I actually thought the cameo to which you refer was the best bit about the whole film.
Finally saw it yesterday, and I found it a very fun film! Was it as good as the first one? In my opinion, no, but it’s still a lot of fun which is what I’m looking for in a Kingsman film.
Just finally caught it myself. Damn good fun. In a way, it made me miss how fantastically absurd the early Bond was along with many of the 60’s films, yet it didn’t stray into the Austin Powers zone IMO. Robot terminator dogs, branding agents with molten gold, industrial meat grinders… Epic.
Julianne Moore is a hoot as the villain - think June Cleaver as a megalomaniac on a steady diet of Xanax. Along with the frenetic fights, style and sense of fun, it’s a cool ride. The opening taxi chase is priceless.
If not in the theater, surely for download or rental. It fills the void.
1 Like
Saw it late last week and enjoyed it, too. I agree much of the appeal is in the no-holds-barred OTT approach we don’t get from Bond any more. I remember describing the first one as “Tarantino directs a Roger Moore Bond,” and I think that still holds. Too violent, too crass, too ridiculous to find a place on the shelf at home, but a very fun night out with the Mrs. and friends.
Some of the effects and camera work was amazing, like the taxi sequence and the bit on the cable car, but it almost has to be in a film this insane in order to work. I saw a few minutes of a Clive Owen film the other day (no idea which) where he deliberately crashes his car into the back of a van full of baddies so he can be thrown from his vehicle into theirs and shoot them all at closer range. It was so insane I couldn’t decide if it was supposed to be funny or not, but with “Kingsman” I know the rules going in.
I didn’t mind the “celebrity cameo” so much, since if anyone in our reality could provide a link to the crazy alternate reality of the Kingsman films, it’s that guy.
On the downside, the gunplay and high body counts were a bit off-putting given recent real-world events. I find the older I get, the harder it becomes to shift into “all in fun” mode when it comes to that stuff. I notice Marvel cancelled all its “Punisher” events at last week’s New York Comic-Con since that character’s sole “power” is the ability to shoot scores of people dead. Timing is everything.
Became a bit too vulgar as far as language is concerned. Elton became a bit OTT as far as I am concerned. Could do without losing my favorite character. But, mostly, an enjoyable Saturday afternoon matinee.
Well the language was insanely crude in the first one, too, so this time I was expecting it. And Elton has been pretty much the embodiment of “OTT” for over 40 years.
It’s why I didn’t get the “it’s become so unrealistic!” Criticism some said…have they seen the first one?!?
It’s like those people who went into Michael Bay’s Transformers, then came out saying " I hated how it was just a toy advert were stuff blows up!"
1 Like
From Empire Magazine:
…As well as a third regular Kingsman film (“the conclusion of the Harry Hart-Eggsy relationship,” say Vaughn), a spin-off titled “Kingsman: The Great Game” will explore the spy organisation in the early 1900s. The two films will shoot back-to-back. Also on the way will be an eight-hour Kingsman TV show, and a “Statesman” film following the world of Channing Tatum, Jeff Bridges and Halle Berry’s American agents.
1 Like
I saw that. Loved the first two so i’m intrigued by this. 3 and The Great Game sound like they’re closer to come to fruition, or Vaughn just has clear ideas for what those two films should be. I think the likelyhood of the rest is really dependant on how well The Great Game goes, see if this series can run on the organisation or if it is too linked to Eggsy and Harry to thrive without them.
I love the films (the first one in particular). But a Kingsman universe? Really???
Well, couldn’t you argue we already had that the second the Statesmen were introduced?
Sounds fun: I’m glad the third is coming as he said he had an idea for the movie and I’m keen to find out what that was! I didn’t think Circle had done well enough to guarantee a follow up so if it’s moving ahead that’s good news. They’re very enjoyable to watch.
The Statesman film would be fun but it sounds a bit unlikely to me: they only got Tatum, Bridges and Berry in the movie in the first place because it took them about two days to shoot their roles each- getting them to do a whole movie would be a different prospect.
It’s a funny thing about GC - it has this reputation as having wildly underperformed the first, but it actually made darn near the same at the worldwide box office - $414m vs. $410m.
I would love to see a Statesman film, personally. Maybe with an American Matthew Vaughn at the helm…
But surly making “darn near the same” would constitute underperforming as a sequel would have greater expectations placed on it. According to Wikipedia Golden Circle cost about $20 million more to make and thus would have generated less profit.
I knew as I was writing it that somebody would find some nit to pick on the post. I was betting it was going to be the “2 years of inflation” angle, but yeah, “sequels usually perform better” works too. On the other hand I also guessed the budget would be cited, so I get points for that.
The only point I was intending to make was that it probably performed well enough to not automatically kill a sequel.
That’s it.
Nothing more.
Didn’t you know if a film isn’t making double its predecessor its franchise is dead?
2 Likes
Glad to hear this!!! One of my complaints about Golden Circle was that we did not see more of the Kingsman organization in action before Poppy’s attack.
1 Like
Kingsman 3 news…
Perched for these: the first 2 were pretty much perfect