› ›

The Man from U.N.C.L.E.: original series & films

1…4243454748…73

Comments

  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    edited August 2015 Posts: 11,119
    Okay, here is my review of the film:
    "THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E." SHOULD EXCITE THE SPY IN US

    While I am writing this, the US box office figures for the cinematic incarnation of “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.” don’t seem to be very flourishing. On the other hand, in Russia Warner’s marketing wave for this film is having more effect. The opening weekend there is better than “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation”. What does it tell us? That it usually is a bumpy affair for 1960’s spy TV-series to make its first big screen appearance. “Mission: Impossible” is perhaps the only successful example. “The Avengers”, “The Saint”, “Get Smart” and “I Spy” however never got their sequels.
    By: Gert Waterink

    Having mentioned these failed cinematic incarnations, I think it’s safe to say that “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.” trumps those. It’s a good film, not a masterpiece, but certainly one that wets the spy fan’s appetite for at least one more sequel.

    The movie starts off with a lovely Hitchcock-ian main title sequence that instantly brings us back to the 1960’s. And while the imagery of Cold War events seems rather serious, Roberta Flack’s song “Compared To What” adds a nice fresh, happy touch to it (Why did she never sing a Bond theme song?). It sets the tone of the film: Light and breezy. The passport control at Checkpoint Charlie for Ian Fleming’s Napoleon Solo therefore becomes an easy, simple and suave affair.

    With a Roger Moore esque flair Mr Solo has the task of succesfully executing the defection of Gaby Teller, daughter of an ex-Nazi, East-German rocket scientist. Soon we get caught up in a great, perhaps the greatest action sequence of the entire film, as Napoleon and his ‘girl’ are being chased in a Wartburg (great East-German car) by a big angry 6ft 5 tall Russian KGB-operative. The car chase between the Wartburg and the Trabant is lovely edited and choreographed, reminding us of the days when Remy Julienne was in charge of a wonderful car chase ballet (Think about the 2CV from “For Your Eyes Only” or the Renault 11 from “A View To A Kill”).

    After Teller has been safely brought into West-Germany, we know that Solo was in fact on a covert mission for the CIA. And after a great, rather brutal fight scene in a Berlin park toilet (reminiscent of the “Casino Royale” PTS), we get to know that the previous large henchman is in fact Illya Kuryakin and that Solo and Kuryakin are in fact being teamed up. But here starts an important flaw of the film. The story. The CIA and the KGB are after a shipping magnate and Teller’s uncle, who seem to be creating an atomic bomb.

    It would have been nicer if for plot purposes some mystery was attached to this part of the film. Doesn’t it feel rather lacklustre if you know exactly what your favourite spy is after very early on in the film? I felt that way. In a Bond film we are usually left a bit more clueless until the 2nd half of the film, when an 'Auric Goldfinger' or 'Ernst Blofeld' starts explaining his grand scheme to 007. It’s something that a possible sequel should and can do better.

    Because now a lot of time had to be spend on re-introducing the characters Napoleon Solo and Illya Kuryakin. For this reboot/revival movie it was at times a bit necessary though. There never was a real good proper background history on the characters. And since no younger audience has heard of “U.N.C.L.E.”, the original TV Series “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.” didn’t age as well as, let’s say, “Mission: Impossible” or “Hawaii Five O”. Furthermore, the series was always rather tongue-in-cheek, campy and light. So was the entire spy craze of the mid 1960’s anyway.

    Only recently we got to know edgier, more serious spy TV series, like “24”, “Alias”, “The Americans” and “Homeland”. So it would have been a hard task anyway to bring back “U.N.C.L.E.” to the big screen. And setting the thin storyline in the 1960’s (It as a bit weird to see a dark-red 1966 Aston Martin DB6 showing up in the year 1963), was perhaps therefore a wise thing to do. Still, time was lost on writing a good written plot and story with a proper dose of spy-mystery.

