The Moonraker (1958)

You won't be disappointed!

A Masterpiece!

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

In this English Civil War action drama the one thing more incongruous during the opening sequence than Ronnie Hilton crooning a 1950's style ballad is the sight of George Baker in costume galloping about on horseback. Get over that and it's plane sailing and you can believe anything. Well I enjoyed it anyway, it shows an aspect of the Interregnum which has been relatively neglected, much like the film itself.It's the tale of Lord Protector Cromwell briefly played by John Le Mesurier and his army searching high and low for (prospective King) Charles Stuart, who is being protected by the Moonraker, a Loyalist Royalist played by the indefatigable Baker who is trying to get him safely to France. Was a time when brother was against brother over politics and religion, and rabidly too - in fact not like nowadays at all! Careless talk cost lives and no one was to be trusted, a rule not well adhered to in here though. Posh-speaking Baker falls gallantly in love with puritan Sylvia Sims; with the young and healthy as usual the rule is love conquers all. The production values and colour are excellent, the acting OK, the fight scenes bearable when not risible, the soundtrack music occasionally wobbles on the copy I've got but not too distracting and overall 'tis a very pleasant little tale well told, albeit on a low budget. Additionally there's a seemingly endless procession of British "faces" padding out the cast – Peter Arne, George Woodbridge, Marius Goring to name but a few.If possible though because much stamina is required of the viewer what I would really recommend is to first watch the much applauded 2013 British film A Field In England which also has the English Civil War as its backdrop and then compare it to this. The more artistic and worthy film should hopefully be obvious and put this earlier British effort firmly into context. This is (literally) escapist entertainment which admirably helps keep the real world at bay for ninety minutes.

George Baker is so handsome and beautifully spoken that it hardly matters if his acting isn't up to much - unlike Laurence Harvey,his contemporary, who was also handsome and beautifully spoken but whose lack of thespic talent I found extremely grating.Possibly because Mr Harvey had pretensions and Mr Baker was cheerfully light hearted and frivolous.As "The Moonraker" he is having fun,pure and simple.He is not in the least convincing as a 17th century peer and it doesn't matter,it's only a movie.And you should have seen it in 1958 when the screen was dazzled by Miss Sylvia Sims' blue eyes and Mr Paul Whitsun-Jones' bluff and cheery heroics.The bright colours,the echoing hoofbeats,the swordplay,the clifftops.what a feast for a 17 year old in those innocent days. The story-about the rescue of the young King Charles from Cromwell's troops-is not the point of this movie.It was a genuine English attempt to do a "Prince Valiant",if you like,a home made Hollywood epic on a far more modest scale,and,as such,it was a great success.With more familiar British actors than you could shake a stick at,it makes great TV for the 21st century - but you should have seen it in 1958.

