--- title: "Moonraker: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/moonraker/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/moonraker" critics_score: 60 critics_reviews: 9 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Moonraker (1979): what the critics said Critics' score 60 from 9 reviews: 4 positive, 2 mixed, 3 negative. 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 — Vincent Canby Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 29 June 1979. 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 review](https://www.nytimes.com/1979/06/29/archives/screen-moonraker-puts-bond-in-orbitold-old-friends.html) ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 1979. 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 review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/moonraker-1979) ## Variety — Variety Staff Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 31 December 1978. 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 review](https://variety.com/1978/film/reviews/moonraker-1200424459/) ## Empire — Ian Nathan Fi1m's normalised score 65/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 2000. 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 review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/moonraker-review/) ## Time Out — CA Fi1m's normalised score 65/100 (inferred from the text). 10 September 2012. 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 review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/moonraker-1) ## Sight and Sound Fi1m's normalised score 35/100 (inferred from the text). 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 review](http://old.bfi.org.uk/features/ultimatefilm/chart/details.php?ranking=61) ## The New Yorker — Susan Lardner Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 2 July 1979. 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 review](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1979/07/09/extravagance-and-thrift) ## Digital Spy — Ed Power Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 8 November 2015. 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 review](https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a676026/in-defence-of-moonraker-roger-moores-critically-panned-outer-space-bond/) ## Den of Geek — Mark Pickavance Rating 2/5. 5 March 2009. 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 review](https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/moonraker-blu-ray-review/) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/moonraker.md