    Also, certain cinematographical and editorial choices were rather tiresome. One wants to see the real action, not a lacklustre summary of all the action in a split-screen format. Looks nice, but it’s unnecessary.

    Still, the movie holds up pretty well. Henry Cavill plays a real charming and funny womanizer (read: some Roger Moore-esque flair). He lacks emotional content, but seeing him tortured by Nazi Rudi in an electric chair brings about his vulnerabilities. And the scene where he kills Vinciguerra's lover Alexander in cold blood in the rain is particularly strong. But in my opinion seeing Armie Hammer as the more emotionally troubled Kuryakin (read: some Daniel Craig-esque flair) working together with Alicia Vikander’s Gaby Teller was the acting highlight of the film. Like a true “Pussy with Galore” she knows how to jump on Kuryakin. The kitty knows how to melt Illya’s cold Syberian heart. It’s as if we see Vesper Lynd and James Bond throwing pillows again. It adds a nice amount of romance to the film.

    During the 2nd half of the film, Illya and Napoleon tend to get along better, and the film evolves in a buddy film. Now they can finally focus on their biggest task: Eliminating Victoria Vinciguerra’s diabolical plan to detonate an atomic bomb from a submarine off the Italian coast. And with her is travelling that poodle of an Italian lover Alexander. It is Vinciguerra who is pulling the strings, and she does remind us of femme fatales like Fiona Volpe. She gets her best scene when she’s shooting down Teller’s father Udo….in a cruel, cold blooded way.

    Director Guy Ritchie did put a lot of James Bond references in this film. Like his buddy Matthew Vaughn (“Kingsman: The Secret Service”), he must have been extensively studying recent –and classic- Bond films. Like the earlier mentioned examples, there are some other nice references. There’s a nice scene where Victoria Vinciguerra tries to find proof that Napoleon Solo is not in his hotel room and instead doing some extensive research on her shipping yard. But just as Victoria opens the door, Solo is just narrowly able to sneek back in his hotel room and puts on his bathrobe. A scene that is reminiscent of “A View To A Kill”. Even the hotel room door has a Bond reference: number ‘304’. Which was the same hotel room number 007 had in “Thunderball”. And during the party at the Monza Race Circuit, Solo encounters a playboy-ish Count Lippe. Indeed, the character from “Thunderball”. And finally, when Napoleon Solo and Illya Kuryakin try to open the big, chrome-coloured safe door inside Vinciguerra’s shipyard, you can’t help thinking that Ken Adam (“Goldfinger”) is greatly missed.

    “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.” is far from perfect. But the film is charming and an example of perfect visual craftsmanship. Technically, it’s a pure reboot, but style-wise it’s more of a revival film that stays close to the original style of the light-hearted, campy TV-series. And besides the flaws in the story, every scene gets helped tremendously by lavish production design (Oliver Scholl), a great costume designer (Joanna Johnston) and a magnificent retro-soundtrack full of memorable melodies (Daniel Pemberton). The music especially highlights the relationship between Illya Kuryakin and Gaby Teller. And I could see it being shortlisted for the Oscars in the category “Best Original Score”.

    At the end of the film we also get to see how Waverly (charismatically played by Hugh Grant) got the inspiration for the acronym “U.N.C.L.E.”. Just watch the end titles closely and you will find out. Let’s hope Warner will green-light a sequel, despite the mixed box office earnings so far. The characters have been rebooted, so now a 2nd U.N.C.L.E.-film can focus more on a better, more thrilling, exciting story.

    3.5 out of 5 stars / 7.0 out of 10

    Movie's end titles:
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    Anyone?? I'm curious what you guys think of it :-).
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited August 2015 Posts: 9,020
    7.0 hehe, a few posts ago I gave the same ranking! :D

    As usual I admire you eloquence and writing style. I could do it too, I studied English long enough :) but I'm just too lazy.

    As I have seen the movie too I can say you quite nailed it with your review.

