Argylle (2024) (2 Viewers)

[Jake Lipson]

Some BO prognosticators keep trying to make the point that we cannot evaluate theatrical releases backed by streamers the same as studio releases since theatrical is not really their main interest.

I know that. But Apple is treating it as a regular theatrical release, so I think it is still fair to judge it with the metrics that we have available. Money is money, and even a big, deep-pocketed tech giant is eventually going to get tired of losing it.

This film is the third Apple movie with a $200 million commitment to lose money theatrically in recent months. At least Killers of the Flower Moon and Napoleon have some prestige attached to them because they come from Martin Scorsese and Ridley Scott, respectively. But Argyle is not an awards bait movie, and it seems like neither audiences nor critics like it very much. If anything, I think the negative buzz being generated around the film may turn people off from streaming it.

 

[Jake Lipson]

From Variety (emphasis mine):

Matthew Vaughn’s “Argylle,” which topped the box office despite its dismal debut, will likely retain the No. 1 spot again with $6 million to $8 million. But don’t get too excited. The film cost $200 million to produce, so it’s shaping up to be the year’s first big bomb. So far, ticket sales have reached just $18.5 million domestically and $35 million globally. The filmmaker’s dreams of turning “Argylle" into a trilogy appear to have faded unless Apple decides to embrace a new corporate mandate to light money on fire.

‘Lisa Frankenstein’ Takes on ‘Argylle’ in Bleak Box Office Battle

The box office will nearly grind to a halt as "Lisa Frankenstein" battles the second weekend of Apple's "Argylle."

variety.com

I rarely see Variety be so pointed and saucy in their box office reporting.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

The worst part of this being a $200 million movie is that none of it looks like it needs to be. There’s no reason for this movie to have cost much more than one of those Liam Neeson action movies that comes out every winter.

 

[Jake Lipson]

There’s no reason for this movie to have cost much more than one of those Liam Neeson action movies that comes out every winter.

And if they had budgeted it that way, it probably could have been a reasonable success at its current gross level.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

People keep reporting $200m as the budget but Vaughn has said it wasn't.

Apple paid $200m for the rights but that's not what the movie actually cost to make.

That said, the actual budget is unconfirmed. Less than $200m but unclear how much less.

 

[Jake Lipson]

The Pitch Meeting is here. Spoilers, so don't click if you don't want to know.

Apple paid $200m for the rights but that's not what the movie actually cost to make.

In one sense, that's an important distinction. But on the other, if Apple paid $200 million for anything to do with this movie, they're not going to recoup that investment with the box office performance that it is currently putting up.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

In one sense, that's an important distinction. But on the other, if Apple paid $200 million for anything to do with this movie, they're not going to recoup that investment with the box office performance that it is currently putting up.

I thought it was important from the POV that people pick on the movie for allegedly costing that much to make.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I thought it was important from the POV that people pick on the movie for allegedly costing that much to make.

You're right, of course. It absolutely is.

But paying $200 million for the rights still means this film won't be profitable for Apple regardless of what the actual production cost was.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

You're right, of course. It absolutely is.

But paying $200 million for the rights still means this film won't be profitable for Apple regardless of what the actual production cost was.

Oh, sure. Just feels like a lot of the criticism is falling on Vaughn for supposedly spending so much on such a crummy movie!

 

[TonyD]

We watched this tonight.
This was not good.
The ice skating and the smoke thing.
The cat cgi was some of the worst in a big budget movie.

Pretty sure I saw a btwrr version of this before and I think Sam Jackson was in that too.

 

[TonyD]

Btw there is a mid credit sequence that seems to put this into
The Kingsmen multiverse

A Futile Attempt to Make Sense of Argylle’s Ending and Mid-Credits Scene

I’m not an easily confused viewer. I can explain the plot of Tenet. But this? This is where I started questioning every reality, including my own.

www.vulture.com

 

[JoeBond]

Saw this on Apple TV with the wife. I liked it but……it’s really silly. The ending is really silly. I’ll give Matthew Vaughn credit…..The twist who Bryce Dallas Howard’s character actually is a bold move but I don’t think it actually works in the traditional sense Having said that the only way I can take that plus all the cliche spy twists this has is if it’s a movie making fun of all those cliche’s haha. I can see why the last act sinks it and why people may not like it. My wife was even like wow this is pretty cheesy. She’s not wrong…sometimes I do enjoy a good cheese just in moderation

PS I think I’ve never seen so much CG in a spy film could be wrong. I mean the smoke/skating scene is totally ridiculous but I wonder if that’s the point. I hope it was as there’s no way to take this movie seriously once you witness that.