Moonraker

Directed by Lewis Gilbert.  Written by Christopher Wood.
Starring Roger Moore, Lois Chiles, Michael Lonsdale, Richard Kiel, Corrine Clery
1979, 126 minutes, Color, Rated PG, Panavision 2.35:1

Drax Industries loans a space shuttle to NASA and has the RAF transport it from England to America.  En route, the shuttle is hijacked and the scandal of the British government losing the shuttle is very embarrassing.  James Bond is charged with investigating the matter.  He begins by checking out Drax's space complex.  He meets Holly Goodhead, a scientist on loan from NASA.  Bond is almost killed in a series of accidents while in Drax's care, and Bond begins to suspect that Drax may have hijacked his own shuttle for nefarious purposes.  During his investigation, he discovers that Goodhead is actually a CIA agent who is also investigating Drax.  What could Drax be up to?  Featuring locations in Venice, Rio, South America, France and outer space.

MOONRAKER (1979) is not a movie many Bond purists like.  I can understand the criticism--the James Bond of this film bears no resemblance to the literary creation of Ian Fleming, or even to the Roger Moore Bond films that came before and after it.   Perhaps MOONRAKER disappointed so many because it came directly after THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, which was probably the best Bond film since ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE.  The Roger Moore era began with a thud with LIVE AND LET DIE, a tired reactionary film redeemed only by the lovely Jane Seymour.  Things got a little better with THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, which was still tired but at least not reactionary but overall still felt like a made-for-television affair.  SPY was a return to the "bigger is better" style of Bond filmmaking, with plenty of scope and a creditable love interest and foil in Triple-X, played by the lovely Barbara Bach. 

MOONRAKER was seemingly put together solely for the purpose of supporting the expensive sets and  elaborate actions scenes.   Bond travels all over the world in this film and does "big" things every where he goes.  In truth, MOONRAKER is a film where its individual parts are more impressive than the whole.  You can lift the majority of the action scenes out of this movie completely and it wouldn't affect the plot at all, although you would be left with a very short movie.  It has the least character development of any of the Bond films, and while character development is hardly a requirement for a good Bond film, it's complete and utter omission is noticeable*.   It features more than its fair share of unbelievable stunts, a frequently juvenile sense of humor and a horrible love subplot involving the villain Jaws.   Add in the reactionary ploy of setting the last act in outer space complete with a laser battle--this was the first Bond film after STAR WARS, remember--and you have one of the lumpiest Bond films ever made.  On paper, it should have been obvious that it would never fit together well, and perhaps if it had been all planned out beforehand that would have become obvious.  MOONRAKER is not subtle in its methods.  It is escapist entertainment and that's it.  There's no subtext, no believable characters to become invested in, no emotional payoffs aside from the thrill of seeing things blow up.

"You have arrived at a propitious moment, considered to be your country's one indisputable contribution to Western Civilization: Afternoon tea."

While I can understand the anger towards MOONRAKER, I personally can't agree.  I like it--always have and apparently always will.  It is not Bond to me like, say, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, THUNDERBALL or ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE (or even THE SPY WHO LOVED ME), but taken on its own merits I don't mind it at all.    MOONRAKER may not make a whole hell of a lot of sense but at least it is never boring.  The film moves from one location to the next with hardly a pause to catch your breath--if you don't like the current sequence wait a couple of minutes and the next sequence will make you forget the one you were just watching.  It's not exactly good storytelling, but the fact remains that MOONRAKER is frequently effective and occasionally exceptionally effective at what more than a couple Bond films failed utterly at--provide spectacle.   MOONRAKER is nothing if not over the top, so I tend to simply turn off my brain and let it wash over me.  It's easy for me to do that for several reasons.

"James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season." 

First, the movie has style to burn.  MOONRAKER cost a lot of money to make, and it shows on the screen.  This is in itself a minor miracle, as the film turned into something of a runaway production with the filmmakers adding more and more into it as they went along**.  Which makes it impressive that it still FEELS like a Bond movie with magnificent widescreen cinematography, huge sets by Ken Adam, a lusher-than-normal John Barry score, and first-rate special effects.  All contribute to divert the audience's attention from the strings barely holding the thing together.  Second, the film contains the best visual effects for any Bond film to that date.  Derek Meddings, Paul Wilson, and John Evans used the approach of doing things in-camera rather than via blue screen and optical compositing and the results are very clean, pure images.  Lastly, with the exception of Jaws and to some extent Roger Moore (who was 51 when this movie was filmed) the movie is populated with young attractive people.

