Kingsman: The Great Game (2019)

1222325272835

Comments

  • Posts: 12,198
    bondjames wrote: »
    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.

    It just reads like a Red Top newspaper rag, and we all know how much we listen to them.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited September 2017 Posts: 23,883
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    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.

    It just reads like a Red Top newspaper rag, and we all know how much we listen to them.
    There's quite a bit more substance to it than that if one takes emotion out of the equation.

    Some of it mirrors Christopher McQuarrie's and Tom Cruise's stated perspective on where Bond is these days, and how they've strategically positioned MI in response - although they expressed it a little differently from how author Mark Millar does in the above article. As I said, it covers some of the items we discussed a few pages back on this thread about there being an opening in the market, as well as prior conversations on other threads about the fact that these new franchises (like Kingsman) can take chances/risks and push boundaries in ways which Bond cannot, due firstly to its rich history/heritage and secondly due to audience expectations/limitations.

    There's some interesting insights on the Hollywood machine and its overcautiousness as well.

    I found it quite illuminating, but as I said, to each their own.
  • Did anyone see this yet?? :))

  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 12,767
    Yes, very funny.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Joe Don Baker Street
    Posts: 40,798
    I still haven t seen either, but the first one got good reviews here. This did not.
  • So I saw the film earlier tonight and to be honest it was a lot better than I was expecting. I liked it almost as much as the first one. It isn't as quite on the same level but the reviews are very harsh imo.

    Non spoiler review: I really enjoyed it. The trailers make out it's a big ensemble movie but this is really still Eggsy's film, with Firth also playing a big role. Whiskey got the most screen time of the American agents but even then it still felt like a Kingsman film, not a Statesman one. And I was happy with that because part of the reason I loved the first one was the whole working class Bond concept and that carries over here.

    The film also has a lot more to say than the trailers make out. The return of one character (it's shown in all the trailers but I genuinely didn't recognize him there so I'll keep it zipped just in case) means that the "your background doesn't have any bearing on how good a person you are" theme is still there in short spurts, which I was happy about. and once the villain's plan gets in the main message/theme of the film becomes clear and it's something I thought was quite well done, although it gets a bit muddled with a couple of short scenes/lines at the end.

    There was a lot more globe trotting and most of the action was really well done. It definitely felt a lot more CGI heavy than the first film though. I think it's because in that film, while there was a lot of CGI, the lower budget meant that most of the action boiled down to fight scenes, so you still had some genuine stuntwork at the heart of it. Sadly, because the bigger budget seemed to lead to them getting more ambitious with the setpieces, there are one or two sequences in this one that just seem completely computer animated. Some great bits though. The opening car chase was incredible, as was the finale. Nothing on par with the church scene but I can live with that, I'm glad they didn't deliberately homage it/try to top it.

    All the actors were very good. As I said, it's still Eggsy's movie and he's great, but Mark Strong was on proper scene stealing form. He got a lot more to do. Harry was also fleshed out a lot more and had an actual character arc this time, and Firth was as brilliant as he was in the first. The villain and henchman were a step down from the first film and I think the film suffered from not having any Bond/Bond villain style interactions like the first film did between Firth and Jackson, there wasn't as much actual spying in this one. But the villains weren't bad, and Poppy's plan and the effect it has was really unique for this sort of movie. In a way she's not even the main villain.

    That's about it really. On the plus side the origin/spy school stuff being out the way meant we got much more action and over the top stuff a lot sooner into the film, the main theme of the first one still carried over, it had some really funny moments (I laughed at the Glastonbury scene okay), it was full of great performances and most of the action was fun aside from the obvious/overused CGI. On the downside there was less actual spying, the CGI did take me out of the film at times, some of the humor didn't really land for me and it didn't seem to have the same energy to it as the first one.

    Now some spoilery thoughts
    I really liked that Eggsy was still friends with his old mates, in touch with his roots despite being a Kingsman, and how Charlie was so rough. The message of the first film was definitely still there, especially in the badass final killing of Charlie at the end "I'm more of a gentleman than you'll ever be" *snaps neck*. I loved that the first one had the balls to have a council estate kid as the lead, since they're so often demonized over here in Britain and I can imagine it was a tough sell to Americans who think the UK is all Bond and Sherlock and Downton, and even better was that they made a point of it.
    So I was glad to see that continue and Eggsy really was great. Loved his winding up of Charlie before escaping in Italy.

