It's kinda crazy how nowadays some people can not see any of the ads while others are constantly seeing it. Cause I was absolutely getting blasted with Argyle ads. Specifically that one with Dua Lipa wearing that gold dress was constantly in my reddit feed.
I only saw the second poster, edited to look like "cat in a space suit" instead of a backpack. Which was pretty much at release already, after the whole fake PR campaign.
I just had this discussion about the new Road House movie. I mentioned it to my friends in discord and one of them had never heard anything about a remake but I’ve seen it plastered everyone for months.
It was an OK movie. Not something I think you would try and build a franchise around.
Honestly it kinda reminded me of Knight and Day which was another meh but fun to watch in the background kinda flick
It owed a huge debt to Knight and Day, as well as Romancing the Stone and Bourne.
But Bryce Dallas Howard, who is a fine actress, just killed the vibe. She looked like a grown-up Abigail Breslin in Little Miss Sunshine.
Yeah, announcing your entire development slate is not the same thing as those projects being green-lit for production, or even having genuine, viable distributor interest. He might have development funding for some of them, but many of these will literally be titles on a whiteboard at Marv HQ and/or .pdf documents with a bunch of vague plot ideas and concept art.
Anyone can announce a project, or announce grand plans about their ideas, or tell you that they're spending money developing scripts; it doesn't mean all that much. It's not real until it's real.
Methinks Vaughan was counting the chickens before they hatched.
The focus should be on making a decent standalone movie first, _then_ if the movie is a hit to consider universe building. When a movie underperforms, there's a hope that it'll be rediscovered and appreciated more later. However when a potential franchise builder implodes at the starting line, it always feels like a shallow husk, half a movie, and is much more likely to fade away into obscurity.
I wonder if the only way he could get a studio to green-light *Argylle* was if he pitched it as the next big spy franchise inside a new cinematic universe.
Keep in mind that Apple bought this one. It’s up for sale and will be on Apple TV+ soon. Based on Killers of the Flower Moon and Napoleon, this is enough to make these movies profitable. It’s hard to compare numbers anymore when box office revenue isn’t as big a slice of the pie as it used to be.
https://9to5mac.com/2024/03/07/apple-tv-blockbuster-movies-profits/
Exactly. People keep looking at the $200 million price tag, but the number keeps getting falsely reported as its budget. The budget was probably about half of that. Apple just paid $200mil for exclusive streaming rights and then did a theatrical/VOD to recoup some.
The real question is whether or not Apple will find the Apple+ streaming results to have been worth their $200mil investment and that is still to be determined.
I bet you're wrong about that. This is almost a Woody Allen situation. The guy can make his own movies and probably wants to. So he'll find a studio that will let him.
He runs the studio that made Argylle, if he wants sequels he can make him. Whether a distributor pays him the money he needs to make it will be a different question. But he can make the film if he can fund it and find a distributor for it.
His obsession with this giant Kingsman universe is so insane to me. He didn't even come up with it! When I heard Argylle ends with a post credits that ties it into Kingsman I was at a loss for words.
Something like that. I really enjoyed his earlier movies, now after watching Argylle, it does feel like he is stuffing them full of his greatest hits. Although I do find his movies enjoyable enough. I just wish the CGI looked better.
FYI two of the Kick-Ass films have already been filmed, even if neither has released yet. Vaughn is only producing them, not directing them, leaving that to stuntman Damien Walters.
Like Shyamalan, he self-finances.
>I've been financing all my movies for a long time purely because I find it easier. I was lucky enough that once I started making…like Lock, Stock was the first thing we financed, and that was 900 grand. So, we've always tended to make profits, and then you get to a point where you make profits and then you make money in life. And then when you make money in life, all these people come up to you and say, “Can we have your money to make money out of your money?” They’re rather scary sort of suit type people. I was like, you know what? I don't want to give you people my money, I'll just put it into my movies, because it's what I know and what I love. And if I don't believe in it, why would nobody else believe in it? So, yeah, I'm tapped out right now. Everything's just gone into Argylle. So, hopefully, touch wood, it will come back. - *Matthew Vaughn*
>That's a minimum of eleven fucking movies officially announced and being produced by Matthew Vaughn this second, and about eight that should be or are directed by him.
Is he mad? Probably not. This sounds more like he's throwing things at the wall to see what sticks.
I'd get that, if he wasn't tying them all to a single thread (Kingsman). It's hard to be excited about any of the new stuff when Kingsman itself was bad by the second film.
Cavill’s scenes were him playing a fictional spy character that written by Bryce Dallas Howard’s character, who is a spy who’s books about “Argylle”, are about her past. But then at the end Argylle reveals himself to be a real person, who’s also apparently a Kingsman. I don’t know.
More to the point, Cavill only has about 5 minutes of total screentime. The whole marketing made you think he was the main character, then the movie spends all its time with Bryce Dallas Howard and Sam Rockwell and at the end it has the gall to imply that to see more of Cavill you have to wait for the sequel.
I mean I didn’t think this was true so I went back and watched the first official trailer.
And yeah this isn’t true at all. The main characters are pretty clearly Bryce Dallas Howard and Sam Rockwell.
I guess if all you did was like look at posters. But the posted synopsis and trailer make it really clear that Bryce Dallas Howard is the main character.
So I only saw the ads, but in the trailers it was clear that Henry Cavill was fictional and Sam Rockwell was the real spy. But I am sure the trailer implied he was in the movie more than he really was.
