Heretic (2024)

 

Suffering from the flaws of many horror films these days, "Heretic" still manages to be a fascinating variation on the premise. This is in large part due to the casting of Hugh Grant as the antagonist and the charming performances of the two lead actresses, Sophie Thatcher and Chloe East. This is basically a three person set piece, but the setting is an elaborately designed house with a subterranean structure that will add to the mystery and sense of dread that pervades the first half of the movie. The deceptively inviting bait includes the charming Mr. Reed, played by Grant, who at first seems the most innocuous of potential threats.  

Thatcher and East play two Mormon missionaries, Sister Paxton and Sister Barnes, out for the day on their bicycles, looking to spread their faith. The opening section includes the uncomfortable cold calls and interactions with locals on the street. Sister Paxton, has no new converts and seems to be losing confidence, especially after she is humiliated by some teen girls that she had approached in a friendly manner. Sister Barnes is a little more pragmatic, and maybe weary of proselytizing, but both she and Sister Paxton seem committed to their beliefs, even as they discuss some world challenging truths around them. They are not just doing cold calls however, they have a list of homes that have indicated an interest in their faith, and one of those is the house off the beaten path of Mr. Reed.  Set in an idyllic property, off the road, boarding a forested area, the Reed house looks friendly enough and when the mature, somewhat distracted Hugh Grant, answers the door in his patterned old style cardigan, the girls are nonplussed at his invitation to converse in the house. When they learn that his wife is supposedly baking in the kitchen, they accept the invite with very little trepidation. 

This is all set up for the most interesting part of the film. Mr. Reed confronts the girls with a series of questions and challenging statements about faith and their beliefs in particular. As the purported wife does not appear, there is hesitation by the young women about proceeding. The dawning realization that they have been trapped in the house forces them to continue the facade of their visit. The carefully crafted politeness of the girls runs into the mildly rude but intellectual challenges of Mr. Reed. Grant is perfectly cast for this section of the film, he is clear in his beliefs but expresses them with the stuttering pace that he has been well known for in his other roles. He treats the girls like students in his own introduction to theology lecture, and paints a nasty image of organized religions based on their similar origin myths. His attempts to sow doubt in the girls seems plotted to force them to make a choice, which is ultimately meaningless in his eventual plans. His whole spiel is really just a cruel twist of a mental knife in the minds of the victims he is trying to create.  

The living room and then the study of the Reed house, are decorated to invite confidence in the visitors, but as they move deeper into the house, the production design makes the floorplan more ominous. Once the girls pass the threshold into the basement structure, the film becomes a much more traditional film. Although there are a few twists thrown in to tie the escape section to the theological discussion in the early part of the film, those plot points make little sense. My friend Lisa Leaheey has said you can't judge a horror film by it's ending. If she is correct, we should disregard the last act of this movie, because it feels like an overworked attempt to vindicate what came earlier with a tradition horror element. I will say that I had an interpretation of the final resolution that was different from others, so maybe there is something here that is a little more challenging. 

Because it is shooting high and tries to do something different, and it has three excellent performances, I am going to recommend the film. If you want a more complete and intelligent exit to the movie, you will be a little disappointed. I often find that I like movies in spite of their flaws and this would be one of those. I compared it to a film from two years ago, "Barbarian". A terrific opening is squandered by conventional horror tropes in the second and third acts. "Heretic" is not quite as egregious in it's failures, so in contrast it is the better film. I also think the difference is enough to recommend it.  

[I have included the video of the podcast from the LAMBcast, which featured this film, in case you want to hear and see more.]

Paramount Summer Classic Film Series-Paddington 2

 

It is almost beyond comprehension to me that the first time I saw either of the Paddington films was not in a theater. It is however sadly true so this is the first time I get an opportunity to properly write about one of them on this project. For those of you unaware, "Paddington" is the name of a bear who has migrated from Peru to London, and is taken in by a kindly and quirky family, the Browns. The stories are full of fish out of water moments as Paddington moves from being a stranger in a strange land to a loved member of the family and community.

