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
I was just wondering. If I wouldn't go regularly to a movie theater I could imagine more interesting things than going to see a film by a director I'm not particularly fond of fail.
First impressions - very stylish and highly enjoyable caper. It accomplished what it set out to do imho.
Standout for me (relatively speaking) was Henry Cavill. He was more interesting to watch here, and more charismatic than I've seen him before. To be quite blunt, he actually demonstrated that he could act in this film. While no Robert Vaughn, he certainly held his own as Solo, and they could just as easily called this film 'SOLO' as far as I'm concerned.
Also very impressive was Alicia Vikander. A very beautiful woman and played her snobbish, somewhat standoffish character extremely well.
Less interesting for me, but certainly better than I expected, was Armie Hammer. His was a difficult role to perfect, and I wasn't quite convinced all the time, but he didn't entirely disappoint me, which for him is saying something.
The score was excellent and very inventive. However, it wasn't quite as good as I thought it would be on first listen (to extracts posted here a few weeks ago), and seemed a little 'in your face' and a bit 'dialed up' (Hans Zimmer TDKR style) to the point where it drowned out some of the dialogue in some instances. It may have just been the IMAX theatre where I watched the film, but regardless, I wasn't quite as thrilled with it as I was initially.
The film is truly beautiful to look at, and Ritchie and Co. must take credit for duplicating the era quite truthfully, and giving us a very colourful & vibrant movie. It did seem a little 'over produced' in some areas though.....almost like a glamorous music video. I'm sure that was by design, but there was a fabricated aspect to it to a degree.
I found the humour a little less successful. It seemed in some instances to be laid on a little thick......subtlety was missing somehow.....but it didn't offend. I just wished they could have been a little less obvious about it.
Plot was fine and as an origin story it worked very well. I'm looking forward to the next installments to see where they go with this. I think they've set it up nicely.
---
PS: - while this is a very good film, I'd rank it on par with Kingsman for me. Somewhat different and unique, & a set up for better things to come. It's not in any way in the same league as MI5 , which really is a superior film in many ways imho, and the best spy film of 2015 by a long shot, again imho.
The big daddy will hopefully show all the pretenders what it's all about in a few months........hopefully.
The security guy on BABYLON 5 went straight into that from being a stockbroker (you'd think he was Bruce Willis' standin to look at the guy.)
And wasn't Statham totally new to acting before Ritchie? That's the story I had heard anyway.
EDIT ADDON: Connery had training as a coffin-polisher, I think, and he sang in the chorus of SOUTH PACIFIC.
Well Formal training might improve things a lot but there are many actors who have made great careers without formal training like Leonardo Dicaprio and Jennifer Lawrence.
I dont consider Jennifer Lawrence a great actress but she has gained a lot of respect ftom the critics and has an oscar.
Actually she hasn't only said she didn't study acting but she practically once said it was stupid formal training not with those words but she said
Acting is just being a great layer, i don't remember the whole interview but on imdb there was a huge debate on what she said some called her disrespectful to the people who are formally trained.
Anyway they didn't critisze formal training but actors like Liam Neeson and anthony Hopkins have make fun of method actors which is something similar of pocking of being formally training.
Once hopkins said to prepare for a role he just reads the script, unbelivable isn't it and Mr Liam Neeson once said method acting is rant and who are most of the method actors ?
The ones who had formal training.
With the succes of Leo and Jennifer i do wonder if formal training is a snubs thing but then i remeber DDL and his great performances or Ralph Fiennes and his chilling Amon Goeth and i think formal training is good
Yeah, but my wife is a real midcentury art/furniture nut. There'd be stuff for her to look at. Only reason I saw the last TREK in the theater was because she thinks the world of Cumberbatch, though halfway through she admitted regretting coming. She's got a kind of undiagnosed immune disorder that is equal parts porphyria and lupus, though she tests negative for both, along with lots of symptoms (but only one marker) for some Mediterranean fever, so it isn't very often she can go out in the sun or anyplace with fluorescent light or non-incandescent lighting without being slathered in this zinc-heavy fullspec sunbloc, so I try to make it something she is going to really want to see.
I enjoyed it. My biggest issue with it was the complete opposite of my biggest issue with MI:5. Where in MI:5 I felt the film had too much action - just essentially one major action sequence leading into the next. This one didn't have near enough action in the middle portion of the film and tended to drag a bit (especially for a movie with a relatively straight forward plot). I really think it could've benefitted by showing the entire assault on the island instead of glossing over that sequence until Hammer & Cavill met up again and went after the bomb & girl.
Definitely enjoyed Alicia Vikander & Henry Cavill (both were very good) and the style of the movie. The '60s setting was fun, but I really don't think they did a good enough job of letting Hammer do much other than be a big Russian and didn't really develop the villains well enough. I also liked the score, but felt they didn't use it enough. Some scenes could've benefitted from a bit of music, but were oddly quiet.
Overall I'd put it at about a 7/10 overall. I really do hope it gets a sequel as a sequel wouldn't have to deal with establishing the two main characters and how they ended up working together under the UNCLE code name.
1. Stylish.
2. The score is terrific. Daniel Pemberton will soon be breaking into the elite film composers.
3. The early 60s setting worked well and made me wish EON had done this with CR, to re-set all future Bonds in a "suspended" time period.
