Haven't seen it; just quoting. The only Ritchie movie I've seen is Sherlock Holmes, which was pretty crap. (Watson punching Holmes in the face over a very mild verbal slight was immensely stupid.)
The Man From U.N.C.L.E. (2015)...
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
Well I saw and enjoyed it.
The theme doesn't appear (or if it does it must have been at the very end of the credits after I had left), nor do Robert Vaughan and David McCallum appear in the film. I enjoyed the stylistic elements and the attempts to ground it in the real world of 1963 and the Cold War. With that in mind my only nitpick and I'm a plane spotter who knows this sort of thing and it was really minor is that in the final act of the film when Solo and Kuryakin find themselves aboard a British Aircraft Carrier which I believe is supposed to be HMS Hermes the aircraft on deck are Hawker Sea Hawks which had been retired by 1961 from front line service in favour of De-Havilland Sea Vixens and Supermarine Scimitars.
All true, but for me, it was nice to see the Sea Hawk. I wanted a model kit of it back when I was young, but it was hard to get hold of. Our local modelshop tended to have more kits of the Scimitar (and Attacker come to that). I had kits of both of those along with the Sea Vixens
They do mention the theme in the end credits, but it's been a longtime since I've seen any of the series so can't confirm if/where it was used.
As for the film itself, I enjoyed it.
I just got back from seeing this and I'll try to be spoiler free.
Firstly I thought it was fun, which is what I was hoping for. In a way it does feel something like a Roger Moore kind of Bond film. There is something of a retro style and charm to it that I quite liked. The action parts aren't overdone or over the top like so many contemporary action films can be. That said the more sane pacing and not-so-over-the-top action sequences might turn off someone expecting something more contemporary in style. The decent and refreshing sense of balanced pace to this I find quite welcome. Again, this isn't a conventional hyper-paced action flick.
Before I saw this I saw a number of reviews and frankly the harshest critics seem to be talking out their ass--did they see the same movie? They praised the film's positive elements even as they seemed to be damning it for not being more conventional.
This is definitely a franchise launcher as the word U.N.C.L.E. isn't mentioned until the end. This is an origin story for Solo's and Kuryakin's first adventure together and the ending is definitely a nod to a sequel. And I hope they make that sequel because I quite liked this one.
I wish we had gotten something more of the original series theme in the film. Oh, it is in there, but you really have to pay attention or you'll miss it. But I would have liked something of more substance as an acknowledgement of the original theme. Otherwise I found the scoring quite appropriate in catching the retro style of the movie.
One thing they left in the past was the misogony that ran rampant in the original series--it's nowhere to be found here.
It's near spot on for what I was hoping for with this movie. This will definitely be a BluRay purchase for me.
Firstly I thought it was fun, which is what I was hoping for. In a way it does feel something like a Roger Moore kind of Bond film. There is something of a retro style and charm to it that I quite liked. The action parts aren't overdone or over the top like so many contemporary action films can be. That said the more sane pacing and not-so-over-the-top action sequences might turn off someone expecting something more contemporary in style. The decent and refreshing sense of balanced pace to this I find quite welcome. Again, this isn't a conventional hyper-paced action flick.
Before I saw this I saw a number of reviews and frankly the harshest critics seem to be talking out their ass--did they see the same movie? They praised the film's positive elements even as they seemed to be damning it for not being more conventional.
This is definitely a franchise launcher as the word U.N.C.L.E. isn't mentioned until the end. This is an origin story for Solo's and Kuryakin's first adventure together and the ending is definitely a nod to a sequel. And I hope they make that sequel because I quite liked this one.
I wish we had gotten something more of the original series theme in the film. Oh, it is in there, but you really have to pay attention or you'll miss it. But I would have liked something of more substance as an acknowledgement of the original theme. Otherwise I found the scoring quite appropriate in catching the retro style of the movie.
One thing they left in the past was the misogony that ran rampant in the original series--it's nowhere to be found here.
