The reviews appear to be a mixed bag so far. Some good and some meh. This trailer works with the original series music. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1m1fioP2NYI One thing reviews seem to have in common is that the film is given something of a retro look in its choreography and looks quite good. Interesting. Another thing that seems to come out of the reviews is the lack of misogony the original series had in spades.
That trailer is awesome! It won't necessarily ruin my enjoyment if we never hear the original music, but I will be disappointed. Even if they just stick it over the end credits ala Star Trek 09 I'll be happy.
The San Francisco Chronicle's Mick Lasalle continues his noble campaign against the Ritchie scourge: By the standards of most action movies, “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.” is a mess. Instead of building toward a big finish, it gets more sluggish as it wears on. What little narrative drive it has drops out by the middle of the picture, and there are odd digressions that indicate a director who is confident he can take his audience anywhere — but this director’s confidence is misplaced. Then there’s the camera work, which is strenuous without being vigorous or inspired, and the ending, which is so flat and ho-hum it will leave viewers glad it’s a movie and not a play — otherwise, we might be embarrassed for the poor actors. By these and other measures, “The Man from U.N.C.L.E” would easily stand out as any other director’s career worst. But this is a Guy Ritchie movie, and by Guy Ritchie standards, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.” is “Citizen Kane.” There are a couple of decent sequences, and a few laughs. Here and there, he places the camera in just the right place, and one has to wonder if this is just a fluke — like the chimpanzee who composes a sonnet by sitting at a keyboard long enough — or if Ritchie is getting better.
Yeah, as I said the reviews are varied. One constant seems to be this isn't a film with depth. But then the original series didn't have any depth either--it was just a fun spy show. So why should the film reboot be any different?
From that Chronicle review: This is incorrect; clearly the reviewer is unfamiliar with the original series. The show's villains were usually individual actors and terrorist groups. Telling stories that were overtly about the US/Soviet conflict was too political and controversial for '60s TV, so spy shows found more neutral substitutes, like nameless or imaginary enemy countries (a standard Mission: Impossible trope), non-state terror organizations, mad scientists with plans for world domination, and the like. The core premise of The Man from U.N.C.L.E., in fact, was that the nations of the world -- including the US and the USSR -- had chosen to cooperate in their mutual defense against organizations like THRUSH and rogue actors who threatened to destabilize the peace. It was built around the utopian fantasy of the squabbling nations of the world unifying in their common interest, not in realistic Cold War politics. Heck, the very presence of Illya Kuryakin on the good guys' side should make that evident. It's a common conceit today that the fear of terrorism is a consequence of the 9/11 attacks, a new threat unique to our modern age. But that's rubbish. Terrorists have been a part of the world's dangers for generations, and have routinely been used as fictional villains for generations.
This is a film I will have to see for myself. Some of the negative comments I've read in reviews strike me as stemming more from possible unfamiliarity with the original subject matter as well as some measure of disappointment the film isn't what the viewer expected.
A positive review that pretty much nails that this is supposed to be a fun movie with its own sense of style: http://www.winnipegsun.com/2015/08/...w-franchise-for-henry-cavill-and-armie-hammer
I'm amused at the article's listing of all the actors who aren't playing their own nationalities, with Hugh Grant as the only one who is. And having an Englishman play Solo and an American play Kuryakin is an inversion from the series. One factual error in the article: It says that if THRUSH appears in the sequel, it'll be the organization's first appearance since 1968. That's incorrect, since it appeared in the TV reunion movie The Return of the Man from U.N.C.L.E.: The Fifteen Years Later Affair in 1983.
He's also incorrect that the show became too camp is the 4th season. It was the 3rd season that turned into Batman. The 4th was the failed attempt to fix that.
Funny thing is I've always thought Armie Hammer should be Superman and Cavill Batman. Cavill's a fine Superman but, as evinced by this trailer, he really does have a way with the suave Playboy persona that would have been perfect as Bruce Wayne. Hammer, OTOH, always seems a little like a big boy scout even when (as in "the Social Network") he's playing a bad guy.
Thanks for posting that. I'd seen the big 5min version but not that one. So are you agreeing or disagreeing with the review? Let's face it, the spy film genre as a whole is not "deep". It's an action sub-genre: fast cars cool gadgets and hot women. Question for anyone who has actually seen it: do we get the theme in the movie itself?
I'm hoping to see this over the weekend. I'm just hoping for something fun and with a sense of style and touch of retro feel to it. I thought it amusing that one review I read likened the film to something like a Roger Moore Bond film. Cute.
At one point in The Return of the Man from U.N.C.L.E.: The Fifteen Years Later Affair, our heroes are assisted by a debonair spy who's played by George Lazenby and who drives a gadget-laden Aston Martin with the license plate "JB." It was as close to a James Bond cameo as the movie was legally able to make it. (As it happened, 1983 also featured Roger Moore in Octopussy and Sean Connery in Never Say Never Again. So essentially all three Bond actors reprised the role in the same year.)
This was after "Napoleon Solo" appears in Goldfinger (played by a different actor). Ostensibly a gangster who is killed, his death is never visually confirmed, it has long been held that this was a nod to U.N.C.L.E.'s Solo, who is also an Ian Flemming creation. Wasn't saying it necessarily did...just appreciating the irony.
Not quite. There is a Mr. Solo in Goldfinger, but his first name is not given. Goldfinger's Mr. Solo was not a nod to Napoleon Solo; on the contrary, Fleming created the Goldfinger character first, and when the producers of Goldfinger found out that Fleming had reused the character name in a TV show, they sued the makers of the show (which was going to be called Ian Fleming's Solo) to stop them from using the name. The settlement let the show keep the character name Napoleon Solo, but required them to change the show's title and make no mention of Fleming's involvement.