"Mr. Bond, you persist in defying my efforts to provide an amusing death for you." 

Some random thoughts on MOONRAKER:

•  The film opens with a 747 transporting a space shuttle.  Cut to inside the shuttle and two men emerge from a hiding place.  They make their way to the cockpit of the shuttle, strap themselves in and then engage the shuttle's engines to take off from the plane, which is destroyed in the process.  Admittedly, it is asking a lot from the audience to take this at face value.  First, why would the shuttle be fueled up in the first place?  Second, why would there be a mechanism in place to allow a launch from the plane?    Third, if you wanted to steal the shuttle why try a plan so risky? Why not just hijack the plane?  Sure, they wanted to crash the plane, but again why not hijack it, land somewhere offload the shuttle and then crash the plane?  I wonder how far the shuttle that takes off had to fly?  Did no one notice it?  Did it use the same radar-jamming that the space station used, or did it show up on radar across England?  Given that the shuttle is little more than a glider in an atmosphere, one can surmise that it didn't travel far.  Or perhaps I am thinking about it too much?

• Before anyone is given time to think about the inherent inanity of the shuttle hijacking, we're on to the next scene where Bond gets pushed out of a plane without a parachute.  This entire sequence, where Bond is able to procure a parachute off of one of the bad guys, is amazing  and remains remains impressive in the digital age precisely because it is not a special effect.  Exciting and visual, the sequence completely makes you forget the whole shuttle and 747 thing.  Surprisingly, the fact that you can clearly see that the people involved are stuntmen does not really detract from it.

• The G-Force simulator is much more effective than it has any right to be, and ranks as one of the few times in the films that James Bond actually seems to be in real danger.  The set is visually interesting and the music and editing combine to make it a great sequence.  I like the fast cuts to make the connection to the wrist weapon he ultimately uses to escape.  It's very stylish and a bit artier than everything else around it in the film.

• Michael Lonsdale as Drax ranks up there as one of the better Bond villains, if only in form.  His deadpan delivery of his lines is humorous and he certainly looks the part.  Where Drax is lacking is in the motivation department--we never find out why he wants to wipe out the world.  Is it simply a power play?  Perhaps. Maybe he just pretty young things and wants to be their ruler.  Maybe he was picked on as a child?  True, we don't always get to know why the villains want to do what they do in the Bond films--aside from Goldfinger liking gold and wanting more of it do we really know why this is so?  Of course not.  Still, in a movie as superficial as MOONRAKER Drax feels just about right.

• The fight with Chang is more violent that you would expect in a Moore Bond film.  Roger Moore tried being a tough guy in LIVE AND LET DIE and it is largely laughable (the cigar and big holster are what kill it for me).  He tried being more a more refined in THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN but when he slaps a female character around trying to be tough it falls flat and is ultimately unbelievable.  He is a lot better in THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, but it's still "movie" fighting--lots of fake karate chops and guys rolling with fake punches.  In the fight with Chang Bond really seems to take some damage during it, and Moore is perhaps as physical as he ever got in the role.  Given that he was past 50 when filming it, I think he acquits himself well.  If the film were realistic we would see Bond hobbling around after some of the things he experiences, but since this is fantasy Bond instead is as impervious to pain and damage as the larger than life villain Jaws.

• This is probably one one of John Barry's best scores for a Bond film.  Other Bond scores may be more iconic but it's doubtful that any other Bond film benefits as much as MOONRAKER.  (I may be damning it with faint praise here.)  Barry has a distinctive style involving lots of woodwinds over a bed of brass, and in the proper film his scoring works wonders.   Romantic films benefit enormously, but he's just as adept with suspense cues.  I particularly like the scoring for the demise of the Chlorine character. 

