(Review originally written at 3 April 2009) This movie is so very effective and just overall excellent due to its minimalism. Little is explained, little is ever shown and the story also isn't the most complex written one. Out of all the horror movies I've seen I can honestly say that this is one of the genuinely scary ones. It still is the best 'haunted house' movie ever made. It's a movie that puts its emphasis more on its atmosphere than anything else really. The movie knows to create an uneasy atmosphere with its slow but steady build up. It really knows to pick its moments to put in a scary moment. But even then the movie shows very little. It's a movie filled with scary sounds, which adds to the mystery and tension of the movie. It's really a movie that works out due to its talents behind the camera's. I was surprised by the movie its camera-handling and fast editing work at times. They did a really great job with this and it really helped the movie to work out with its moments. It's a technically really well made movie, that of course also is being helped by the fact that it was shot in black & white. It gives the movie a more eerie and unpleasant atmosphere. It also really helps to bring the house to life, from both the outside as well as the inside. Horror wasn't really the most glamorous genre to work in during the '60's but just like Robert Wise did with "The Day the Earth Stood Still" he takes a genre to a totally different and far classier level, when compared to other genre movies from the same time period. This is what I always mostly admire about Robert Wise. He takes on a genre with his own touch and vision, with as a result an unique, as well as highly effective movie. The movie has some really effective genre moments, that will shock and will leave you with an unpleasant feeling afterward, without ever having to feature any blood or gore or anything of that sort. One moment especially really caught me off guard and in my book is one of the most scary shock moments in movie history. It's more of a slow and subtle version, that might not be for everyone but for those who are able to sit through a more of a slow and old fashioned genre movie, the movie will be a real rewarding one. 9/10 Watch trailer
It's no secret that this movie was made only because to the sudden and unexpected huge success of the science-fiction movie "Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope", that changed the genre for ever. "Moonraker" wasn't planned as the 'next' Bond movie. In the late '70's the Bond movie and character started to get outdated. In an effort to make the Bond-series popular and more fitting and 'hip' for its time and foremost to also cash-in quickly of course, "Moonraker" was created. The end result is a mixed bag of memorable Bond moments, set in a incoherent story consisting out of unlikely moments and disjointed sequences.
By no means "Moonraker" is an horrible movie. It still entertains and provides some good and typical Bond moments which we basically all grew up with watching and love so much. It might very well be so that this is the Bond movie with the most memorable sequences in it. The opening sequence is also definitely one of the most memorable Bond ones. However as a whole the movie just isn't quite good enough and falls short. This movie definitely isn't the most consisting one out of the Bond series, mostly because of the reason that the sequences don't always connect with each other. Its basically the one well made sequence after the other, without always making an obvious connection.
The premise of the movie sounds good but the story gets more and more ridicules and above all improbable, even for a Bond movie, as the movie progresses. Especially from the moment on when Bond enters space the movie and its story starts to go downhill rapidly. The movie gets highly unconvincing from that moment on, although it definitely still has some good moments after that point. I don't know, I guess its just the fact that the Bond character doesn't work in space that causes the movie to get unlikely and not convincing enough.
But like I mentioned before, the movie is still entertaining enough. Show me a Roger Moore Bond movie that isn't entertaining...Roger Moore is my favorite Bond because of the fact that his movies are the most entertaining ones (although they also are far from the best Bond movies) to watch over and over again, which is definitely mainly thanks to Moore's more comical and less serious approach of the Bond character. He had fun playing the character and that must have inspired the rest of the cast and crew because it really shows on screen. The movie itself really does have some great and entertaining moments as well. Most of the action is really good, until the end, when the special effects kick in. It's good enough for 1979 standards, especially when considering the resources the creators at the time had to their disposal but nevertheless it still means that it just isn't convincing enough all. It all adds up to the reasons why at the end this movie falls flat. Don't get me wrong its still good and entertaining enough to watch, after all I think I must have seen this movie a dozen times already but the movie and its story just isn't of very high quality, especially when compared to the other Roger Moore Bond movies.