    I thought the stance the film took on drugs was refreshing too. Yeah, they can ruin lives if abused, but it's normal to experiment when you're young and some people have good reason to be taking them. Demonizing anyone who's ever so much as touched them as being stupid or a criminal will get us nowhere. This seemed to get a bit muddled at the end though with the "stick to the booze" and "I'm never touching that shit again" comments. I guess the point they were trying to get across was that while the President was wrong Poppy still wasn't right. There's smoking a spliff and then there's shooting up. But I feel that the way they just lumped "drugs" into one category meant that it wasn't too clear what they were trying to say at the end. For the most part though, very well done and not at all what I was expecting from the plot.

    I wasn't a huge fan of Merlin's death. Felt like it came completely out of nowhere. They referenced Eggsy's dad's similar death in the first one to try and lend it some pathos but that didn't really make sense to me because, as Harry points out, that was due to his mistake. It just seemed pointless and I would have much rather they gave him his own badass moment and had him fighting alongside Harry and Eggsy in the finale instead of Elton John of all people.

    I thought Eggsy's relationship with the princess, while a nice idea, felt a bit forced. Just seems like an overreaction to the oversensitive people who moaned about the anal joke at the end of the first one. And the ending with him getting married, then Channing Tatum showing up at the tailor shop base. I'm hoping that doesn't mean that Eggsy won't be in it if there's a third one because to me he's the main attraction.

    I'd give it about an 8 out of 10, while the first one I would have given an 8.5 or a 9. Almost as good, but just misses the mark. Too much CGI and focuses more on action than it does spying, it's missing the fun Bond referencing hero/villain dynamic of the first one. But if you liked the first one, then you should definitely see this at the cinema. It's a lot of fun.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 34,253
    That's good to hear, @thelivingroyale. You seemed to be a bit on the fence about it, so glad it ended up being better than you expected. Sounds like I'll enjoy it, minus the CGI heavy action sequences you mentioned.
  • Creasy47 wrote: »
    That's good to hear, @thelivingroyale. You seemed to be a bit on the fence about it, so glad it ended up being better than you expected. Sounds like I'll enjoy it, minus the CGI heavy action sequences you mentioned.

    Yeah it was actually a nice surprise for me. The trailers made me think it'd be a lot weaker than it was but it turned out almost as good as the first. I think you'll definitely notice the CGI, but it's fun enough for that to just be a minor issue. I think you'll still enjoy it very much.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Great to read that you enjoyed it @thelivingroyale. I noticed the CGI in the trailers (particularly at that Piz Gloria type location) so I'm prepared for it.

    Good point about the increased budget perhaps leading them to undertake overambitious setpieces & then augmenting it with excessive noticeable special effects work. That's something I see in a lot of 'blockbusters' these days and it seems to have infected the Bond universe as well.

    Perhaps this sort of thing is required for a film to 'play well' in overseas markets and to a wide demographic. If so, it's a pity. Still, I can accept it more readily with Kingsman because it's a comic originated creation.

    Looking forward to seeing it in a couple of days, and I'm glad to read your comments that it's better than the critic's consensus.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    So, what we're looking at now with Kingsman, according to the second one, is the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (the remake) meets James Bond template.
  • Posts: 3,052
    The Hollywood Reporter says, “Matthew Vaughn's Kingsman: The Golden Circle should have no trouble dethroning horror sensation It in its box-office debut this weekend, or lording over fellow new entry The Lego Ninjago Movie. Tracking suggests the cheeky action-comedy from 20th Century Fox will debut in the $40 million-$45 million range, ahead of the $36.2 million domestic bow of Kingsman: The Secret Service in February 2015. A sleeper hit, the first Kingsman went on to earn $414.4 million globally.”

    I’ve only read one review since watching the movie, and that was on the mostly-reliable Roger Ebert site. Not this time, I’m afraid. The reviewer seemed more interested in nailing his own political allegiances to the mast and lambasting the movie as a pro-Republican piece of sexist garbage. The fact that the same reviewer hated the original Kingsman movie, it came as no surprise that he’d feel the same about its sequel. If this is a typical example of all the other so-called balanced reviews, then I suggest not to bother with them.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 19,360
    I've got my tickets right here. If all goes well, I'll be in the film 13 hours from now. Time to go to bed then, so that I can be fully energised for Kingsman: The Gloden Circle. :D
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,683
    I just saw it and you know what, critics are a bunch of pricks, that movie was so fun and entertaining it was even better than the first
  • I saw the film last night, and had absolutely no idea where the critics were sitting with this film going into it. I am therefore completely stunned at all the negative press this film is getting. While I may still slightly prefer the first film, I thoroughly believe Golden Circle developed the world and ethos of this universe in a very fun, unique and exciting way. I can’t remember the last time I had this much fun in the cinema.

