The Man From U.N.C.L.E. (2015) (1 Viewer)

[Malcolm R]

And only $12 million from 20+ foreign territories. Doesn't seem to bode well for continuing the franchise.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Wow, I had not seen the foreign just the domestic...that's terrible.

 

[SilverWook]

Yes, I think the idea of making television shows into movies plays on the nostalgia factor and so it would make more sense that Hollywood would now be mining television of the 1980s...but if you look at 80s TV it is a swamp of cop shows, bad shows and nighttime soaps that really don't seem to be intriguing prospects for films. I mean they have hit on the 1980s genre shows already which were so bad as shows they made for lousy movies too (Knight Rider, The A Team, and MacGyver, anybody?) . So what are they going to do Dynasty the Movie, The Golden Girls, Moonlighting, Who's the Boss?, Facts of Life The Movie? I mean there's not anything there to work with.


They could do a Cosby Show movie where dad is actually a serial rapist and have a cop played by Christian Bale hunting him down while the family is oblivious to the whole situation.

When was there a MacGyver or Knight Rider theatrical movie?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I don't think that's going to happen now.


Funny, it had good reviews, a lot of good comments online, I suppose the public at large just didn't want to see it.

I was kinda sorta interested in it, but only to a point. I haven't seen many Guy Ritchie films, but I disliked all the ones I did, so even with the trailer looking okay, that was a question mark in my head. I don't dislike the lead actors but I wouldn't call myself a big fan of either of them, so they weren't a draw to me. There was nothing about the trailer that screamed out "go see this on the big screen now!" to me - it looked more like a "probably not a bad way to spend the night next time I'm renting something" type of movie.


I hate how quickly movies come and go from theaters these days. The comments on HTF about this movie are doing more to make me interested in seeing it than any of the trailers or posters or TV commercials that I saw. But I've got a busy schedule the next couple weeks and I don't think I'll make it out anytime before then, and I wouldn't be shocked if it's gone or not playing on the best screens by then. Then it becomes a question of, is it worth spending $15 a ticket to see it on a crappy screen when i can wait an extra month or two and see it at home for that price or less?


And I also feel like I've seen a lot of action movies this summer and a lot of remakes/reboots/adaptations, and I'm starting to crave something different. If this had come out in January when everything else is arty Oscar bait, or another dead time of the year, instead of right on top of Mission: Impossible 5, I feel like I might have been more likely to see it. That was kinda the story with "The Lego Movie" and me - I saw that in theaters cause it came out in February and there really wasn't much else to see. If that had come out during the summer in the middle of all the other Disney, Pixar and Dreamworks movies, I probably would have missed it.

 

[Sam Favate]

I saw this today, in what I figured would be an empty theater. It had about 10 people -- not bad for a local theater (4 screens) at 11:45 in the morning. I thought the movie was terrific - really just a lot of fun and for the most part, really capturing the rhythm of the TV show.


Cavill was good as Solo, and proved that - his other roles notwithstanding - he can smile and show a wry sense of humor. Hugh Grant was very good as Waverly, and Alicia Vikander was a delight as Gabby. Elizabeth Debicki was also very charming, and oozed a certain menace. Armie Hammer certainly had his moments as Ilya, but I'm afraid I didn't care for the way that part was written. Ilya on TV was always cool and a lot of great one-liners; movie Ilya was a frustrated soul, and could barely contain his anger. (Example of a great line from TV: Napoleon calls Ilya for help on a case and says "Ilya, are you free?" Ilya responds, saying "No man is free who works for living. But, yes, I will help you.") If I had one complaint, it's that Ilya wasn't as cool as he should have been.


I loved the sense of style the movie had - big credit to Guy Ritchie for that. The period look, the clothes and the music all set the mood. I also liked that - even in a torture sequence - the movie never descended into sadism, like so many movies do. (Even the fucking previews were sadistic - that Julia Roberts movie about the revenge of her daughter? Please.) If I had a second complaint, I'd say that occasionally, the music took over a scene while the camera lingered, like Pulp Fiction.