Everywhere you look in the movie, there are charming images and clever little visual prompts. Paddington hops on a bicycle, driven by a local, makes a quick connection to a trash collector's truck that he hitches a ride on, and then meets a bus where he can end up at his destination. There is always a slapstick moment or two for the kids, but adults will smile at the good natured way that Paddington gives everyone he meets the benefit of his trust. Of course we know that doing so is a dangerous thing and the poor bear ends up in trouble as a consequence. 

There were frequent moments in the film, where I was reminded of a Wes Anderson movie. The sets, the camera angles and the movements of the actors in the scenes mimic some of the tropes of an Anderson film. The color palate of the prison where Paddington ends up, with the accidentally pink inmates garb is especially reminiscent of  some of those Anderson films. Here however, we have an exceedingly polite bear as our central figure, rather than one of the grotesque figures from "The Hotel Budapest". 

Enhancing this second Paddington movie is the presence of Hugh Grant, playing the heavy part, but doing so with an incredibly light touch. In many places in the film, you can spot him mocking his own career and joking about his thespian skills. The first film had Nicole Kidman as the villain, and her plot line and tone were quite a bit darker than might be fitting for a kid's picture. Grant however is a perfect, goofball style foil for our intrepid bear with the positive attitude. 

This film was at the State Theater, next door to the Paramount. Several of the Family film series pictures will be screening here rather than in the grand movie palace next door. I was happy to see the theater full of families who had small children, most of whom were very cooperative with the idea of staying seated and quite during the film. The delightful howls of laughter when Paddington cuts hair in a barbershop or cleans windows at a high rise, were an extra bonus for a Sunday afternoon. I know some people don't like kids, but those people are deranged. A kid having a good time at a movie is one of the joyous things we should share in our culture. 

Wonka

 

To say I was dubious about the new Wonka film starring Timothée Chalamet would be an understatement. The original film with Gene Wilder is of course a favorite of my childhood, and even the Tim Burton version with Johnny Depp is well liked in this household. I've never been a huge fan of 

Chalamet he seems to be a little wan and a sort of the Hipster version of what's hot right now. This has led me to be skeptical of any of his films.

Chalamet was however, solid in the Dune film and I look forward to seeing the second part next year. So it was with uncertainty that I approached this movie. I tried to avoid reading reviews before I see a film for myself, but sometimes the general tone of a review can come across in a single sentence on a Facebook post or in an Instagram message. The ones that I did see in regard to this film we're a lot more promising. Most of the comments seem to suggest that the film was exactly what it was supposed to be a light frothy holiday entertainment. To my great pleasure that is an accurate assessment. Wonka was a complete delight and exactly the kind of film that a family can enjoy in the holiday season. It may not be serious, or a great piece of art, but it was a great entertainment.

Those of you who are not aware of it, let me point out that Wonka, is also a musical. The idea that there would be singing and dancing through the film raise some suspicion, but our lead is talented enough, and the songs for the most part are tuneful full of play and fit the story. I was especially impressed by the opening song and the choreography that went in putting together the dances that accompany it. As it is, the director of this film, Paul King, directed two of my favorite films from the past several years. He is responsible for putting "Paddington" and its sequel "Paddington 2" up on the big screen and both of them have a wondrous, friendly, attitude which made them completely delightful. Although there are hateful villains, and obstacles to be overcome, the optimism and positive attitudes of the lead characters of all three films make each of these movies so much easier to enjoy than other films in the family market.

Happily this film is not merely a repeat of the story that we have come to know. It is in fact it kind of prequel story so that we get a sense of what Willy Wonka was like as he started his chocolate factory. The idea presented here is that Wonka has always loved chocolate as a result of his mother's care and recipes. He has become a world Traveler by working on cargo ships traveling the seven seas and finding amazing ingredients to add to his chocolate concoctions. At the start of the story he is prepared to join the chocolate producing community in the heart of the big city and is trying to connect with his potential customers. This stacks him up against three rivals who have in essence, created a cartel to reduce competition. The three owners of the of the competing chocolate companies are clearly the villains of the piece, they have no connection to their customers and see them as somebody available to fleece rather than people that they want to please. This means that Wonka's approach will be completely different and a threat to their status.

