Trailer #2 is out: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CzYRlISYE8Y
I like the first trailer better, but I'm still looking forward to this.
I like the first trailer better, but I'm still looking forward to this.
The Man From U.N.C.L.E. (2015)...
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
What the heck is that about U.N.C.L.E. being "a new code name?" It's the United Network Command for Law and Enforcement!
Then again, it sounds as if this movie might be an origin story for the agency, if that agency even exists. After all, U.N.C.L.E. was an international security organization with participation from the US, the Soviets, and multiple other nations, while this is portraying US-Soviet cooperation as new and exceptional. But in that case, it's not logical for it just to be a "code name" for a single mission.
And Illya actually having a Russian accent, instead of a slightly Russian-tinged British accent, will take some getting used to.
Then again, it sounds as if this movie might be an origin story for the agency, if that agency even exists. After all, U.N.C.L.E. was an international security organization with participation from the US, the Soviets, and multiple other nations, while this is portraying US-Soviet cooperation as new and exceptional. But in that case, it's not logical for it just to be a "code name" for a single mission.
And Illya actually having a Russian accent, instead of a slightly Russian-tinged British accent, will take some getting used to.
I'm finding it easier to see Cavill as Solo than Hammer as Kuryakin. For one thing he doesn't have the boyish haircut the original Ilya had, for what it's worth.
The first trailer had more flavour to it and was a good tease to intrigue you. The second trailer seems like an endless collection of action scenes, but without the same flavour.
And did the original Ilya ever call Napolean Solo cowboy?
The first trailer had more flavour to it and was a good tease to intrigue you. The second trailer seems like an endless collection of action scenes, but without the same flavour.
And did the original Ilya ever call Napolean Solo cowboy?
Last edited:
The more I see of this, the more I think they should have called it something else- horrible casting, but otherwise the 60s setting is a nice touch for an otherwise generic action spy movie (as X Men First Class did for superhero flicks). But totally not UNCLE.
Yeah, I'm not getting any "nostalgia" buzz like I did with the first trailer. It's beginning to look like just another run-of-the-mill, modern-day actioner.
I don't think so. It looks like the new movie is going to be yet another "we started out as rivals, but became bestest buddies" flick. A very tired plot contrivance, IMO.
I'm beginning to lose interest in this flick.
I gather that McCallum's hair was a major part of his massive appeal with female fans, along with his accent. He was touted as "the blond Beatle." And I think he was probably an influence on Gene Roddenberry's decision to add Chekov -- a Russian character with a Beatle-like haircut -- to Star Trek.
I really don't think so. He called him Napoleon, as far as I recall. But they didn't really interact that much in the second season (which is as far as I've bothered to watch). I got the sense that the actors really didn't like each other, so the writers avoided pairing them too often.
Cavill is doing a decent Robert Vaughn impression, I agree.
Although if they do use the theme, it'll probably be the Lalo Schifrin arrangement from seasons 2-4, which I find greatly inferior to the original Jerry Goldsmith version.
Much like the Mission: Impossible films. It took them until the fourth movie to make one that actually felt like Mission: Impossible.
That said, there wasn't really a lot about The Man from U.N.C.L.E. that I liked. The premise had potential, and the first season wasn't bad, but overall it was one of the most sexist and racist '60s shows I've seen. And as I remarked, the leads didn't seem to like each other, never really gelling as partners the way so many TV duos have done. And aside from that, its formula of always having an "innocent" get drawn into the cases was often very contrived in the execution, although there were times when it worked well. (I don't get the impression that the movie is following that formula, though.) It's my least favorite '60s spy series. So maybe a movie that takes only the basics and reinvents the rest won't be a bad thing.
I'm inclined to agree. I tried watching some episodes (from first season) awhile back and it just didn't really work for me after all these decades. So it's possible that a reworking of the whole thing could turn out decently enough.
For me it's similar to rebooting Lost In Space and Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea--there are decent enugh concepts there that could be executed better than the originals.
Last edited:
The UNCLE movie looks like it'll be a great, fun, ride.
Interesting. Maybe the first one didn't test well or something. It's hard to get any feeling out of all the fast cuts and explosions. I'm still optimistic about it, though. It's the 60s, it's sexy, and that guy is not afraid to channel Robert Vaughn.
Which is increasingly the standard for trailers. Some trailers are even giving away plot twists that the filmmakers intended as surprises, specifically How to Train Your Dragon 2 and Terminator: Genisys.
As I've said elsewhere here-flaws with the original show and all as noted by you, Christopher-I wish that this movie was set now and not in the '60's: it seems (to me) to be doing this just to appeal to the aging rabid fanbase and because the writers probably can't figure out how UNCLE would exist in the 2010's. The original show was set in the present day (1964); why is this movie version set in the past? It would be like having set the original series back in the 1930's (which at the time was undergoing a nostalgia binge for the 20's and '30's, in particular the pulp magazine characters of the time whose adventures were being reprinted in paperback form.)
Oh well, I might see the movie, although I'd rather see it for free on the big screen.
^I'm sorry, but again, I disagree. I think that an U.N.C.L.E. reboot (both Man & Girl) set today would would work just as well as the other movies mentioned with the above-mentioned characters you named that are already out. I don't see the (IMHO) silly need to retroize everything that's going on today (heck, the people of the past believed in the future-now all that we do is wish to go back to the past?) Remaking something like this old TV show is one thing-setting it in the past because of a lack of imagination as how to make it work today is another.
Some concepts just belong in the time period where they were originally set. The Lone Ranger belongs in the Old West, the Shadow belongs in the 30s, and Napoleon Solo belongs in the 60s. I wish they did this sort of thing more often. It shows respect for the source material.
Similar threads