'The Moonraker' is a somewhat lacklustre swashbuckler with certain touches of originality. The beginning, based loosely around the final stages of Charles II's famous oak-tree escape after the Battle of Worcester, is frankly tedious, despite all the galloping horses and hack-and-slashery. Neither the King nor those who aid him -- including the "Moonraker" himself -- seem to come to life, and the action, as elsewhere in the film, gives the impression of being done by numbers. The swashbuckling elements of this film are really not its strong point: no matter what it tries, it manages somehow to come across as working down a list of clichés to be ticked.Hero swings across the room? Tick. Precarious rope bridge spanning a chasm? Tick. Doublet slashed open to reveal wadding -- branch of candles cut in half -- rolling dive through window frame: tick, tick, tick. And I've never seen so many swords clapped obviously under the victims' armpits before!All this is the stuff of tradition, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. But it's the business of the film to make it feel joyous -- fresh and new -- and instead it contrives to make it dull.Events pick up as soon as the character work begins, with a public coach of assorted travellers... and what with the amount of recapitulation around this point, one gets the impression that the film could just as well have been started here, and probably have benefited by it. With hindsight the script's stage-play origins can be perceived, given the narrowly-confined setting from this moment on: almost all the scenes take place within the four walls of the inn. And since it is in the dialogue and the interplay of the characters that almost all of the enjoyment lies, I have a melancholy suspicion that this film's good qualities are due to its original, while its faults lie largely in the added material.For it is not until his arrival among the others at the inn that I found the Moonraker himself at all interesting. George Baker, handicapped by a dodgy contemporary haircut, really doesn't have the charisma to persuade in the dashing hero role, but conveys a real sense of mischief in his assumed Puritan disguise, where he is far more fun to watch. The innkeeper and his wife, who ultimately play only a small part in the plot, come to life from their initial appearance, and are the first characters whose troubles actually arouse our concern. And Parfitt, whose ultimate fate goes undeservedly all but unnoticed, is a fine comic foil who serves to push the plot along.But perhaps the best-developed character is that of Anne Wyndham, whose principles drive her first to betray the Moonraker and then her lover, the worthy but dull Cromwellian Colonel. Swashbuckler conventions require that she first scorn the hero and then fall passionately in love and be rescued by him; but here convention is subverted. She faces a very real divided tug of loyalties, between the man she has known, liked and admired since she was a child and the politics they both believe in, and the Cavalier who makes her laugh and dares against the odds, but espouses the cause that killed her father and brothers. And her gallant lie is all too swiftly found out.It would be easy to have her fall at the Moonraker's feet. But she doesn't, and is all the more interesting for that. The play does not demonise its Puritan characters, with the exception of Major Gregg, who is disavowed by his fellow officers at the beginning and made to demonstrate sufficient obligatory sadism to label him as the villain we are intended to hate. Colonel Beaumont, Anne's intended husband, is portrayed as a competent commander and not unsympathetic man, and we cannot help but feel for their situation when he discovers her shielding the Royalists.So far, so good -- and the human drama lasts almost to the end. But as soon as it breaks into action again the film reverts to being second-rate. I don't understand why. But the power of the piece doesn't lie in Gregg and his quarry scrambling improbably across the cliff-face stabbing at each other, or in troopers tumbling into the abyss; it lies in Colonel Beaumont's final quiet interview with Anne as his prisoner. I'd be very interested to see the script of the original play, for this film feels as if it is trying to force a character study into a glossy adventure format it was never intended to support.I'm not sure if the problems are with the budget and its inadequate (and occasionally risible!) special effects, the casting of the title role, or the failed attempts to expand out from what is essentially a restricted stage set. As a swashbuckler, this lacks charisma... as a chamber piece it could have been quite interesting.

Earl Anthony (aka The Moonraker) is a gentleman swordsman who is the thorn in the side of Oliver Cromwell and his battle to rid Britain of the royalists. The Moonraker is feared among Cromwell's men and has been responsible for the escape of over 30 royalists to France. When Anthony tries to lead Prince Charles Stuart to safety after a defeat at the hands of Cromwell, they are recognised and forced to evade capture – but can they get passage to France in time?Contrary to my wife's beliefs, I didn't watch this film in the mistaken belief that Roger Moore was going to burst onto the screen at any moment, but at times I wished he had. The film is a old fashioned swashbuckler done without too much in the way of individual flair. The plot is easy to predict and it is much more wordy that I had expected, with much of the second half being confined to an Inn. That said it still is enjoyable and is worth watching for what it is.The fights are a little dull and there is nothing to suggest that Anthony is worthy of his fearsome reputation but the sense of period is good. The film drifts between romance and action with an uneasy lilt to it, but the romance works well as it has the darker edge of being forbidden.The characters are all a little flat with the odd exception. Baker doesn't manage to bring anything to the role of Moonraker except the normal leading man strong jaw and big chest. The support cast are all colleagues or `evil' bad guys, the love interest is OK but is won over a little too easily. A horrid bit of miscasting is Le Mesurier as Cromwell. We all know what type of roles he is famous for playing and the end result here is that Cromwell comes off as one of them and not a real threat.Overall I enjoyed this film even though it didn't really distinguish itself in any specific way. As part of the genre it is par for the course and will please those who like this type of thing.