It's near spot on for what I was hoping for with this movie. This will definitely be a BluRay purchase for me.
Not sure I like that. I like the idea of U.N.C.L.E. as this big international security organization, not just two guys. Although I guess maybe the idea is that the cooperation between those two spies demonstrates the value of such an organization, so they're essentially its founders?
That's good, though maybe it's a bit anachronistic. I trust it avoids the original's racism as well.
^^ I never caught a hint of racism in it.
In the end credits they have a photographic montage sequence that shows the records of Solo, Kuryakin, Waverly and Gabby and acknowledge what U.N.C.L.E. stands for, so I'd say they are most likely to establish it as an organization of more than a couple of guys. I think they might also be slipping in a Girl from U.N.C.L.E. into it without beating us over the head.
Like many franchise starters they evidently felt compelled to tell an origin story rather than just launch us into the thick of things with U.N.C.L.E. already established. I'm okay with that because I was entertained, but if it had been plodding I likely would have cried foul and delared it a waste of time.
I do like that Solo and Kuryakin appear smarter and distinctly more moral than their masters.
I agree with the reviews in that there are no real femme fatales in this. The woman play their roles effectively and there's not one comment about them being women in conventionally male roles. The main villian was played just right.
I also appreciate the lack of overt camp.
In the end credits they have a photographic montage sequence that shows the records of Solo, Kuryakin, Waverly and Gabby and acknowledge what U.N.C.L.E. stands for, so I'd say they are most likely to establish it as an organization of more than a couple of guys. I think they might also be slipping in a Girl from U.N.C.L.E. into it without beating us over the head.
Like many franchise starters they evidently felt compelled to tell an origin story rather than just launch us into the thick of things with U.N.C.L.E. already established. I'm okay with that because I was entertained, but if it had been plodding I likely would have cried foul and delared it a waste of time.
I do like that Solo and Kuryakin appear smarter and distinctly more moral than their masters.
I agree with the reviews in that there are no real femme fatales in this. The woman play their roles effectively and there's not one comment about them being women in conventionally male roles. The main villian was played just right.
I also appreciate the lack of overt camp.
Last edited:
I'm hoping for a sequel to. I have to be honest too many of these TV show to film adaptations go down the route of prequel or parody or both, Starsky & Hutch to name just one. Sometimes a prequel is necessary such as this one, but I can't help but wondering if the reason so many of these types of films don't spawn franchises is because being prequel/parodies, people who were expecting essentially an amped up feature-length version of their beloved show are thrown for a loop. When I went to the cinema it was a late afternoon/early evening showing and there were maybe 20 people in the room with me. what were the screenings like for those of you who attended?
I notice that it was established that the villainess was in league with others who remained nameless (the people whose submarine it was that rendezvoused with the boat at the end) I wonder if they're THRUSH and in any sequel they'll be established as having been created by one of Professor Moriarty's henchmen as in the series mythology, bare in mind Guy Ritchie also directed the sherlock Holmes films.
For me, it was a 10:40am showing and I'd say there were about 30ish people there.
However, we normally always try and go to the earlier showings when it's quiet (and cheaper). The only times where even the earlier showings have been packed out were for the LOTR and Star Wars films.
However, we normally always try and go to the earlier showings when it's quiet (and cheaper). The only times where even the earlier showings have been packed out were for the LOTR and Star Wars films.