• Ken Adam again does amazing work for the film.  His sets are imaginative and contribute enormously to the feel of the film.  He has a knack for making sets look realistically functional, if not always realistic.  The only dodgy set is the interior of the pyramid, which is obviously a set.  Certainly the lighting does the set no favors--one look at the water and you can easily pick out the multiple light sources.  The set should have been darker and featured deep shadows, in my opinion.

• I've never liked the gondola sequence.  You can take most of the action scenes out of the movie and it wouldn't affect either the plot or the characters, but this one is especially pointless.  The film SHOULD fade from Bond looking at Ms. Goodhead to the nighttime shot of Bond arriving to sneak into the glass factory.

• Lois Chiles is pretty much wasted in this movie.  She plays a CIA equivalent to James Bond with the stupendous name of Holly Goodhead, but aside for her having some gadets this aspect is never believably explored.  She is more successful at her "cover" of being a scientist on loan from NASA, so she does bring some good mojo to the scenes where she is supposed to be acting intelligently.  She has no chemistry with Moore to speak of, and she seemingly falls into bed with him because it is expected of her, being the leading lady and all.

• MOONRAKER features some impressive locations, especially in the South American scenes.  In general the film tries to get as much mileage out of the locations as possible, though sometimes this causes some lapses in logic.  For instance, when Bond goes back to the site of the lab after the deadly accident with the nerve gas, why exactly is M with him?  So they can have a nice scene walking along the canals of Venice, of course.  I like seeing Moore in the boat on the river as it helps sell the rest of the sequence.

• MOONRAKER's visual effects are first rate.  As stated above, the filmmakers used very little if any optical compositing (i.e. blue screen work) in the space scenes and this resulted in rock solid images with almost no grain.  Truly, when you look at some of the space shots and realize that it was accomplished by multiple exposures IN-CAMERA, one can't help but be impressed. The model work is obviously model work, but is used effectively with live action footage to sell the effects nonetheless.   

• I dislike how Jaws is used in MOONRAKER.  He first appeared in THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, and in that film he is one of the great Bond villains.  Meanancing, and seemingly indestructible, he is an imposing force in that film.  In MOONRAKER he is a buffoon.  The gag of having him survive catastrophic accidents is taken too far--it was humorous in SPY only because it straddled the line of realism.  In MOONRAKER they are so far over the line of realism he is reduced to a cartoon character, literally bouncing back after proverbially having a safe dropped on him.  And don't get me started on the love plot...

• The last time I watched it critically I came up with about 5-10 minutes that if taken out would improve the movie, namely the gondola sequence and Jaws falling in love. Bits and pieces snipped here and there to downplay the humor, and--aside from the outlandishness of the space battle which really can't be taken out--you'd have a much different movie. Of course, I suppose my judgement is suspect since I admitted up front that I like the movie.

"At least I shall have the pleasure of putting you out of my misery."

The Blu-Ray of MOONRAKER looks fabulous.  One of the select few Bond films that received a full 4K restoration back in the mid-2000's, it looks immaculate with impressive clarity and detail, strong colors and reasonable grain structure.   The DTS-MA soundtrack likewise sound good, though the mix is neither original nor especially rear-centric.  Still, it's hard to fault the disc on either sound or visuals.

Replicated on the disc are all of the special features that appeared on the 'Ultimate Edition' DVD, with the added bonus of the documentaries being re-done for HD.  This means that archival video is presented windowboxed, and all still or film footage presented in HD.  It makes a difference--when the last of the Bond films hit Blu-Ray*** the documentaries were not upgraded and thus play out windowboxed throughout.  Also missing from the 'second wave' of Bond Blu-rays were the textless title sequences, which is a different topic.

Notes:
*  Except for Jaws, I suppose.
** Steven Bach details in his book Final Cut how MOONRAKER's  budget ballooned to over $30 million dollars.  Some of the budget bloat was due to high fees negotiated and paid for in order to film in France.  The production was also held up (literally) in Rio until local officials were appropriately paid off.  However, the film made all of its money back and more so it worked out in the end.
*** MGM started releasing the Bond films on Blu-Ray back in 2009 but stopped midway through the releases when the company was put up for sale.  Sony eventually bought the properties, but it took until the release of SKYFALL for the final films to be released.  As the final batch included such great Bond films as THE SPY WHO LOVED ME and ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, the wait was very long indeed.