Argylle

Argylle

A very hyped movie from the writer of the Kingsman series, the trailer frequently showed moments of silliness, spy action, Bryce Dallas Howard screaming and a cat that's supposedly awesome or something. At first the movie is cheesy as can be, but it does appear that is intentional. Most of the movie leads the audience to believe it is one thing, when it really is another, being revealed in surprise twists that aren't very surprising.

The ensemble cast does feature some great performances, even though Henry Cavill's hair is absolutely terrible. Dua Lipa's appearance is short, but she does a great job that it made me miss seeing her. Sam Rockwell continues a trend in Hollywood where age can be defied as I forgot he is in his mid 50s following the likes of Tom Cruise and Jason Statham.

The movie is way too long and needed a better editor. I like a fleshed out story as much as the next person, but calm down movie.

Now, on to the fun. This movie makes the word "ridiculous" woefully inadequate. But it's a fun ridiculous. There are so many laugh out loud moments that it makes up for a lot of the flaws. I don't want to spoil the movie, but keep an eye out for the blink and you'll miss it hilarity.

There are themes explored in this film about motivation, and whether the emotions experienced during life's choices, even when told in the format of a spy thriller, would carry over if you got to do it all over again. Personally, I find that theory worth exploring, because I wonder if I'd make the same good or bad decisions if not exposed to certain stimuli or experiences. Nature vs nurture anyone? People admit that they would love to be able to speak to their younger selves to assure them that things would be better eventually, or to avoid pitfalls, but that's not good enough. One never knows if that would make any difference, unless you take away those moments.

I enjoyed the heck out of this movie overall, and recommend it for the silliness alone. Don't take the movie seriously, and I believe you will too. The entire, very long, ending sequence is just crazy with the suspension of disbelief, but embrace it.

Argylle is a disappointingly generic offering from Matthew Vaughn which does nothing to raise him out of the current slump he's in. Because up until now he's always been a master at taking familiar plot structures and using them to make a subversive take on tried and tested story tropes. He did this for superheroes in Kick Ass and for the spy genre in the first Kingsman movie. Argylle on the other hand barely has a single original idea in its entire runtime so it just doesn't feel like it's doing anything of substance with this fairly familiar story. It's not only totally uninspired as a viewing experience but also a pretty boring one at that.

I don't know what happened to the Matthew Vaughn of old who used to be so good at telling concise, focused stories because this yet another film of his that felt massively overindulgent. Though that may be to light a word to describe just how poorly paced this movie is because almost every single scene in this thing overstays it's welcome. No matter how many great action scenes and funny moments there were, when you drag these moments on for too long they lose almost all of their effectiveness. The totally bog standard story doesn't do anything to justify the runtime it's given and Matthew Vaughan's serious lack of restraint in editing robs the entire film of any pace or urgency.

I wouldn't really say I was that impressed in the writing or visual departments. It's a pretty bland looking movie overall with some impressive action but a massive overuse of CGI that frequently took me out of the film. There are many reasons my the 3rd act basically collapsed in on itself for me but the horrendous effects were a large part of it. It feels like ever since the first Kingsman, Vaughn has been trying to top the, now iconic, church fight scene to no avail. The last act dials of the insanity up to ridiculous levels and in no good way. Vaughn just throws a series of ludicrous, over-the-top action sequences in our face back-to-back and not only do they fall totally flat, they actually made me cringe.

But like any film other film, Argylle lives and dies by it's script and quite frankly it's terrible. There's barely a single original idea in this entire film and the whole spy-story-within-a-spy-story gimmick was interesting to begin with but it wore out it's welcome pretty quickly for me. The whole plot revolves around a standard McGuffin chase, a shadowy rogue spy organisation and hints of an amnesia plot. We've seen all this 100 times before and it's not used in a way that feels cheekily referential but just frustratingly lazy. I had very little investment in the Cavill sequences since they're established as fictional from almost the very start but I also didn't find Cavill's performance or the character to be that interesting. He's written as such a charisma vacuum and that's not something I'd ever associate Cavill with. It felt like they just kept forcing the Argylle character into the narrative to capitalise on Cavill's star power rather than because the character warranted repeated inclusion. I liked Bryce Dallas Howard and Sam Rockwell as a pair and they did have good chemistry but some of the twists and turns related to their characters I found to be quite ridiculous honestly and it felt like Vaughn was pulling twists out of thin air rather than truly earning them.

