Skip to main content

For a special agent, you're not having a very special day, are you?

The Man from U.N.C.L.E.
(2015)

(SPOILERS) Guy Ritchie would evidently have liked to make a Bond film as much as his former producer Matthew Vaughn, and either would undoubtedly add more spark to the franchise than current darling Sam Mendes (lush cinematography or no lush cinematography). While Vaughn brokered his fandom into a patchy but violent and vibrant original earlier this year (Kingsman: The Secret Service) and won considerable box office as a result, Ritchie picked up Steven Soderbergh’s discarded menu items and went with refashioning an existing property, one he had no yearning interest in. Sometimes that shows in the result, but mostly The Man from U.N.C.L.E. is a breezy, playful exercise in period spyfare. As such, it’s a shame this looks destined to remain a one-time only outing.


Which isn’t to say there’s necessarily much else left to do with it (one can imagine desperate approaches like throwing them into the ‘70s a la Austin Powers and X-Men), but the amount of fun Ritchie has spinning his take on the mood, energy and imagery of the period is infectious. He’s since moved on to his (intended as, but let’s see how the first one does) multi-part reinvention of the legend of King Arthur (Knights of the Roundtable: King Arthur), which doesn’t bode well when descriptions of Arthur as a street kid are thrown about (it really needs to be more Excalibur than Clive Owen; this one sounds like a medieval Kingsman), but he’s surpassed my low expectations before. I’m a big fan of his two Downey Jr Sherlock Holmes (much more so than the self-glorifying Steven Moffat one that gets all the plaudits), but I wasn’t hopeful. And The Man from U.N.C.L.E. didn’t look up to much from the trailers, giving off the vibe of trying for a tone but failing to nail it. The finished film suggests more that it’s simply a difficult marketing challenge, and the tepid (at best) reception confirms it.


Spy movies may be doing well at the moment (very well, with Kingsman, Mission: Impossible 5 and SPECTRE all winners this year, the latter a sure thing), but trying to convince viewers to sign on to a big screen version of 50-year old TV show without any hook telling them why is a big ask. Mission: Impossible in 1996 had Cruise at his peak as a dangling carrot, not to mention a signature tune nearly as distinct and galvanising as Bond’s, and the attraction of now-get-out-of-that tension filled set pieces. That didn’t make it a sure thing, but it’s easy to see the pull. It was also set in the present day. It’s essential to do a Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy as a period piece, but that comes with the paraphernalia of “serious” spy genre fare (as Bridge of Spies will be later this year).


U.N.C.L.E. might have sold viewers if it had taken the Sherlock Holmes route, of transferring a kinetic, modern sensibility in a ‘60s setting, but even Ritchie’s much-loved (and to be fair, he has honed them, and does them incredibly well, though I’m not sure how they’ll surface in King Arthur – probably via Merlin’s sleight of hand) “explanation montages” are elegant and smooth rather than fast and furious. While Ritchie fully embraces the period, one can’t help feel he’s doodling here; perhaps the third Holmes film didn’t get off the ground as quickly as he hoped. Certainly, that he ended up with the property is more than might have been expected for an adaptation that has taken more than 20 years to get to screen.


While Steven Soderbergh was with it for the longest time (the deal breaker being budget, but it can’t have helped that buddy Clooney decided he was too old and injured), Tarantino was interested way back (the same retro interest that saw him suggest a period Casino Royale). Also involved at various points where Matthew Vaughn (he really wants a Bond film, doesn’t he, almost as much as Christopher Nolan wants to remake On Her Majesty’s Secret Service - although Vaughn's once presumed parentage might have been a factor) and David Dobkin (dodged a bullet there, ditto with his modern day Arthur and Lancelot). 


Warner Bros will no doubt be questioning their choice of second or third choice leading men right now (or indeed greenlighting the thing in the first place) but it’s downright baffling that anyone thought Cruise was a good idea for the picture prior to Cavill entering the frame. Firstly, he’s no longer the draw he was, but mainly what kind of confusion/lack of differentiation didn’t everyone think would occur with him playing another cheesy grinning spy in another resuscitation of a ‘60s TV show? The only mystery is that he didn’t see the futility and was actually attached for a spell (it was Rogue Nation that finally led to him ditching it).


