Clearly, you had a deprived (not depraved) childhood! 
Napoleon Solo’s hair was decidedly not right for the period. He also would probably have worn a hat. Same with Alexander Waverly.
Waverly (Leo G Carroll), yes! But I don’t recall Solo (Robert Vaughn) ever wearing one.
Probably just too young for being familiar with something from the 60’s
That’s what I mean! 
Neither was David McCallum’s, even for a Russian.
He wouldn’t have. JFK killed hats for young people when he didn’t wear one at his inauguration. I don’t remember either Napoleon or Ilya wearing hats in the original show. But it was a long time ago.
Well, they won’t look at a show made in the sixties,but there seems to be a big appetite for shows set in the sixties. It’s a natural - you get to enjoy the clothes, cars, unPC attitudes, and your villains get to be actual unambiguously-evil Nazis. I’m a little surprised this hasn’t been exploited even further, though I recognize the expense of shooting a period piece is probably considerable.
Incidentally, my German-speaking girlfriend noted the that the two brothers (the physicist and the shipping magnate) had natural German accents. Everyone else was way off.
A minor hitch, I thought, was in the closing credits when they rapidly ran through the dossiers of the four new UNCLE agents: Kuryakin supposedly has an ELO rating of 2401. Aside from being a bit anachronistic (the ELO system wasn’t adopted internationally until 1970), this would put him at International Master/Grandmaster level, and the only way to get a rating like this is if you’ve played and beaten other International Masters, which would get him noticed, which is not exactly conducive to being a secret agent.
Not a big deal, but it’s like being a secret agent who also has an Olympic bronze medal. Sooner or later, he’s going to run into someone who’ll recognize him for this and that’ll blow his “I’m an architect (or whatever)” cover.
That story about John Kennedy is a myth. See Snopes.
Saw it last night, and loved it.
Not since Who Framed Roger Rabbit have I sat through a movie and been so happy! I was on a consistent “happy!” jag damn near all through the show!
I love the three main characters. The “triangle” is hilarious.
As a fan of the old TV series, I can still respect the major differences. Solo’s background, and Kuryakin’s personality, are hugely different – and yet, they are hauntingly alike the old characters. The “magic” is there.
(Macallum played Ilya with slightly hooded eyes; Hammer plays him with eyes wide, wide open. Astonishing, then, how alike the two are at times!)
The plot was wonderful old-fashioned Sixties’ spy guff, and of exactly the right depth of complexity for me. I tended to get lost in the recent Mission Impossible movies. (And with the second Sherlock Holmes movie – A Game of Shadows – I spent damn near the entire movie wondering what the hell was going on.) Obviously, this will lead many to say that the plot was too simple for them, but for me, it was perfect.
Your post made me happy!
Contact high!
Except no 60s film would’ve applied the highly lazy Cuisinart-editing to the fight scenes, or constructed a car chase as incoherent as the one in the climax.
Needless to say, I thought the film was tedious and charm-free. I was certainly hoping for a fun, fizzy film with a nice retro feel. But the chemistry between Ilya and his “wife” was phony and forced, and there was no real feel for the era and the genuine Cold War tension that would’ve existed. It all felt like a bunch of people playing dress-up, and not very convincingly.
I will give props to Elizabeth Debicki, who is a total hottie and wore her period stylings very alluringly. She has great camera presence, even though none of her motivations really made sense other than “Evil-Nazi-crazy”. The older characters (Harris & Grant) were cursory but more believable. But I am pretty mystified as to why this film exists, since the action wasn’t original and the nostalgic feel was so artificial.
Heck, I thought Armie’s Lone Ranger film was ridiculous and borderline-insulting, but that still had more bizarre integrity than this holy mess.
Man, you’re no fun. Debbie Downer.
Well, I may not be fun, but the film isn’t either.
Wah-Waaaaaaahhhhh.
Saw it last weekend with my wife – we enjoyed it. Silly fun, with good performances.
Each to their own. We thought it was fun. Your post is a good example of why I try (but don’t always succeed) not to read threads, articles, reviews about movies before I go. It might have moved the movie from my Must See (because of Alicia Vikander) list to One Of These Days, Maybe, and then I would have been upset. It confirms my resolve to stay away from anything (including trailers) except for a cast/filmmakers list & maybe the most basic synopsis.
The key is to find a movie reviewer who has the same tastes you do.
Ever so damn long ago, Richard Schickel, writing for Time Magazine, was the reviewer for me. I (damn near) always agreed with him! Alas, I don’t have anyone today who is even close to that well-calibrated to my tastes.
I don’t know that I could find a reviewer with as broad tastes. I haven’t been going to movies anywhere near as much as I used to, but so far in August I’ve seen
Ant-Man
The End of the Tour
Shaun the Sheep Movie
Ricki and the Flash
The Gift
The Wolfpack
Runoff
Diary of a Teenage Girl
Brothers: Blood Against Blood
The Man From U.N.C.L.E.
Phoenix (a German film)
With American Ultra, Mistress America and something else I can’t remember, scheduled for this weekend. (My favorite of the one listed is The Wolfpack, a documentary) I only read reviews after I’ve seen a movie anyway, mainly to avoid spoilers, and being tainted, the way I would have been had I read MM’s post above prior to seeing UNCLE. I’ll just continue on, based on whatever criteria it is that interests me that makes me want to see a particular movie.
He didn’t want to besmersh their good name.