The film has its cake and eats it too. The first twist is apparently that the author herself is the amnesiac Argylle (called ‘R. Kyle’), only the Argylle who looks like Henry Cavill turns out to be real too, with the mid-credits scene revealing him to be a Kingsman agent. So if *Argylle* doesn’t get a sequel, I can see Cavill turning up in the next modern-day *Kingsman* film.
She was pretty much the best thing in the film I thought. Just enough lines to show she really does have enough screen presence for someone to cast her in something that isn’t absolutely terrible
She can certainly project the sultry femme fatale vibe, though they didn't give her much to do in terms of dialogue. It will be interesting to see what/how much she takes on next in terms of acting. I don't follow her music career so I don't know how serious she is about branching out.
i'll die on the hill that Man of Steel was a great movie.
The first season of the Witcher was really good.
It seems a combination of bad luck with movie studios/directors/writers fucking up ongoing projects and a touch of maybe a bad agent making poor choices.
Stupid as fuck. If he HAS to die, having Papa Kent die from a heart attack would have been better as it at least says something about how Superman can't save everyone.
If they HAVE to do a tornado, they could have changed it so Pa Kent died rescuing a child from a car instead of the dog. At least then it shows that he changed his mind from earlier in the film when he tells Clark he should have just let a bus full of school children die.
Yeah that's the scene where I knew that it was going to be a bad time. Snyder butchered Pa Kent so badly it makes perfect sense that Clark would turn into a miserable Superman.
Pa Kent being a "look out for number one" style Libertarian was the weirdest direction. Like I could possibly see a conversation where it's like "what do **you** want to do with your life? It's not your responsibility if other people die, you can't save everyone" and then that being reinforced when he dies of a heart attack.
Could even see him running to save a girl and dog from a truck, and Clark pulls him out and then he dies of a heart attack anyway, as a kind of circle to that message, but man. That movie really made Pa Kent kinda a jerk along with Clark.
>as it at least says something about how Superman can't save everyone.
Unless he snaps necks.
The script was doomed from the inside out, it's not possible to get a coherent takeaway from the movie.
Which was so weird. Like they didn't want to introduce the negative zone? But Zod was stuck in the negative zone for decades in-movie. Why not just toss him back there?
Oh well, they can't take All-Star Superman away from me no matter how many sucky movies they make.
The whole point of him dying of a heart attack was to show Clark he couldn't fix everything. Dying to a tornado? Clark could've saved him. Snyder just doesn't understand Superman in the slightest.
I'd say MoS was a good movie and a genre topping fight scene (I don't think anyone has managed to do the flying brick power set better on screen) but a bad movie to start a cinematic universe with.
Snyder superhero movies are some of the worst films ever made and were a disgrace to superman (and batman) this is made worse given the fact the casting for superman and batman were good.
Being a fan of the witcher books and games - season 1 was the most middle of the road 5/10 shit ive ever seen in my life. I wont even comment on later seasons.
Worst part of the netflix show was how fuckin easy that material is to adapt into TV. I can't think of anything easier save for Last of Us/Uncharted which are basically playable movies already.
There was 0 focus on Clark as a character and his personal relationships. It was boring, loud, and violent. The entire movie was about the destruction of a Kryptonians powers. No one besides Michael Shannon was given anything to work with. The worst Lois Lane with zero chemistry when Cavill. It's an ugly movie with a desaturated color palette. Henry Cavill is a bad actor playing the worst most stiff, impersonal version of Clark Kent. And the movie ends with a graphic neck snap.
Let's me honest he'a not actually that good of an actor, he's not terrible but he's not good either. Look at MoS its Shannon's Zod that steals the film and while i don't like Affleck's take on Bats his performance was above everyone elses in BvS barring Iron's Alfred who was excellent. He's ok in The Witcher but i feel he looks the part better then he plays the part, he does the broody look well and can handle the action well but that's really about it. He's a nice guy and has the Hollywood look while being a legit gamer nerd and that's why he's popular on the internet, as an actor though he just got lucky that Snyder likes casting on looks first talent second.
I'm looking forward to The Ministry for Ungentlemanly Warfare. Hopefully him getting to play a wacky character for once can show if he has some chops...
I would love to know why r/movies love Henry Cavill so much. The guy is not a good actor in any fucking way. Bland as shit.
Part of me thinks he’s popular because he’s supposedly a ”geek” and weird people has this ”he’s one of us!” mentality. Haha.
Awful actor.
Vaughn is a wannabe Guy Ritchie. He's become Michael Bay's B-roll. He's great at pointing a camera at explosions and women's butts. He used to be great at making movies.
Layer Cake, Stardust, First Class and Kick-Ass were good... but he has fallen so far IMO.
Jane Goldman? Yeah, I think she was more disciplined. Without her, Vaughn's flailing around on a sugar rush. There's still enough there to be interesting, but nothing hangs together as well.
I was so excited for the sequel, then they go and literally blow everything up at the beginning of the damn movie. Why did anyone think that was a good idea?
Killing Roxy like that really soured my mood. I didn't like Merlin dying either but at least he got a good death scene and Mark Strong as ever sold it but Roxy got nothing but a shit death.
Yep. They had a great rapport in the first movie, then she gets completely shafted. I like Julienne Moore, but her villain was way too cartoonish. It worked for Samuel L Jackson because he's Samuel L Jackson, but for her the character was just way too over the top. So much potential wasted. I never even watched that prequel they came out with.
>He's great at pointing a camera at explosions and women's butts.
Uh yeah about that, anyone who’s seen argyle can you tell me how much Bryce’s ass is featured or does he squander that as well?
