We live in a cinematic landscape where profitability supersedes originality, and studios tend to go for what is tried and tested more than platforming exciting new stories or concepts that have never been done before, under the misguided belief that audiences only appreciate what is familiar to them. A filmmaker who has worked relatively hard to establish himself as someone capable of crafting more bespoke projects is Matthew Vaughn, who has been working laboriously for over two decades to craft films that are not based on majorly iconic existing properties, but rather more original projects – and while some of them have been adapted from other sources, they have mostly been lesser-exposed, and thus give off the impression of being somewhat more unique. His most recent offering is Argylle, and to avoid burying the lede, we can immediately say that this is not a very strong film, despite the clear effort put into making the film, including conceiving of certain ideas that would logically make it at least somewhat intriguing on a logical level. Supposedly based on a novel by unknown author Ellie Conway, of which there was no knowledge when the film was announced (let alone the book from which it was supposedly adapted), which had led to a manhunt to find out who this mysterious writer is, and why her debut novel was so irresistible to warrant a big-budget spectacle by a director who has fashioned himself as someone who could handle such an intimidating, action-packed story. Not the brightest entry into Vaughn’s fascinating career, but still a film that delivers on a few of its more important promises, Argylle is something of a mixed bag, an ambitious blend of spy comedy and philosophical satire, bundled together by a director who has a lot of experience with such films, and as we have seen from the response it has received, everyone will likely react quite differently to what is a far more polarizing film than was perhaps intended.

Vaughn has made something of a career for himself as a director who prioritizes spectacle, but does not ignore substance – his films are incredibly entertaining and feel like they are produced to be both enjoyable and thought-provoking, or at least contribute something to the overall discussion of what film should be, which is not always relevant for a lot of major blockbusters. Argylle is by far his weakest offering to date, but there are various elements that are worth our time – the film is a fast-paced, globe-trotting spy romp (although the same could essentially be said for his Kingsman films, which are far superior versions of the same kind of project this film was aiming to be), and for those who have an appreciation for this kind of over-the-top extravaganza, it will at least be worth our time. There is something quite compelling about how Vaughn constructs this film, which is designed to be a metafictional commentary on the nature of art, and the blurred lines between those who tell tales for a living, and those who live the exact lives described in these fictional works, and particularly in how the two blend to create something quite vibrant and original. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work as well in practice as it does in theory, and we soon discover that a lot of Argylle actually feels quite flaccid in comparison to what could have been done with this premise. Yet, we still find ourselves getting lost in this film, and Vaughn has a knack for creating films that are mesmerizing and with genuine surprises scattered along the way. It’s not the most original use of his stylistic approach, but there are valuable moments found throughout, which can at least prove to be relatively solid, if not somewhat disposable once we realize where the film is heading. It seems that for every merit, there is an equally notable shortcoming, leading to Argylle being in a perpetual tug-of-war between an inventive, genre-bending comedy, and a jumble of convoluted ideas that never quite materialize into anything all that valuable after a while.

The benefit of being a director known for producing well-received films that earn a fair amount and tend to have critical support (albeit only marginally, since very few of his films have been proclaimed as bona fide masterpieces since perhaps Layer Cake two decades ago), is that Vaughn has earned a reputation in the industry, as well as making countless connections. This allowed him to enrol a number of impressive actors into his collective ensemble, which led to quite an impressive cast, something that can feel quite disappointing considering how little most of them have to do. However, the performances are perhaps the only quality of Argylle that is immune to criticism, since everyone is terrific. The film is led by Bryce Dallas Howard and Sam Rockwell, and despite being hardworking actors with several great performances, they’re still underused and rarely get major leading roles. They’re both very strong in the film, perhaps slightly too much considering how paltry the film that surrounds them is, but proved to be highlights of the film. Henry Cavill is at his most unexpectedly funny as the titular fictional spy, and he is joined by the likes of John Cena and Ariana DeBose in the fictional world of the film. The one great choice Vaughn makes here is casting Bryan Cranston and Catherine O’Hara as the film’s villains – very rarely do we find actors who are capable of chewing scenery with such intensity, but never feeling like they’re going over the top. Casting these roles with such gifted veterans was a good decision, and one that ultimately did pay off, considering the film is much stronger when it is trying to define the various characters that populate this world, rather than attempting to rework the entire genre, which is a fool’s errand and something that a director like Vaughn is not the right candidate to achieve. The performances in Argylle are much better than the film itself, and while they do prevent it from falling apart entirely, there isn’t much they could do to conceal the very clear cracks that persist throughout the story, dampening the entire experience as a result.

However, Argylle only reaches about halfway to brilliance before falling apart rapidly, and a lot of this comes from the fact that the film doesn’t quite know what to do with itself. There is a major twist that comes late in the film, and which would be effective had it not been blatantly obvious. Considering the entire story is built around the lead-up to this revelation, one has to wonder whether it would have worked better had the focus shifted away from making this a third-act twist, and instead having it as the core premise of the film. This is one of the many ways in which Argylle falls victim to its own mediocrity – metafictional film can be incredible when done well, but considering this was taking a novel that was pretty evidently not written prior to the film being greenlit (as well as leading to a fervent search to uncover the true identity of Ellie Conway, which has been more fascinating and compelling than absolutely anything found in this film), there isn’t any real substance to this film, which feels like a mostly uninspired affair that mistakes excess for extravagance, and convolution for complexity. There isn’t any amount of well-choreographed fight sequences and plot twists that could ever elevate this film from being anything more than just an attempt to inject life into a taut genre, which had already been mostly perfected by the director in his previous films (and considering how this film tethers itself to the Kingsman series, its clear what is the priority for Vaughn), and didn’t really require such a bland, lifeless story that has a few decent moments, but ultimately ends up being quite inspired. It doesn’t help that the film runs far too long, and has at least half a dozen moments that could have served as a sufficient ending, only to have it continue for nearly an hour in each case, which is proof of not only too many disparate ideas being compressed into the film, but a clear depiction of the adage that too many cooks tend to spoil the broth, which happens frequently throughout this film.

For what it is worth, despite the criticisms I have expressed, and the reservations that seem impossible to overlook, I don’t find Argylle to be nearly the disaster that many have claimed it to be. However, this doesn’t excuse its flaws, nor does it imply that we can most these more unappealing elements, since they are woven so deeply into the fabric of the film, it seems challenging to even try to ignore them, when they’re so intrinsic to the overall identity of the film, and whatever experience follows as a result. The film is filled to the brim with aspects that make it something of a misfire – the humour is blunt and obvious, built around jokes that were gleaned from aiming for the low-hanging fruit, and there is very little that cannot be predicted by anyone who pays attention, which is not something that should ever factor into a film that places so much emphasis on perhaps the most obvious plot twist in recent cinematic memory. The inflated sense of self-importance, coupled with the clear attempts to make this the first in a franchise (despite having some relatively poor world-building that rarely makes sense, including in one of the most bizarre endings in recent memory, as well as a bewildering and tacky post-credits sequence that adds nothing but confusion), the film is not very good and feels like a missed opportunity at absolutely every turn, which is not ideal for something that is threatening to become a franchise. Not nearly as funny or smart as it thinks it is, but at least partially entertaining (until we reach the overlong third act), Argylle is a film with as many flaws as it has shortcomings, which make this the very definition of a misfire, one that cannot overcome its shortcomings and ultimately just exists as a purely middle-of-the-road effort that doesn’t do anything interesting or unexpected, and offers us only the most surface-level sense of entertainment, which is not ideal but sometimes inevitable for films in which the premise doesn’t match the execution.