One of the complications that Willy Wonka faces is that he has become indentured inadvertently to a cruel mistress and a thoughtless Brute. He has in essence been Shanghaied into working in a laundry, under slave-like conditions. So his approach to trying to begin a chocolate Empire also requires him to overcome these circumstances. The woman who has him in her thrall is played by Olivia Colman and she is impressively vile and funny. Wonka finds himself in the company of others who have become similarly trapped, and they form an alliance to both escape their circumstances and create a candy Utopia.

There are several nods to the original Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, some of which are very noticeable but a few of which are very subtle. Among the most noticeable is the design of the chocolate store which strongly resembles the main room in the original film's Chocolate Factory. Also Willy is dressed in the same kind of velvet purple set of tails that adorned Gene Wilder back in 1971. Here he also walks with a cane that is in affectation rather than a necessity. Much like the magician that he is suggested to be, the cane becomes a prop that he uses to Dazzle his customers and to establish an identity. I did notice that the start of the film does have a similar kind of setting that Paddington did. Alone in a strange city our protagonist is taken in by strangers. Of course in the Paddington stories The Strangers turn out to be a benevolent family, but here in Wonka, it is a much darker turn.

Throughout the film there are many clever characters who provide humor and something for Willie to struggle against. Much like the original film Slugworth, is presented as a competitor and a threat. In this film it is much more direct in the way the character of Slugworth is presented. There is also a police official who is bribed by the cartel to run Wonka off. He is bribed by chocolate, because he has a sweet tooth that can never be satisfied. Hysterically his character gains weight throughout the film to the point where he actually has difficulty moving, standing up, or getting out of a car. It may be a little indelicate to present a character as having a weakness that makes him fat, but it does make us laugh and the actor, Keegan-Michael Key, plays it hysterically.

Production design is another big selling point of the film. Some of the candies are whimsical, the boarding house/laundry, is grim, and the Chocolate Factory at the end we'll make everybody who is a fan of the original film happy. Also the musical score borrows heavily from the original films songs and we get a reprise of Gene Wilder's showpiece song from 1971, presented with genuine affection and respect by Chalamet.  I have no hesitation and suggesting this movie to any of my readers. You will be very happy walking out to the theater with a smile on your face, even if it is just from the cantankerous Hugh Grant playing an Oompa Loompa who has attitude and his own individuality. I think a little Hugh Grant adds in measurably to the Delight that this film creates. He is not overused, but the CGI transformation of him into the character is amusing, and contrasted with his lines and behaviors should make you laugh.

I was not expecting it, but I'm happy to say that Wonka will be going on my list of favorite films from 2023. And in the long run Timothy Charlemagne Maybe making even greater inroads in my opinion toward him. However director Paul King is in my opinion a real treasure, and I hope that he and his co-screenwriters continue to come up with enjoyable fanciful ways to entertain the audience, I appreciate it.

Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves

 

Keep your popcorn full and your soda handy, this will be the Saturday Matinee pleaser that you have been looking for. If Ray Harryhausen were to make a movie based on the game "Dungeons and Dragons", this might have been it. As it is, we are forty years past his prime and the technology has changed, but the sense of adventure and fun is pretty much the same. In terms of style the only real difference is the snarky commentary offered by the characters as they go through the adventure, otherwise, this could be "Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger" or "Jason and the Argonauts". 

From a family perspective, there is little reason to worry about taking your kids to this. It is fantasy scary, but not gory or violent like so many contemporary adventure films. Chris Pine is a noble scoundrel who fits in the mold of Han Solo or Jack Sparrow. He may not always have the right reason for doing the right thing, but it usually balances out in the end. Michelle Rodriguez is the badass warrior that you expect her to be, she is fast and furious in dispatching the soldiers that stand in her way, and you know she will have a heart of gold in the end. Once upon a time Hugh Grant might have had the Chris Pine role, but now, in his maturity, he is regularly playing villains and having a blast doing so. The only thing that parents might be concerned about is that the word "S#@t gets dropped three times. That's it as far as vulgarity. Otherwise I can't account for the PG-13 rating rather than simply PG, except I am sure the producers don't want to position this as a kids film, but it is family friendly. 

