A fake Fabergé egg and a fellow agent's death lead James Bond to uncover an international jewel-smuggling operation, headed by the mysterious Octopussy, being used to disguise a nuclear attack on N.A.T.O. forces.
A vengeful British spy goes rogue and sets off to unleash vengeance on a drug lord who tortured his best friend, a C.I.A. agent, and left him for dead and murdered his bride after he helped capture him.
James Bond is back for another mission and this time, he is blasting off into space. A spaceship traveling through space is mysteriously hi-jacked and Bond must work quickly to find out who was behind it all. He starts with the rockets creators, Drax Industries and the man behind the organisation, Hugo Drax. On his journey he ends up meeting Dr. Holly Goodhead and encounters the metal-toothed Jaws once again. Written by
When work on the film began, NASA had in fact not yet officially "finalized" the design of the Space Shuttle. At the time of filming, the Approach/Landing Test with the Enterprise (OV-101) was completed in October 1977 whilst Columbia (OV-102) was under construction. Fortunately for the production designers, there were subsequently no visible changes made to the shuttle's design, making their rendering of it accurate. This also included the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (NASA 905, which is a former Boeing 747-123 aircraft originally sold to American Airlines) - the opening sequence featured the SCA with the Drax Enterprises Logo on the vertical stabilizer but retaining the American Airlines livery. The real Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (NASA 905) has been retired after ferrying Endeavour in late 2012 where it will become a museum display at Space Center Houston with the Space Shuttle Explorer mounted on top in 2015. See more »
The contortion of Bond's face does not match the direction of real acceleration on a centrifuge. The effect of acceleration is actually felt down the length of the arm, not in the direction of circular travel. In actuality, he would have felt the force out the end of the arm, or toward the door of the pod. See more »
How are we doing, Richard?
We should pass over the English coast 15 minutes ahead of time, sir.
Wow! With this load on our back, that's good going.
Just trust the RAF, sir.
See more »
[Filmed at ...] Pinewood Studios (London) and on location in Italy, Brazil, Guatemala, U.S.A. and Outer Space! See more »
Considered almost unanimously as one of the worst films in James Bond series, it is time for Moonraker to have a defender. On my opinion, this is Moore's best fourth outing as 007(may be not saying too much, but there are three films left), and a very entertaining sci-fi film. Critics argue that humor plays a strong hand in this movie-strong to such a degree that Bond character loses all personality, becoming blurred in an impressive set of FX and stunt men. I reply: certainly there are flaws, some of them (particularly Jaws conversion towards the end) very ridiculous. But there are good points, too. Remember that pre-credit scene, which was ACTUALLY shot in the air, the motorboat chase or the final space battle, one of the most spectacular moments of the entire series, (yeah, it was unrealistic, OK, but tell me how much realism you can find watching other Bond movies which are frequently referred to as" the best". Think of Goldfinger or You only live twice)
However, Moonraker does not compare to Octopussy or TSWLM, because of a sometimes plodding pacing, due to the addition of unnecessary scenes, especially during the first half, when James is Drax's guest in California. The love story is a mere and inferior copy of TSWLM. And, while in other Moore's films the blend of humor and Bond's trademark coolness worked smoothly, here Bond is not given a scene to show, not necessarily ruthlessness, but a bit of harshness, as we could see in FYEO or Octopussy.
Following Moore's outings will feature Cold War elements which seem to fit more with the character, and better screenplays from Richard Maibaum,the series' screenwriter who was mysteriously absent here.
But action remains mostly exciting, sometimes brilliant, and highlights what could have been a mediocre entry.
40 of 58 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?