Unlikely. For something like this, only a tiny fraction of the audience would even be familiar with the source material. To most viewers, this would be something entirely new -- another entry in the spy-action genre, hopefully fresh and distinct enough to hold their interest. And that's the whole point of doing adaptations of old properties like this. It's not about catering to the existing fanbase, but about using the property as source material for a film that will appeal to mainstream audiences. That's why so many screen adaptations (like Mission: Impossible or I Spy) change the source material beyond recognition in order to make it conform to modern motion picture formulas. Sometimes the actual filmmakers have enough respect for the source to do a reasonably faithful adaptation that will satisfy the existing fans as well as the mainstream audience (for instance, M:I: Ghost Protocol was immeasurably more respectful of the original series than M:I:II was), but the old-school fans are always going to be a minority of the target audience. Even a huge fandom like Star Trek's is too small to make a film profitable if it doesn't draw in more casual moviegoers, people who are just looking for something to do on a weekend or who are interested in one of the cast members or the director or whatever. And the fanbase for The Man from U.N.C.L.E. must be minuscule in comparison.
This was something I liked about TMFU--it balanced updating the materiel with a sufficient nod to the original without overdoing it. The choreography seemed a touch old school as opposed to the hyperactive style and rapid cuts used everywhere today.
In terms of characterization neither Cavill nor Hammer really channel their respective predecessors. Hugh Grant certainly doesn't channel the original Alexander Waverly or at least not that I could notice. These are somewhat updated characters yet without losing some of their original appeal.
I really liked the period setting as it seemed so appropriate to the subject matter. I've long thought a retro Bond could be interesting and this is a taste of what that could be like.
In terms of characterization neither Cavill nor Hammer really channel their respective predecessors. Hugh Grant certainly doesn't channel the original Alexander Waverly or at least not that I could notice. These are somewhat updated characters yet without losing some of their original appeal.
I really liked the period setting as it seemed so appropriate to the subject matter. I've long thought a retro Bond could be interesting and this is a taste of what that could be like.
From the trailers, it seems that Cavill is doing a fair Robert Vaughn impression, albeit a subdued one. But Illya actually having a Russian accent would take some getting used to.
I'm also glad they didn't go with including an average John or Jane Q. Public as part of the mission--that never made any sense to me--although Gabby (Alicia Vikander) would appear to fulfill that role even though she doesn't come across as helpless or out of her element.
No femme fatales? What about the tall blonde that sleeps with Solo one night and drugs and tortures him the next day?
Even Gaby sort of fits the basic definition when she throws the two leads under the bus in her conversation with her uncle. She rationalizes it, but she's still intentionally causing misfortune to befall a man she was trying to seduce earlier in the film.
Even Gaby sort of fits the basic definition when she throws the two leads under the bus in her conversation with her uncle. She rationalizes it, but she's still intentionally causing misfortune to befall a man she was trying to seduce earlier in the film.
Yeah, femme fatale is pretty much the opposite of damsel in distress. The fatale doesn't mean she's in fatal danger herself, it means she's fatal to others, generally to men. A femme fatale is a manipulative seductress, like the "bad girl" in a Bond movie, or the sexpot in a hardboiled detective story who lures the hardboiled detective into a trap. The name of the Rocky and Bullwinkle villain Natasha Fatale was a play on the term.
Well I wouldn't call Gabby a femme fatale. She didn't really seduce anyone as the attraction (such as there was) appears natural and she certainly doesn't intend anyone any harm. The Countess doesn't really seduce anyone either since neither party is unsuspecting of the other. Seduction is not really used here in a manner that leads the other party into danger or harm. The danger the characters find themselves in are not a result of being blinded by seduction. Every character in this is calculating in some manner or other and not under any real illusion of what they're facing.
A couple of other things I liked. I liked that I understood pretty much all that was said in the film. Unlike a lot of contemporary productions I found the sound mixing better where I could clearly understand the dialogue as opposed to it being muddled or obscured by overwhelming music. The second thing I liked was the physical action seemed more believable than is usual for action films. And when things get blown up it isn't overdone.
I was 5 years old when TMFU began airing in 1964. I have dim reccollections of watching some episodes with my older brother who was 12 at the time. I caught some reruns later during the late '60s and early '70s when I understood better what I was watching.
More recently I rewatched a few first season episodes and I have to say I didn't think it aged well. There were some okay elements to it, but other aspects were really dated and not in a good way. I had this in the back of my mind when watching this new reboot and found myself liking the film better than the original series.