If you played the game, maybe you will be in on some of the references and understand the magic items that come into the story. There are also multiple cultures referred to and creatures of all sorts that are both dangerous and friendly. I never played once, but I could follow everything that was going on. Maybe a gamer would be more satisfied, but I doubt it. I also appreciated the humorous references to elves, dwarves and what could be hobbits in the film. Those may be part of the game, or maybe they are quick parody references to LOTR tropes, but they were fun and welcome whenever they popped in. 

Chloe Colman is a young actress who has appeared in three movies I've seen in the last three months. In addition to this film, she is one of the Avatar Children, she travels to ancient Earth in "65", so she has been busy. Justin Smith transplants the same character he played in the last two Jurassic Park movies, into a struggling wizard in this story. Ineffectual characters that over achieve is a recurring theme in this movie. Of course they are balanced out by characters like Rodriguez' Holga and Regé-Jean Page's Xenk, an amalgam of Aragon/Legolas and Gandalf, dolled up as a dreamy warrior. 

This movie is full of ironic escapes, dashing confrontations and conventional conflicts. It is all put together in a fast paced fantasy that should keep you entertained for an afternoon or evening. There is a lot of humor, both in story points and in character development. The effects look good enough for the film, and there are plenty of turns in the story to keep you engaged in spite of the well worn game structure of obstacle, solution, complication, completion and then new obstacle. Does any of it mean anything? No. Does it need to? No, It just needs to keep us entertained for 2 hours and it does so quite well. 

Operation Fortune: Ruse de guerre

 I received a DMCA takedown order for the You Tube Trailer of the film. This is the First Time in 13 Years of Posting on this site, that a content company has requested that a link to their trailer be removed. The Counter-Claim Process is convoluted, So I will simply tell you that to see a trailer for this film, you will have to go somewhere else.

Either of the big names attached to this film would probably have been enough to get me into the theater for this. When you put the two of them together, it was impossible for me to resist. Guy Ritchie and Jason Statham collaborated two years ago on an action film released when people were still hiding from the pandemic, "Wrath of Man". Also present in that film was Josh Harnett, twenty years ago "the next big thing" but still around doing yeoman service in a variety of projects. He is much better used in this movie than "Wrath", but that does not mean that this is a better movie. 

Director Ritchie has a distinctive style, that when he lets it fly, elevates the action films he makes to art. That is not the case with this movie, it is product. The non sequential story telling that marks his best films, is mostly missing here. There are a couple of flashbacks but they only offer exposition, they don't drive the story or create surprises at all. The colorful characters that make movies like "The Gentlemen", "lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" or "Snatch" so enjoyable, are missing. The lead character played by Statham is the usual badass, but other than his hard guy stare, there is nothing. A hint of some of his eccentricities is offered early on, and then none of them show up or get used to provide any entertainment. The villain, played by Hugh Grant, at least is a little interesting. Grant seems slightly miscast as a cold blooded killer, but completely right with the quirk that the script has given him. If only that were the main character, this could have been a lot more fun. 

The two members of Statham's crew are Aubrey Plaza and  Bugzy Malone, who are given tropes to play but not really characters. Harnett as a dim witted Hollywood action star is better. He gets to lampoon the stuff going on in the story with his character's plot line. There was fun to be had when he and Grant play off of one another, but otherwise the humor in this movie is very weak, which is strange because Ritchie's films are often hysterical. The secondary villain has no character development at all which makes things less interesting in the climax. 

There are plenty of action beats but they rarely have any suspense to them. In most spy/heist/adventure films, there is a complication which comes up and requires  some improvisation on the part of our protagonists. Those complications are never anything that can't be resolved by an action moment, and that is one of the reasons that the film feels so mechanical. We are just moving from one moment to the next, and all of the killing at the climax has very little suspense to i. This is not so much a John Wick one on one as it is a less polished series of deaths when Wick kills 60 enemies in three minutes. 

I did not dislike the film, but it is clear that it was not something the director felt passionately about. The actors are moved through their moments without much effort to make their characters more engaging. The action is standard for the most part, and there is not the usual humor (with maybe a couple of exceptions) that you get in a Guy Ritchie film. If you are not in a very demanding mood, you can enjoy this and then forget about it. 