But the movie still also does have more than enough good points to consider this a above average entertaining-flick. The fact that the usual Bond regulars show up again is definitely an huge plus. Bernard Lee makes his last appearance as M and Geoffrey Keen reprises his role of Sir Frederick Gray for the second time. Their roles are probably a bit bigger than they normally are in a Bond movie. Also of course Desmond Llewelyn and Lois Maxwell are also present again, as well as Walter Gotell as General Anatol Gogol. But the biggest plus of the cast is Richard Kiel who reprises his role of the hit-man Jaws, with his metal teeth, after "The Spy Who Loved Me". He provides the movie with some of its very best moments. Unfortunately it always was the last Bond movie he ever appeared in. Also the production design and always reliable good John Barry musical score are a big plus. The John Barry scores always provide the Bond movies with a certain extra.
There also is little wrong with the important Bond element; the villain. Michael Lonsdale plays an excellent and memorable villain. Perhaps the very best and most memorable of all Bond villains, I kid you not. He and his character deserved to be in a better Bond movie. That way his character would have been an even better and also more memorable and appreciated Bond villain. I just have a weak for Michael Lonsdale, he is a very underrated but above all very underused actor.
It has more than enough good elements and sequences to please the fans and the more casual viewer. It's just too bad of the disjointed and improbable story, which causes this movie to be one of the more incoherent and lesser Bond movie.
This is more than just a great Bond movie, it also is a great movie on its own. It's well constructed and has a solid, fast paced story, with some great memorable action sequences and characters in it.
This movie is quite different from other Bond movies in many regards. First and foremost reason of course for this, is that this movie is the second Bond movie ever made. The creators obviously tried to surpass the success of "Dr. No" and make this movie an even bigger and spectacular one. They certainly succeeded in this but it also means that this movie is at times lacking in its special 'Bond' kind of feeling. Sure it has Q, M, Moneypenny and gadgets but its not as fun to watch, mainly because the movie obviously tries to take itself as serious as possible. However none of this matters, since it makes this movie a really good genre movie and quite frankly one of the best ever created. Also keep in mind that back in the early '60's there wasn't really an 'action-movie genre' yet. That probably is also the reason why this movie feels quite different from other movies genre- and also later Bond movies in particular.
Overall the older Bond movies are of better and higher quality than all of the later ones, of course with some exceptions left out here and there. My theory is that it is because the early movies still take themselves serious, while all of the most other later Bond movies go over-the-top with its action mainly. Basically the Bond character himself also fits better in a '60's atmosphere, also obviously due to the way how he handles women. Nothing wrong with Bond movies these days, after all I enjoy (most) of them highly and they serve as good mindless entertainment, especially the Roger Moore Bond-films but honestly, they can't beat the oldies.
Unlike many other Bond movies, the story plays a significant part in the movie. At first its slow without any action but thanks to its fast and spot on pace the movie still is exciting to watch. Surprisingly the movie at the end still turns into a spectacular one, when lots of action occurs on screen. The boat and the later following helicopter chase sequences are one of the best and most memorable Bond action sequences ever. They are surprisingly big and spectacular. But also the confrontation sequences between Grant and Bond are memorable and spectacular, even when no action occurs. Kudos to Sean Connery and Robert Shaw's acting for that.
What makes this Bond movie also a highly memorable one are its characters. The villain always is an important element of a Bond movie. This movie its main villain is Ernst Stavro Blofeld of SPECTRE but as we are used of him, he doesn't get to do any action. Real 'action' villains of this movie are the hit-man Grant (Robert Shaw) and Rosa Klebb (Lotte Lenya), a former Russian she-man colonel now working for SPRECTRE, who has lesbian tendencies and pointy shoes. Both of them are portrayed by some very solid actors, which helps to make them both very memorable Bond villains. Especially Shaw is wonderful. In the first halve of the movie he doesn't say a word but from the moment he meets up with Bond and starts to speak his character becomes a different one and Shaw's acting ability and versatility becomes obvious. Also look out for Walter Gotell, who plays a small part as a villain in this movie but later went on playing the Russian general Gogol, who appeared in numerous Bond movies over the years. But not just the villains are great. Pedro Armendáriz plays a real good and likable 'criminal' character, in his final role. Daniela Bianchi is a good Bond girl. Nothing too spectacular, she just mainly serves her purpose well. It also of course helps the movie that it has Bond regulars Miss Moneypenny (Lois Maxwell), Q (Desmond Llewelyn) and M (Bernard Lee) in it, who would all later re-appear in more than a dozen more Bond films.
