Thanks for the memories!

For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

The late '60s and '70s launched the outer space/alien science-fiction sub-genre, so of course James Bond had to strap on his spacesuit for 1979's "Moonraker." An extravagant production with the highest budget ever for a "Bond" film (costing more than twice the price of 1977's "The Spy Who Loved Me"), the film's ambition appropriately matches its title.With "Spy Who Loved Me" director Lewis Gilbert and writer Christopher Wood back on board for this film, they each try to outdo the strengths of their previous work. Bigger sets and locales and more creative stunts seem to be the name of the game, and such goals usually lead to a franchise movie like this becoming too formulaic. "Moonraker" doesn't have a story that flows with nearly the same energy of "TSWLM;" rather, it's a necklace strung with death traps that Bond (Roger Moore) must continuously escape.When a Moonraker space shuttle goes missing, Bond travels to California and meets its manufacturer, the extravagant and wealthy Hugo Drax (Michael Lonsdale) along with one of his scientists, Holly Goodhead (Lois Chiles). After thwarting a number of plots against his life, Bond flees Drax's estate and heads to Venice to find out what Drax is up to and ultimately follows his sinister plot to Rio de Janeiro and the Amazon before literally launching into space.It so happens Drax enjoys the sport of trying to kill Bond rather than plotting something that will actually succeed, allowing at least a dozen opportunities for Bond to save his skin. With "Spy Who Loved Me" henchman Jaws (Richard Kiel) now conveniently in Drax's employ, there's plenty room for hilarity too. Ultimately, this exercise in "trying to kill Bond" grows exhaustive and the spectacle that elevated "TSWLM" loses luster in "Moonraker."That said, even if the stunts and big action sequences aren't anchored by a compelling plot, Wood and Gilbert manage to make good on the promise of making them even more amazing. The skydiving opening is completely thrilling, the Rio cable car sequence has a unique and memorable spectacle to it and famed "Bond" production designer Ken Adam's space station offers a lot to marvel at. Perhaps Gilbert and Wood could have planned "Moonraker" in such a way that would keep it a little grounded and not simply rip the ceiling off "Bond," but the film does go to outer space after all.For all the points "Moonraker" scores on spectacle and innovation, it loses in intrigue and espionage. In other words, "Bond" drifts a little too far away from its roots and plays up the caricature elements. In this effort to go where no "Bond" has gone before, it feels a bit detached and hollow. Still, the thrills and spectacle it does shoot for at least hit the mark in terms of entertainment value-the big bucks are put to sufficient use.~Steven CThanks for reading! Visit Movie Muse Reviews for more

It's probably a bit controversial to claim that Roger Moore is the best Bond. It's probably even more controversial to say that 'Moonraker' is the best Bond film ever. I know. I've read other reviews. I know it had its faults. I guess, for me and my love of Star Wars, there was just something uber cool about seeing James Bond in space fighting with laser guns (and, yes, I know that they only made a 'James-Bond-in-space' film to cash in on George Lucas' game-changing masterpiece, but I didn't care about that, either!).This time round, the UK government is charged with the task of transporting (and therefore safe-guarding) a couple of American-built space shuttles. However, things do not go according to plan for her majesty's minions when both shuttles disappear in mysterious circumstances. Enter one 007 to get to the bottom of this.Now, as I've mentioned, I do love this film. Maybe because I grew up with it and it's totally tainted with nostalgic memories of watching it round friends' houses on Sunday afternoons. So, rather than saying what's so great about it, I will acknowledge other people's criticisms of what I consider 'Bond's finest hour.' Firstly, people (even more cynical than I am) were taken up with the Star Wars cash-in I've already mentioned. Secondly, there was too much humour. Gone are the days of Sean Connery's dry wit and darker take on Bond and they're all replaced with a lot of tongue-in-cheek silliness involving pet dogs doing comedy double-takes when Bond drives a boat through a crowded market square. The last two major complaints about the film revolve around the casting of the villain 'Drax' and the latest Bond girl – Dr Goodhead (seriously – that's her name!). Now, due to my love of this film as a child, I was more interested in armies of laser-wielding astronauts spinning off into the blackness of space than acting abilities. However, over thirty years later, I do tend to cringe a little when either character opens their mouth. Yes, they really are a little bit wooden. Perhaps I'm being unfair as I guess they do their best with the lines that are given to them. But, for every cloud there's a silver lining – and that silver lining comes in the form of a giant with metal teeth. Yes, 'Jaws' is another baddie hell bent on creasing Bond's tuxedo – and he is as awesome as ever.I know I'm not alone in my appreciation for Moonraker, but I think most people who enjoy it as much as me are my age. I guess it might not hold up too well with the modern audience – it's not the special effects which are the problem (correct me if I'm wrong, but a laser battle in zero-gravity space has never been attempted before on screen!). It's the tone that may not sit well with today's Bond fans. Currently, we have a much darker Daniel Craig Bond who rarely smiles or makes a witty (borderline innuendo) quip. However, if you can appreciate a Bond with a much lighter feel to it (and I know there are people out there who do – otherwise 'Kingsman: The Secret Service' wouldn't be so successful!) then you could do worse than relaxing your brain for a couple of hours and letting it drift into deep space. If nothing else, the final line about 'attempting re-entry' is worth watching the whole film for. RIP Roger – you were always the best Bond (my opinion only!).