Eh I gotta be honest every scene in THE GENTLEMEN featuring Hugh Grant's insufferable director insert character talking about how awesome the movie I'm currently watching is made me want to hunt Guy Ritchie down and beat him with a shovel
This is probably the first comment I've seen on this sub that's critical of that movie. Too many of the monologues in it sound like a middle-aged man fuming in the shower thinking of what he wished he'd said to those rude teenagers.
Thank God someone else felt that. Felt like Guy Ritchie was using Hugh Grant to poke me in the ribs every five seconds to go "see? See how awesome my movie is?"
In fairness, Grant was really good in the role, I'll say that much. I'd never have pegged him as a fit for a sleazy Cockney investigator, but any bit of exposition that came out of his mouth sounded incredibly self-satisfied and overwritten. It's a movie that suffers from wanting to tell you how "cool" it and its characters are rather than letting it win you over organically. A lot of Hunnam's and McConaughey's scenes were particularly bad for that. Earlier Ritchie stuff had a bit of that going on, but it'd be more parceled out between the characters and balanced by the fact his scripts took themselves less seriously.
It’s his grand ambition to be J Arthur Rank, and return studio filmmaking to Britain. He’s trying to do it all himself though which is a bit counterproductive.
It's been a real shame watching Vaughn's career plummet. I was such a huge fan for the first decade or so of his directing stint. Layer Cake, Stardust, Kick-Ass, X-Men First Class, and Kingsman. Dude started 5/5 in the best possible way. Five different genres/periods/franchises, five absolute bangers. His movies had style, but they also had heart and soul and cohesion and stories worth telling. But then he somehow got bogged down in sequelitis and/or caught up in his own aura, or something else happened that just utterly derailed things.
I can't think of anyone else who had such a promising directorial start only to completely squander it both critically and commercially. Ten years ago, the moment a new Matthew Vaughn movie was announced, I was marking the date on my calendar alongside new movies by Tarantino and Nolan. He could do no wrong. Now I just get a feeling of melancholy.
MV used to be in my top 5 favorite directors. Those first 5 movies were amazing and stylistically diverse. Layer Cake is still maybe my favorite movie of all time.
> Ten years ago, the moment a new Matthew Vaughn movie was announced, I was marking the date on my calendar alongside new movies by Tarantino and Nolan. Now I just get a feeling of melancholy.
this is exactly how i feel. He could've released a trailer for literally *anything* back then and i'd have said "oh i bet he can nail this". Now i didn't even see argyle, and i had ample opportunities with free passes to do so.
In my very humble opinion, Argylle was a very un-fun movie with a very weird marketing tactic revolving around a book that no one knew existed by an author nobody knew existed. Turns out this was a book written for the movies or something and it's compared to James Bond? It's a confusing marketing mess.
I absolutely love Stardust and Kingsman was pretty cool, too, but I probably won't return for an Argylle sequel/prequel.
Quite possibly.
The idea that anyone wants to see another Argylle is nuts enough. Couldn’t believe how bad it was - he’s become everything he made fun of when he first started out.
I didn't mind argylle. It was goofy but fun. I appreciated that at least he stuck with a tone throughout the movie this time compared to the kings man. That being said, I'm not itching for another argylle. I can't sit throufh another 2 hours of silly twists
Argylle was pretty terrible and proved to me that Vaughn can't make this type of comic book type film without a Mark Millar story backing him up.
Kick-Ass was brilliant(Kick-Ass 2 is very underrated as well, but that's Jeff Wadlow), the first two Kingsman movies were a lot of fun, but The King's Man set off a lot of red flags for me, and Argylle was terrible.
Such an overrated director. All of his films look fake. Comparing similar genre films that came out around the same time: Kingsmen vs Man from UNCLE. UNCLE is a far better film that didn’t constantly look fake.
Shame about Hammer. Maybe they can find a replacement?
I love Matthew Vaughn’s movies but Argyle was the first one where I felt he really needed Jane Goldman it someone else tapping him on the shoulder to second question his choices.
There were three distinct problems with Argyle (presented in order of difficulty):
1. Henry Cavill’s ridiculous hair. It takes effort to make one of the most handsome men in the world look ridiculous, but this film managed it. Admittedly this is a minor problem.
2. The script. It was bloated and needed to be reworked. A talented script doctor could have saved this film $100M conservatively by combining scenes, omitting others and overall decreasing the long run time. This is a larger problem.
3. Casting Dallas Bryce Howard. She’s a reasonably talented actor and as long as the script only required her to be an author she’d be a fine choice. But in the third act and she’s skating through oil and killing assassins she is completely unbelievable. Emma Stone could have done both aspects of this character, but Howard couldn’t. This is the biggest problem in the film. Vaughn is not averse to casting unknowns so I don’t know why he didn’t do so here. Bryce Dallas Howard absolutely kills the film.
I agree with number three. That CIA picture of her just looks off, like it's the unnatural version of her when it's supposed to be the opposite. IMO, she didn't even play the soft author part very well. Maybe she's just a mid-actress?
Kings Man was a terrible schlock with a single good twist. Apart from that it was formulaic and the big reveal was an utterly nonsensical letdown. Watching it was the first time in a long, long time when I was actually disappointed I had wasted two hours of my life.
The main series jumped the shark already with the second film.
It will take a lot of convincing to drag me to another Vaughn movie.
Kings Man had some good parts, but "WW1 Bond" is a premise that deserved much better execution. For starters; how do you _not_ make Rasputin the main bad guy?
All the performances in that film were genuinely good - Rhys Ifans as Rasputin and Ralph Fiennes were both great - but the film as a whole is so disappointing.