The Gentlemen

If ever there was someone who clearly benefited from the rise of independent cinema through the wedge of Quentin Tarantino, it was Guy Ritchie.  His take on English gangsters propelled him into prominence and he has had some great opportunities ever since. Maybe all of his films have not been successes, but after shepherding the live action remake of Aladdin to a worldwide box office of over a billion dollars, his failures will be overlooked for a while. He returns to his natural milieu with "The Gentleman", a violent comical take on the economics of the marijuana business. It is filled with the sort of off kilter characters that "Snatch", "Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" and "Rocknrolla" also overflowed with. Even though Vinnie Jones and Jason Statham are missing, "The Gentlemen" will take it's rightful place alongside those rough cut gems.

The cast is chock full of Richie regulars but features some newcomers as well. Co-producer Matthew McConaughey is given star billing and while he earns it, there are several standout performances along the way. Charlie Hunnam, who starred in the Ritchie misfire "King Arthur" is a sturdy second banana to McConaughey's crime lord.  He is all quiet coiled professionalism, waiting to be provoked into action. Henry Golding who has made a name for himself as a romantic lead in "Crazy Rich Asians" and "Last Christmas" gets to play a heavy in this film and he is cynically effective as a self absorbed hoodlum on the make and maybe stretching past his reach too soon.  Eddie Marsan, a veteran of the two Guy Ritche Sherlock Holmes movies, plays a belligerent newspaper publisher. The resolution to his part of the story is one of the images we are fortunately spared from viewing.

It is two big names playing supporting parts that steal this movie and make it so enjoyable to watch. I could have sworn that Colin Farrell was a veteran of the crime films Ritchie made in his early days, but this seems to be their first film together. You know how Tarantino has filled the mouth of Samel L. Jackson with amazing dialogue in their collaborations? while this feels the same way. Farrel delivers the lines that Ritchie has written as if they have worked together for decades. He gets the intonations, relational status and emotional equivalency exactly right. Some things just go together perfectly. So to the list of milk and cookies, peanut butter and jelly, and James Bond and Martinis, add Colin Farrell to Guy Ritchie.

As great as Farrell is in his almost tangential role, there is another well established actor who basically steals the film in a wholly unexpected manner. Hugh Grant has been a light romantic comedian for most of his career. As he is aging out of the romantic lead casting, he has found his true niche as a character actor. In "Florence Foster Jenkins" he gave a sympathetic performance backing up Meryl Streep. In "Paddington 2" he delightfully plays the villain and deserved even more awards attention. Unfortunately, this fil gets a January release here in the States and by next December, people will have forgotten how great he is here. Grant plays a investigator/journalist/detective who tries to take what he finds out about the drug kingpin as a way of both blackmailing the gangster and breaking into the movie business. He is also the narrator of the film, who provides exposition, transitions and color to the events being described. Usually Grant has a proper sounding pronunciation and delicate manner of expression, but not his character Dexter. He is a foul mouthed, dirty minded, over confident and smug creature. Visually he is barely recognizable as the world famous actor he is, but vocally and with many mannerisms, you will not know that this is the same guy who wooed Julia Roberts, Drew Barrymore, Sandra Bullock and many more.

The dialogues, violence and complicated machinations of the plot are the things that you expect in a Guy Ritchie crime film. The elegant turns of phrase that McConaughey uses as he engages his potential business partners and his enemies is a great example of the screenwriter's strengths. Hunnam and Farrell with their mild deferential styles contrasted to what we see both are capable of are a plus with the dialogue and the action. Although it seems that the events in the story are spinning out as a series of unplanned obstacles, there is always a way that those moments tie back into the plot, usually in a surprising way.  At least it will be a surprise if you have never seen one of Ritchie's earlier gangster films. If you have, you know to expect the unexpected, but you will be able afterwards to say, Of course. 

Florence Foster Jenkins

A few months ago on a podcast that I listen to, one of the guests had a rant about some of the crappy films she saw on the horizon. Chief among them was this Meryl Streep starring vehicle. Based only on the trailer the podcast guest dismissed it as Oscar bait not worthy of even thinking about. Now I have never been put off by the fact that someone has an opinion, but it seemed a bit harsh at the time, even though the film did not strike me as something I felt I must see. I understand the sentiment, after all it does look like it is this years entry in the Streep slot for an Academy Award. The movie does come from director Steven Frears who has often been associated with some highbrow films that look like they are seeking attention, the thing is though, they usually deserve the attention. This film is no exception.