I really liked that the ending wasn't a huge action set piece, and instead relied on Solo's words. He didn't overpower the bad guys, he outsmarted them, just as Robert Vaughn's character often did.


Yeah, I know it had a lousy opening weekend, and Warners obviously didn't think much of it, releasing it at the end of summer. But the movie could still find its audience on cable/Netflix/DVD/whatever. And it should - this is terrific entertainment, taking the best of the 1960s James Bond films, dressing it up in Mad Men fashion, and updating it just enough for modern audiences.


I hope we do get to see a sequel.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I watched it today and loved it! The small audience I viewed it with seem to have a good time with the humor of the film. Another enjoyable summer movie.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I forgot, I really dug the soundtrack. Hearing Roberta Flack's version of "Compared to What" again really got me in the mood. However, the only problem is her version of the song didn't come out until 1969, which is later than when the film took place.

 

[Wayne_j]

I saw this today. I enjoyed it, but it was my least favorite of the four spy movies so far this year.

 

[Edwin-S]

Saw this on Tuesday, cheap movie night at the theatre. Overall, I thought it was an okay spy flick. The film wasn't entirely engaging me, because half way through the film my butt started getting sore from the crappy seats in our local theatre. When that happens I know a film isn't really grabbing me. The pacing in the first half of the film dragged a bit as the chess pieces on the board were setup. I found it noticeably improved in pacing and interest once

Spoiler

the Gabby character blew Solo's and Kuryakin's cover. The film got better once they started working together, instead of at odds.

All of the supporting cast in the film were pretty good. I thought both main male leads did a yeoman job of playing their parts, but I thought that Hammer was slightly better than Cavill, even if he did have a cheesy Russian accent. Too bad they played him as a borderline psychopath; however, doing that did lend itself to some humorous bits like the bathroom scene. Personally, I felt that Cavill's best scene was the conversation with Victoria at the climax of the movie.


Frankly, the thing I liked best about this flick was the soundtrack. I thought that it was great. Sometimes I'm not sure the music really fit the scene, especially the Morricone piece, but it certainly felt like a refreshing change from the bombastic symphonic wall-to-wall soundtracks that have become a staple of Hollywood movies. Ritchie is second only to Tarantino in using unusual music selections in his films. The other thing that was good was some of the touches that Ritchie threw in like Solo's snack scene. It really didn't do anything to move the film forward, but it was one of the more inspired scenes in the film, at least to me. The effect with the truck near the end of the scene was kind of cheesy and terrible looking though.


All-in-all, I thought the film was a decent throwback to 60s spy flicks, albeit with an uneven pacing.


T

 

[Steve Christou]

I went to see The Man from UNCLE last night, it was okay, entertaining enough. It suffers in comparison to the action-packed stunt-laden MI-5 which I watched a couple of weeks ago. There is plenty of spying but not much action in UNCLE, it's basically a 2 hour introduction for our two heroes who don't really like each other much. And it's pretty much bloodless too.


On the plus side the scenery looks great, the two leads are pretty and so are the girls. Henry 'Superman' Cavill looks like he's screen testing for Bond, James Bond and Armie 'Lone Ranger' Hammer surprisingly effective as a borderline psychotic action hero, Star Trek's Chekov would be proud of his Russkie accent, though mercifully he doesn't say "nuclear wessels".


The film is set in the 60's and kudos to the cinematographer for making it look like it was shot in the 60's and I also liked the Morricone-esque soundtrack.


I'm pretty sure the second one, if there is a second one, will be a lot better


3 out of 5

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I saw it at the drive-in last Sunday, the first half of a spy-night double-bill with M:I-5, and really enjoyed it. The style and editing and plotting all worked for me. Daniel Pemberton's score was terrific. Henry Cavill and Armie Hammer did what was asked of them in the dual leads, but Alicia Vikander was unquestionably the dominant talent in the picture. If Ex Machina announced that she was someone to watch, this film declared that a star has been born. She deserves to start headlining pictures.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I would like to see this get a sequel. I like that it is set in the 1960s and that, to me anyway, makes it a lot of fun and more interesting to watch. I also really feel like this needs a sequel because all the first film does is set up the creation of U.N.C.L.E. and set up their first real mission under that banner. So really this film exists to set up the next "episode."


