The Man from U.N.C.L.E. - Review

Aka: Cliche 60s American and Cliche Russian Team Up

Does anyone find it ironic that this film has an English actor playing an American and an American actor playing a Russian? I guess Guy Ritchie knew the irony behind this casting, and well it works perfectly well.

The Plot

After suave American Agent, Napoleon Solo (Henry Cavill), rescues Gabby Teller (Alicia Vikander), a mechanic and daughter of a Nazi Scientist, from Communist East Berlin, he winds up being partnered with a Russian Agent, Ilya Kuryakin (Armie Hammer), to stop Nazi Radicals from forcing Gabby's father into creating an Atom Bomb. Their only lead is Victoria Vinciguerra (Elizabeth Debicki), a Nazi sympathizer who is connected to Gabby's family. As tensions between America and Russia escalate, can Solo and Ilya put aside their differences to accomplish the mission and possibly save the world? 

Review

Guy Ritchie may not necessarily be one of my favorite directors, but he is definitely someone I always give a chance. He won me over with his two breakout films, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch, but although I found his later films entertaining, mainly the Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes series, he hasn't exactly solidified himself as someone who I need to watch immediately. And unfortunately for him, this film still gives me that feeling. However, fortunately for him, this film also maintains my stance of always giving him a chance.

Based on a classic 60s TV Show, Man from UNCLE is the very definition of an old fashion spy movie. Kingsman may have been a love letter and throwback to old spy films, but this one IS an old spy film. Which works well for it as well as against it. What definitely works for it is keeping the film in the 60s setting. The time was perfect as the backdrop for spy movies as you have America and Russia waiting to go to war with each other at any given moment. It also helps that the fashion is that midpoint between the suave sophistication of the 40s along with the sexiness that will over take the 70s. It just sells you with classic spy imagery, and it helps that Cavill and Hammer are playing stereotypes that fit in this setting.

Cavill has been on Hollywood's radar for YEARS and finally gets his chance to shine in the spotlight as Superman. Unfortunately his dour performance made people question why was everyone so impressed by this guy? Luckily here, Cavill exudes the charm and suave of Napoleon Solo extremely well, showing audiences why this guy was sought after for several high profile roles in the past before his big break. He shows he could be charismatic and lively, which will definitely help him in the long run, but it won't be enough to turn naysayers around to his side. Still, his cliche 60s American accent works really well for his character, especially given he is actually English...or Welsh...or...something not American. The one who is American though is Hammer, who also plays a cliche role in the film: the brutish Russian Spy. His turn as Ilya is not exactly ground breaking, as many people were already convinced this guy can act from the Social Network. However his cliche performance works hand in hand with Cavill's cliche performance as two stereotypes having to team up to fight a common enemy. At least no one can complain about casting problems, because they're both ironically casted.

But despite ironies in casting, the word cliche will come up a lot because in the end, this movie is definitely a cliche. Everything about it is a cliche because it is a cliche 60s spy movie that feels like it came out decades too late. Smart audiences in tune with how spy movies work will know how Vikander's Gabby and Debicki's villainous Victoria will operate before it happens in the story. There are no new twists to the genre, nor can there be because spy movies have done everything, and it doesn't try to claim it has one. This is probably the most pure 60s spy movie we'll ever get, and that is completely fine for me. But it does say something if the most exciting part of the film is the first half when the two agents meet for the first time and how they have to eventually work together. The second half is where things start heading to predictability and the fun feels forced rather than natural as it did in the first half. Nevertheless, the film still feels entertaining and engaging enough to keep you through. And it also doesn't hurt that all the leads in this movie are ridiculously sexy. Eye candy for ladies and gentlemen. 

Final Thoughts

In the Year of the Spy movie, this may so far be the weakest entry. It may not be the worst, as the year isn't over yet, but it definitely won't be the best. But what it is the best at is bringing back the old 60s spy movie flavor. However it may have done so a little too literally. There are some modern filmmaking techniques and Guy Ritchie-isms in the film, but overall it still feels like a movie that came out decades too late. The cast is magnificent, particularly Cavill and Hammer, but their characters are exactly as you think they're going to be all the way up to the end. No real surprises, but still a great time.