    Does the film have problems? Absolutely! I was disappointed about the lack of Channing Tatum, Jeff Bridges and Roxy, and some character decisions seem off, but the action sequences, story and performances of Taron Egerton & co made it an enjoyable ride. It is a film I can see myself watching over and over again for a long time.

    p.s. this is my first post on this forum, and due to my disgust in some of the reviews I felt this was the best way to start. Hope everyone has a great day!
  • Posts: 444
    Just got home from this and absolutely ruddy loved it. Much more enjoyable than the first film but that may just be because I've never particularly liked Colin Firth and Taron Egerton and Mark Strong carried the film perfectly adequately before Firth rejoined the action.

    The 'Keith Allen' burger and Glastonbury scenes were moronic but other than that this was a great spy\action\comic book movie. The action sequences and villain's lair did have some fun and ingenuity that the current Bond films do indeed lack but I still respect why Babs and MGW don't wish to revisit that style post Austin Powers and Brosnan.

    With the pin stripe suits, gadget umbrellas and E-Type Jag you can't help but think of the The Avengers (John Steed not Marvel) and what a crying shame that the Warner Bros film of 1998 fell so short of what Kingsman has achieved.

    I can't see this being a long running franchise but there is certainly enough mileage in a further film.
  • Posts: 3,052
    I agree @Cowley. The Glastonbury sequence was one of the moments that fell flat for me too. I also agree that this movie has probably more of a relationship with The Avengers (the cult TV show) than it has with Bond.

    It is indeed a shame that the movie version of The Avengers was so poorly executed, but that might have had more to do with a lack of cutting-edge CGI back in 98, and the poor decision perhaps to reduce the 115-minute film to 89 minutes, sacrificing much coherence and continuity in the process? A lousy script didn’t help it either.
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 533
    I don't think it was as good as the first. I thought it had some narrative problems. And I found it annoying that every American male character in this film had a Southern accent and wore a damn Stetson . . . even those characters portrayed by Pedro Pascal and Bruce Greenwood (who was spared the Stetson). What the hell? But I thought it was better than what the critics said it was.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 34,253
    I'm seeing this Wednesday with my friend who already saw it, and he thought it was really good. Looking forward to it, as I really enjoyed the first and the trailers for this one make it look wildly entertaining.
  • Posts: 676
    I'm a huge Elton John fan, so I loved seeing him in this. As for the movie itself, I enjoyed it about as much as the first Kingsman. Didn't reach the same heights, but didn't hit the same lows, either.
  • edited September 2017 Posts: 12,317
    I actually liked the Glastonbury scene. My favourite thing about Kingsman is the absurd, out there stuff they do with the Bond template and that was no exception. Thought it was really funny.

    I wish that they'd given Roxy a bigger role and hadn't bothered bringing Firth back. There was no need imo. In the first one death actually felt real. But by bringing back Firth the stakes are permanently lowered. They made a point of saying this isn't the kind of movie where the spy will get captured and gloated to while he figures out how to escape. He'll actually just die. But then they retcon it and bring him back which really undermines that and undermines the emotion it gave the finale of the last one.
    Maybe that's part of the reason I didn't like Merlin's death. Not only was it pointless but I also can't believe he's actually dead. If the audience bitches about it enough then who's to say Vaughn won't just give him robot legs or something in the next one.

    I think Firth should have stayed dead. Roxy should have gone to America with them and basically filled Firth's role in the story from then on
    being suspicious of the Statesmen, straining her relationship with Eggsy.

    I also wasn't a huge fan of
    Eggsy's relationship with the princess. Felt a bit forced imo. I would have just bought his mum back to fill that part of the story, worrying about Eggsy at home. The only other thing you'd need to change would be the Glastonbury scene but all you need to do there is have him actually follow through and sleep with Charlie's girlfriend instead of just fingering her.

    I'd also have preferred the cable car bit to be replaced by a ski chase or something with practical stuntwork instead of all CGI. And I'm not sure how you'd do it but I think the film suffered from not having Poppy interact more with the heros. Maybe you could just beef up the final confrontation at the end, add more dialogue to it.

