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
It had very good reviews, and was somehow one of the first use of the Internet to the build-up for the marketing. Yes, there was the Internet in 1996 :) In France, with French actors and De Palma who is a bit a cult director here, it even had very, very good reviews. (And well, the movie delivered for the first 90 minutes or so !)
It was very different for the second one.
Absolutely, MI:1 got very good reviews. I'm just pointing out that the majority of those reviews on RT were not from 1996 but 2001 onwards. Yes, the internet was available back in 96 but the majority of those reviews on RT were not was the point I was trying to make.
I enjoyed the man from UNCLE more than MI:RN
Hammer were planks of wood. At times Napoleon Solo came across as
a bit of a Dick. It was all just a mess.
If Guy Ritchie got a Bond he'd have Tanner team up with 007 as a double act,
With both agents not getting along, until they Bond over a moment of peril.
Sadly there are only so many times you can remake Sherlock Holmes. ;)
What did you think of the original series?
The film now has Napoleon being a thief who's blackmailed to work for the US.
Maybe the film was made for a new generation ( not old guys, like me) but they have left out so much of what made the original show so successful, you'd wonder why they even used the name Uncle in the title.
Maybe, I'm so annoyed as I was so looking forward to this film. I so wanted to like it, but sadly it was not for me.
I no expert on the series but I did have annuals, toy cars and posters etc, so it is part of my childhood, probably why I'm so disappointed in the film, although perhaps for younger viewers it was a great film and they're hoping for another.
I was just adding first hand testimony (even though I'll admit 20 years memory is not that reliable !). I'm afraid I can't correct Mr Statistics anymore when he's dead wrong, because then the thread turns into a gastroenterology handbook that's a pain for everyone, so I just add weight to those who try to correct him now with such weird concepts like putting things in context :)
I was a big fan of the tv show as well.
I didn't dislike the film at all, but it didn't resonate with me at all either. It just went through the motions, very stylishly, but there wasn't really anything to connect me with the past (and nostalgia is a big thing when one is trying to remake something imho) except the names of the lead characters.
I've been pondering why this film has not caught on with the public (many are suggesting it is only on account of the release date.....while that was certainly a factor, the thrashing it's received is on account of more imho....) and you may have captured much of the reason in your comments, along with @chrisisall, who suggested that they should have included the famous theme music in the trailers and in the film.
a fantastic modern interpretation, as it does help. Watching MI5 at the start
When Tom does his " Mission Impossible " stuff and the theme starts to play,
The hairs on the back of my neck stand up, it's a thrill.
Totally agreed. The best thing I've felt all year in the theatre (and that includes seeing the TRex again).
It's ok, @Suivez_ce_parachute, I'm totally onboard with the majority of your posts. I was just trying to clear up any misunderstanding, if there was any.
By the way, I've just seen SPL 2: A Time for Consequences and it's easily the best action movie I've seen this year. Now that really is a movie to see on the big screen and own on blu-ray. Knocks this Uncle drivel into a cocked hat, and then some.
As always SF has been a bigger than the movie is worth, in my humble opinion CR is far better and had less of BO than SF which was a average to poor movie with great cinematic moments (visually that is). James Cameron has with two movies in a row shown that he knows what the audiences want and the movies could not be different. The Bond franchise has generally been a good performer at the BO but so far SF has been with its major BO a one off. We'll see how its sequel performs at the BO and I am actually curious if they managed to give us a better story but then again that should not be too difficult with all the plotholes from SF.
I vehemently agree. Though, I wouldn't regard SF being a poor movie I do agree that it's definitely average.
100% agree.
CR is the benchmark of the Craig era. Difficult to beat imho, and they've been somewhat downhill (either in direction as in QoS or in plot as in SF) since. Bond in particular was not as well developed or rounded a character in either QoS or SF compared to CR (ironically where he was just a rookie).
Looking forward to SP and hope they can recapture the magic of CR.
Casino Royale is simply one of the great "near perfect" Bond movies. Without the reboot nonsense that was done wrong (imo) (gun-barrel, old M, abandoning iconic Bond features) CR even would be my No 1 instead of No 4. Craig proved that he was able to be Bond.
QOS is a mess from start to finish and I don't think I need once more to explain that in detail.
Skyfall was a big letdown for me in 2012, but mainly because of some big flaws that ruined the viewing experience for me (Q, over-the-top Silva, plot holes as big a crater, flashlight incident).
After nearly 3 years I have overcome those prejudices I build up against it and realised that Skyfall is Top 10 material after all.
Again SF, like CR, could have been the best Bond ever without those flaws. Where it doesn't matter much, as I said with CR, I feel with SF it is a great opportunity missed, that's why I'm always critical about SF, it should have been better.
I have a good feeling about Spectre. Even with the same writer's I think the overall experience will make potential plot holes appear less grave than they are in SF.
Spectre already feels like one of those "the sum is better than the parts" movies which is a good thing imo.
I have high hopes for Spectre to be the other strong bookend for the Craig-era.
Here's hoping. I remember an interview that Mendes have a while back during the early stages of preproduction for SP and he was talking about how he went to see whatever play Craig was doing and he was immediately reminded just how incredible and captivating an actor Craig is and that he wants to bring that level of material that really allows Craig to utilise his talents to really perform for the next Bond movie.
I hope Mendes has followed through with that because as you rightfully said, CR is the benchmark of Craig's outings as Bond and I really hope SP can surpass or at least be on par with it.
That is indeed very promising to hear.
The play in question was 'Betrayal' on Broadway. I had the pleasure of seeing it in 2013, and Craig was indeed absolutely magnificent in it. Intense as ever. I was in awe at his performance. The long standing ovation at the end was really for him.
That's great. Bodes very well.
That's not only a statement, it's a fact.
Ah ok. Good; fingers crossed we get powerhouse performances.
I havent seen Tomorrowland but if it failed fir that reason, then im gonna be very sad. Its unbelivable people just have such a hard time watching new or different stuff.
That leaves truly creative people without a Job
This is the Batman '66 version of Batman (drawn to resemble the style of that television show) as opposed to the main Batman. DC also has been publishing Wonder Woman '77 (to resemble the 1970s show) and a Superman comic based on the 1950s series.