I'm sure it will be easy enough to get Cavill and Hammer back for episode 2 but I would imagine Vikander may be fielding a lot of offers for her services. Also in episode 2 I think they have room to really expand Hugh Grant's part which I think would be a very good thing.


I also agree with the idea that this would have been better off not being a summer release. I think had this film been released in February or March it would have found a larger audience more easily. It may be a long shot now that a sequel gets made but if they do make one I would release it early in the year rather than summer.

 

[TravisR]

I also agree with the idea that this would have been better off not being a summer release. I think had this film been released in February or March it would have found a larger audience more easily. It may be a long shot now that a sequel gets made but if they do make one I would release it early in the year rather than summer.

Yeah, I really doubt Kingsman would have done as well if it had opened in August but in February, it was a hit.


This movie was fun so I'd definitely watch a sequel.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I would like to see this get a sequel. I like that it is set in the 1960s and that, to me anyway, makes it a lot of fun and more interesting to watch. I also really feel like this needs a sequel because all the first film does is set up the creation of U.N.C.L.E. and set up their first real mission under that banner. So really this film exists to set up the next "episode."


I'm sure it will be easy enough to get Cavill and Hammer back for episode 2 but I would imagine Vikander may be fielding a lot of offers for her services. Also in episode 2 I think they have room to really expand Hugh Grant's part which I think would be a very good thing.


I also agree with the idea that this would have been better off not being a summer release. I think had this film been released in February or March it would have found a larger audience more easily. It may be a long shot now that a sequel gets made but if they do make one I would release it early in the year rather than summer.

She's in the next Jason Bourne film with Matt Damon. I can't wait for that film.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Yeah, I really doubt Kingsman would have done as well if it had opened in August but in February, it was a hit.

"Kingsman" was vastly more entertaining than "Man From UNCLE".


Like Patrick Sun, I thought this was decidedly mediocre. It had all the components it needed to be fun, but it never got there. The leads were ordinary and they had no chemistry.


The movie still kept my interest to a reasonable degree, but it never became especially engaging...

 

[TravisR]

"Kingsman" was vastly more entertaining than "Man From UNCLE".

They're very different movies but my point was that timing is important and a movie that is a hit at one time might have done much worse if it was released at a different time.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

They're very different movies but my point was that timing is important and a movie that is a hit at one time might have done much worse if it was released at a different time.

I agree about timing but still think that quality wins out most of the time. I think the "Kingsman" would've found an audience no matter what.


Not sure why you regard February as a better release time for movies like this than August, though. Neither is optimal...

 

[DavidMiller]

I thought it was real boring... It wasn't even as good as the early James Bond flicks it was trying to mimic. No Escape however was excellent.

 

[TravisR]

I agree about timing but still think that quality wins out most of the time. I think the "Kingsman" would've found an audience no matter what.


Not sure why you regard February as a better release time for movies like this than August, though. Neither is optimal...

I think people are summer movie-ed out by August (though that's obviously not a rule- Guardians Of The Galaxy). And for what it's worth, I'm not saying that Kingsman would have bombed in August but I do think it did better in February because it was an action movie when there hadn't been one for a while. If it was released in August, it would have been yet another actioner at a time when there has been one almost every week for the last three months.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I think people are summer movie-ed out by August (though that's obviously not a rule- Guardians Of The Galaxy). And for what it's worth, I'm not saying that Kingsman would have bombed in August but I do think it did better in February because it was an action movie when there hadn't been one for a while. If it was released in August, it would have been yet another actioner at a time when there has been one almost every week for the last three months.

Could be. I think "UNCLE" sputtered at the box office less because of release date and more because it was a reboot of a TV series its target audience never heard of and it lacked any form of star power.


If you're going to bring back a mostly forgotten property, you need a star involved - and even that's no guarantee,. as "Dark Shadows" proved...