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
Check out 'Narcos' or 'Game of Thrones,' he's excellent in both. He popped up on my radar as soon as he started to impress me in the latter.
One review:
So the question is valid: Do you like comic book adaptations more? Or do you prefer adaptations of spy novels that are slightly more grounded in the real world? So far "Kingsman: The Golden Circle" gets an OK-ish 76%, but that's only after 21 reviews counted. So I reckon it will be around "SPECTRE"s rating...or lower..in the end.
On Metacritic the rating is already much lower: 54% after 13 reviews.
It's too early to take any notice of Rotten Tomatoes metering, not that I put much stock in those myself.
That's exactly how I feel about him. Seeing his name attached to any project immediately heightens my interest.
And @bondjames, do yourself a big favor and watch Narcos.
You don't follow reviews, yet you tend to base your decision to watch a movie on a 2 min trailer hehe. I do find that....funny to say the least @Creasy47 ;-). Not to mention your aversion towards CGI. In any case, I will see this movie in cinema, since it is a spy movie.....albeit in a weird kind of way.
Because the embargo was lifted, reviews were poor ing in yesterday. Hence my post about the ratings so far :-)
Am I not allowed to enjoy both? When you make comments like this it just comes across as baiting to me (more fool me for falling for it I guess). You have to phrase it in a way that makes your taste sound superior. "So do you prefer proper adaptations of real books that I enjoy, or this low brow comic book stuff". But then I've never actually seen you actually post in depth about any of the Fleming novels. Funny that.
Same again. Just seems so smug. Deciding to watch a film based off a trailer, which is designed to give you a taste of what it's like, rather than what other people think, isn't weird at all. Especially when lots of reviews are loaded with spoilers nowadays.
Oh yeah on that note guys, I'd stay well clear of the Variety review if you want to go in blind to this one. I read it and I regret it.
@Gustav_Graves You omit the fact that Kingsman: The Secret Service had 58% on Metacritic, so The Golden Circle does not have a 'much lower' rating than 'The Secret Service'. If it dd have a 'much lower' rating, it would have the same difference as between SF and SP, which is about 30% less on RT and 20% less on Metacritic, so 'The Golden Circle' would have 46% on RT and 38% on Metacritic. And don't forget that the 1st Kingsman has just about the same IMDB rating as SF (7.7 for Kingsman, 7.8 for SF).
You might as well stop defending SP in every post given how much lower received it was compared to SF if you give these Kingsman reviews so much importance. But you won't, right? Good, because neither will I. Professional reviews and IMDB ratings don't mean a damn thing when you are sitting down in the movie theater watching a new film. SP with 64%/6.8 was just as enjoyable to me as SF was with 93%/7.8. So if you give reviews any importance, then stop defending SP right this moment and call it for what it is (based on reviews): a very disappointing Bond film compared to its immediate predecessor.
Easy now hehe. Why are people so...negative towards reviews. I mean, you yourself start quoting all the scores from SP and even SF. But that's besides the point. I am merely stating the fact that the new Kingsman movie isn't doing well on aggregate movie review sites like MetaCritic and RT. As a matter of fact "The Golden Circle" sunk already to 68% on RT and 52% on MetaCritic....which I had expected.
So it's not about proving anything. The facts speak for themselves.
Kingsman: the Golden Circle review: Even an all-star cast can't save this interminable sequel.
Even painted in electric pink and blown up to the size of the Hollywood sign, the word ‘slog’ wouldn’t do justice to Kingsman: The Golden Circle.
Just getting to the end of Matthew Vaughn’s new film feels like chewing through a 15-tog quilt.
Two and a half years after the release of its Bond-spoofing forerunner, Vaughn has returned a sequel, in which the first film’s council-estate outcast turned elite secret agent Eggsy (Taron Egerton) takes on an international drugs ring.