Like me, Ritchie knew the series from ‘70s/‘80s BBC repeats. His affection doesn’t really extend beyond a “Let’s try and capture the fun of it” (it was on a list of properties Warners presented for inspection, rather than something he pursued). But he does succeed in this ambition; tonally U.N.C.L.E. exudes lightweight ’60s sophistication, with only the occasional stumble into Ritchie’s penchant for laddishness (a fellatio gag in a gents toilet) and crude violence.


Being a pastiche of ‘60s spy movies, the prerequisite elements are assembled by Ritchie and Lionel Wigram (collaborator on Sherlock Holmes as well as producer on Ritchie and Harry Potter pictures); the Berlin Wall, bugging devices (to the point of absurdity), gadgets (Soviet ones are always better), crosses and double crosses, a villain's island lair, and of course, a nuclear bomb. Nuclear secrets are the MacGuffin around which the plot revolves, and it really is a MacGuffin. Ostensibly East meets West to track down (T.H.R.U.S.H.-less; Ritchie must have taken a lot of arm-twisting to ditch them) independent villains (they’re capitalists though, selling bombs to the highest bidder) a nuclear scientist who has developed a means of enriching Uranium more effectively than anyone else. With that goalpost loosely marked out, Ritchie and Wigram can pretty much go anywhere and do anything they like in the name of spy shenanigans, and the viewer will compliantly nod along for the ride. It very much is Bond in all but name in that sense. It’s not the destination but the journey that matters.


Unlike Bond though, U.N.C.L.E. is a Ritchie staple: the buddy movie. And it’s in this area Ritchie’s slightly at odds with his usually assured sensibilities. He’s generally pretty good with casting and chemistry, but he and Wigram have put the boot in before Napoleon Solo (Henry Cavill) and Ilya Kuryakin (Armie Hammer) can even strike up discord leading to bromance. With Solo they knock it out of the park; he’s smooth, suave, funny, unflappable, determinedly un-macho (he’s even granted the more earthy culinary skills of Harry Palmer). 


Essentially, this is a test run for Cavill as Bond (except he’s having more fun as Bond than anyone since Roger Moore, which is a no-no under the current dour remit) and he’s outstanding. Admittedly, my experience of his work is limited (Stardust, Immortals, Man of Steel) but none of those actually give him a chance to have fun. And he’s a natural, walking off with the picture with aplomb; if the picture were as wholly assured as Cavill is, it would be an instant classic.


The problems arise with Kuryakin, the more interesting of the duo on TV because he was somewhat remote and enigmatic. Here, Ilya’s an open book; a guy with a hot temper due to parental crises (the end credits even give him an Oedipus Complex, afflicted by a treasonous father and a loose mother), it’s a wonder he ever passed muster as a spy when he goes off the deep end at the slightest provocation. Kuryakin’s essentially the heavy to Solo’s sophisticate (though they both know their fashion; the scene where they vie over Gabby’s wardrobe is probably the one in which Ritchie most tips his hand as to his own sensibilities), and it seriously undermines him. We can’t take seriously his sub-Darkman scenes where you wouldn’t like Ilya when he’s angry; the music gets intense and his hand starts to tremor. The conceit flat-out doesn’t work, an attempt to distinguish Kuryakin from Solo when sticking to the unknowable guy would have been much more effective and in-keeping with the aimed-for tone.


Ilya’s tentative romance with Gabby Teller (Alicia Vicander) fizzles too, as Hammer and Vicander have zero chemistry (Vicander’s and Cavill’s however, is evident). Hammer isn’t outright bad, and has fun with his mouthful of marbles Russian accent, but he doesn’t look like his character as described and he doesn’t really mesh with his co-stars. Why a rigorous KGB agent decides to sport stubble for most of the picture is beyond me (it doesn’t even fit with his architect cover), but it further emphasises that Kuryakin is off; this really Solo’s show alone, and Ritchie and Wigram appear to have fitted out their Russian as an afterthought (possibly an echo of Cruise’s time as lead).


This appears to be further evidence, following The Lone Ranger, that Hammer
doesn’t have the Midas touch of his grandfather; he seems to be stuck with miscasting after miscasting when it comes to would-be star vehicles (perhaps his home is as a character actor; see The Social Network and J. Edgar). I’m not sure there needs to be a sense of camaraderie between Solo and Kuryakin (as I say, my memory is the latter tended towards diffidence), but there should be something between “Cowboy” and “Peril”. You end up engrossed in everything Solo does but little caring for Kuryakin’s place in the scheme of spy things.


