› ›

Kingsman: The Great Game (2019)

1…2122242627…35

Comments

  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I loved the first one, I'm expecting some
    Over the top action and comedy. Not
    Jason Bourne.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    I really enjoyed the first one too but I'm still kind of on the fence about this. The first one had real heart to it, I really liked how Eggsy developed and I liked how openly liberal/anti establishment it was. And while it was very OTT I thought part of what was cool about it was the "what if Bond esque spies were real" angle, with the references characters made to spy films and how they contrasted what would happen in one of those films with what would happen in real life. Kept the whole thing grounded.

    A lot of that seems to be gone imo. Just seems like pure fantasy now, and I'm really not a fan of how they bought Colin Firth back. They can justify it sure but I think it's not about if they could have bought him back, it's about if they should. And I don't think they should have done. I thought his death in the first one served a real purpose. Gave stakes to the finale, had emotional weight, freed up a slot in Kingsman for Eggsy. He gets shot in the head rather than captured to show that this isn't a Roger Moore film, this is real life, "not that kind of movie". Just saying "oh nevermind the bullet only took his eye out" really undermines that imo. Plus I really liked Roxy and her friendship with Eggsy, but it doesn't seem like she's going to be in the new film much at all. Instead we get loads of new stunt casted characters so they can do the whole "it's like the first one, but in America" angle.

    I'm still excited because the action still looks really cool, I'm sure it'll be funny and I still love the idea of a council estate kid becoming James Bond. I think it'll be a fun film, just not as special as the first one.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    Thunderpussy wrote: »
    I doubt it's going to be as bad as some reviewer's think. After all not all critics
    Are Kingsman fans. ;-)

    People tend to forget foremost that Fox want to turn "Kingsman" in their own franchise. I mean, Paramount has Ethan Hunt, MGM has James Bond, Universal has Furious and Jason Bourne. So I understand that Fox want to have their own 'Bond' in a way.

    But that's also the fun of it. I actually think that "Kingsman 2" will be very much like "1". But the new shine of it is gone, hence more negative reviews than what a logical movie fan should expect normally.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    I hope they don't milk it personally. It's too derivative of Bond to be its own proper franchise (eventually they'll run out of tropes to play with) and part of the reason it felt fresh at the time was that it was something new and genuinely different. I think they could do one more after this one, so they have a trilogy, but after that leave it be. I'd be up for them expanding it in other ways though. Seems like it'd be perfect for a video game for example.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I think there are definite gaps in the market to exploit while Craig continues his run. Cruise has found a perfect little niche capturing the spirit of old school Moore era flamboyance & insouciance with his last two MI films and there is a spot for something even more eccentric and out there since Powers is defunct.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    Ooowh please @DaltonCraig007 Dude, I tried to be nice, but also you escalate this over your aggressive way of writing. Not to mention that here's a severe calling the kettle black case brewing, since you apparently ABSOLUTELY despise my way of reasoning. And by the way, @Creasy47 can speak perfectly for himself.

    Both f-bombs removed. Our stance has been made clear on swearing in the below thread:

    https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/18300/moderating-the-forum/p1

    Please take note. If you feel you are getting wound up, then log off for a bit.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    edited September 2017 Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think there are definite gaps in the market to exploit while Craig continues his run. Cruise has found a perfect little niche capturing the spirit of old school Moore era flamboyance & insouciance with his last two MI films and there is a spot for something even more eccentric and out there since Powers is defunct.

    I'm really curious if the "Mission: Impossible"-franchise has the legs obtain a longevity that the Bond franchise already has. In a way this franchise is doing all the things right, that Bond did in its early years. It keeps re-inventing itself, so that every individual "M:I"-film has all the typical aspects, but still is Original and unique enough in comparison to its predecessors.

    "Kingsman" could do this as well if you ask me. It has a formula that could be used again and again. I actually hope so, because it enriches the spy genre and it keeps the people helming our own beloved Bond franchise critical as well. It's kinda funny though......because back in the 1960's you had this as well :-).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I think there are definite gaps in the market to exploit while Craig continues his run. Cruise has found a perfect little niche capturing the spirit of old school Moore era flamboyance & insouciance with his last two MI films and there is a spot for something even more eccentric and out there since Powers is defunct.