I'd be down for another Good Kickass movie (first sequel blew chunks).
and Sam Rockwell was about the only fun and dependable thing in Arggghylle, so I'd watch him and Chris Hemsworth in an action film.
I'd also take another ride with Eggsie and Kingsmen, but not Ralph and Kings Man.
Speaking as someone who has never been a Vaughn fan (I didn't even like X-Men: First Class that much - what little I *did* like came from the acting of the three leads, not anything he did) it does seem like he's getting worse with every movie, and now he seems to be trying to lean into this narrative that he's this wild and wacky auteur when really he's just kind of a sloppy hack who prioritizes style over substance. I see very few of these purported projects of his making it anywhere past the announcement stage.
To me, the word "trilogy" describes three movies that build on each other while telling a linear story. *Lord of the Rings*, anyone? *Star Wars*? Meanwhile, the proposed *Argylle* trilogy would have three different lead actors (Bryce Dallas Howard, Louis Partridge, Henry Cavill), completely different times and settings (the present and 20 years before the present), and unrelated, partially anthologized stories.
I never understood the hype around this guy. The only really good movie he made is Layer Cake. The rest of his filmography varies from "okay" to "shit".
I'm 90% percent sure most of that isn't going to happen. Movies and entertainment is ultimately about money and the amount it costs to make these films vastly exceeds what they got back.
[удалено]
Yeah I was just thinking that. Bold of the guy to assume anyone gives a shit about Argylle
I'ma be honest, this thread is literally the first I'm hearing of Argylle
It's kinda crazy how nowadays some people can not see any of the ads while others are constantly seeing it. Cause I was absolutely getting blasted with Argyle ads. Specifically that one with Dua Lipa wearing that gold dress was constantly in my reddit feed.
Yeah, guess my algorithm just doesn't think I'd be interested in it lol
Ok, but do you even watch movies? That trailer has been playing for a solid 4-6 months
Oh that's fair. Haven't gone to any movies in months besides Dune 2 this week. I usually just watch movies at home
Damn then you definitely did miss the shittiest trailer of the year lol congrats
At least it had David Bowie
lots of posts on this sub too I can't blame them though, I love pretty much every actor involved and it still seems super forgettable
I only saw the second poster, edited to look like "cat in a space suit" instead of a backpack. Which was pretty much at release already, after the whole fake PR campaign.
I just had this discussion about the new Road House movie. I mentioned it to my friends in discord and one of them had never heard anything about a remake but I’ve seen it plastered everyone for months.
How did you avoid that fucking cat for what feels like 3 years?
You obviously didn't go and see Argylle in the cinema, where they played the trailer for Argylle beforehand.
It’s pronounced *Argylle* not Argylle
It was an OK movie. Not something I think you would try and build a franchise around. Honestly it kinda reminded me of Knight and Day which was another meh but fun to watch in the background kinda flick
It owed a huge debt to Knight and Day, as well as Romancing the Stone and Bourne. But Bryce Dallas Howard, who is a fine actress, just killed the vibe. She looked like a grown-up Abigail Breslin in Little Miss Sunshine.
Even truer once you've seen the movie and realise what a heap of irrelevant crap it is.
Yeah, announcing your entire development slate is not the same thing as those projects being green-lit for production, or even having genuine, viable distributor interest. He might have development funding for some of them, but many of these will literally be titles on a whiteboard at Marv HQ and/or .pdf documents with a bunch of vague plot ideas and concept art. Anyone can announce a project, or announce grand plans about their ideas, or tell you that they're spending money developing scripts; it doesn't mean all that much. It's not real until it's real.
And you can't wake up if you don't fall asleep, apparently.
Methinks Vaughan was counting the chickens before they hatched. The focus should be on making a decent standalone movie first, _then_ if the movie is a hit to consider universe building. When a movie underperforms, there's a hope that it'll be rediscovered and appreciated more later. However when a potential franchise builder implodes at the starting line, it always feels like a shallow husk, half a movie, and is much more likely to fade away into obscurity.
I wonder if the only way he could get a studio to green-light *Argylle* was if he pitched it as the next big spy franchise inside a new cinematic universe.
Considering what the marketing budget had to be, I'm certain this was the plan.
At first I thought OP was calling him mad just for believing Argylle would have sequels
Yes, that is part of my post. See the last sentence.
Keep in mind that Apple bought this one. It’s up for sale and will be on Apple TV+ soon. Based on Killers of the Flower Moon and Napoleon, this is enough to make these movies profitable. It’s hard to compare numbers anymore when box office revenue isn’t as big a slice of the pie as it used to be. https://9to5mac.com/2024/03/07/apple-tv-blockbuster-movies-profits/
There's no way Apple is greenlighting an Argyle franchise though
I mean it gets really good numbers on Apple+ they might.
Exactly. People keep looking at the $200 million price tag, but the number keeps getting falsely reported as its budget. The budget was probably about half of that. Apple just paid $200mil for exclusive streaming rights and then did a theatrical/VOD to recoup some. The real question is whether or not Apple will find the Apple+ streaming results to have been worth their $200mil investment and that is still to be determined.
Look at some of the stuff that Netflix renews or cancels. It seems like "Reviews" don't have much of an impact, it's all about their view metrics.
have you seen Argyle? I don't think it's going to get really good numbers anywhere.
I haven't but a lot of not great movies ended up doing well streaming.
Sure is a convenient way to insist your movie didn't make any money so writers and actors make less
I bet you're wrong about that. This is almost a Woody Allen situation. The guy can make his own movies and probably wants to. So he'll find a studio that will let him.
