The Man From U.N.C.L.E. (2015)...

[Warped9]

Checked this out on Friday. I thought it was a stylish movie, with a nice soundtrack, but kind of breezy, not a lot of weight behind it.

Which puts it essentially in line with the original series.

At the beginning of the film it took me a little while to get Robert Vaughan's face out of my head as Solo, but after it bit I got into it. Same with Kuryakin.

...not enough big action, not enough sexiness, not enough wit to leave me, at least wanting more.

I didn't have a problem with it, but I could see where the film could fly in the face of the expectations of a contemporary audience. Today's action films are ramped up on action and other attributes. I liked TMFU because it dialed things back a bit to somewhat more credible levels. In this it felt a bit more old school and I welcomed that.

 

[Phantom]

Has there been any talk yet about weekend results? How is it doing?

 

[Gaith]

Has there been any talk yet about weekend results? How is it doing?

Not well at all; with a 13.5m opening, it got beat by Mission: Impossible's third week, and both came in behind Straight Outta Compton. That's almost certainly another stillborn franchise for Mr. Hammer...

 

[Warped9]

A damned shame really because I quite like the film.

But I can see why it might not connect. It's not hyperactive, over loud and over-the-top like conventional actions films. And it hasn't got any big names like Tom Cruise.

I'm something of the opposite and simply don't care for any of Cruise's M:I films. Yet thats what the audience is lapping up.

 

[Christopher]

^Including Tom Cruise is hardly a guarantor of box-office success. Look at Edge of Tomorrow, which got critical acclaim but did poorly in theaters, or Oblivion, which got mediocre reviews and ticket sales (though it did better overseas).

 

[Warped9]

If studios knew the formula for success they'd be putting out winners pretty much every weekend. But making films is very much a hit-and-miss exercise with so many people and so many variables involved.

Marketing plays a key role, too. From the get-go the M:I films were marketed as basically high-octane blow-em-up-real-good movies which a lot of folks are drawn to. Superhero films are also, by their nature, larger than life and exaggerrated spectacles. I don't mean this as an overall put-down because I also have enjoyed some of those films, but it is something that has broad appeal and is broadly accessible for a lot of people.

Nostalgia could play a role here for good or ill. Some folks might give this a chance because they enjoyed the original. Others might not give it a chance for the very same reason because they're cynical about reboots in general. Speaking for myself I've fallen into both groups at different times--I have enjoyed some reboots while also thoroughly disliking others.

Those too young to recall or to ever have seen the original series are a gamble. The first trailer did decently evoke the film we actually got, but later trailers played up the action so they were actually misleading in not being truly representative of the actual film as a whole.

While I was watching the new TMFU I did have the occasional thought that as done it could possibly work well on television simply because TV tends to be somewhat more low key.


I'm hoping that word of mouth plays a role here in boosting some ticket sales. I know I've shared my views on the film on other sites as well as on FB and with friends and acquaintances. I'd like to see a sequel because I appreciate some of the thinking that went into this movie.

 

[Jedi_Master]

I saw TMFU Saturday evening and I was pleasantly surprised. By this point we all know what to expect from a Guy Ritchie film (lots of musical montages, some cleverly composed and edited actions scenes, some witty repartee' from the male leads, etc) but this film felt very much like an early 70's Bond film with a few extra characters. It was well constructed, the plot was easy to follow without being paper thin, the action was not overdone, the characters were engaging without being too intense, the settings were dramatic and beautiful, it was a very, very good film, and it is a shame it has not gotten more attention thanks to the social media steamroller that is S.O.C.

The scene in the latter half of the film that pits one of the heroes against a sinister villain was surprisingly intense, unsettling, and well done. It was rather excellent scene, and yet was ended on a light note.

The only small complaint I have is that the main female villain was rather forgettable, and although the plot repeatedly mentioned that she was a ruthless, dangerous, seductive fanatic - none of those labels seemed to apply. She was imminently forgettable, and that's a shame.