    The audiovisual experience of UNCLE is really something. Music, score, costumes, set designs, style etc, everything just beautiful.
    It's a great homage to spy movies of the past in general, to Bond in particular.
    The cast is great, to see Hugh Grant again gave me great pleasure. I miss him, as he isn't doing much anymore. Armie Hammer once again is the real discovery in this movie (like in J. Edgar)
    I cannot understand why he hasn't made it to the A-list yet in Hollywood.

    In the end UNCLE is not Ritchie's finest hour. He has done better in the past. Sometimes I wonder if Ritchie isn't really some kind of two-hit wonder with his first two movies being his best.
    The movie earns 6.0 with 1.0 plus for the look and sound, total 7.0
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    7.0 hehe, a few posts ago I gave the same ranking! :D

    As usual I admire you eloquence and writing style. I could do it too, I studied English long enough :) but I'm just too lazy.

    As I have seen the movie too I can say you quite nailed it with your review.

    The audiovisual experience of UNCLE is really something. Music, score, costumes, set designs, style etc, everything just beautiful.
    It's a great homage to spy movies of the past in general, to Bond in particular.
    The cast is great, to see Hugh Grant again gave me great pleasure. I miss him, as he isn't doing much anymore. Armie Hammer once again is the real discovery in this movie (like in J. Edgar)
    I cannot understand why he hasn't made it to the A-list yet in Hollywood.

    In the end UNCLE is not Ritchie's finest hour. He has done better in the past. Sometimes I wonder if Ritchie isn't really some kind of two-hit wonder with his first two movies being his best.
    The movie earns 6.0 with 1.0 plus for the look and sound, total 7.0

    BUT, we agree it's a must-see no? Especially in cinema :-).
  • fanbond123fanbond123
    edited August 2015 Posts: 1,661
    There are some clips from the film online. There is one line he says when he's lying down and he sounds almost robotic!

    The scene I'm talking about starts at 3 mins 2 seconds:



    "Last time I fell rather bady and I hurt my head."

    Sounds like a speak-your-weight machine! Sorry, it sounds dire. People don't speak like robots.

    He seems a decent bloke, but I'm not sure he can actually act and by that I mean bring any subtle nuance to his delivery. He can do the basics of course but it seems one dimensional. Stiff and unnatural. Perhaps it's for the best if he never plays Bond. George Lazenby was way more natural and smooth and he'd never acted before he got Bond!

    Unless Cavill improves his range and comes over less stiff, I think he'd be a disaster in the role. I've been 50:50 on this guy as a potential Bond but this is just depressing. Oh well, c'est la vie!


  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    You obviously enjoyed this abomination much more than I did, @Gustuv. Nicely written review, though I think you flatter this ugly sister to Bond far more than it deserves. I also didn't feel the 60's retro vibe watching it. I think Mad Men conveys that period much better than this does. Sticking a couple of pretty ladies in Mary Quant outfits and having them answer rotary phones while looking seductive in a Arne Jacobsen Egg Chair doesn't make it great art direction for me. I just didn't buy any of it. I kept thinking Richie was copying Norman Jewison's The Thomas Crown Affair more than Bond with his angles and split-screen shots.

    I quite enjoyed Daniel Pemberton's score too and agree he's got talent, but Oscar-worthy he is not, as he's borrowed far too much from Ennio Morricone's back-catalogue to be considered original for an "original score".
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited August 2015 Posts: 11,139
    I really want to try out that Illya slap but seriously I thought the movie was ok. It entertained me and had a number of interesting things going for it. I really hope it does well enough to green light a sequel asap.

  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    bondsum wrote: »
    You obviously enjoyed this abomination much more than I did, @Gustuv. Nicely written review, though I think you flatter this ugly sister to Bond far more than it deserves. I also didn't feel the 60's retro vibe watching it. I think Mad Men conveys that period much better than this does. Sticking a couple of pretty ladies in Mary Quant outfits and having them answer rotary phones while looking seductive in a Arne Jacobsen Egg Chair doesn't make it great art direction for me. I just didn't buy any of it. I kept thinking Richie was copying Norman Jewison's The Thomas Crown Affair more than Bond with his angles and split-screen shots.

