It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
This was a rather…strange watch. The only thought that stuck with me throughout, was a feeling that it was …intentionally bad?
You know those movies that are so bad that they are entertaining to watch? Like you cannot believe that they actually made this, and you are sitting there, enjoying it for that reason alone? Argylle felt like film that intentionally aims for that same vibe, only with a big budget and an ensemble cast.
I simply couldn't place what they were trying to do with this film. It way too long for the story it tells, there are elements here that would belong in a full on spy spoof, but it never feels like one – and as a spy caper it falls flat. I'm really just left thinking, why did they make this? Who signed off on this thing?
It's not the worst movie experience I've had though, I'll give it that. And should there ever be a sequel, prequel or another film in the "Argylle universe", I'll happily watch it out of pure curiosity. But this was certainly not a good film.
I watched The Beekeeper, Statham's latest. It's utter trash, but it's enjoyable and knows what it wants to be, and is a lot better than this.
Also, shoot something not in a studio. There's even a bit where two characters have to jump off a not-very-tall building next to the Thames, but they do it entirely with CGI. Why not get some actual stunt performers to do it? It's not the most challenging stunt ever on film and would have looked so much more impressive done for real
I thought it was Henry Jackman doing it, as he seems to be very much channelling Jackman's Kingsman scores.
Yes, exactly! I have so many question marks with so many aspects of this film (the CGI being one of them), that I struggled to even write down my thought above. I was just completely puzzled about Argylle, from start to finish.
I'm almost tempted to read the tie-in novel just to see if Argylle works better as a book.
Knowing I'm a Bond fan, they added that he'd be a great James Bond.
I had to disagree stating that he's as wooden as the boardroom table.
Sadly, this is the consensus of a selection of the general audience who see actors like Cavill as a potential Bond, based on his looks and physique.
I didn't mind Argyle for a couple of hours of entertainment. I thought Bryce Dallas Howard and Sam Rockwell did well with what they had to work with.
I know exactly what @Torgeirtrap is saying about the film being intentionally bad.
The opening minutes of the film are very average cgi, and I was left wondering if this is a intentional. Like a nod to B-grade actioners of old.
I hope Henry finds his own niche/role that brings him great success (he was kind of screwed out of being Superman after announcing he was coming back), and while I could think of several less ideal choices than Cavill for Bond, I’d much rather someone unique/interesting comes along.
Re. the CGI again, in the scene where Argylle chases Legrange, I thought they were going for a CGI variant of what they did in the OSS:117 films with Jean Dujardin, where details like using (bad) rear screen projection behind a moving car was part of the style they were going for. In the OSS:117 films they succeed because it's so obviously intentional. With Argylle I was left thinking (at many times throughout): was this or was this not intentionally bad CGI?
As for Cavill, the reasons why he shouldn't be Bond is covered more than well enough on several threads in this forum, and I don't think this film will change anyone's opinion of him – as Bond or an actor. That being said, this was not a film that gave him the chance to give a better impression. Like you mention above though, @Benny, Bryce Dallas Howard and Sam Rockwell did well with what they had to work with.
There's a lot of bad CGI lately. Could it be because of Covid?
Iam curious how much time of delete and alternate/extended scenes there are and it be possible to at two versions of the movie include shorter Directers Cut.
A bit of stunts and white filter look in the above scene of example in Greece remember me a bit to The Hitman's Bodyguard scenes playing in Den Haag (The Netherlands) who i rewatched last week. Looks better whyle it is done by Dutch stunt crew.
Problem be is that Argylle is filmed digital whyle that movie is filmed on film i think. Disapointed look from studio that let play two Mamma Mia movies in Greece. Also there are studio behind Johny English movies.
I like that Hitman's Bodyguard opens in the same location used for Skyfall's Shanghai skyscraper.
If he had any interest in acting he would probably take different roles.
Now you've made your thoughts on Bond 25 clear, what did you make of Argylle? ;)
Haha, hey now, I actually dug that one! Not a Top 10 installment for me but it was good enough.
I imagine there's several reasons, but the impact Covid had on the industry has probably forced more than a few productions to cut costs in several departments – special effects being one of them. Argylle is a $200 million production though…
The chase is meant to show a lot of property damage and you can't do that for real unless you recreate Greece streets on a set. As all Bond fans know...
One of the most memorable moments in Goldeneye. I don't think the chase had any miniature work? All real size buildings and props.
Another example: 1989 Batman created Gotham streets at Pinewood. Looked impressive.
Well, it was shot on a (slightly unconvincing) set in a studio!
The deleted scene isn't that great anyway. Had the police got in their cars and chased Bond and the rider (Eddie Kidd), it could have had potential.
I know what you mean about it not being great. Perhaps with music it would feel a bit more energetic, but the carpet is so slow and leisurely I'm not sure it would ever work.
These are meant to be bad. I haven’t finished watching the film yet, only thirty minutes in, but it’s quite clear that Cavill/Argylle is meant to be bad in the text-within-a-text, particularly in scenes where the writer can’t make her mind up. The haircut is a prime example — it’s a caricature that helps match the action figures at the signing.
It’s even a ‘oh Noe’s they have a list of our people!/The baddies are in control!’ Story. A staple of pulp spy fiction — see that Gal Godot thingy and Citadel, not to mention Skyfall and Spectre for examples.
The main narrative is basically a Bourne Identity meta-text too.
It’s a pastiche — basing how good Cavill would be as Bond on this, would be like judging Moore on that skit he did for TV. (Ok… maybe not the best example…)
I'm not quite sure that works- later we see 'the real Argylle' and sidekick sat in the 'real world' in a flashback at exactly the same cafe table as Cavill and Cena in the opening scene, implying that the opening of the film is basically a version of what 'really' happened.
I'm also not sure that Cavill is supposed to be acting badly; I get that she's struggling to write it, but I don't think delivering the lines flatly is intentional (if it were then they certainly hired the right person in Dua Lipa! :D )
Heh, yes! Roger is as good as always in that! :)