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.
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
It was the first movie to feature the modern space shuttle in a motion picture. The film's release was suppose to coincide with the first launch of the space shuttle, but this unfortunately didn't occur until April 12, 1981, just before the release of the next James Bond movie, For Your Eyes Only (1981), and exactly twenty years after Yuri Gagarin was the first man in space (April 12, 1961). See more »
The helicopter that takes Bond from Los Angeles International Airport to Drax's estate has a registration number visible on the bottom (belly of the aircraft) when it departs the airport, but not when it lands at the Drax estate. 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 »
THE END of "MOONRAKER" James Bond will return in "FOR YOUR EYES ONLY" See more »
The end credits differ slightly between various prints. To tell some apart, for example, on the Blu-ray edition large Panavision and Dolby Stereo credits fade in on their own after the cast list (and the 5th row of names is too far to the right so Serge Douy becomes Serge Dou), whereas on older DVD, laserdisc, and VHS releases the crawl is more simplified with small Panavision and Dolby credits that move along with the rest (and enough room for Serge Douy's name). It is possible that the latter was recreated quickly to fix the name problem. Both versions have slightly different timing to the appearance of the different components (filming locations, crawl, The End and For Your Eyes Only teaser). 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.
49 of 71 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this