What can i say about Moonraker? The 11th film in the James Bond series, directed by Lewis Gilbert in his final Bond film.The film starts with a space shuttle being transported on a Boeing 747 by the RAF. (Second appearance of Kim Fortune. He played the British navy crew member in TSWLM, who is gunned down in the climactic battle in the finale.) The shuttle is stolen in mid air and James Bond has to find it. Before that, we get a thrilling set piece, where Bond is pushed out of a plane by Jaws, without a parachute. I wish they'd do stunts like that today! The title song, by Shirley Bassey, isn't my favourite because the lyrics make no sense! What is a Moonraker? Shirley's voice is haunting, though.There is a memorable sequence, where Bond is stuck in a centrifuge training machine and the emergency stop switch has been disconnected. Roger's Bond usually comes away from scrapes without a scratch, but on this occasion, he's really shaken up. That's a nice change.Michael Lonsdale is brilliant as Hugo Drax. A French businessman, who wants to commit global genocide and repopulate the earth with genetically perfect specimens.Lois Chiles plays Holly Goodhead, the lead Bond girl. She's wooden, but she's nice to look at.The late great, Richard Kiel returns as Jaws, in his final appearance in the Bond series. There is a surprising development in the character of Jaws. I won't spoil it for you though.Fantastic score by John Barry, one of his best!10/10

Despite the uneven storyline, the weak attempts at innuendo, and a distinctive recycling of the action sequences (mainly the chases), there is still plenty to be enjoyed in the much-maligned MOONRAKER, Roger Moore's fourth outing as Bond and the first to incorporate a distinctly science fiction approach to the proceedings in the wake of the success of STAR WARS, although this only becomes apparent in the last thirty minutes of the movie. The first part consists of the action-packed globe-trotting antics that we expect from the series, with locations including Italy, California, and Rio de Janeiro. Despite an emphasis on open comedy and absurdity this time around instead of the more serious thriller aspects of previous instalments, the formula still works, thanks to winning performances and plenty of excitement.Action this time around includes a speedboat chase through the canals of Venice, an exciting battle with an assassin in a glass museum, and of course the large-scale outer space war which culminates the movie, including a cool moment involving a laser shoot-out between two armies of floating space men which wins points for imagination if not realism. Roger Moore is once again on top form as Bond, playing it less seriously than ever and enjoying himself in the part immensely. Lois Chiles, however, is not one of the best leading ladies, but she has a likable personality that comes across well and which stops her from being the worst. Michael Lonsdale excels as the arrogant villain Hugo Drax, Corrine Clery is seductive as an unlucky ally, and Richard Kiel is the best thing in the movie as the character of his assassin Jaws is more fully explored than in THE SPY WHO LOVED ME. As I said, this isn't the greatest, but you can do a lot worse (try watching any of the Brosnans again for instance) and the sense of fun about the production makes it impossible to dislike.