This is simply one of those movies in which everything just adds up and works well. The pace is incredibly good and makes the movie even tense and spectacular to watch when no action occurs. The acting and characters are great and the movie is big in spectacular in its action. Everything in this movie fits and it helps to make this one of the best and most memorable Bond movies but also one of the best and earliest action genre movies ever made.
It's not the best but it most certainly is one of the most entertaining Bond movies to watch. Because of that reason, "You Only Live Twice" is one of my favorite Bond movies.
Basically the movie is just simple silly fun. The story is very simple and at the same time also totally unbelievable but also because of this the movie is extremely entertaining to watch. As an action movie this movie is really great. The movie is truly filled with many spectacular, if a tad over-the-top action sequences. Most action sequences don't even make sense that they occur in the movie, once you really start thinking about it but that is all part of the charm of this entertaining movie. It's a very imaginative movie that has some unforgettable sequences in it, that are both thrilling as well as spectacular.
The movie is mostly set in the culturally rich Japan. It works as a perfect backdrop for the movie and the strange unusual culture helps to make the movie an imaginative filled one. Also sequences like with 'Little Nellie' and the end fight set in the hollowed-out volcano add to the adventurous and imaginative feeling of the movie.
Ken Adam is also one of the reasons why everything in the movie works so well. As a production designer he made the right backdrops for the story and made several elements of the movie work out surprising well, such as mainly all of the sequences in the hollowed-out volcano.
Also the musical score by John Barry and the cinematography by Freddie Young are worth mentioning.
Sean Connery is good and fun as always as James Bond and he still showed good form in this movie. This time Ernst Stavro Blofeld was played by legendary actor Donald Pleasence. He takes the movie to an even higher level. He plays the best Blofeld out of the long series of Bond movies, along with Telly Savalas who played the villainous character in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service".
This is a fantastic fast paced, action filled movie, that has some spectacular and unforgettable sequences in it, especially toward the ending. One of my personal favorite Bond movies, of which I never grow tired of watching it.
I consider this movie to be one of the weaker one's out of the long series of Bond movies. Yes, sure it still has an entertainment value but it lacks some of the fundamental things that made most of the other Bond movies so good and fun to watch.
Perhaps the thing that I find to be most disappointing about this movie is the action. Most of the Bond movies always have some cool fist fights and a big spectacular finale. The biggest fight sequence and finale in this movie are set underwater. I could be me, but I don't find underwater fights to be spectacular or terribly exciting to watch. Also the ending is completely ridiculous, mainly because it's so incredibly fake and ridiculous looking. Also the fact that James Bond doesn't kill the main villain in this one but another person does, just doesn't feel right and not suiting for the style of the series. The movie seriously lacks some memorable impressive sequence and therefor "Thunderball" is one of the more forgettable Bond movies.
Another disappointing aspect are the Bond girls. Bond-girls have never been known for their acting skills but Claudine Auger really is a bad, charismatic-less actress, that just doesn't known how to make a lasting impression on the silver screen. Also Rik Van Nutter is a horrible Felix Leiter in this movie.
The plot and the way it is told also isn't terribly exciting and might be a bit too confusing for the more casual viewer at times. So it could be just the story which makes this movie to be in my opinion, one of the weaker Bond movies but I think it's a combination of all those elements I mentioned before.
Luckily Sean Connery still is in good form though in this movie. He is in his element as James Bond and he delivers some good one-liners. Also Bond-regulars Desmond Llewelyn, Bernard Lee and Lois Maxwell are luckily present in the movie, to still give the movie that typical 'Bond-feeling'.
The movie still is decent entertainment to watch but it's nothing memorable really, with the exception of the Tom Jones theme song maybe.