    I quite enjoyed Daniel Pemberton's score too and agree he's got talent, but Oscar-worthy he is not, as he's borrowed far too much from Ennio Morricone's back-catalogue to be considered original for an "original score".

    "UNCLE" doesn't pretend to be as good as "Mad Men" on the production design and costume design department. Perhaps it's a more pastiche kind of 1960's that you see in "UNCLE". But by jolly, I loved that kind of pastiche.

    And if I take into account your criticism about Daniel Pemberton's score, then Thomas Newman's score for "Skyfall" must have been bloody awesome no ;-)? I think Pemberton has shown with his other movies that he's willing to use forgotten sounds again, as opposed to a way too familiair sound Joe Kraemer's score for "Rogue Nation" has. That score isn't too original either.

    Maybe it goes a bit too far to say Pemberton's score for "UNCLE" has Oscar-potential. But I do think the man Pemberton has got the talent to marvel us upcoming years.
  • fanbond123fanbond123
    edited August 2015 Posts: 1,661
    IMDB is reporting it will open with 15 million dollars. Considering its budget (around 75 million dollars) and its summer release when more people tend to go to the cinema, UNCLE looks to be one of the most notable flops of the year. This year's R.I.P.D.
    R.I.P.D. (released with the subtitle Rest In Peace Department) is a 2013 American science fiction action-comedy film starring Jeff Bridges and Ryan Reynolds. Production Budget: $130 million.

    The film received negative reviews from critics and was a box office bomb. Opening July weekend: $12,691,415

    R.I.P.D. was a buddy cop type film with supernatural overtones. Two cops forced to work together, similar to the premise of Man From UNCLE. Ryan Reynolds was marketed as a hot new star similar to Cavill and Hammer. The film didn't find an audience.

    I saw R.I.P.D. and enjoyed it! Thought it was fun. :)
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    No, I'm afraid not @Gustuv. Though Pemberton's score is very derivative of Morricone and Lalo Schifrin it's still miles better than Newman's wishy-washy SF score. :)) I do agree with you that he's talented and is certainly a composer worth considering for future Bond soundtracks though.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    bondsum wrote: »
    No, I'm afraid not @Gustuv. Though Pemberton's score is very derivative of Morricone and Lalo Schifrin it's still miles better than Newman's wishy-washy SF score. :)) I do agree with you that he's talented and is certainly a composer worth considering for future Bond soundtracks though.

    Do you think Pemberton's score is better than Joe Kraemer's score for "Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation" and Henry Jackman's score for "Kingsman: The Secret Service"?
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    Actually I think Henry Jackman is another composer I'd put forward for Bond. For me, Jackman nudges it as I felt he handled the dramatic themes better and was more polished than Pemberton's MFU score. I didn't really notice Kraemer that much, but it worked for me as he understood the TV source material. But Kingsman has the more "original" sound for me.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    bondsum wrote: »
    Actually I think Henry Jackman is another composer I'd put forward for Bond. For me, Jackman nudges it as I felt he handled the dramatic themes better and was more polished than Pemberton's MFU score. I didn't really notice Kraemer that much, but it worked for me as he understood the TV source material. But Kingsman has the more "original" sound for me.

    What is original nowadays....
  • TriggerMortisTriggerMortis
    Posts: 158
    bondsum wrote: »
    You obviously enjoyed this abomination much more than I did, @Gustuv. Nicely written review, though I think you flatter this ugly sister to Bond far more than it deserves. I also didn't feel the 60's retro vibe watching it. I think Mad Men conveys that period much better than this does. Sticking a couple of pretty ladies in Mary Quant outfits and having them answer rotary phones while looking seductive in a Arne Jacobsen Egg Chair doesn't make it great art direction for me. I just didn't buy any of it. I kept thinking Richie was copying Norman Jewison's The Thomas Crown Affair more than Bond with his angles and split-screen shots.

