ARGYLLE - Matthew Vaughn $200 Mil Apple Disaster

[AndyDursin]

This looks like this could be fun (if typically excessive in director Matthew Vaughn's traditional manner).

[Monterey Jack]

Everyone knows the REAL Argyle is coming back to theaters on Friday...!

[AndyDursin]

Since this movie is becoming one of the most infamous cinematic bombs of the last 5 years, this is a good analysis on what Matthew Vaughn should be taking away from it.

I'd say Vaughn is one of the most frustrating directors Ive ever seen. If only he could temper his self indulgent excesses but they've been there from KICK ASS to KINGSMAN and apparently here too. His movies usually get ruined by 15 minutes of vulgar excesses and it's a lesson he's yet to learn.

[Monterey Jack]

His movies usually get ruined by 15 minutes of vulgar excesses and it's a lesson he's yet to learn.

Ironically, Argylle is a PG-13 movie! And it feels like an R-rated movie that got severely edited for that rating, with action sequences lacking the blood-bag gore I was expecting from Vaughn.

[AndyDursin]

I'm guessing PG-13 was imposed given the $200 million budget, not that it's going to matter the film is going to lose so much money. Also, same criticisms seem to apply to this movie as all the others (i.e. sections of it are completely unnecessary).

He seems totally unable to reign in his tendencies. You'd think by now he'd have figured it out but...

[Monterey Jack]

Also, same criticisms seem to apply to this movie as all the others (i.e. sections of it are completely unnecessary).

He seems totally unable to reign in his tendencies. You'd think by now he'd have figured it out but...

Directors have been given carte blanche with runtimes for so long, it's negatively impacting films that would have been good, maybe even great, with a more ruthless hand in the editing room. There was ZERO reason why the last Indiana Jones movie needed to be FORTY MINUTES longer than Raiders. Not that Dial Of Destiny had any chance of being good, but the bloated runtime wasn't helping. Same thing with budgets. I know that the reported $200 million pricetag is only what Apple paid to acquire the rights to the movie, but that means there's probably ANOTHER hundred million dedicated to making the film itself! And the last Fast & Furious movie cost a mind-boggling $340 million, or approximately $302 mil more than the original movie cost in 2001.

Things need to change. A movie like Guillermo Del Toro's The Shape Of Water cost a bargain basement $20 million and made over $200 million worldwide (and win Best Picture & Director). In order to make a similar cost-to-return profit, Fast X would have had to have made three billion and four hundred million. And last year's Franchisepocalypse proves that "sure thing" sequels and reboots are no longer a safe bet, especially for franchises older than the 18-to-25 male fanbase they're pursuing. What teenager or college-aged moviegoer wants to see an eighty-year-old man limping through a movie their grandfather grew up watching?

[AndyDursin]

But it's not running times that's the issue with Vaughn per se, it's content. Rape scenes, graphic violence, stuff packed into KINGSMAN that, for example, would preclude me from showing it to Joanne or anyone else. He has a juvenile tendency streak that has impacted most every film he's made and doesn't know when to stop -- at this point, it ought to be out of his system but he's his own worst enemy. You'll sit there wowed at certain elements and then be completely put off the next minute.

That article is all about that and his career up until this point, and I think it's a pretty astute analysis. People also forget he was about to direct CASINO ROYALE but then Eon went with Craig and tossed Vaughn aside. Whether or not he could direct a Bond movie now and clamp down on his excess is up for debate.

This is the non-paywall version:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/mat ... nd-movies/