Memeraker

Why is this film considered to be an embarrassment? It has something for everybody. Exotic locales and thrilling stunts. Its genre is undefinable as it spans spy action to science fiction. And even if some of the humour was a bit out of place, it's still a classic example of camp.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=fN1WBgS9u_E
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I love it, one of my favorite Bond movies and a great example of unintentional self-parody. Plus Hugo Drax is one of the most memorable villains in the series

The movie came out 2 years after A New Hope and it's seen as a film made to cash in on the space craze (Even the caption at the top says "Outer space now belongs to 007.") and really jumped the shark.

>There is no bad Bond movie though.

It's still a classic like all of them.

All the space stuff is fucking terrible. Call me no fun if you want to, earlier Bond films managed to have plenty of goofy stuff without going full-retard like that.

Bringing back Jaws back was a mistake, everything with him was awful.

Drax was a good villain from an entirely different Bond movie. Having him tear a woman to shreds with his pack of hounds is far too fucking serious for this silly-shit popcorn Bond adventure, that's some dark Connery material.

It was the Die Another Day of its time, and is only better because of its lack of awful CGI and Halle Berry.

Probably because the camp level is off the charts:

>Jaws is practically immortal and survives falls from hundreds of feet
> Ridiculous vehicles like the "Bondola"
> Shot of pigeon doing a double take
> Japanese assassin trying to kill Bond with a training stick
> Villain's lair is surrounded by Aztec ruins
> Drax sending attack dogs to kill someone despite the light tone of the movie
> Drax's plan to commit mass genocide

The movie is such a great example of camp, and I love it for that. But I think it was a bit too much for viewers at the time.

More like it's too much for millennials who are used to Daniel Craig. Moonraker is one of the most commercially successful films in the series, and was generally praised by critics at the time. One critic even called it the best Bond movie yet

>One critic even called it the best Bond movie yet
Hardly anyone has Moonraker in their top 10 Bond movies (unless they enjoy it ironically). Commercial success =/= quality.

I responding to the claim that it was "too much for viewers at the time" when in fact audiences and critics liked it, regardless of what people might think of it now in retrospect.

>bonus points for pic related: based Yaphet Kotto starring role.

Step aside, you shits, superior Roger Moore as Bond film coming through....

>unless they enjoy it ironically
that's half the appeal of Moonraker though, the campy, ridiculous nature of the film is what makes it one of the more memorable Bond entries.

I love that one too, and 70's-era Jane Seymour is the most beautiful woman who ever walked the earth.

Because Molly's missing braces are a definitive case of the Mandela Effect

This, the only bad Bond film is a forgettable Bond film.

Come to think of it, I'd much rather rewatch Moonraker than sit through Spectre again.

plus it had Dr. Holly Goodhead

I'd rather rewatch Moonraker over any of the Craig Bonds

Moonraker isn't nearly as bad as detractors claim. Sure. It's more light-hearted than standard Bond fare. Though it's nowhere near the worst of the franchise. Diamonds Are Forever, Quantum of Solace, Die Another Day, The Man With The Golden Gun, and a number of Bronsan films are all beneath it. Honestly, it's a fun film.

...

>The Man With The Golden Gun
it's not the best bond movie but dat britt ekland tho

this is the only Moore-era film I don't like, it's so fucking boring and it's cringe-inducing to see Roger Moore attempt to be a Connery-esque tough Bond.

But yeah, Ekland looks amazing in that bikini and that base inside of the half-sunken ship is cool as fug

How do you feel about Octopussy and For Your Eyes Only? Those are the two I'm not very fond of for Moore, I don't hate them or anything but I won't go out of my way to watch them again.

QoS is miles better.

FYEO I really, really like. I think it's probably Moore's best performance and Carole Bouquet is a good, likable Bond girl. The underwater sequences are fantastic, as are the locations and photography in general. Plus Conti's score is probably the best non-Barry score in the series. It's only major flaw is the worthless villain that leaves no impression whatsoever. Not quite top 10 but pretty close

As for Octopussy, I think it's a mixed bag. I love Maud Adams in it and she has great chemistry with Sir Roger, I also love that it's set in India and I'm surprised they hadn't thought to film a Bond movie there earlier. Unfortunately the plot is beyond convoluted and dumb, the villains are forgettable and shit like dressing up Bond as a clown or putting him in a gorilla suit just doesn't fly with me. Overall I kinda like the movie, but it definitely isn't a favorite.

I think a memorable villain is really, really important in these movies, it's usually the second or third thing I think about when I hear a Bond title. I'll think this is the one with Christopher Walken or this is the one with Telly Savalas or Christopher Lee. Even the Bond movies that are typically considered to be the worst(say View to a Kill) are made a lot better just by the villain casting. Tomorrow Never Dies is a little bit better just because Jonathan Pryce is in it but I honestly couldn't tell you who the villain was in Die Another Day. Madonna, maybe?

I really liked For Your Eyes Only, The man with the golden gun and a lot of Bond movies opposed to the more well liked Bond movies.
Haven't seen any of them in 2 decades though

Dat theme
youtube.com/watch?v=fN1WBgS9u_E