 

[Gaith]

@Christopher, the studio might have hoped for more, but Edge of Tomorrow did fine in domestic theaters - 100m for a drab-looking sci-fi war movie is hardly a trainwreck.


Anthony Lane, The New Yorker:

Why make a film of “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.”? Who at Warner Bros. flicked the switch when the project got the green light? The demographics do not bode well. Teen-agers at the multiplex, knowing nothing of the TV show, which ran from 1964 to 1968, will glance at the title and go blank. Those of us who do recall the original will brace ourselves for a travesty. We have suffered through movies based on “Bewitched,” “Get Smart,” “Charlie’s Angels,” “Scooby-Doo,” and “The Flintstones,” so why should the alchemy work now? One answer, I guess, is “Mission: Impossible”—the brand that will not die. That alone gives hope to studio executives, convincing them that there is no straw, however flimsy or antique, that cannot be spun into gold.
​

I definitely agree that that title probably wasn't at all appealing to the younger crowd..."What's 'UNCLE'?", they'd ask. "And aren't there two men?"

 

[Jedi_Master]

UNCLE would be more appealing if it hadn't gone against a film guaranteed to collect the "youth" audience - Straight Outta Compton.

It will make up its budget over time, but it may not make enough of an impact to garner a sequel, which is a shame.

 

[DarKush]

@Christopher, the studio might have hoped for more, but Edge of Tomorrow did fine in domestic theaters - 100m for a drab-looking sci-fi war movie is hardly a trainwreck.


Anthony Lane, The New Yorker:

Why make a film of “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.”? Who at Warner Bros. flicked the switch when the project got the green light? The demographics do not bode well. Teen-agers at the multiplex, knowing nothing of the TV show, which ran from 1964 to 1968, will glance at the title and go blank. Those of us who do recall the original will brace ourselves for a travesty. We have suffered through movies based on “Bewitched,” “Get Smart,” “Charlie’s Angels,” “Scooby-Doo,” and “The Flintstones,” so why should the alchemy work now? One answer, I guess, is “Mission: Impossible”—the brand that will not die. That alone gives hope to studio executives, convincing them that there is no straw, however flimsy or antique, that cannot be spun into gold.
​

I definitely agree that that title probably wasn't at all appealing to the younger crowd..."What's 'UNCLE'?", they'd ask. "And aren't there two men?"

I thought Lane's article was pretty good. Yeah, UNCLE is a tough sale, but Mission Impossible did make it work, and Bond is still going. However both of those are contemporary stories. As much as the period drama aspect made UNCLE stand apart I also have to wonder if it also led to some moviegoers skipping it. Plus there was no big star that would get skeptical fans to plunk down their money to see it.

 

[DarKush]

If studios knew the formula for success they'd be putting out winners pretty much every weekend. But making films is very much a hit-and-miss exercise with so many people and so many variables involved.

Marketing plays a key role, too. From the get-go the M:I films were marketed as basically high-octane blow-em-up-real-good movies which a lot of folks are drawn to. Superhero films are also, by their nature, larger than life and exaggerrated spectacles. I don't mean this as an overall put-down because I also have enjoyed some of those films, but it is something that has broad appeal and is broadly accessible for a lot of people.

Nostalgia could play a role here for good or ill. Some folks might give this a chance because they enjoyed the original. Others might not give it a chance for the very same reason because they're cynical about reboots in general. Speaking for myself I've fallen into both groups at different times--I have enjoyed some reboots while also thoroughly disliking others.

Those too young to recall or to ever have seen the original series are a gamble. The first trailer did decently evoke the film we actually got, but later trailers played up the action so they were actually misleading in not being truly representative of the actual film as a whole.

While I was watching the new TMFU I did have the occasional thought that as done it could possibly work well on television simply because TV tends to be somewhat more low key.


I'm hoping that word of mouth plays a role here in boosting some ticket sales. I know I've shared my views on the film on other sites as well as on FB and with friends and acquaintances. I'd like to see a sequel because I appreciate some of the thinking that went into this movie.

That's an interesting idea about having this revived version of TMFU on TV. I mean if they could keep the high production values that might have been a way to go. Still I would've wanted more action and sexing it up.