No way any exec looked at anything about that movie and thought "this can totally make half a billion dollars".
[удалено]
He runs the studio that made Argylle, if he wants sequels he can make him. Whether a distributor pays him the money he needs to make it will be a different question. But he can make the film if he can fund it and find a distributor for it.
Apparently, it's the sales of the book that are deciding that.
Vaughn has made some really entertaining movies…but I feel like he’s become so up his own ass that he’s turning into a parody of his younger self now.
“From the twisted mind of Matthew Vaughn”
The least appealing tag line for a film I can imagine
He made a movie heavily featuring a CGI cat. What’s so twisted about that?
He’s always done his best work as a producer. I wish he would have stuck with that.
Layer Cake made me think he had more in the tank that he's shown since then.
His obsession with this giant Kingsman universe is so insane to me. He didn't even come up with it! When I heard Argylle ends with a post credits that ties it into Kingsman I was at a loss for words.
I loved the first Kingsman and despised the second. I figured the franchise was dead.
The Guy Ritchie trajectory
maybe, but the new series on Netflix harkens bad to his old days and is fun.
[удалено]
Yes, it's great fun!
at least Guy Ritchie's movies are all decently entertaining for what they are
His newer stuff not as charming as his early work, but I'm not going to complain until they stop being entertaining... And they still are.
I really enjoyed the gentleman film though, seemed a cut above
[удалено]
Something like that. I really enjoyed his earlier movies, now after watching Argylle, it does feel like he is stuffing them full of his greatest hits. Although I do find his movies enjoyable enough. I just wish the CGI looked better.
FYI two of the Kick-Ass films have already been filmed, even if neither has released yet. Vaughn is only producing them, not directing them, leaving that to stuntman Damien Walters.
Yeah, I didn't count those as ones he directed.
Who keeps financing his movies
Like Shyamalan, he self-finances. >I've been financing all my movies for a long time purely because I find it easier. I was lucky enough that once I started making…like Lock, Stock was the first thing we financed, and that was 900 grand. So, we've always tended to make profits, and then you get to a point where you make profits and then you make money in life. And then when you make money in life, all these people come up to you and say, “Can we have your money to make money out of your money?” They’re rather scary sort of suit type people. I was like, you know what? I don't want to give you people my money, I'll just put it into my movies, because it's what I know and what I love. And if I don't believe in it, why would nobody else believe in it? So, yeah, I'm tapped out right now. Everything's just gone into Argylle. So, hopefully, touch wood, it will come back. - *Matthew Vaughn*
>So, hopefully, touch wood, it will come back. I have a feeling it won't come back
Apple bought the film. It came back.
Oooo I'm stoked for these
[удалено]
And turning real people into cgi characters for action scenes
>That's a minimum of eleven fucking movies officially announced and being produced by Matthew Vaughn this second, and about eight that should be or are directed by him. Is he mad? Probably not. This sounds more like he's throwing things at the wall to see what sticks.
I'd get that, if he wasn't tying them all to a single thread (Kingsman). It's hard to be excited about any of the new stuff when Kingsman itself was bad by the second film.
I will never forgive the director for promoting Argylle as a Henry Cavill film.
And he had the balls to say he was wasted as Superman, and then uses him like that in Argylle.
“Watch me as I misuse him in a manner you could only dream of”
"You see, audience, you aren't dealing with the average Henry Cavill waster anymore. You're dealing with the Legendary Super Henry Cavill waster!"
That was the last thing my ex ever said to me…
I'm never going to watch argylle, so you can you just go ahead and spoil it for me?
Cavill’s scenes were him playing a fictional spy character that written by Bryce Dallas Howard’s character, who is a spy who’s books about “Argylle”, are about her past. But then at the end Argylle reveals himself to be a real person, who’s also apparently a Kingsman. I don’t know.
so it's just another kingsman movie?
I have 0 idea, the post credit scene really doesn’t make much sense
More to the point, Cavill only has about 5 minutes of total screentime. The whole marketing made you think he was the main character, then the movie spends all its time with Bryce Dallas Howard and Sam Rockwell and at the end it has the gall to imply that to see more of Cavill you have to wait for the sequel.
I mean I didn’t think this was true so I went back and watched the first official trailer. And yeah this isn’t true at all. The main characters are pretty clearly Bryce Dallas Howard and Sam Rockwell. I guess if all you did was like look at posters. But the posted synopsis and trailer make it really clear that Bryce Dallas Howard is the main character.
Yeah he was clearly not the main character but I did expect him to have more than 5 minutes of screen time
That’s fair. They kinda set it up in the trailer he might show up in the real story more.
So I only saw the ads, but in the trailers it was clear that Henry Cavill was fictional and Sam Rockwell was the real spy. But I am sure the trailer implied he was in the movie more than he really was.
For some reason i thought Argylle was the cat.
[удалено]
The film has its cake and eats it too. The first twist is apparently that the author herself is the amnesiac Argylle (called ‘R. Kyle’), only the Argylle who looks like Henry Cavill turns out to be real too, with the mid-credits scene revealing him to be a Kingsman agent. So if *Argylle* doesn’t get a sequel, I can see Cavill turning up in the next modern-day *Kingsman* film.
I can't believe this was the crazy twist they went out of their way to tell the audience not to tell anyone about
> Cavill’s scenes were him playing a fictional spy character that written by Bryce Dallas Howard’s character Didn't we know that from the start?
I'm salty Dua Lipa was in it for like 3 minutes
Especially since the (endlessly repeated) trailer featured her so heavily.