The original Kingsman, adapted by Vaughn and Jane Goldman from a Mark Millar comic book series, may have felt like a straggly, goading holdover from the twilight of the lads’ mags – but at least it committed to its nasty streak, and took venomous pleasure in prodding your buttons till they beeped. (I didn’t review it, but was an admirer with reservations.)
This crazily over long and tiresome follow-up, however, doesn’t seem to have the first idea what to do with itself – not least when it comes to its much-vaunted all-star cast, the majority of whom are barely even in it.
Channing Tatum, as Eggsy’s all-American ‘Statesman’ counterpart – code-named Tequila – appears in perhaps three early scenes before he’s cryogenically frozen, only to be thawed out in time for a post-finale meet-and-greet. Then there’s his superior Champagne (Jeff Bridges), who strangely never seems to leave the Statesmen’s boardroom, and technical advisor Ginger Ale (Halle Berry), who spends the film as a glorified Satnav, offering directions to the nearest satellite-surveilled baddie from behind a desktop computer. (In an extended cameo appearance, Elton John gets more to do than any of them, and better outfits to do it in.)
Even Julianne Moore as Poppy, a villainous drugs baroness holding the world to ransom with a lethal product, spends all but two of her scenes standing behind the counter of her burger-bar-themed lair. The overall impression is of a supporting cast who stopped by on a spare afternoon – and whether their roles were obligingly whittled down to sawdust to accommodate or were this flimsy to begin with, the sheer cravenness of it is embarrassing to watch.
Yet no more embarrassing than the rest of it, in which Eggsy and his handler Merlin (Mark Strong) bounce haphazardly around the globe on a series of errands – tracing the drug-running operation to its Cambodian HQ one minute, then doing their best to restore the memory of Eggsy’s former mentor, the long-serving Kingsman agent Harry Hart (Colin Firth), the next.
You may recall that at the end of the last film, Harry was shot through the head at point blank range, but in the interim, following the application of a magical healing gel, his medical condition has been downgraded from ‘dead’ to ‘lost memory’.
It’s understandable that bringing back the always-likeable Firth at any cost must have seemed like a wise idea. But the cost in this case is the loss of any residual scrap of interest you might have in the film’s action scenes – which are oddly thin-on-the-ground, and generally short on the trademark Vaughn vim – given death is now reversible with a squeeze of supercharged Bonjela.
Kingsman acolytes will presumably be hoping for a set-piece or two to rival the first film’s instantly notorious Baptist church massacre, but nothing here comes remotely close in terms of either energy or shock value.
One seemingly interminable skit sees Eggsy roving around the Glastonbury music festival, trying to implant a fingertip-mounted tracking device inside the genitals of an enemy’s socialite girlfriend (Poppy Delevingne) – a bit of lip-licking, GCSE-level smut which the film presents as a piece of fearless taboo-smashing worthy of Sacha Baron Cohen at his wildest.
The rest is mostly wall-to-wall exposition, set in a range of weirdly implausible rooms, in service of a plot that makes less sense the more everyone talks about it. (And boy oh boy, do they talk about it.)
As for the Bond-homaging, a ski-resort interlude tugs its forelock towards the great 007 snow-scenes of yore, but ends with a runaway cablecar sequence that’s straight from the Die Another Day school of leaden, low-stakes CGI. Kingsman: The Golden Circle might stop short of rolling out an invisible car, but you wouldn’t put it past the next one.
Me too! I'm still going to see it! And like the bad reviews for the last "Furious" film, there's always the chance that it'll be an insane box office hit. What works for "Kingsman" is the fact that in a relatively short time it created a mild fanbase. Word-of-mouth of this film has been much better than the actual reviews. That always helps.
Can you read English and/or numbers correctly? It's like talking to a 5 years old child with you sometimes. You think I attacked SF and SP? Nope, you did. You say Kingsman 2 is much worse reviewed than the 1st film, while as it stands now it's 6% lower on RT and 6% lower on Metacritic. If that is 'low' for you, then you have no rights to defend SP at all, since if we apply your importance to reviews, SP has a 29% deficit compared to SF on RT and Metacritic. So either you stop your erratic childish behaviour and call both SP and Kingsman 2 very disappointing movies instead of posting over and over again that SP is an excellent Bond film, or you stop taking into account reviews all together because you contradict yourself god knows how many times a day.