Vicander’s the third lead, and by the end the third U.N.C.L.E. member (well fourth, if you include Waverly). She’s having a versatile year with this and Ex Machina, and she looks great in ‘60s fashions. Ritchie also serves her a plot twist that makes her more than just the accessory of her male co-stars (albeit, I wouldn’t go as far as saying she’s as well served as her counterparts in Fury Road and Rogue Nation).


Hugh Grant, picky with his projects these days and aware his romcom days are waning, is a treat as Waverly; different to Leo G Carrell, but bringing everything familiarly toff-ish about his persona bar the stutter to the table. His English superiority is very amusing, and it’s interesting to see him to take that de facto role away from Cavill as soon as he enters the scene proper. Elsewhere, Jared Harris (Moriarty from the second Holmes) chews on heavy-duty ‘50s spook delivery as Solo’s boss.


The villains are mixed. Luca Calvani is completely forgettable as Alexander Vincinguerra, but Elizabeth Debicki makes up for it as wife Victoria. Victoria’s really in charge and also looks fantastic in frocks. It shouldn’t be any surprise, as Debicki stole her every scene in The Great Gatsby. If there’s a problem here, it’s that Ritchie’s having so much fun with his milieu, the duo never take on a real sense of threat or purpose.


He saves this for Nazi war criminal and torturer Uncle Rudi (Sylvester Groth) and tonally it feels as if Ritchie’s stepped over the line from frivolous froth into unpleasantness. Rudi indulges a Hitler show reel reminiscence before giving Solo the old electroshock treatment. Presumably Ritchie’s summoning Bond circa Goldfinger, and he tries to maintain an amusing touch throughout the sequence, but even when it comes to Solo and Kuryakin debating whether to turn Rudi in while he fries in the next room (the third time Ritchie has used a foreground/ background gag in the picture) it’s a bit jarring given the frivolity that has gone before. It’s a reminder, along with angry Ilya, that Ritchie’s never that far away of his favoured rawer, blokey persona, however he dresses it up.


This is an effective sequence in and of itself, however, and Ritchie masterminds several perfectly-judged set pieces elsewhere that show him at his keenest, entirely delivering the relaxed, offhand thrills he’s aiming for. Best of them is the opening, where Napoleon rescues Gabby from East Berlin with Ilya hot on their heels. It’s an extended sequence, riding on Solo’s easy self-confidence, one that seems to end after Ilya’s car crash but then kick-starts once more with renewed energy. I particularly liked the conceit of Gabby’s car wedging between two buildings, only for Solo to direct her to take a left (out of her window and through one of the neighbouring apartment blocks). Ritchie’s pacing of set pieces is acute and delightful (it’s hard to pick between him and Vaughn on that score, but I’d probably give Ritchie the nod for the most polish).


Later, following an attempt to rob a safe (it’s empty), Ilya and Napoleon flee in a speed boat, only for the latter to end up in a truck cab munching a sandwich and drinking port while Kuryakin is pursued in the background in every decreasing circles. It sums up the tone of the piece beautifully, and even concludes with a neat bit of problem solving as Napoleon opts to rescue his not-yet-buddy by landing on the pursuing vessel and using the headlights of the now submerged truck to locate his lifeless body.


The aforementioned explanation montages are good fun too, in the main inessential (there’s nothing there we couldn’t work out for ourselves, from Gabby’s apparent betrayal then discovery of her real boss, to pickpocketing Waverly and Victoria, to the finale with the rocket) but a neat stylistic flourish that again adds to the pictures sense of knowing exactly what it wants to be. That’s also the case with assault on the Vincinguerras’ island fortress (a tasty bit of split screen work that dispenses with all the boring fireworks so we can get on to the next scene). Budget-led or not, the choice to have the villain outwitted in the finale rather than perish in a big set piece is welcome, and off the back of Rogue Nation doing likewise may show at least a few filmmakers out there coming to the realise that more isn’t always more (Marvel could take note).


The prior fisticuffs are less satisfying (where Ilya gets angry and sticks the knife in), since it again slips into Ritchie overcooked grit (maybe not the full RocknRolla, but don’t give him ideas), but the preceding cross-country chase features some nice ideas about using geography to advance the narrative (Solo gives up on the deep water pursuit and moves on to a shallow stretch to make up ground, while Ilya, Steve McQueen-like on a motorbike, takes it all in from a distance).