Had I listened to the advise of this blogger/critic I might have skipped over this film, as it is, that would have been a mistake. This movie has a lot going for it, especially the heart of the story which is very well told and entertaining as heck. Let's start with the elephant in the room, the star. We know that Meryl Streep can sing. "Ricki and the Flash", "Into the Woods" and "Mama Mia" have established that. So in a sense this film is the real acting challenge because Florence Foster Jenkins apparently could not sing. Streep is very convincing as the music lover with flat pitch and sight blinded by desire. It appears that much of the story here is true although substantially adapted to make a comedic-drama work on film. Maybe some of you will be familiar with the story of Mrs. Miller, an amateur singer who had success as a novelty recording artist in the 1960s. "Florence Foster Jenkins was her progenitor.

The real strength of the film however in in the performance of Hugh Grant, who reportedly came out of semi-retirement to work with Streep. As Jenkins husband St Clair Bayfield, he is his usual foppish English type but with a great deal of heart and wherewithal . At one point in the story it appears he is a cad, but as the film unwinds we learn that love is not always the thing that we define it as. Notorious for mugging on camera, Grant is more realistic in his facial expressions and more tender in his vocalizations than you have probably seen before. I have always been a fan of his but not necessarily because his acting was excellent but because he was well cast and charming. Today he impressed me as a thespian and I'm sorry to say that a film like this will generate more critical attention for the leading lady than for the gentleman.

Simon Helberg, from "The Big Bang Theory" is much more the traditional comic relief. As Cosmé McMoon, her pianist accompanist, he gets several chances to visualize the absurdity of what is passing for music. His performance is much quieter than you will see in the television series and there is more substance to it. One of the things that this movie does is imbue it's characters with real heart and Helberg has several scenes where his performance adds immeasurably to our acceptance of what is happening. Actress Nina Arianda is not a person I was familiar with, but she puts a lot of gusto in her role as Agnes Stark. She is a character that you might quickly dislike, but in the end she becomes a interesting champion for the music lovers that turn a deaf ear to our tone deaf heroine.

Maybe one of the reasons the film works for me is the setting. NYC in the period of WWII is maybe the most romantic time I can think of in American History. The modern aesthetic of clothes, architecture, music and culture are seemingly so perfectly balanced at this point. Any time perion that we ourselves have not lived through can be made to seem romantic, and the taxicabs, concert halls and dining rooms of hotels all look great in the set design of this movie. I know that Liverpool stood in for the streets of New York in several scenes, and that might seem odd except that Liverpool has sustained the look of that time period whereas NY has moved on, so in the end it works quite well.
Another reason I find the story compelling may be an addition made by screenwriter Nicholas Martin. In the film, one of the things that motivates Florence Foster Jenkins is her sympathy for American Servicemen during the war. As the character quotes Beethoven at one point  "Wrong notes are of little consequence, but to play without passion is inexcusable", Florence Foster Jenkins represents the kind of passion, for music and in the one case in the film, the military, that makes Beethoven's reported words real.

I am surprised as anyone at how much I enjoyed this film. I know I never had any hipster cred to lose anyway, but I suppose now my application for official hipster status will be automatically rejected in the future. I thought this was a sentimental and warm story, told with a great deal of humor and excellent performances from the leads. The movie looks grand and the director moves it along quite well without necessarily showing off. I'm glad to say that I "passionately" endorse this film, regardless of what my expectations might have been.

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

I love 1960s spy stuff. James Bond was born in the sixties, Patrick Magoohan was Danger Man, Johnny Rivers killed it with his spy themed "Secret Agent Man" and Mel Brooks spoofed it with "Get Smart". Even before I'd seen my first Bond film, I saw "The Man from U.N.C.L.E." on television. When I heard that a movie version was planned, I was relatively pleased. I know there are people who hate the idea of a classic show being adapted for movie screens. The list of failures is long: "Lost in Space", McHale's Navy", "The Flintstones". Video bins are littered with 60s shows re-imagined as big screen entertainment. The hope is that you will get an occasional "Addams Family" or "The Fugitive", the reality is you end up with "Sgt. Bilko". So, which way did it go with the latest effort to rob our childhoods to feed our adult addictions?