    I'm really curious if the "Mission: Impossible"-franchise has the legs obtain a longevity that the Bond franchise already has. In a way this franchise is doing all the things right, that Bond did in its early years. It keeps re-inventing itself, so that every individual "M:I"-film has all the typical aspects, but still is Original and unique enough in comparison to its predecessors.
    I agree. It's that reinvention that has been the hallmark of its success recently. My understanding is that they will change the tone up again for the upcoming MI6. Can it survive Cruise? Yes, perhaps, but it will have to be repackaged as an ensemble piece imho. He is unique and very difficult to duplicate. It's not so much Hunt that's the attraction for me, but rather 'Cruise as Hunt'.
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    "Kingsman" could do this as well if you ask me. It has a formula that could be used again and again. I actually hope so, because it enriches the spy genre and it keeps the people helming our own beloved Bond franchise critical as well. It's kinda funny though......because back in the 1960's you had this as well :-).
    True, but I think Bond was far out and ahead in the 60's in all dimensions. The competitors weren't close 'culturally' or 'box office wise', but they also weren't even close in terms of humour, action, style, glamour, cinematography, score etc. etc.

    These days it's quite different. Certain franchise competitors are delivering products that are definitely resonating 'culturally' with certain age groups and demographics. As I said somewhere a few months back, these franchises have not dethroned Bond (and I don't think they will), but little by little they are chipping away slowly at its superiority which has been built up over many years.

    Eggsy is growing on me. I dig the guy.

    I agree that the competition is good for us viewers.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    I can't see Kingsman lasting past three or four films. The first one was great and the second one looks fun but I don't think they're unique enough to get a long lasting franchise going. The novelty which eventually wear off imo and I may be wrong but I think Vaughn has final say. The first one was basically an indie film, Fox only signed on to distribute it, so I'd imagine that he or his production company probably still own the IP and I think he's smart enough to stop when he runs out of ideas. Could be a good little trilogy or quadrilogy though.

    Mission Impossible is a weird one because I genuinely don't think the audience cares about MI as a brand. They just go to see them for Tom Cruise doing those incredible stunts. I think that they will try to reboot and carry on without when he gets too old but not sure how successful it'll be.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    I think the problem of taking critics' opinions as gospel is that they can sometimes get it spectacularly and universally wrong. The Empire Strikes Back didn't originally generate favorable reviews back in the day (discounting the revised and contemporary reviews that distort the past ones) nor did Alien, The Thing, Halloween, Casablanca, Vertigo, Bladerunner, Predator, The Shining, Psycho, The Night of the Hunter, and many many more that are now considered great movies that have been lucky enough to have their reviews revised and reversed. The fact remains is that critics can be poisonous and sometimes wrong.

    If a movie generally interests me, and I like what I've seen of the cast, story and direction from the trailer, then I'll make up my own mind to go and see it.
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    Posts: 2,115
    //I'm really curious if the "Mission: Impossible"-franchise has the legs obtain a longevity that the Bond franchise already has.//

    Mission: Impossible is approach the same point Bond was at with Diamonds Are Forever. In 1972, the question was seriously asked whether Bond could survive Connery's departure. Sooner than later, M:I will have the same issue when Tom Cruise hangs it up.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    I can see Kingsman being a trilogy,which would make sense.
    MI I can see finishing after a couple more films,Tom isn't getting any younger and injuries are starting to appear.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    These days it's quite different. Certain franchise competitors are delivering products that are definitely resonating 'culturally' with certain age groups and demographics. As I said somewhere a few months back, these franchises have not dethroned Bond (and I don't think they will), but little by little they are chipping away slowly at its superiority which has been built up over many years.

    Eggsy is growing on me. I dig the guy.

    I agree that the competition is good for us viewers.

    Sadly, there's also not too much you can do about it. Even when and if EON produces a magnificent masterpiece of a Bond film, it still is a rather posh and snobist product. It's exactly because of this that George Lazenby initially didn't like to play Bond a 2nd time. On top of that, regardless how Bond has accomodated to the changed geopolitics, Bond is still a rather sexist figure who, even during this Craig-era, is bedding a girl to get clues for a certain mission. And he's quite the nationalist Brit (watch Skyfall). Reason for that: Ian Fleming. The noriginal character James Bond has its foundations in an era that is already looking obsolete to those youngsters who love a henchman from Kingsman slice an agent in two parts, Tarantino style.