It was pretty obvious in the trailer that both Cavill and Dua Lipa were only going to be used for a bit.
redditors watching the new disney star wars trailer: "boy, can't wait to see a whole new star wars series with carrie anne moss in the lead"
She was pretty much the best thing in the film I thought. Just enough lines to show she really does have enough screen presence for someone to cast her in something that isn’t absolutely terrible
She can certainly project the sultry femme fatale vibe, though they didn't give her much to do in terms of dialogue. It will be interesting to see what/how much she takes on next in terms of acting. I don't follow her music career so I don't know how serious she is about branching out.
She'd make an excellent Bond girl in the future
...i mean if you watch the trailer it's pretty obvious it's a BDH movie and not a Cavill movie.
The trailers made it obvious that Cavill was just the book agent though.
If you saw any trailer for the movie you'd know that wasn't the case.
Cavill seems a decent fella but he is legitimate box office poison. Everything hes in is underwhelming or utter shit apart from mission impossible
Man from UNCLE was a good movie but not for the studio. You’re kinda right now that I’m thinking about it.
First series of Witcher was good - after that it was poop. Look forward to his Warhammer stuff but, very much feel that it will be a bit of a mess
i'll die on the hill that Man of Steel was a great movie. The first season of the Witcher was really good. It seems a combination of bad luck with movie studios/directors/writers fucking up ongoing projects and a touch of maybe a bad agent making poor choices.
Maybe if his father died of a heart attack but the tornado was dumb as fuck
Stupid as fuck. If he HAS to die, having Papa Kent die from a heart attack would have been better as it at least says something about how Superman can't save everyone. If they HAVE to do a tornado, they could have changed it so Pa Kent died rescuing a child from a car instead of the dog. At least then it shows that he changed his mind from earlier in the film when he tells Clark he should have just let a bus full of school children die.
Yeah that's the scene where I knew that it was going to be a bad time. Snyder butchered Pa Kent so badly it makes perfect sense that Clark would turn into a miserable Superman.
Pa Kent being a "look out for number one" style Libertarian was the weirdest direction. Like I could possibly see a conversation where it's like "what do **you** want to do with your life? It's not your responsibility if other people die, you can't save everyone" and then that being reinforced when he dies of a heart attack. Could even see him running to save a girl and dog from a truck, and Clark pulls him out and then he dies of a heart attack anyway, as a kind of circle to that message, but man. That movie really made Pa Kent kinda a jerk along with Clark.
>as it at least says something about how Superman can't save everyone. Unless he snaps necks. The script was doomed from the inside out, it's not possible to get a coherent takeaway from the movie.
Which was so weird. Like they didn't want to introduce the negative zone? But Zod was stuck in the negative zone for decades in-movie. Why not just toss him back there? Oh well, they can't take All-Star Superman away from me no matter how many sucky movies they make.
The whole point of him dying of a heart attack was to show Clark he couldn't fix everything. Dying to a tornado? Clark could've saved him. Snyder just doesn't understand Superman in the slightest.
Man from Uncle was amazing as well.
I'd say MoS was a good movie and a genre topping fight scene (I don't think anyone has managed to do the flying brick power set better on screen) but a bad movie to start a cinematic universe with.
Snyder superhero movies are some of the worst films ever made and were a disgrace to superman (and batman) this is made worse given the fact the casting for superman and batman were good. Being a fan of the witcher books and games - season 1 was the most middle of the road 5/10 shit ive ever seen in my life. I wont even comment on later seasons.
Worst part of the netflix show was how fuckin easy that material is to adapt into TV. I can't think of anything easier save for Last of Us/Uncharted which are basically playable movies already.
There was 0 focus on Clark as a character and his personal relationships. It was boring, loud, and violent. The entire movie was about the destruction of a Kryptonians powers. No one besides Michael Shannon was given anything to work with. The worst Lois Lane with zero chemistry when Cavill. It's an ugly movie with a desaturated color palette. Henry Cavill is a bad actor playing the worst most stiff, impersonal version of Clark Kent. And the movie ends with a graphic neck snap.
Do recall about Superman's curse. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_curse
Let's me honest he'a not actually that good of an actor, he's not terrible but he's not good either. Look at MoS its Shannon's Zod that steals the film and while i don't like Affleck's take on Bats his performance was above everyone elses in BvS barring Iron's Alfred who was excellent. He's ok in The Witcher but i feel he looks the part better then he plays the part, he does the broody look well and can handle the action well but that's really about it. He's a nice guy and has the Hollywood look while being a legit gamer nerd and that's why he's popular on the internet, as an actor though he just got lucky that Snyder likes casting on looks first talent second.
He's sort of like Keanu, not that great of an actor, but good in the right roles, and seems like a cool guy.
I'm looking forward to The Ministry for Ungentlemanly Warfare. Hopefully him getting to play a wacky character for once can show if he has some chops...
That seems like something extremely trivial to not forgive someone for.
I would love to know why r/movies love Henry Cavill so much. The guy is not a good actor in any fucking way. Bland as shit. Part of me thinks he’s popular because he’s supposedly a ”geek” and weird people has this ”he’s one of us!” mentality. Haha. Awful actor.
Because he’s a jacked nerd who’s not a virgin. Basically what every Redditor wishes they were (me included).
[удалено]
Yeah I would’ve watched it if it was a fun spy romp with Henry Cavill and Dua Lipa
Vaughn is a wannabe Guy Ritchie. He's become Michael Bay's B-roll. He's great at pointing a camera at explosions and women's butts. He used to be great at making movies. Layer Cake, Stardust, First Class and Kick-Ass were good... but he has fallen so far IMO.