I was truly hoping that Argylle would be the return to form for Matthew Vaughn that I've been waiting for but honestly this might just be the worst film he's ever made for me. I liked Golden Circle more than most but it was still a massive step down from the first, The King's Man on the other hand was a totally bland slog that never really justified it's own existence. But neither of those two films matched the level of wasted potential that Argylle exhibited for me. It just feels like Vaughn has totally lost sight of what made him and his films stand out in the first place and this feels like a bare template of a story without anything that makes it feel remotely original or subversive. I know it's only February but 2024 has already presented one of its biggest cinematic disappointments for me.

It's disappointing when a film has an intriguing premise but fails to deliver the goods in the end. Such is the case with director Matthew Vaughn's latest, an action-adventure/comedy about an author of spy novels (Bryce Dallas Howard) who stumbles into a real-life espionage scenario that matches the plot of her latest novel, embroiling her in a web of ever-shifting intrigue with various nefarious parties. The problem here is that the film never quite latches onto a dedicated focus to make the picture work. Some of the comic bits are indeed quite funny, but they frequently get bogged down by a meandering story line that's trying to follow a more conventional, twist-laden thriller format. It leaves viewers asking, "So what's it going to be?" There's also more than a little derivative material thrown in, such as story threads we've already seen before in movies like "Romancing the Stone" (1984), "The Long Kiss Goodnight" (1996) and any number of James Bond flicks. While it's true that this release is intended to be a spoof of these titles (especially in scenes featuring Henry Cavill as a hilariously hammy 007 knock-off), there's a big difference between paying tribute and playing unrepentant copycat. Then there's the picture's excessive length, coming in at a bloated 2:19:00 runtime, far longer than it needs to be, a failing attributable to an often-needlessly complicated plot, one that begins to try audience patience at times, especially in the back half. "Argylle" also features a cute, cuddly cat, Alfie, as a central character (at least in its trailer), but, like the narrative overall, the film doesn't quite seem to know what to do with the supposedly frisky, fickle feline, an impression far different from what's conveyed in the picture's video marketing. All of this is a shame, because this title has both potential and some apparent strengths going for it, such as a fine soundtrack, superbly choreographed action sequences, and an excellent ensemble cast with the likes of Sam Rockwell, Bryan Cranston, Catherine O'Hara, Ariana DeBose, and a seriously underused Richard E. Grant, not to mention fine turns from Howard and Cavill as alter-egos of one another. This one isn't nearly as bad as many critics have made it out to be, but it could have been substantially better with some significant retooling and judicious editing. "Argylle" apparently has ambitions to become a new franchise, too, but we'll have to see if that materializes based on what kind of box office draw it ultimately produces. At this point, though, I think it has its work cut out for it.

The film, considering it is a "Comedy" genre, is funny, has an intelligently developed plot, is well produced and directed, the actors are good... Anyway, if you want to have fun, watch this good comedy.

It's great to read the comments/reviews too... I can't help but imagine how many nice, sensitive people there are with a good sense of humor, and how pleasant it must be to be around them. On the other hand, when I read other people's comments, I can imagine the kind of people I wouldn't want to have around me.

Nowadays, it's very difficult to find a good movie. I like any genre, as long as the movie is good... It can even be a horror movie. And the movie "Argylle" is, without a doubt, a good comedy!

Matthew Vaughn is one of my favorite directors. He has three movies that are on my all-time favorites list: Kick-Ass, X-Men: First Class, and Kingsman: The Secret Service. I love his style and consider him a master filmmaker.

His last movie, The King's Man, was terrible. I gave it 2 stars. But no one is perfect and it's easy to forgive one misfire. But with Argylle, we have another severely disappointing entry. It's not nearly as bad as The King's Man, but that might be why it's even more disappointing. It could have been great.

Why doesn't Argylle work? Movies are so complex, it's difficult to answer that question. Here are my guesses. First, the humor and attempts to be quirky feel off. I only laughed once. Second, there are a few cool action scenes, but nothing to write home about.

Third, what idiot decided this should be PG-13? There are so many deaths, but they can't fully show it. So it feels neutered. They do this to sell more tickets, catering to the casuals. But my theater was nearly empty on opening night. So casuals didn't show up and you alienate your true fans. Fourth, for what amounts to a popcorn flick, I was fairly bored and unengaged.

But I think one thing hurt the movie more than anything else. This is a great cast except for one role. The most important one. The main character. I don't dislike Bryce Dallas Howard. But this was a horrendous casting choice. I can list out 30 actresses that would have been better suited for the role. It doesn't seem too bad early on, but the further we get into the story, the worse it gets. It's not even a tiny bit believable.

I still look forward to future Matthew Vaughn projects. But I just found out that his next movie is a sequel to The King's Man. Why????? I can only hope he reevaluates and tries to get back on track.

(1 viewing, opening Thursday UltraScreen 2/1/2024)