    Apart from that I can't think of anything I'd change really. Great film.
  • 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 going to write a 'counter-response' to that, that is both a review to "Kingsman" as well as a retrospective to James Bond. Because.....this article angered me. I understand movie-makers need to show off a bit more zest. This especially goes for the Bond producers. But the other end is sounding as grotesque as the very movie...and Trump. Make no mistake, I didn't make the comparison. This article brings Brexit into the discussion? By all means, wait for my response.
  • 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/

    While I have to admit that the first kingsmen did absolutely nothing for me I really applaud Vaughn's attitude. And Kick Ass 1 was extremely funny to watch. Also his X-Men movie to me is by far the best of the lot.
  • Not sure where people are getting the right wing subtext from. I think both films are unashamedly liberal

    Working class hero who when given an opportunity not often afforded to people from his walk of life, proves that he's not only just as good but even better than the posh kids he was up against by getting the job and saving the world. Moral of the story: don't judge people based off their accent, background, etc. The snobby head of the spy agency is killed after it's revealed he was willing to let all the people he thought beneath him to be "culled" by the villain. Which to me seems like a satirical take on the worst of the Tories. The only possible right wing subtext there is Obama's head blowing up but that was most of the world leaders (weren't the British royal family also on Valentine's list of people on board) and I feel like that was more of a swipe at politicians in general, with them going for the most recognisable name to get the most publicity.

    And then in the second one, the plot actually points out that lots of normal, decent people do drugs, and
    the US President arguably comes across as more callous and evil than the main villain of the film; while any decent person would have given into her demands if there was no other option instead the facist Trump esque president is willing to let millions die because "drug users are criminals and should be punished". How right wing is that?

    I also think it's worth pointing out that they're an independant intelligence agency for a reason. They're free from beuracracy and politicking in general. Brexit wouldn't have affected them. They're an apolitical organisation who have found themselves in two films so far that to me have had a very liberal angle.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    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 going to write a 'counter-response' to that, that is both a review to "Kingsman" as well as a retrospective to James Bond. Because.....this article angered me. I understand movie-makers need to show off a bit more zest. This especially goes for the Bond producers. But the other end is sounding as grotesque as the very movie...and Trump. Make no mistake, I didn't make the comparison. This article brings Brexit into the discussion? By all means, wait for my response.
    I probably won't read it. I wish you could leave your brand of politics out of movie threads. The points I got out of that article are more to do with the direction of the respective franchises and the state of the Hollywood money machine at this moment. The political aspects are entirely irrelevant to me, because this is a film thread. We have enough pollution of that with the Emmy's and what not.
  • Posts: 627
    I had a ball with this film. I saw it at an Alamo Drafthouse, where I ordered a Meat Grinder burger and had some of the Old Forester Statesman whiskey. With two years to go before Bond 25, it scratched the spy movie itch for me. I appreciated the callbacks to the first movie and felt that the film wasn't derivative, like some have said. It's a spy movie and there's a formula. It pushed the characters forward and I was sad that Firth "died" in the first, so I was happy he got to see who Eggsy became.
    With no bodies or funerals for Roxy and Merlin, could there be a chance for their return? I can see how this "cheapens" their "death", but it's not that kind of movie,
    bruv. ;-)
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 12,767
    I enjoyed the article, and can see what they mean by the sense of fun from the
    pre Craig era. Hence why even the Producers tried to introduce a bit more fun
    in to Spectre.
    I regard Bond as a very separate animal to Kingsman, and have no doubts that
    Bond will continue, where as Kingsman will stop I'd say at three movies. Even
    Bourne has had his day.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Joe Don Baker Street
    edited September 2017 Posts: 40,798
    bondjames 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 going to write a 'counter-response' to that, that is both a review to "Kingsman" as well as a retrospective to James Bond. Because.....this article angered me. I understand movie-makers need to show off a bit more zest. This especially goes for the Bond producers. But the other end is sounding as grotesque as the very movie...and Trump. Make no mistake, I didn't make the comparison. This article brings Brexit into the discussion? By all means, wait for my response.
    I probably won't read it. I wish you could leave your brand of politics out of movie threads. .

    But isn t Trump different?
    56c68a3b1e0000220070e5df.jpeg?cache=b0j891qb2h&ops=scalefit_720_noupscale
    lfv8GLg.jpg
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing South Florida
    Posts: 3,736
    My wife and I are watching the first one. We'll we'll finish it tonight. She's only seen it once. I've seen it alot. We're gonna see it this weekend for my birthday
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames 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 going to write a 'counter-response' to that, that is both a review to "Kingsman" as well as a retrospective to James Bond. Because.....this article angered me. I understand movie-makers need to show off a bit more zest. This especially goes for the Bond producers. But the other end is sounding as grotesque as the very movie...and Trump. Make no mistake, I didn't make the comparison. This article brings Brexit into the discussion? By all means, wait for my response.
    I probably won't read it. I wish you could leave your brand of politics out of movie threads. .

    But isn t Trump different?
    56c68a3b1e0000220070e5df.jpeg?cache=b0j891qb2h&ops=scalefit_720_noupscale
    lfv8GLg.jpg
    The author of all our pain apparently.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 12,767
    Sadly the number 666 is apparently wrong. Latest thinking is that
    the real number of the beast is 616 ;-)
Sign In or Register to comment.