    I quite enjoyed Daniel Pemberton's score too and agree he's got talent, but Oscar-worthy he is not, as he's borrowed far too much from Ennio Morricone's back-catalogue to be considered original for an "original score".

    @ Bondsum, I think you have summed it up beautifully — what an absolute clunker this movie is!
    It fails at every level - week story, badly scripted, poorly cast, appallingly directed and edited. The male wardrobes were an abomination and although I think Pemberton is a talent, this score was fare from his best work.
    In the spy pastiche stakes, Vaughn succeeded brilliantly with 'Kingsman' were as Richie has failed miserably with this dog's dinner.
    I don't think Guy's phone is going to be ringing off the hook after this one.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    TriggerMortis wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    You obviously enjoyed this abomination much more than I did, @Gustuv. Nicely written review, though I think you flatter this ugly sister to Bond far more than it deserves. I also didn't feel the 60's retro vibe watching it. I think Mad Men conveys that period much better than this does. Sticking a couple of pretty ladies in Mary Quant outfits and having them answer rotary phones while looking seductive in a Arne Jacobsen Egg Chair doesn't make it great art direction for me. I just didn't buy any of it. I kept thinking Richie was copying Norman Jewison's The Thomas Crown Affair more than Bond with his angles and split-screen shots.

    I quite enjoyed Daniel Pemberton's score too and agree he's got talent, but Oscar-worthy he is not, as he's borrowed far too much from Ennio Morricone's back-catalogue to be considered original for an "original score".

    @ Bondsum, I think you have summed it up beautifully — what an absolute clunker this movie is!
    It fails at every level - week story, badly scripted, poorly cast, appallingly directed and edited. The male wardrobes were an abomination and although I think Pemberton is a talent, this score was fare from his best work.
    In the spy pastiche stakes, Vaughn succeeded brilliantly with 'Kingsman' were as Richie has failed miserably with this dog's dinner.
    I don't think Guy's phone is going to be ringing off the hook after this one.

    I think this is really an exaggeration. Financially it may be a flop, but from a quality point of view words like "abomination" and "failed miserably" are really too harsh. It's certainly not a 4-star-film. But based on your arguments this films should get 0.5 star out of 5.

    In my review I did mention the weaknesses of the film. Especially the screenplay and story are simply way too uninteresting. But it's by far an "abomination".....
  • trevaniantrevanian
    Posts: 232
    I don't know which is more troubling, hearing the godawful bad reviews for UNCLE (which admittedly does not look terrific based on previews) or the wildly generous praise for KINGSMAN, which except for a minute or two in the church, was a complete and utter loss, with the no-blur stuff only emphasizing the lack of credibility in the action scenes.
  • trevaniantrevanian
    Posts: 232
    Szonana wrote: »
    Daniel Craig was a strong posibility for the 90s and now he is our new James Bond.
    Where on earth did you ever read THAT? AFAIK the Craig interest only began due to Babs digging his look in TOMB RAIDER (one more thing I won't ever understand, when I heard a TOMB RAIDER guy was in the running for Bond, I always thought she meant the bad guy, who is now on GAME OF THRONES as the ex-fixer guy for the dragon queen.)
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    I think it's fair to call it an "abomination" when there was so much potential for this franchise and it's been squandered. Let's not forget Steven Soderbergh, Quentin Tarantino and Matthew Vaughn were once circled for the project, as were stars like George Clooney, Bradley Cooper and Ryan Gosling, but reading the PR puff by Greg Silverman, president of creative development and worldwide production at Warner Bros, you get the impression all the previous 7 screenplays by these talented directors/writers were garbage and only Mr Richie's vision nailed it. I'm afraid I don't buy Silverman's spin. Basically, he wanted an origins story much like Marvel, Bond and a host of other modern franchises because he's risk averse. I can bet if Greg Silverman was to reboot Dirty Harry (God forbid, and another WB property) he'd want an origins story for that too because that's the current fashion. For me, TMFU wasted too much time setting up Solo's and Kuryakin's relationship, when it should've concentrated on UNCLE and what that actually meant rather than the after thought tagged on at the end. Oh, a decent plot would've been nice too. Not once was I on the edge of my seat, there was no threat. Considering there was a stolen atomic bomb mixed up in there somwhere it should've felt like the stakes were higher than they were. But this was just another "buddy movie" much like Holmes and Watson dressed up as an UNCLE spy story.

    I can't wait to see Richie's version of "King Arf-uh: The Legend of Ole London Town".... it's going to be a hoot if this is anything to go by.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    edited August 2015 Posts: 11,119
    trevanian wrote: »
    I don't know which is more troubling, hearing the godawful bad reviews for UNCLE (which admittedly does not look terrific based on previews) or the wildly generous praise for KINGSMAN, which except for a minute or two in the church, was a complete and utter loss, with the no-blur stuff only emphasizing the lack of credibility in the action scenes.

    But all the reviews aren't godawfully bad.

    Moreover, I think there are quite a few Bond films that are even worse than "The Man From U.N.C.L.E.".
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    trevanian wrote: »
    Szonana wrote: »
    Daniel Craig was a strong posibility for the 90s and now he is our new James Bond.
    Where on earth did you ever read THAT? AFAIK the Craig interest only began due to Babs digging his look in TOMB RAIDER (one more thing I won't ever understand, when I heard a TOMB RAIDER guy was in the running for Bond, I always thought she meant the bad guy, who is now on GAME OF THRONES as the ex-fixer guy for the dragon queen.)

    The only reason Craig is now Bond is because Babs had the hots for him. She was the one who put Craig through. Otherwise he would have never become Bond.
    Now if we have to thank her for that or not can be debated I guess.
    For Judi Dench I'm eternally grateful to BB.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    It wasn't an awful film. It wasn't particularly good either. It was alright, but not much more imo.

    It's sort of similar Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes films but it just didn't feel as clever, inventive or entertaining as they did imo. The 60s vibe felt sort of, idk, artificial to me, if that makes sense? It was stylish but sort of I could really tell that it was a 2015 film set in the 60s, I didn't feel like it actually captured the period that well.

    I can't compare it to Rogue Nation as I haven't seen that (I'll watch it when it's on TV) but I thought Kingsman was much better than this. And SPECTRE will be too. It's weird because of the similar circumstances of both films. Matthew Vaughn and Guy Ritchie worked together for a while, both getting their start with British gangster flicks (Vaughn producing Ritchie's, before moving into directing with Layer Cake) before moving onto blockbusters (Vaughn with X Men, Ritchie with Sherlock Holmes, although Vaughn had Star Dust and Kick Ass as sort of a transitional period). So now they're both blockbuster directors and both have made spy films, which both have said was inspired by the older Bond films. But Vaughn's film was a lot better. Kingsman was more stylish, fun, original, had better performances, more memorable characters and scenes, better action scenes, etc. Which just makes UNCLE seem sort of redundant.

    If they'd made this during the period between QOS and SF then I'd have been more generous, but in 2015, when we've had Skyfall and are looking forward to SPECTRE, and we've already had one great 60s inspired spy film this year (Kingsman), UNCLE doesn't really cut it.

    I'd give it a 6/10. Fun and not awful but easily forgettable. I liked the score and there were one or two funny bits, I thought the leads did a decent job. The action was pretty forgettable. I don't think they should make a sequel. Well I don't care if they do, but I don't want Ritchie involved. I don't want him to take up more of his time with this, I want the Rock n Rolla sequel and then I want Sherlock Holmes 3 from him.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,615
    Overall, I'm getting a good-not-great vibe from this, something you can easily skip in theaters and catch on home release. Works for me.
  • TriggerMortisTriggerMortis
    Posts: 158
    bondsum wrote: »
    I think it's fair to call it an "abomination" when there was so much potential for this franchise and it's been squandered. Let's not forget Steven Soderbergh, Quentin Tarantino and Matthew Vaughn were once circled for the project, as were stars like George Clooney, Bradley Cooper and Ryan Gosling, but reading the PR puff by Greg Silverman, president of creative development and worldwide production at Warner Bros, you get the impression all the previous 7 screenplays by these talented directors/writers were garbage and only Mr Richie's vision nailed it. I'm afraid I don't buy Silverman's spin. Basically, he wanted an origins story much like Marvel, Bond and a host of other modern franchises because he's risk averse. I can bet if Greg Silverman was to reboot Dirty Harry (God forbid, and another WB property) he'd want an origins story for that too because that's the current fashion. For me, TMFU wasted too much time setting up Solo's and Kuryakin's relationship, when it should've concentrated on UNCLE and what that actually meant rather than the after thought tagged on at the end. Oh, a decent plot would've been nice too. Not once was I on the edge of my seat, there was no threat. Considering there was a stolen atomic bomb mixed up in there somwhere it should've felt like the stakes were higher than they were. But this was just another "buddy movie" much like Holmes and Watson dressed up as an UNCLE spy story.

    I can't wait to see Richie's version of "King Arf-uh: The Legend of Ole London Town".... it's going to be a hoot if this is anything to go by.

    A truly interesting perspective and I suspect the truth or very close to it.

  • TriggerMortisTriggerMortis
    Posts: 158
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Overall, I'm getting a good-not-great vibe from this, something you can easily skip in theaters and catch on home release. Works for me.

    I don't know you but I wouldn't wish anybody to waste two hours of their valuable lives.
    Yes, it really is that good - just skip it.

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,615
    It's now looking like even a $15 million opening weekend will be a stretch.
  • SkyfailSkyfail
    Posts: 498
    I am hoping the foreign box office will be a savior for this movie , I live in one of the top 5 most populated countries in the world, and all the chat boards over here can't get enough of it and why its delayed so much
  • CowleyCowley
    Posts: 486
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    Let’s hope Warner will green-light a sequel, despite the mixed box office earnings so far. The characters have been rebooted, so now a 2nd U.N.C.L.E.-film can focus more on a better, more thrilling, exciting story.

    Ain't going to happen.
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    I think there are quite a few Bond films that are even worse than "The Man From U.N.C.L.E.".

    Heresy! ;-)

    If we’re considering TV adaptations at the cinema this year It’s a shame that some people on here rejoiced in the bad reviews and box office performance on the home grown spy film ‘Spooks: The Greater Good’. Whilst I appreciate it lacked the scope of an epic big budget film to compete with the big hitters it was absolutely like the TV series and not disappointing like U.N.C.L.E.
  • SzonanaSzonana Mexico
    Posts: 1,130
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    trevanian wrote: »
    Szonana wrote: »
    Daniel Craig was a strong posibility for the 90s and now he is our new James Bond.
    Where on earth did you ever read THAT? AFAIK the Craig interest only began due to Babs digging his look in TOMB RAIDER (one more thing I won't ever understand, when I heard a TOMB RAIDER guy was in the running for Bond, I always thought she meant the bad guy, who is now on GAME OF THRONES as the ex-fixer guy for the dragon queen.)

    The only reason Craig is now Bond is because Babs had the hots for him. She was the one who put Craig through. Otherwise he would have never become Bond.
    Now if we have to thank her for that or not can be debated I guess.
    For Judi Dench I'm eternally grateful to BB.


    Well i dont remember exactly where i read it but you get my point that i thought Cavill had a chance because he was the second run in 2006 but will see now who thry cast after Daniel leaves.

    To Jason yes we have Daniel because of her, i didnt know it was because she found him attractive.
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    Posts: 2,115
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    It's now looking like even a $15 million opening weekend will be a stretch.

    $13.5 million.

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,615
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    It's now looking like even a $15 million opening weekend will be a stretch.

    $13.5 million.

    Not even that. It's looking to tie 'Pixels' this weekend with $12 million total.
Sign In or Register to comment.