The Man from U.N.C.L.E.
By BOP Staff
August 10, 2015
Max Braden: I'm someone who enjoys both Ian Fleming's Bond and Marvel's Agent Peggy Carter, so this is a good mix of both. It certainly is much more dynamic than a ponderous John Le Carre spy movie like Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. It should appeal to fans of Daniel Craig's Bond movies like the upcoming Spectre (November), unless its fans see this as a cheap knockoff.I'm not so sure about Armie Hammer's accent, but this trailer makes me want to see the movie more than I did when I just knew about the movie on paper.
Felix Quinonez: I was never familiar with this show(?) so the movie gets no nostalgia points from me. And to be honest I think it looks almost as dumb as the title sounds. So I'll pass.
Ben Gruchow: I have now had the opportunity to see trailers for this on my computer and on a giant screen in a theater, and I've got to say that the viewing conditions make a significant difference. On my computer, most of the trailer just kind of blipped by without me noticing; in the theater, everything that's outsized about this movie is really outsized, and it has a much bigger impact. I'm actually sort of interested in what Guy Ritchie might be up to here. I have absolutely no familiarity with the source material, so much of what I have to go off of is the trailer's energy and the cast's charisma and chemistry. Plus, I'm a total sucker for the percussion-based cadence of the final dozen cuts or so in the most recent theatrical trailer. I'm a cheap date that way.
Kim Hollis: I'm usually buying what Guy Ritchie is selling, so I was intrigued even before I saw the trailer. Now that I've seen it a few times, I'm definitely excited to see this. Cavill and Hammer both seem very appropriate in their roles. I'm not terribly familiar with the TV show (it was before my time), but as spy flicks go, this looks like a jolly good romp.
The Good Dinosaur
Ben Gruchow: I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, I'm always happy for a Pixar film and I'm doubly always happy for a Pixar original, and the movie's look is not just cohesive but unique; I like the softness and roundness of the character designs set against almost absurdly photorealistic backdrops. I'm not entirely sure why or how it works for me yet, but it does. I also like the indication, supported by behind the scenes info, that the main "antagonist" of the movie is going to be nature itself rather than any one character; it's a tack that other animated/family dinosaur movies haven't taken. On the other hand, the film's production history has been long, halting, and plagued by uncommon (for Pixar) setbacks and do-overs. The last time this happened, the result was Brave, where the theme clashed against the plotting fairly visibly - and even Brave wasn't subjected to the volume of production issues that this was. I think it's notable (and not necessarily in a good way) that the trailer gives us the pitch and a concept without anything beyond that. Then again, Inside Out's first couple of trailers did the same thing, and we know how that turned out. My outlook is more-cautious-than-normal optimism.
Felix Quinonez: It's a Pixar original so I was sold on it before I even saw one frame. But I think the trailer looks great and I will definitely be seeing it.
Kim Hollis: It's a lovely trailer. I really appreciate the uniqueness of the art in this film. It's like nothing we've seen from Pixar before. I've been worried about the quality, but the trailer almost made me tear up a bit because it was so pretty. I have my worries that Bob Peterson (Up) was removed as director and replaced, but what I've seen so far has me cautiously optimistic.
Ben Gruchow: I have much the same feeling toward this as I do toward Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation. It looks confident, the concept of the antagonist is intriguing, and the franchise is making its first return after a sizable creative rejuvenation. On top of that, it's got people behind the camera who we know will treat the material and the audience with respect. For all that, though, it doesn't have the same x-factor that Skyfall did in its trailer; the hook of Bond as old, out of his depth, and part of a world that appears to have moved on is sharper than the more abstract concept of (another) secret organization with the antagonist describing himself to Bond as "the architect of all your pain." To be fair, this is coming from the perspective of someone who is not intimately familiar with the Bond mythos; to scholars of the subject or devotees of the franchise, the trailer for Spectre absolutely establishes that this is going to [most likely] be worth the ticket price.
Final note: Monica Bellucci was born to play a Bond character, and it's good to see that it's going to be realized.
Felix Quinonez: I think it looks great if unspectacular. It doesn't really grab me the way Skyfall did. It seems, to me, like a bit more of the same. And I think the series has been veering towards taking itself too seriously lately. I also think it's a bit funny that Léa Seydoux is in this. She also happened to be in MI: Ghost Protocol. And I think that with the secret organization plot, Spectre is looking like a less fun Rogue Nation.
Kim Hollis: I'm going to disagree with Felix and say that Spectre looks spectacular. Christoph Waltz is the perfect Bond villain. He gives me chills when I see him onscreen in this role. I know that not everyone shares my opinion, but Daniel Craig is very close to the Bond of the books. The books aren't silly or funny. They're deadly serious (I suppose there's an occasional quip, but it's the exception rather than the rule). This film feels like it understands Fleming's Bond even if it's not directly from his series. I'm excited to see this.