    I dig Eggsy too. I liked the first "Kingsman". But let us not forget that we are foremost Bond fans; fans of that original sexist, nationalist character. And if we give in to the things you just said @BondJames, then I'm afraid you could become the (tiny) cause of a very slow demise of Bond over the course of a few decades.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited September 2017 Posts: 15,690
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    But let us not forget that we are foremost Bond fans; fans of that original sexist, nationalist character. And if we give in to the things you just said @BondJames, then I'm afraid you could become the (tiny) cause of a very slow demise of Bond over the course of a few decades.
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    I hope we can try to be a little less sexist here, and judge all women on their acting skills foremost.

    So, are you calling yourself the cause of the very slow demise of Bond? Or are you revealing that you were never actually a Bond fan? How can one say Bond fans love the sexist aspect of the character, but also be able to throw a tantrum every time someone makes a sexist remark on a former or future Bond girl? Either sexism is part of the character, and should be discussed freely on a Bond forum, or it isn't, in which case what exactly are you doing on a Bond forum?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    These days it's quite different. Certain franchise competitors are delivering products that are definitely resonating 'culturally' with certain age groups and demographics. As I said somewhere a few months back, these franchises have not dethroned Bond (and I don't think they will), but little by little they are chipping away slowly at its superiority which has been built up over many years.

    Eggsy is growing on me. I dig the guy.

    I agree that the competition is good for us viewers.

    Sadly, there's also not too much you can do about it. Even when and if EON produces a magnificent masterpiece of a Bond film, it still is a rather posh and snobist product. It's exactly because of this that George Lazenby initially didn't like to play Bond a 2nd time. On top of that, regardless how Bond has accomodated to the changed geopolitics, Bond is still a rather sexist figure who, even during this Craig-era, is bedding a girl to get clues for a certain mission. And he's quite the nationalist Brit (watch Skyfall). Reason for that: Ian Fleming. The noriginal character James Bond has its foundations in an era that is already looking obsolete to those youngsters who love a henchman from Kingsman slice an agent in two parts, Tarantino style.

    I dig Eggsy too. I liked the first "Kingsman". But let us not forget that we are foremost Bond fans; fans of that original sexist, nationalist character. And if we give in to the things you just said @BondJames, then I'm afraid you could become the (tiny) cause of a very slow demise of Bond over the course of a few decades.
    That's just it, @Gustav_Graves . I am indeed first and foremost a 'Bond' fan.

    Bond first.

    Not Craig.
    Not Broccoli.
    Not Wilson.

    Bond.

    However, my fandom should never be taken for granted.

    Get the films out on a regular schedule, ensure they are thrilling, suspenseful, glamorous, slightly snobbish, sexist, with performances and style that can't be duplicated by more mundane fare. Do that and all will be fine.

    Competition is fierce, but Bond can exceed expectations and bring in new fans. SF proved that.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    These days it's quite different. Certain franchise competitors are delivering products that are definitely resonating 'culturally' with certain age groups and demographics. As I said somewhere a few months back, these franchises have not dethroned Bond (and I don't think they will), but little by little they are chipping away slowly at its superiority which has been built up over many years.

    Eggsy is growing on me. I dig the guy.

    I agree that the competition is good for us viewers.

    Sadly, there's also not too much you can do about it. Even when and if EON produces a magnificent masterpiece of a Bond film, it still is a rather posh and snobist product. It's exactly because of this that George Lazenby initially didn't like to play Bond a 2nd time. On top of that, regardless how Bond has accomodated to the changed geopolitics, Bond is still a rather sexist figure who, even during this Craig-era, is bedding a girl to get clues for a certain mission. And he's quite the nationalist Brit (watch Skyfall). Reason for that: Ian Fleming. The noriginal character James Bond has its foundations in an era that is already looking obsolete to those youngsters who love a henchman from Kingsman slice an agent in two parts, Tarantino style.

    I dig Eggsy too. I liked the first "Kingsman". But let us not forget that we are foremost Bond fans; fans of that original sexist, nationalist character. And if we give in to the things you just said @BondJames, then I'm afraid you could become the (tiny) cause of a very slow demise of Bond over the course of a few decades.
    That's just it, @Gustav_Graves . I am indeed first and foremost a 'Bond' fan.

