To begin, let's just put the facts down: the 1970s have been regarded as the worst decade of Bond (I disagree), Roger Moore has been regarded as the worst Bond (I HEARTILY disagree) and MOONRAKER (or perhaps THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN) has been regarded as the worst Bond film of all time. It was made in 1979 and starred Roger Moore. "How can anything about it be good considering these two facts?" many Bond fans ask, often those new to the world of Bond and who have merely read books and never seen the films. I'll give an answer: it IS good. Many Bond fans will probably sigh and start hurling moonshine bottles at me, but hear me out. I have a reasonable argument somewhere in the drivel below.

Now, what's the universal argument against The 007 Dark Horse? Slapstick comedy! Too unlike the earlier films! It has Roger Moore in it! There's a double-taking pigeon! None of these things are neccessarily bad, though. I shall examine each of these points along the bumpy journey to the climax of this poor article. It's not worth waiting for the climax, though. But I'm at least hoping to change a few opinions and get people to see MOONRAKER in a new and heaven-sent light.

(Before I begin this rampage, I shall warn you that MOONRAKER is not my favourite. I just get a little hot-headed when people bag an enjoyable, if foolish, film for the obvious reasons.)

Slapstick comedy! Sure, there's plenty of slapstick. But that's what audiences wanted in 1979. Would the film have made money if it had followed the classic formula? Maybe just a little. But there's a good excuse for the comedy: it was good for the time. Were the underwater sequences in THUNDERBALL good at the time? Yes. Are they good any more? No. Was Bond's baby-blue terrycloth jumpsuit in GOLDFINGER good at the time? Probably not, but it's even worse now. Just as much as Oddjob and the Aston Martin are vital to the legacy of Bond films, MOONRAKER and its comedy are vital. MOONRAKER was a Bond film. Just as much of a Bond film as GOLDFINGER and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE were. You can't go around saying that slapstick and foolishness are not Bondian. They were. Bonds were comedies for a while, and we must accept that. And the film didn't strive to be a serious spy thriller. It was intended as an enjoyable extravanganza. Is it an enjoyable extravaganza? Yes, of course. And you can't say it only appeals to children. My grandfather enjoyed the peurility even more than I did. Slapstick was part of the Bond world. Just as a razor-edged hat was. Accept it and enjoy it before it becomes too dated and we can't play the film on any high-tech machines in the future, where we all have naked, robotic midget dancers and... I'd better shut up now, before I lose any more respect. Forget I said any of that naked midget robot stuff.

Too unlike the earlier films! Yes, this is true. But things had to change. Most of the defence written above can be applied here. But audiences enjoyed it. Everybody did, if only subconsciously. In the old days, we enjoyed the ejector seat and the hollow volcano. In the less-old-but-also-pretty-old days we enjoyed space battles and blatant 7-UP advertisements. It's unlike the earlier films, but it did not try to be like the earlier films. It succeeds on its own merits, as an epic comedy adventure. So, while watching it, forget about the classy classics and prepare yourself for a rollicking, juvenile time. You'll enjoy MOONRAKER, no problems.

It has Roger Moore in it! Many dislike Rog. I am not one of them. I do not wish to debate the virtues of the Bonds. This is about MOONRAKER, remember, not Rog vs. Connery (Rog would win, of course). However, I will mention that Rog is perfect in every form the Bond films may take: caddish and manipulative in LIVE AND LET DIE, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN and OCTOPUSSY, cool and at ease in THE SPY WHO LOVED ME and MOONRAKER, hard-edged and low-key in FOR YOUR EYES ONLY. I won't mention A VIEW TO A KILL. I'll just say he was bloody excellent, and extremely old. In MOONRAKER, and any film, he is a pleasure.

The film also has many other merits. Michael Lonsdale plays Hugo Drax with monstrous precision, and his performance fits snugly under the category of "perfection". The teaser sequence is dazzling, in spite of the appearance of Jaws, which is often the target of complaint. Holly Goodhead may not be the most interesting of heroines, but Lois Chiles plays the part well and godamn she looks fine, as do all the other girls. The cinematography is gorgeous, from Venice to the Amazon. The puns are top-notch, especially the classic "re-entry" line. The titles feature little flying midget clowns and bicycles. John Barry contributes what is easily his finest score, and I consider it among the top three in the series (although my two favourites are the tack-infested FOR YOUR EYES ONLY and the pure blaxploitation funk of LIVE AND LET DIE, that's not saying much). The technical aspect are almost top-notch.

But there are a few flaws, mind. The theme is slow and dull (not even the enjoyable "Disco Moonraker" is special, even though I find it almost impossible not to enjoy a song with "Disco" in the title). The back-projection is the stuff of nightmares. Although I did enjoy the slapstick, two moments are appalling, even by my low standards: Rog in the hovercraft and Jaws swooning over Dolly. The final half-hour in space is dull and not worth sitting through. MOONRAKER proves Bond is best while on Earth. But the good outweighs the bad by a fair bit.

So, in summary, MOONRAKER should be enjoyed on its own merits. Sure, compared to the early films, it is like a drug trip. But, if you paid to see a space-age comedy epic, would you be disappointed by this film? Never. It succeeds at everything it set out to do: entertain, amuse and pop out your eyes. It is a Bond film. Of a different style, perhaps, but this was the style of the Bond films for a while, and it is a classic of this style. Entertainment doesn't get much better than this. Is MOONRAKER deep? No. Was GOLDFINGER, though? No, it wasn't. All Bond films are "Bond films" (obviously), and they are not thought-provoking masterpieces. They are entertainment, plain and simple. And this is why MOONRAKER succeeds: as pure, unadulterated fun. Yes.

Oh, and thinking I forgot to explain the point about the double-taking pigeon? If you saw Roger Moore driving down the street inside a boat with a colourful canopy, wouldn't you damn near crap yourself? That pigeon effectively conveys the terror of a bird being terrorised by a colourful sheet.

Masterful work.

Copyright © 2000 Dean Kilbride