Critics’ reviews

Moonraker (1979)

9 reviews from 9 publications. Critics’ score 60: 4 positive, 2 mixed, 3 negative.

Back to our review of Moonraker

60
Positive
4
Mixed
2
Negative
3

Most critics find Moonraker a well-made, thoroughly silly Bond film, and the praise gathers around the same departments: the production design, the visual effects, especially the space station, and the stuntwork, which several reviews credit with making the preposterous look plausible. Roger Moore’s wise-cracking Bond is generally thought to suit the material, and Jaws and the villain are singled out as likeable turns.

The reservations are about everything else. The plot is called thin, arbitrary and nonsensical, the slapstick fights predictable, and the whole thing a rerun of The Spy Who Loved Me with the gadgets turned up. The spread is wide: The New York Times rates it among the most buoyant entries in the series, while Sight and Sound and The New Yorker see a repetitious formula with Bond reduced to an indestructible cartoon. Later reassessments are kinder than the notices of 1979, generally arguing that the scale and good humour outweigh the daftness.

The New York Times
29 June 1979 · Vincent Canby
90*

Moonraker is one of the most buoyant Bond films, focused on dizzying entertainment through elaborate stunts and production values. The screenplay and cast deliver slick, imaginative movie-making in the tradition of early film pioneers.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
1 January 1979 · Roger Ebert
70*

The film follows the standard Bond formula with exotic locations and sci-fi effects but does not break new ground. The art direction and special effects, particularly the space station, are singled out as highlights.

Read the full review →
Variety
31 December 1978 · Variety Staff
70*

The stunts and gadgets live up to expectations in this standard Bond outing, with strong visual effects and stuntwork making preposterous ideas believable. Roger Moore adapts well to the role as the wise-cracking hero.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Ian Nathan
65*

The critic sees this as the point where the Roger Moore Bond era fully embraced the preposterous, losing touch with its origins, yet finds it playful, energetic and memorable thanks to its set pieces.

Read the full review →
Time Out
10 September 2012 · CA
65*

Moonraker improves on recent Bond films thanks to strong special effects, witty references, and tongue-in-cheek tone, though the thin plot and predictable slapstick fights limit it. Likeable turns from Jaws and the villain help hold it together.

Read the full review →
Sight and Sound
35*

The film is essentially a remake of The Spy Who Loved Me, with Bond reduced to an indestructible cartoon figure in loosely connected set pieces and a picture-postcard itinerary. Literal-minded objections arise about the arbitrary plot and unconvincing spectacle.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
2 July 1979 · Susan Lardner
30*

Moonraker is a traditional, repetitious Bond entry relying on immoderate incidents, gadgets, and a lecherous hero without meaningful innovation. The formula perfected earlier in the series is not improved upon here.

Read the full review →
Digital Spy
8 November 2015 · Ed Power
70*

The piece defends the film as a silly but enjoyable thrill ride with epic scale, strong technical work and Moore in good form, arguing its ambition and fun outweigh its trashy reputation. It notes harsh contemporary reviews but highlights its box-office success and lasting DNA in later blockbusters.

Read the full review →
Den of Geek
5 March 2009 · ★★ · Mark Pickavance
40

The critic finds the film diabolically bad in places with a nonsensical plot, impractical gadgets and slapstick tone that never lets up. Technical achievements and some effects are noted but overall it is seen as firmly of its late-1970s era.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate