It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
That was a jump from thursday to friday only. Jurassic World jumped 734% from thursday to friday.
It actually dropped -39% this weekend for a USA total of $34m.
still not a good result after 3 weeks in release. It won't get to $50m at the Us box office at this rate...
It's the chin.
I agree. Marketing-wise I think Warner did all they could. Here in Spain I saw massive highway billboards. I was surprised that the theatre was completely stacked with people one day after its premiere....at 5:20 PM!
If "Mission: Impossible" had premiered during Christmas, then "The Man From U.N.C.L.E." would have done twice as good as it is doing now. Then again, people underestimate how insane this cinematic year 2015 is. It's literally stacked with really an insane amount of blockbusters and franchise films. And not to mention blockbusters from the spy genre.
2015 really is an insane box office year on the whole....so far. Universal now officially has THREE 1 Billion Dollar blockbusters in the BoxOffice TOP 5: "Jurassic World", "Furious 7" and "Minions". Disney has one now, "Avengers 2: Age Of Ultron", and will follow later this year with "Star Wars 7". And then Sony rounds it off with one 1 Billion Dollar chap: "SPECTRE". PLUS an outside chance for crossing the 1 Billion by Lionsgate's "Hunger Games 4" and another upcoming dinosaur film, Disney/Pixar's "The Good Dinosaur".
SIX TO EIGHT 1 BILLION DOLLAR FILMS this year. Just think about it how insane that really is :-O. No wonder some studio's, like Paramount, need to do some necessary scheduling changes....if only Warner did that too.
Production values were very good, score was excellent, backstories were established, and yet it just did not catch on with the viewers. With these kind of numbers, it doesn't appear that those who saw it were able or willing to draw their friends to join them for a rewatch.....witch implies the concept and or the characters themselves are not compelling enough maybe?
And how charming the idea was to make the film a period piece, I think it didn't really work.And don't forget, "Mission: Impossible" is hard to compete with. And for Cruise it also took more than two films to finally receive critically acclaimed reviews.
If I were Warner, I would make a 2nd U.N.C.L.E.-film. And this time let it premiere if there's not too much competition. A month like January or February would be ideal.
It was received with "OK-ish" reviews. Nothing special really. The year before "GoldenEye" received way more critically acclaimed reviews. The fact that "Mission: Impossible" did much better box-office-wise than "GoldenEye", was because Tom Cruise at that moment was a huge star in the USA.....and not only for his role as Ethan Hunt. Even Kubrick wanted him for his last film.
For a second there I thought Sir Rog had jumped out of the TSWLM finale! :))
I personally think Henry Cavill would be an ideal candidate for a more Roger Moore-esque approach of future Bond films. Daniel Craig really is the 'Sean Connery' of our lifetime. And I do want him to make at least 1 or 2 Bond films after "SPECTRE".
But after that, I think it would be a good idea to stick with the new Bond timeline that was created with "Casino Royale", and then let Henry Cavill step into the role after Craig. I think it would be a great idea.
All the fans in here who doubt Henry Cavill's capabilities as a future Bond should be ashamed! I think he really oozed a lot of charisma in "U.N.C.L.E." and really was a suave mix of Roger Moore and Robert Vaughn. I'm in for it.
Man From Uncle was not sold as a sequel to the TV show or anything like that. It was a reimagining of the concept.....a different take. A new beginning. The same thing happened with MI all those years ago. So I don't think the 'aging' of the tv show is all that relevant, because it's almost been forgotten, except for among die-hards.
While there was probably some crossover effect negatively impacting Man From Uncle due to the proximity of the release date vs. MI-RN, I don't really see these two as direct competition. MI-RN is much more an SP competitor than it is one with Man From Uncle (a very stylish period piece).
They really didn't screw up anywhere and there's really nothing different they could have done, except give us a completely different concept with a different cast.
So my question still stands.....is the concept (and the actors they cast) compelling enough to warrant a sequel? I enjoyed it, but that doesn't mean it's sellable.
But it is hard to know how much M:I really cost, as they spent a ton on the back end with that and I don't know that there are reliable sources for that particular one.
As for Kubrick ... I think his choice of casting on EYES was a huge misstep, that if he was wed to the idea of using a married couple he would have done much better going younger&sexier (Ethan Hawke/Uma Thurman) or older (Tom Hanks/Rita Wilson.)
I agree on Hanks/Wilson. Hanks in particular could have pulled off the necessary bewilderment at what Bill Harford witnessed on that night out on the town.
I thought Cruise was pretty good though.....he had the necessary innocence to convey the surprise at what he observed.
I love that film. It has a disturbing quality to it that's mesmerizing, and I don't just mean the hijinks at the ritual at the mansion.
I just found Cruise/Kidman to be lacking in all chemistry (intentional? may-be) and didn't find her credible at all. The paranoia stuff is really good, and I think the film benefited from some of the recast for reshoots, like Sydney Pollack replacing Harvey Keitel.
Pollack was great in anything..
Knowing your preferences, you're really going to like this one, I'm quite sure! But hurry, I don't think they'll show it much longer.
I love to see your passion about this movie @defloria ;-). I will most certainly buy this film on bluray steelbook. And don't forget....I do see this film being nominated for an Oscar in some category (Music Score perhaps?).
Just an observation, but what are you actually basing your "OK-ish" reviews on? I hope it's not Rotten Toms as the majority of those reviews were not from 1996. In actual fact, a lot of those review websites that have a link review to the movie didn't actually exist back in 96 so it doesn't validate the score, but only as a "revisited" critical response many years later. This is why RT doesn't work as an indicator of what the critics actually thought pre-internet age, unless they just single out all the original reviews from the year the movie was released in archive form, which they don't do. Back in 96, the only reviews that matteted were from Empire, Total Film, TimeOut and a few mainstream newspapers.
A good example would be the Clint Eastwood movies: back in the 60's his spaghetti westerns were savaged by the US critics but now they magically appear as 96% on RT. My point is is it's just not a true picture , or reflection, of what the critics were actually saying back then.
If memory serves me right MI: 1 was a 4 out of 5 star movie from most of the most important critics back in 96.
Anyway, I hope Uncle does get a follow-up. That way they might get around to making the movie they should've made in the first place.
UNCLE is one of the biggest financial flops of 2015:
A financial loss of USD 80 million will probably result.
Tomorrowland 120-150 million USD
Pixels 75 million USD
Fantastic 4 80-100 million USD
Aloha 65 million USD
Those are the other 4 movies with the highest losses so far.
It's in a German-language newspaper. I can provide the link if anyone wants it.
UNCLE at least should have worked, conceptually, so the fact that it did not is more troubling. I wonder if it could be the leads not having what it takes to sell/headline a film (they were the only two 'known' names in it).
I think it had a very bad schedule as well. Warner should have moved the movie to September, late September or early October.
Yes, you're probably right. The timing was way off on this one.