There are other welcome signs of a Ritchie able to stand back and take it all in from a distance. Slow motion is out, and in is a willingness to linger on a shot; the slow pullback of Gabby in bed is self-consciously arty, but you’d never have seen it in an early Ritchie picture. The yellow writing, the bane of a cheap (TV) movie of the ‘60s and ‘70s is employed with glee, and becomes a badge of pride. Meanwhile, Daniel Pemberton’s evocative score is a period-friendly delight, adding enormously to the sense of time and place. If we’re comparing Ritchie and Vaughn, there’s nothing between them when it comes to musical choices. Both have a near sublime understanding of what a picture needs to work; how often do you get a really great Hans Zimmer score (Sherlock Holmes)?


John Mathieson previously photographed the ‘60s for Vaughn with X-Men: First Class and he ensures everything here shines with Euro swank and tastefulness. Ritchie has perhaps surprisingly skirted the line where Man from U.N.C.L.E. becomes camp, as one would expect it to be exactly the kind of fare indulged as pure kitsch wink-winkery (think Modesty Blaise, Our Man Flint, or even The President’s Analyst). Or it might have been made as a Starsky and Hutch-esque comedy vehicle, still the case with many a TV reboot where the studio is at loss what to do with something they feel might, in some way, make them some money (CHiPs will be one). More often than not, this attitude turns out to be a waste of time and expense (look at the number of horror remakes in the last few years).


Against the odds, though, The Man from U.N.C.L.E. has justified its existence, even the box office response looks to be no more appreciable than another Warners ‘60s spy TV adaptation (the disastrous 1998 Ralph Fiennes The Avengers). The best comparison is probably the mid-Connery Bonds, self-aware but not actually mocking or overblown. There are maybe a few too many longueurs around the midpoint, and Hammer is miscast and Ilya mischaracterised, but Ritchie’s picture turns out to be one of the better entries in 2015’s summer. Lightweight is okay sometimes, certainly when it’s delivered with this much panache.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Who’s got the Figgy Port?

Loki (2021) (SPOILERS) Can something be of redeemable value and shot through with woke (the answer is: Mad Max: Fury Road )? The two attributes certainly sound essentially irreconcilable, and Loki ’s tendencies – obviously, with new improved super-progressive Kevin Feige touting Disney’s uber-agenda – undeniably get in the way of what might have been a top-tier MCU entry from realising its full potential. But there are nevertheless solid bursts of highly engaging storytelling in the mix here, for all its less cherishable motivations. It also boasts an effortlessly commanding lead performance from Tom Hiddleston; that alone puts Loki head and shoulders above the other limited series thus far.

It’ll be like living in the top drawer of a glass box.

Someone’s Watching Me! (1978) (SPOILERS) The first of a pair of TV movies John Carpenter directed in the 1970s, but Someone’s Watching Me! is more affiliated, in genre terms, to his breakout hit ( Halloween ) and reasonably successful writing job ( The Eyes of Laura Mars ) of the same year than the also-small-screen Elvis . Carpenter wrote a slew of gun-for-hire scripts during this period – some of which went on to see the twilight of day during the 1990s – so directing Someone’s Watching Me! was not a given. It’s well-enough made and has its moments of suspense, but you sorely miss a signature Carpenter theme – it was by Harry Sukman, his penultimate work, the final being Salem’s Lot – and it really does feel very TV movie-ish.

As in the hokey kids’ show guy?

A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t think Mr Rogers could have been any creepier had Kevin Spacey played him. It isn’t just the baggage Tom Hanks brings, and whether or not he’s the adrenochrome lord to the stars and/or in Guantanamo and/or dead and/or going to make a perfectly dreadful Colonel Tom Parker and an equally awful Geppetto; it’s that his performance is so constipated and mannered an imitation of Mr Rogers’ genuineness that this “biopic” takes on a fundamentally sinister turn. His every scene with a youngster isn’t so much exuding benevolent empathy as suggestive of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang ’s Child Catcher let loose in a TV studio (and again, this bodes well for Geppetto). Extend that to A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood ’s conceit, that Mr Rogers’ life is one of a sociopathic shrink milking angst from his victims/patients in order to get some kind of satiating high – a bit like a rejuvenating drug, on that score – and you have a deeply unsettli

I'm offering you a half-share in the universe.

