust out with maniacal laugher as thunder rolls outside. The villain is a cartoon character that the film does not want to admit is a cartoon because it still wants to be somewhat realistic, even when it is trying to be Star Wars and have Sci Fi elements but no. The film still wants to be taken seriously even with all the stupid punning and cartoon baddies.The third big problem is the acting, Roger Moore sleepwalks though movie, just doing enough to not seem that he is trying but not much more. All the female characters on the other hand give wooden performances. The only one that is on screen for longer than a few minutes is Holly Goodhead(Lois Chiles) who delivers her lines with as much weight and emotion as block of wood in water creates a sizzling chemical compound. Because that is what women are in the pre Daniel Craig (Pierce Brosnan to a lesser extent) they are not so much interesting characters or even allowed to give good performances but rather wooden dolls that Bond leers at and/or sleeps with before throwing them away. The female characters do not need to put in good performances before they are just things that look pretty. This aspect has damaged the films as the years have gone by and Moonraker is one of the worst offenders of this.The special effects are ok; they have aged alright for the most part even if the films idea of zero gravity is a little bit goofy it still looks impressive for a 1970s movie. As I write this I wonder why I have watched Moonraker all those times, on one hand this could go into the Hall of Infamy because of all the stupidity and questionable elements that contribute to the film aging badly. But it is still fun, mindless stupid fun. I doubt it is ever going to be better than that. I doubt history will look kindly on Moonraker. But I can recommend it as being a fun movie you can put on if you do not want something too intelligent.

gavin6942 James Bond investigates the mid-air theft of a space shuttle and discovers a plot to commit global genocide.People always say that Sean Connery was the best Bond, but I am starting to doubt this. Roger Moore, whether by coincidence or not, seems to be in the strongest entries in the franchise. "Spy Who Loved Me" is fantastic and this really picks up where that left off.I especially love the continuing story of Jaws, and how... somehow, someway... he manages to find love in this crazy mixed-up world. This entry also has more comedy than usual, as well as even a hint of western. It seems like they were trying to throw as much in a stew as possible, and it actually works.

zkonedog By most accounts, "Moonraker" should be a middling Bond effort at best. The villain is weak, the plot is like tissue paper, and the acting is supremely over-the-top. Yet, for some reason, this movie has always just provided me with some great, thoughtless entertainment!For a basic plot summary, "Moonraker" sees James Bond (Roger Moore) run up against Hugo Drax (Michael Lonsdale), a crazed entrepreneur bent on conquering Earth from his space base. Along the way, Bond enlists the help of Dr. Holly Goodhead (Lois Chiles), as well as the traditional orders from M (Bernard Lee) and gadgets from Q (Desmond Llewelyn).Perhaps I can stomach this movie so well because it was one of the first "old Bond" movies I ever saw, right when I was getting into the franchise, but I think there are a very inherent "saving graces" that indeed make it watchable:-The space theme, which is very different from the typical Bond fare and makes this movie unique to the series. -The character of Jaws (Richard Kiel), who is one of the most exciting Bond villains of the entire run. He is never the "main baddie", but as an "evil henchman" you can't get any better! -Moore's lighthearted Bond can sometimes get sickening, but for some reason the shtick works pretty well in this one, getting even some legitimate laughs throughout.Overall, even though "Moonraker" can, at times, be the epitome of cheese-ball and eye-rolling cinema, it still can be enjoyed by Bond fans looking for "something different".