SCORE: 7/10 - A decent time for a film that feels like its from a different time

Seventh Son - Review

What did Jeff Bridges say?

That's what I was asking myself through nearly half of this movie. And the other thing I was asking myself: Why am I watching this movie? 

The Plot

When an evil witch queen named Mother Malkin (Julianne Moore) escapes from imprisonment, it is up to the last Spook, Master Gregory (Jeff Bridges), to stop her. But to do so, he must recruit a new apprentice to continue the legacy of the Spooks. That apprentice must be a seventh son of a seventh son. And that apprentice is Tom Ward (Ben Barnes). Master Gregory must train Tom in the art of the Spooks in time to combat the growing forces of darkness, before it is too late.

Review

People know that I have a huge problem with modern fantasy films, post Lord of the Rings. My article, Why "The Lord of the Rings" film trilogy ruined fairy tale movies, goes in depth about my problems. Basically I always felt that fantasy films shouldn't try to be grand with CGI armies and the need to create an ensemble of heroes. And this film goes back to the basic standards of classic Ray Harryhausen fantasy storytelling: a simple battle between a handful of heroes versus one powerful villain, with about three monsters standing in the way. Simple. The problem with this movie though? It was TOO simple. Like anyone in the audience can predict what was going to happen, even to the point of what people were going to say.

I felt like my five year old self writing a script and seeing it come to life as I think. But then I remember my writing level as a five year old is more complex than what was shown here. Anyone below the age of five could've made a far more interesting story than this one. Which is a shame because I know this is based on a book, and I feel really bad for the author, knowing that his work has been devolved into the seed of a story instead of a fully grown story. There was a lot of potential here in doing an updated fantasy take of "the hero's journey," but instead it is just a very baby steps approach of "the hero's journey."

I wish I can say the acting of two powerhouse actors saved this movie. But they don't. Jeff Bridges and Juliane Moore are two of the best veteran actors a director could dream of having in their movie. But here, they seem to know they are in something horrible because they both over act and chew the scenery. Bridges is once again playing a more drunk version of his character from True Grit, Rooster Cogburn. Which was good for True Grit. It is not good for this movie. Especially if the character is so drunk that I could barely understand a word Bridges was saying. And Moore is pretty much playing a more trashy version of Maleficent. Which, it's cool that she's straight up evil with a very small redeemable quality, but she was just over exaggerating her evilness. To give a good comparison, when Angelina Jolie played Maleficent as evil, it is classy and poisonous. Moore was not classy and just psychotic. Which doesn't work well for a queen of the witches. Especially if all the other witches appear more classy than her.

Then there's our main character played by Ben Barnes and his love interest, Alice, played by Alicia Vikander. These two are obviously very talented actors. The big problem is their material is so thin that they couldn't prevent it from being boring. And if two juggernaut acting talents like Bridges and Moore couldn't elevate the script, how much more can these two rising stars? There are some cool moments for Antje Traue, who plays Malkin's sister and Alice's mother, and Djimon Hounsou, who plays Malkin's primary dragon henchman. But pretty much everyone else in the movie was just there for service and no real development. Even Game of Thrones fan favorite, Kit Harrington, appears at the beginning of the movie, but his part could've easily had been removed and would add nothing to the plot.

Pretty much the first hour of this movie is just dreadful, yet by some miracle the following 30 minutes were pretty entertaining (which is where ALL of the action takes place), only to fall apart flat on its face in the final 15 minutes. The movie would've been better if the first hour was condensed to the first 30 minutes, and the exciting 30 minutes elongated to an hour, with the final 15 minutes being changed into something else completely.

Final Thoughts

I know I said I wanted a simple good versus evil fantasy story. But I didn't want something so... pedestrian. This film could've benefited more from a more proficiently written script. The entertainment doesn't come in till after the first hour, and chances are you will have fallen asleep before the entertaining part comes. And if you do wake up in time for the entertaining part, you'll feel like waking up wasn't worth it because of how abrupt the excitement ends. I know the director of this film is a talented Russian director, but unfortunately his American debut feels like it was made by business men rather than people with talent.

SCORE: 3/10 - The 3 is for having good vs evil, not that many monsters, and simple...it's bad