Doctor Who Season 8 – Worst to Best I’m not sure I’d watched Season Eight chronologically before. While I have no hesitation in placing it as the second-best Pertwee season, based on its stories, I’m not sure it pays the same dividends watched as a unit. Simply, there’s too much Master, even as Roger Delgado never gets boring to watch and the stories themselves offer sufficient variety. His presence, turning up like clockwork, is inevitably repetitive. There were no particular revelatory reassessments resulting from this visit, then, except that, taken together – and as The Directing Route extra on the Blu-ray set highlights – it’s often much more visually inventive than what would follow. And that Michael Ferguson should probably have been on permanent attachment throughout this era.

What's a movie star need a rocket for anyway?

The Rocketeer (1991) (SPOILERS) The Rocketeer has a fantastic poster. One of the best of the last thirty years (and while that may seem like faint praise, what with poster design being a dying art – I’m looking at you Marvel, or Amazon and the recent The Tomorrow War – it isn’t meant to be). The movie itself, however, tends towards stodge. Unremarkable pictures with a wide/cult fanbase, conditioned by childhood nostalgia, are ten-a-penny – Willow for example – and in this case, there was also a reasonably warm critical reception. But such an embrace can’t alter that Joe Johnston makes an inveterately bland, tepid movie director. His “feel” for period here got him The First Avenger: Captain America gig, a bland, tepid movie tending towards stodge. So at least he’s consistent.

By whom will this be rectified? Your ridiculously ineffectual assassins?

The X-Files 3.2: Paperclip Paperclip recovers ground after The Blessing Way stumbled slightly in its detour, and does so with some of the series’ most compelling dramatics so far. As well as more of Albert performing prayer rituals for the sick (perhaps we could spend some time with the poor guy over breakfast, or going to the movies? No, all he’s allowed is stock Native American mysticism).

Here’s Bloody Justice for you.

Laughter in Paradise (1951) (SPOILERS) The beginning of a comedic run for director-producer Mario Zampa that spanned much of the 1950s, invariably aided by writers Michael Pertwee and Jack Davies (the latter went on to pen a spate of Norman Wisdom pictures including The Early Bird , and also comedy rally classic Monte Carlo or Bust! ) As usual with these Pertwee jaunts, Laughter in Paradise boasts a sparky premise – renowned practical joker bequeaths a fortune to four relatives, on condition they complete selected tasks that tickle him – and more than enough resultant situational humour.

That’s what it’s all about. Interrupting someone’s life.

Following (1998) (SPOILERS) The Nolanverse begins here. And for someone now delivering the highest-powered movie juggernauts globally – that are not superhero or James Cameron movies – and ones intrinsically linked with the “art” of predictive programming, it’s interesting to note familiar themes of identity and limited perception of reality in this low-key, low-budget and low-running time (we won’t see much of the latter again) debut. And, naturally, non-linear storytelling. Oh, and that cool, impersonal – some might say clinical – approach to character, subject and story is also present and correct.

Damn prairie dog burrow!

Tremors (1990) (SPOILERS) I suspect the reason the horror comedy – or the sci-fi comedy, come to that – doesn’t tend to be the slam-dunk goldmine many assume it must be, is because it takes a certain sensibility to do it right. Everyone isn’t a Joe Dante or Sam Raimi, or a John Landis, John Carpenter, Edgar Wright, Christopher Landon or even a Peter Jackson or Tim Burton, and the genre is littered with financial failures, some of them very good failures (and a good number of them from the names mentioned). Tremors was one, only proving a hit on video (hence six sequels at last count). It also failed to make Ron Underwood a directing legend.

When I barked, I was enormous.

Dean Spanley (2008) (SPOILERS) There is such a profusion of average, respectable – but immaculately made – British period drama held up for instant adulation, it’s hardly surprising that, when something truly worthy of acclaim comes along, it should be singularly ignored. To be fair, Dean Spanley was well liked by critics upon its release, but its subsequent impact has proved disappointingly slight. Based on Lord Dunsany’s 1939 novella, My Talks with Dean Spanley , our narrator relates how the titular Dean’s imbibification of a moderate quantity of Imperial Tokay (“ too syrupy ”, is the conclusion reached by both members of the Fisk family regarding this Hungarian wine) precludes his recollection of a past life as a dog.  Inevitably, reviews pounced on the chance to reference Dean Spanley as a literal shaggy dog story, so I shall get that out of the way now. While the phrase is more than fitting, it serves to underrepresent how affecting the picture is when it has c