A couple of other things I liked. I liked that I understood pretty much all that was said in the film. Unlike a lot of contemporary productions I found the sound mixing better where I could clearly understand the dialogue as opposed to it being muddled or obscured by overwhelming music. The second thing I liked was the physical action seemed more believable than is usual for action films. And when things get blown up it isn't overdone.
I was 5 years old when TMFU began airing in 1964. I have dim reccollections of watching some episodes with my older brother who was 12 at the time. I caught some reruns later during the late '60s and early '70s when I understood better what I was watching.
More recently I rewatched a few first season episodes and I have to say I didn't think it aged well. There were some okay elements to it, but other aspects were really dated and not in a good way. I had this in the back of my mind when watching this new reboot and found myself liking the film better than the original series.
Last edited:
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. The one moment that does appear weighty, downright sinister involves a scene midway through with one of the main guys in peril (don't want to do any spoilers).
The story was pretty straightforward, nothing special really. I liked Victoria but they could've given her a few more scenes. Let her dialogue a bit. Her husband was a nonentity. Gabby was alright (I kept thinking she reminded me of Nikita/Agent Carter's Lyndsey Fonseca) but I do think she did turn into something of a damsel in distress.
Overall the film rested on Cavill's shoulders to me and I don't think he delivered. I never saw the original show, but I was taking this version of Solo to be a cool, breezy, suave guy with lots of wit, charm, and quips or droll retorts and I don't think Cavill quite pulled that off. He also was a bit too bulky. It was hard for me to accept him as a master thief. In my mind I was seeing it as a thinner guy. It's like he and Hammer should've switched places. At one point they refer to Hammer's character as having a power lifter build and that puts me more in the mind of Cavill. The film also rested on the chemistry between Cavill and Hammer and I thought that was somewhat lacking too. Perhaps not because of effort, but acting and writing. Hammer was okay for me. I liked how he would just flip out, how he was like unstoppable.
I liked the 60s setting. I've wondered if the post-Craig Bond films might return to it. I think they could and it would be alright if they took visual cues from TMFU.
Overall I don't think the film had enough edge of your seat or wow moments to generate sequel or franchise buzz. All in all not a bad film. A pleasant diversion. But not enough big action, not enough sexiness, not enough wit to leave me, at least wanting more. If there was a sequel I would probably check it out, but if not, I'm okay with that.
The story was pretty straightforward, nothing special really. I liked Victoria but they could've given her a few more scenes. Let her dialogue a bit. Her husband was a nonentity. Gabby was alright (I kept thinking she reminded me of Nikita/Agent Carter's Lyndsey Fonseca) but I do think she did turn into something of a damsel in distress.
Overall the film rested on Cavill's shoulders to me and I don't think he delivered. I never saw the original show, but I was taking this version of Solo to be a cool, breezy, suave guy with lots of wit, charm, and quips or droll retorts and I don't think Cavill quite pulled that off. He also was a bit too bulky. It was hard for me to accept him as a master thief. In my mind I was seeing it as a thinner guy. It's like he and Hammer should've switched places. At one point they refer to Hammer's character as having a power lifter build and that puts me more in the mind of Cavill. The film also rested on the chemistry between Cavill and Hammer and I thought that was somewhat lacking too. Perhaps not because of effort, but acting and writing. Hammer was okay for me. I liked how he would just flip out, how he was like unstoppable.
I liked the 60s setting. I've wondered if the post-Craig Bond films might return to it. I think they could and it would be alright if they took visual cues from TMFU.
Overall I don't think the film had enough edge of your seat or wow moments to generate sequel or franchise buzz. All in all not a bad film. A pleasant diversion. But not enough big action, not enough sexiness, not enough wit to leave me, at least wanting more. If there was a sequel I would probably check it out, but if not, I'm okay with that.
Similar threads