    Bond first.

    Not Craig.
    Not Broccoli.
    Not Wilson.

    Bond.

    However, my fandom should never be taken for granted.

    Get the films out on a regular schedule, ensure they are thrilling, suspenseful, glamorous, slightly snobbish, sexist, with performances and style that can't be duplicated by more mundane fare. Do that and all will be fine.

    Competition is fierce, but Bond can exceed expectations and bring in new fans. SF proved that.

    Thanks @BondJames. I appreciate your answer. And I agree. I'm going to see "Kingsman" Saturday. But having seen the first one.....I do hope James Bond doesn't become a pastiche of other series. And to prevent that, Bond indeed needs to return more often on the big screen. Not 4 years. But 2,5 years at most. 3 years for me is also OK, though I understand that I'm not the youngest anymore :-). On Global Bond Day I turn 36 :-O.
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    Posts: 2,115
    //On Global Bond Day I turn 36//

    You get no sympathy from me. :-)
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    AlexanderWaverly wrote: »
    //On Global Bond Day I turn 36//

    You get no sympathy from me. :-)

    Or me,lucky bugger,only 36...

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,456
    Matthew Vaughn wants Kingsman 3 and some spin-offs:

    http://www.slashfilm.com/matthew-vaughn-wants-to-make-kingsman-3-and-then-spin-offs/#more-441903
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2017 Posts: 23,883
    A fascinating article in The Spectator on Kingsman in the context of Craig's Bond, and also discussion around Hollywood's current modus operandi and general risk aversion. It touches on a few things we discussed a bit earlier.

    https://life.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/move-over-bond-kingsman-are-the-real-spy-masters/
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,330
    Ugh.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    Just seen Kingsman. Though it lacks a Samuel L Jackson type character, it's still pretty good entertainment. It's just as lowbrow as the previous movie, but there's enough frenetic fun for it to be an enjoyable, crazy ride. Pedro Pascal has far more screentime than Channing Tatum and Jeff Bridges do in the movie. I might have missed it but I also didn't hear the "very American" Eggsy line that appeared in the trailer. Overall, it's not going to win any prizes. Then again, it's not meant to.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,456
    Sounding good enough for me, glad you found a way to enjoy yourself @bondsum. Happy to hear that Pedro has a much bigger presence than I had expected, too.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    Absolutely @Creasy47. It certainly starts at a breakneck speed. It might lack the originality of the first movie and it does miss Sam L Jackson, but it still gets the job done. I was surprised that Elton John got such a large-ish role too. Pedro certainly has a far bigger part to play than the other American actors, save perhaps Julianne Moore. Mark Strong is ever reliable, as is Colin Firth. Obviously I don’t want to giveaway anything of the story, nor mention any of the parts that fell a bit flat. It’s zany, cartoon adult violence that really shouldn’t be judged alongside any of the other comic book movies.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Sounds, right up my street.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,456
    I'll share my review when I catch it next week. I'd be surprised if I walk away disappointed from it.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    I will wait until SKY get hold of it in a few months I think but I will be interested to know everyones reviews,as long as the spoilers are kept hidden chaps !
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,506
    bondjames wrote: »
    A fascinating article in The Spectator on Kingsman in the context of Craig's Bond, and also discussion around Hollywood's current modus operandi and general risk aversion. It touches on a few things we discussed a bit earlier.

    https://life.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/move-over-bond-kingsman-are-the-real-spy-masters/

    I'm sorry, but I refuse to read this article as the header tells me all I need to know.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2017 Posts: 23,883
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    A fascinating article in The Spectator on Kingsman in the context of Craig's Bond, and also discussion around Hollywood's current modus operandi and general risk aversion. It touches on a few things we discussed a bit earlier.

    https://life.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/move-over-bond-kingsman-are-the-real-spy-masters/

    I'm sorry, but I refuse to read this article as the header tells me all I need to know.
    To each their own. Thanks for taking the trouble to let me know. A header is there for clicks. In a soundbite and twitter obsessed and driven world I can see how some may be inclined to only pay attention to headlines.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    I'm surprised one of the Pizza companies
    Haven't released a " Golden Circle " pizza ?
    Or maybe they have. ;-)
Sign In or Register to comment.