And for the last damn time: I did not attack SP. I very much enjoy the film. But you have to cut your nonsense. If 6% less on review sites for Kingsman 2 compared to Kingsman 1 is 'bad', then a 29% deficit for SP compared to SF is, by your own definition, catastrophic. So either stop contradicting yourself or stop defending SP.
I didn't address you as a 5 year old child. Frankly, you actually used the words. Nor did I mention that your comments are 'nonsense' or 'childish'. So please stop that. And please stop contradicting yourself by contradicting my words and post longer messages than mine. Because then you're at even more risk of contradictive remarks. Anyway let's leave it there. Not in the mood to reply to the rest of your message as it is fairly......agressive in tone and style. Have a nice day.
This is evidence right there that you have no business being a member of any kind of forums, or participating in any debate under any circumstances if that is your way of thinking. And until you've explained yourself, I hope you won't defend SP at any moment because it means you have been blatantly lying (at least) half the time on these forums.
I ask a simple and you get all defensive like a kindergarten kid who got his lunch money stolen. If you think Kingsman 2 looks worry-some because of its reviews, than you have absolutely no right to defend SP, as that film had way, way worse reviews/ratings compared to its immediate predecessor than Kingsman does to its own predecessor. Because if that is your view/opinion, than by definition you could not have enjoyed SP at all based on the very low ratings it got compared to SF. So either you take reviews into account on every films, or you disregard them completely , but stop with the double standards.
well WTF man! I don't need to be lectured like a kid when it is you who, at least verbally, behaves like a kid....a big fat bully kid! Dear moderator @DarthDimi ? Time to mediate. And please be so kind to compare the writing style that led to my unfortunate language!
If people get irritated by me, then please say that. Instead of using offensive language with no clear motifs.
And now, can you please explain yourself on these RT reviews?
'As for the Bond-homaging, a ski-resort interlude tugs its forelock towards the great 007 snow-scenes of yore, but ends with a runaway cablecar sequence that’s straight from the Die Another Day school of leaden, low-stakes CGI. Kingsman: The Golden Circle might stop short of rolling out an invisible car, but you wouldn’t put it past the next one.'
Enough said. Sub Carry On smut and DAD level action scenes. Seems like we really dodged a bullet with Vaughn.
All I know is that I've not seen anything in the trailers to put me off yet (which is a bit different from a film released in 2015) and neither have I heard some song from the film that makes me want to vomit (again this is different from my experience a few years back). So I'm quite positive...for now.
I try to ignore reviews ahead of time because I'd rather they not bias my perceptions prior to a viewing. I will review them after I watch the movie to see if they square with my experience.
This franchise is quite unique. It's not a Powers style parody. Rather, it's crafted its own niche. I hope they can capitalize on the passion that the first film has left in some fans (like myself) and give us a good time.
---
Thanks for the recommendation @bondsum, I will try to get the Narcos set sometime today.
@bondjames Best to wait for the TV broadcast. It's a fun 90 minutes watch, but I can't comment on the rewatchability (only saw it once in cinema). If you enjoy it, you can consider if you want it in your Blu Ray collection, but at least wait to see it once to know for sure.
--
Egerton throws his hat into the ring as a Bond hopeful. Quite frankly, given the direction they've gone with Craig, I don't think he'd be enough of a change. Both are relatively working class to me, at least in comparison to the old school sophistication:
http://news.sky.com/story/could-kingsman-star-taron-egerton-be-the-next-james-bond-11042930
Well yeah, you mean like everyone does? It's either me deciding on my own based on a trailer, or me deciding based on what some critic I've never met thinks.
Trailers are crafted solely to sell a film - it's the entire point. Why on earth anyone would opt for the latter is beyond me.