4. I like Henry Cavill, but he is not Bond. He looks too much like Neil Diamond.
5. Jeez...the women in this film!!!
6. I'm sure someone has mentioned this already: "Count Lippe" gets beaten up in a bathroom??? LOL
Cavill is not the only one who comes from money. Armie Hammer is the great-grandson of renowned oil tycoon, philanthropist, and art collector Armand Hammer. His wealthy parents make Cavill look poor by comparison.
Interesting to hear that about both Cavill and Hammer. Now that you mention it, they do both reek of inherited family wealth. It's subtle, but can be felt.
Nobody mistakes me for Henry Cavil, however.
Is this 'lippe in the bathroom' thing (itself sounding like a wrong answer in the CLUE game) a nod to the pay toilet fight in OUR MAN FLINT, perhaps?
The Actor From W.E.A.L.T.H.
With special cameo appearance by Neil Diamond as Napoleon Solo's father: Horatio Solo.
;)
Then again, the way UNCLE always supposedly switched things up (I remember reading that in an interview with someone involved in THE FIFTEEN YEARS LATER AFFAIR), maybe it would be McCallum.
After all the negative reviews, I was pleasantly surprised. The film does have a proper sixties feel to it. It's a very nice caper with perhaps not the most complicated story, but at least one that does make sense.
I've seen people here and elsewhere complain about the way Ritchie 'explains' what just happened. However, it's a stylistic way of storytelling which is very sixties in itself, as it was often used in films and series. Only at the films' finale is it all cut in such a way that it isn't immediately obvious at what 'moment' we're watching. the editing is a bit sloppy there.
And whilst I'm complaining: the editing in the pre-final chase is a bit too fast for a film that should have that sixties feel.
Another complaint I've seen is about Solo not helping Kurilyakin in time during the boat chase. Allthough the scene is a bit too long perhaps, it's put there for laughs, and to show they're still not the best pals.
With that out of the way, praise goes to Hammer and Vikander. Both play their roles very well I think, in a nice understated way. For those complaining about Hammer beeing just the 'big Russian guy', I would say: get to know some Russians. I think he plays it very well, and often has to explain that something is 'not the Russian way'. Something that Solo doesn't seem to care about one bit. Cavill I think does a decent job, but for me Hammer and Vikander play their roles with more vervour and umph. Their chemistry is very good as well. Solo is, as his name suggests, more 'solo'.
Ritchie experiments a bit here and there too, with conversations that aren't perceptible until the explanation comes, which gives us the 'onlooker' feeling. I'm not too fond of it but it works somehow.
Without wanting to spoil more of the film for those who're still considering going: don't take it too seriously, it isn't Bond. Don't expect shedloads of action, it isn't M:I. Do expect a fun film where a lot of attention has gone to the stylistic aspects, trying to get that sixties feel. The composer does a very decent job too, allthough he misses a stroke here and there, but that shouldn't deter at all. Hammer is convincing as an introvert Russian KGB muscle man, Vikander a lovely German girl you almost instantly fall in love with. Cavill is a very good impersonator, but seeing the background of Solo, thaat fits very well. The story isn't very complicated, but then again, that isn't the main focus of the film. In the end there are far more nods to Bond then posted up here. I think the 'grape'is one, the red db5, Lippe, and even the 'race to the hotel' which has AVTAK all over it.
If you're doubting, give this film the benefit. It's fun enough to go and see. And for me, miles better then 'Kingsman'.
It's a must-see if you ask me. Also, feel free to read my review on page 45 ;-). You'll like it.
Really enjoyable movie.
Cavill was great even though his accent seemed....idk too much american i guess..
I didn't expect it to be over the top the way it was (it was slightly OTT) but it was enjoyable movie. Guy Ritchie knows how to direct a movie.
The soundtrack to the movie was brilliant! Who is "responsible" for it ? It sorta remindend me of Tarantino's movie soundtracks.
I've never seen an episode of the show but based on the movie..I'm open to viewing the show.
Sorta off topic but...Watch and learn Fantastic 4. They made a movie of characters that last had a movie about 10 years ago.....they needed 90 mins to tell their origin story..
UNCLE on another hand told backstory of the characters in the first 10 mins and the last time these characters appeared on TV was like 50 years ago almost..
Overall really enjoyable movie (y)
5 smiley faces out of 5.
I don't get this want for more action. I was happy it wasn't too much, as it gave more room for the story to be told and the characters themselves. More action wouldn't have added anything at all imo.
Why do you think that?
If BB likes Cavill in UNCLE as she has liked Craig in Layer Cake she will undoubtably cast Cavill as Bond and if it's the last thing she's doing.
Yes that origin story virus that is plaguing Hollywood since Batman Begins has long overstayed its welcome.
It was ok for Batsy, Star Trek and Casino Royale but now it is getting tiring and awkward.
Ah, but that's something else entirely. I think this is better then an 'origin' story in something that's been running with regular intervals. There hasn't been anything UNCLE as far as I'm aware of for about 40 years. So, starting afresh after 40 years and then keep on going, helps prevent an 'origin' story later on, like Star Trek, Wars etc.