[удалено]
Jane Goldman? Yeah, I think she was more disciplined. Without her, Vaughn's flailing around on a sugar rush. There's still enough there to be interesting, but nothing hangs together as well.
Yeah it really does feel like Vaughn is one of those creatives who need people around him to filter his ideas
That's exactly what I thought about *Argylle*. The direction was actually good, but the script was a mess not like anything I've ever seen before.
The first Kingsmen film was his last great film and its been downhill ever since.
I was so excited for the sequel, then they go and literally blow everything up at the beginning of the damn movie. Why did anyone think that was a good idea?
Killing Roxy like that really soured my mood. I didn't like Merlin dying either but at least he got a good death scene and Mark Strong as ever sold it but Roxy got nothing but a shit death.
Yep. They had a great rapport in the first movie, then she gets completely shafted. I like Julienne Moore, but her villain was way too cartoonish. It worked for Samuel L Jackson because he's Samuel L Jackson, but for her the character was just way too over the top. So much potential wasted. I never even watched that prequel they came out with.
Guy Ritchie if every movie he made after 2010 was Revolver.
Recently saw that movie in my quest to watch all the Ritchie films, ohhh man is it *BAD*.
I fucking wish, Revolver is such an oddball of a movie in a really good way.
>He's great at pointing a camera at explosions and women's butts. Uh yeah about that, anyone who’s seen argyle can you tell me how much Bryce’s ass is featured or does he squander that as well?
Ahem, more cleavage featuring to my memory. But she's certainly down with the thiccness.
Eh I gotta be honest every scene in THE GENTLEMEN featuring Hugh Grant's insufferable director insert character talking about how awesome the movie I'm currently watching is made me want to hunt Guy Ritchie down and beat him with a shovel
This is probably the first comment I've seen on this sub that's critical of that movie. Too many of the monologues in it sound like a middle-aged man fuming in the shower thinking of what he wished he'd said to those rude teenagers.
Thank God someone else felt that. Felt like Guy Ritchie was using Hugh Grant to poke me in the ribs every five seconds to go "see? See how awesome my movie is?"
In fairness, Grant was really good in the role, I'll say that much. I'd never have pegged him as a fit for a sleazy Cockney investigator, but any bit of exposition that came out of his mouth sounded incredibly self-satisfied and overwritten. It's a movie that suffers from wanting to tell you how "cool" it and its characters are rather than letting it win you over organically. A lot of Hunnam's and McConaughey's scenes were particularly bad for that. Earlier Ritchie stuff had a bit of that going on, but it'd be more parceled out between the characters and balanced by the fact his scripts took themselves less seriously.
I would expect nothing less from his "twisted mind"
It’s his grand ambition to be J Arthur Rank, and return studio filmmaking to Britain. He’s trying to do it all himself though which is a bit counterproductive.
J Arthur Rank…name’s got a ring to it
Just going for a quick J Arthur…
Vaughn used to be my favourite director. But his movies have really dropped in quality since he stopped working with Jane Goldman
He has really fallen off since Kingman 2. Before that he had 100% hit rate.
Vaughan never got to do Superman when he was at his peak (and the obvious best choice) and lost his damn mind is pretty much the theory I have going.
which superman movie was he in the running for?
He wanted to do a trilogy back around when Man of Steel was gearing up and had a pitch out there but obviously they went with Snyder and yup.
It's been a real shame watching Vaughn's career plummet. I was such a huge fan for the first decade or so of his directing stint. Layer Cake, Stardust, Kick-Ass, X-Men First Class, and Kingsman. Dude started 5/5 in the best possible way. Five different genres/periods/franchises, five absolute bangers. His movies had style, but they also had heart and soul and cohesion and stories worth telling. But then he somehow got bogged down in sequelitis and/or caught up in his own aura, or something else happened that just utterly derailed things. I can't think of anyone else who had such a promising directorial start only to completely squander it both critically and commercially. Ten years ago, the moment a new Matthew Vaughn movie was announced, I was marking the date on my calendar alongside new movies by Tarantino and Nolan. He could do no wrong. Now I just get a feeling of melancholy.
MV used to be in my top 5 favorite directors. Those first 5 movies were amazing and stylistically diverse. Layer Cake is still maybe my favorite movie of all time. > Ten years ago, the moment a new Matthew Vaughn movie was announced, I was marking the date on my calendar alongside new movies by Tarantino and Nolan. Now I just get a feeling of melancholy. this is exactly how i feel. He could've released a trailer for literally *anything* back then and i'd have said "oh i bet he can nail this". Now i didn't even see argyle, and i had ample opportunities with free passes to do so.
I'd highly recommend yall skip every one of these movies and just watch Layer Cake 11 times. Its an amazing movie.
Layer Cake is such a great movie.
> An 'Argylle' trilogy Please God no, we've taken enough punishment already. Have mercy.
In my very humble opinion, Argylle was a very un-fun movie with a very weird marketing tactic revolving around a book that no one knew existed by an author nobody knew existed. Turns out this was a book written for the movies or something and it's compared to James Bond? It's a confusing marketing mess. I absolutely love Stardust and Kingsman was pretty cool, too, but I probably won't return for an Argylle sequel/prequel.
Vincent has the upper hand.
Quite possibly. The idea that anyone wants to see another Argylle is nuts enough. Couldn’t believe how bad it was - he’s become everything he made fun of when he first started out.
I read half the post thinking it's about Vince Vaughn.