 

[Phantom]

I definitely agree that that title probably wasn't at all appealing to the younger crowd..."What's 'UNCLE'?", they'd ask. "And aren't there two men?"

I weep for today's youth...

 

[Warped9]

I definitely agree that that title probably wasn't at all appealing to the younger crowd..."What's 'UNCLE'?", they'd ask. "And aren't there two men?"

I weep for today's youth...

I hear you.

 

[Gaith]

I definitely agree that that title probably wasn't at all appealing to the younger crowd..."What's 'UNCLE'?", they'd ask. "And aren't there two men?"

I weep for today's youth...

Because they haven't heard of a mediocre TV show from the '60s? Save your tears, man.

 

[Warped9]

I definitely agree that that title probably wasn't at all appealing to the younger crowd..."What's 'UNCLE'?", they'd ask. "And aren't there two men?"

I weep for today's youth...

Because they haven't heard of a mediocre TV show from the '60s? Save your tears, man.

I don't think thats what he was referring to.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

It's too bad that it's not doing terribly well, as I enjoyed it quite a bit and I would've been game for a sequel. And I really loved the original TMFU (at least the B&W season one episodes).

It's a shame. It seems like whenever I actually like one of these cinematic TV reboots, it flops and never gets a sequel. The A-Team was the same way. That was a fun film that I would've liked to see more of.

 

[Phantom]

I definitely agree that that title probably wasn't at all appealing to the younger crowd..."What's 'UNCLE'?", they'd ask. "And aren't there two men?"

I weep for today's youth...

Because they haven't heard of a mediocre TV show from the '60s? Save your tears, man.

Not that they hadn't heard of the show, but that people today could be so literal-minded that they would ask those questions, not understanding how to read a title...

It's a shame. It seems like whenever I actually like one of these cinematic TV reboots, it flops and never gets a sequel. The A-Team was the same way. That was a fun film that I would've liked to see more of.

Yeah...I hear that...

 

[JonnyQuest037]

BTW, Christopher, it doesn't look like Robert Vaughn and David McCallum ever had a feud, or if they did, it was patched up long ago:

http://www.cinemaretro.com/index.php?/archives/6399-PRESS-STILL-PLAYING-UP-IMAGINARY-DAVID-MCCALLUM-ROBERT-VAUGHN-FEUD.html

I doubt that McCallum would've agreed to guest-star with Vaughn on The A-Team in 1986 if they didn't get along. I've also seen them give interviews about U.N.C.L.E. together. Personally, I thought the two actors had loads of chemistry on TMFU, but it doesn't appear that you share that opinion.

 

[Starkers]

The first trailer did decently evoke the film we actually got, but later trailers played up the action so they were actually misleading in not being truly representative of the actual film as a whole.

That's nice to hear because I really liked the first trailer. Hoping to see the film later this week and still really looking forward to it.

BTW, Christopher, it doesn't look like Robert Vaughn and David McCallum ever had a feud, or if they did, it was patched up long ago:

http://www.cinemaretro.com/index.ph...GINARY-DAVID-MCCALLUM-ROBERT-VAUGHN-FEUD.html

I doubt that McCallum would've agreed to guest-star with Vaughn on The A-Team in 1986 if they didn't get along. I've also seen them give interviews about U.N.C.L.E. together. Personally, I thought the two actors had loads of chemistry on TMFU, but it doesn't appear that you share that opinion.

I must admit I always thought they had a lot of chemistry. That said, and it has been a while since I saw it, but my recollection of the 15 years later affair is that they don't spend too much time on screen together, I remember that disappointed me at the time.

In many ways there's more than a hint of Shatner/Nimoy about the situation, one man was effectively the star but an unassuming co-star stole a lot of the limelight, maybe like Bill and Leonard there was an issue but it was sorted out a long time ago, as you say.

 

[JoeZhang]

Vaughan was interviewed in the Radio times recently and said they ring each other on their birthdays and talk on the phone - so yes odd feud!