The movie version of "The Man From U.N.C.L.E." gets a lot of things right. It also leaves out some of the things that you treasured. In the end, it works as a stand alone concept because the only things that really remain from the show, are the concept and time period. By sticking to the time period of the original series, the Cold War years of the 1960s, the film manages to keep the tension between East and West as a background. More importantly, they get to costume the leads in stylish 60s garb. One of my favorite things about Spielberg's "Catch Me If You Can" was the way he captured the vibe of the early 60s. I have not watched a minute of "Mad Men", but I suspect this movie would do the set decoration and costuming on that series proud. Henry Cavill, who plays the Napoleon Solo character, is dressed in stylish suits in every scene. The fabrics are vivid and the cut flattering. Although they would look a bit old fashioned now, they would carry a lot of retro cache with them.  Armie Hammer's Illya Kuryakin is not wearing the high turtleneck sweater that was practically a trademark of the character, but the Henley styled shirts and plain suits he does wear are perfectly appropriate. The women are the ones who get shown off to the greatest advantage with some mod evening wear from the villainess. The girl that helps the two spies out (a standard storyline from the 60s show) has some cute 60s outfits that would be snapped up in an instant by hipster thrift store shoppers.

The plot really feels like it could be taken from a lost episode of the show. An East German girl is being used by the spy network, to locate her missing father, a nuclear genius who has technology that gives it's owners great powers. A loose band of Nazi sympathizers have the Doctor captive and are using his knowledge to gain power and build bombs. Most superhero franchises start with origin stories, and this film does the same thing. It attempts to explain how Russian and American spies, begin working together. The TV show never bothered with such background, it simply presented the covert network as a functioning entity from the beginning and then focused on the case for that week. Creating a background story for the agency is the biggest add by Guy Richie and his collaborators. The problem is that it leaves out stuff that made the original series cool, at least to us old enough to remember it. The badges, secret entrance to headquarters, briefings by Mr. Waverly, and the communication gadgets are all missing from the movie. Solo is given a backstory that makes him more Alexander Monday than James Bond. Someone decided that Ilya needed psychological problems to balance out his perfect physical capabilities. The changes work for a big screen adaption but they do distance the audience that might have been drawn in to the film by their love of the series.

Some of the things that work well in this film include the opening section where the Russian spy Illya Kuryakin is chasing after the American spy Napoleon Solo. The car chase and running gun fight are worthy stunts for an opening to a spy thriller. The banter between the two spies is also one of the things that Guy Richie brings to the movie. Anyone seeing his London based crime thrillers knows that snappy dialogue and quick exchanges are trademarks of his work. Hammer does not get quite as many of these lines as Cavill does, but he does get a lot of the physical reaction shots that make a joke pay off. Alicia Vikander is in her third film of the year with this movie. I thought she was great in both "Seventh Son" and "Ex Machina" , the later of which she should always flaunt on her resume. She does not get to do a lot of action material in this movie, but she is definitely more than just the damsel in distress. Hugh Grant is in the film but very little. if there is another in the franchise I know his role will be expanded. The split screen effect used during the storming of the island fortress was an efficient way to get through what might have been a long sequence very effectively, I could do with less shaky cam in the pursuit that follows.

One mistake that I think the film makers make is that they don't use the original Jerry Goldsmith music effectively. Take a look at how the "Mission Impossible" series has managed to weave the iconic song into those films. They may owe half their box office take to Lalo Schiffrin. The U.N.C.L.E. theme is in the film but only as an exit instrumental rather than as a transition piece. It has been altered from a big horned, bass heavy theme into a nearly unrecognizable conga tune. The result was one of the least satisfying parts of the film. Overall, I enjoyed the film a lot, but there are things to fix to make it as much fun as it should have been. If Guy Richie and his writing partners want some advise for the sequel, they can reach me on channel D.