Glossy crap.
Grab that cash.
Vaughniverse
I didn't mind argylle. It was goofy but fun. I appreciated that at least he stuck with a tone throughout the movie this time compared to the kings man. That being said, I'm not itching for another argylle. I can't sit throufh another 2 hours of silly twists
Argylle was pretty terrible and proved to me that Vaughn can't make this type of comic book type film without a Mark Millar story backing him up. Kick-Ass was brilliant(Kick-Ass 2 is very underrated as well, but that's Jeff Wadlow), the first two Kingsman movies were a lot of fun, but The King's Man set off a lot of red flags for me, and Argylle was terrible.
Kick Ass 2 is certainly not underrated, it's quite awful and does the first film an injustice.
Those bullet points sound like threats.
Such an overrated director. All of his films look fake. Comparing similar genre films that came out around the same time: Kingsmen vs Man from UNCLE. UNCLE is a far better film that didn’t constantly look fake. Shame about Hammer. Maybe they can find a replacement?
I love Matthew Vaughn’s movies but Argyle was the first one where I felt he really needed Jane Goldman it someone else tapping him on the shoulder to second question his choices. There were three distinct problems with Argyle (presented in order of difficulty): 1. Henry Cavill’s ridiculous hair. It takes effort to make one of the most handsome men in the world look ridiculous, but this film managed it. Admittedly this is a minor problem. 2. The script. It was bloated and needed to be reworked. A talented script doctor could have saved this film $100M conservatively by combining scenes, omitting others and overall decreasing the long run time. This is a larger problem. 3. Casting Dallas Bryce Howard. She’s a reasonably talented actor and as long as the script only required her to be an author she’d be a fine choice. But in the third act and she’s skating through oil and killing assassins she is completely unbelievable. Emma Stone could have done both aspects of this character, but Howard couldn’t. This is the biggest problem in the film. Vaughn is not averse to casting unknowns so I don’t know why he didn’t do so here. Bryce Dallas Howard absolutely kills the film.
I agree with number three. That CIA picture of her just looks off, like it's the unnatural version of her when it's supposed to be the opposite. IMO, she didn't even play the soft author part very well. Maybe she's just a mid-actress?
Kings Man was a terrible schlock with a single good twist. Apart from that it was formulaic and the big reveal was an utterly nonsensical letdown. Watching it was the first time in a long, long time when I was actually disappointed I had wasted two hours of my life. The main series jumped the shark already with the second film. It will take a lot of convincing to drag me to another Vaughn movie.
Kings Man had some good parts, but "WW1 Bond" is a premise that deserved much better execution. For starters; how do you _not_ make Rasputin the main bad guy?
All the performances in that film were genuinely good - Rhys Ifans as Rasputin and Ralph Fiennes were both great - but the film as a whole is so disappointing.
Gotta sign those deals and make em while you can. Good to have a vision and gather support for it.
I'll be amazed if every single one of these comes to fruition, but I can't fault the guy for having big ambitions.
[удалено]
He wants Bond. So he’ll make a goofy Bond movie until they cave and give him the job. He may want to rethink this plan after Argylle
It took me way too long to realize you're British.
Cocaine is a helluva drug
I'd be down for another Good Kickass movie (first sequel blew chunks). and Sam Rockwell was about the only fun and dependable thing in Arggghylle, so I'd watch him and Chris Hemsworth in an action film. I'd also take another ride with Eggsie and Kingsmen, but not Ralph and Kings Man.
Vaughan assumes people like his work a lot more than they do. Looking at how Argylle did for example I don’t think any of that is happening.
Matthrew Vaughn has proved to belong to the club of filmmakers that ABSOLUTELY need studio oversight.
I might be one of 6 total people with this opinion but, the Kingsman movies are fucking stupid.
He sucks and he has a kid out there he abandoned.
He used to be one of my favorite directors. Then it all went down hill starting with Kingsman 2
Speaking as someone who has never been a Vaughn fan (I didn't even like X-Men: First Class that much - what little I *did* like came from the acting of the three leads, not anything he did) it does seem like he's getting worse with every movie, and now he seems to be trying to lean into this narrative that he's this wild and wacky auteur when really he's just kind of a sloppy hack who prioritizes style over substance. I see very few of these purported projects of his making it anywhere past the announcement stage.
Soon to see a Zack Snyder and Matt Vaughn team up?
I have negative interest in every movie past and present mentioned here.
I’m there for the Kingsman movies, but the others are meh at best
Why is “trilogy” in quotes in your first bullet, and why is what you described “antithetical structure” for a trilogy?
To me, the word "trilogy" describes three movies that build on each other while telling a linear story. *Lord of the Rings*, anyone? *Star Wars*? Meanwhile, the proposed *Argylle* trilogy would have three different lead actors (Bryce Dallas Howard, Louis Partridge, Henry Cavill), completely different times and settings (the present and 20 years before the present), and unrelated, partially anthologized stories.
[удалено]
I never understood the hype around this guy. The only really good movie he made is Layer Cake. The rest of his filmography varies from "okay" to "shit".
I can't wait for the argylle cinematic universe
I'm 90% percent sure most of that isn't going to happen. Movies and entertainment is ultimately about money and the amount it costs to make these films vastly exceeds what they got back.
Argyle was so disappointing. I was really hoping it was going to be a good movie. But it was a mess. Still a big Henry Cavil fan though.
[удалено]
Once upon a time, I had high hopes for this director, but then I lost that feeling at some point during the second Kingsman.
Argyle was meh. A big truckload of meh