It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Wow..that's a lot..I thought it was made for less money....
This means the movie must make around 200m worldwide to be decent....and with 13.5 oppening... :/
This movie depends on the rest of the world..
And seeing as "Straight Outta Compton" does not have a that wide of a release in the rest of the world..it might end up making...well idk hopefully around 100m worldwide ?
What do movies usually make in UK ?
If you look at the Mission Impossible films they didn't ditch the source material, they just updated & kept true to the original, the fuse, the signature tune, the masks, the self destructing mission instructions, check, check & check again.
Sorry I loved the original series & this though not as bad as I first feared, is sin of sin's instantly forgetable.
Roll on SPECTRE!
$13.5 million is the estimate that came out before noon ET.
Style-wise it's really very much like the TV Series. I'm glad I saw it in cinema. If you have time read my review on page 45.
:P
Ooowh, let me weigh in on this. I'm the first one admitting I was completely, dead-wrong about it :-). Let's see if it can make the $200 Million worldwide.
;))
I guess it's hard to......discuss in a positive way about the film. It'll be only "it's a flop!" talk from now on. Film didn't deserve that.
Yup, I think it'll be more in line with this film:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=jackryan.htm
But let's face it Daniel Craig was horribly miscast for that movie and he was very unconvincing.
Alexander Skarsgård should have been cast or Joel Kinnaman.
Good job you weren't directing the film. The Vesper scene is perfectly executed by Arnold. If someone cares to put this track over the Vesper death it will show how badly it would work.
However a $13m opening during the summer for a potential franchise film is a complete and utter disaster for Warner Bros. In comparison their 1998 film The Avengers (also based on a 1960s TV show) actually had a higher screen average on its opening weekend way back in 1998!
More people went to see THE AVENGERS (1998) than The Man From U.N.C.L.E !!
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=1998&wknd=33&p=.htm
Unless U.N.C.L.E makes serious coin overseas there is no way that a sequel will see the light of day.
I'm quite sad really. The movie doesn't deserve to be a complete flop. I saw it last Friday in cinema, and although not as exciting as "Rogue Nation" (see my review on the previous page), I thought it was worth the money.
It's also quite interesting to see that now, because it's a flop, people start throwing each other with bad reviews....from Cinemascore, Metastatic, Boxofficemojo and IMDB. It's as if the tag "flop" invites people to be a disaster tourist.
And when people referring to the good reviews of "Skyfall", they were flushing those reviews down the toilet. As if we dislike it being told that "Skyfall" was that good.
true - i very enjoyed Watchmen, and that was considered a bomb... The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo was similar in that regard, to a degree..
where films like those differ from The Man From U.N.C.L.E, is that this film was met with only a "meh, it's ok." sort of reaction - with the general consensus being that it's more style over substance..
but you are right - box office returns only really matter (as a fan) when your talking about possible sequels, which as it stands right now, I don't think this film will be getting one at all - unless it does remarkably overseas, but getting off to only a $13mil start it's opening weekend doesn't bode well... because critic opinions aside, nothing makes or breaks a film faster than word of mouth from the average movie goer - and if they are echoing the same sentiments of the critics, more people might be inclined to pass on it...
btw - isn't funny that a film that evokes the name of James Bond in it's television advertisements (ie: This film does it better than Bond), it usually doesn't pan out too well? lol
I have no idea though, @GustavGraves, where there's supposed to be any musical qualification for Bond in this film. I thought the bits that sounded like Morricone worked well, the rest was ok but not great. The Ocean's Eleven-like rare-groove funky bits felt between appropriate and obtrusive.
All in all, I didn't see any special resemblance to Bond. It reminded me neither of any 60s Bond film nor of any later ones. So IMO it is quite out of the place to compare the two.
Quite right @Cowley. Next to U.N.C.L.E. , SPOOKS was a masterpiece. That said, it wasn't good enough to warrant a cinema release. If I'd viewed it on TV, I'd have been quite happy but cinema no.
The best spy release this year has been, without doubt, BBC's 'The Game'. I truly hope that get's a second series.