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
It just reads like a Red Top newspaper rag, and we all know how much we listen to them.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
I also wasn't a huge fan of
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
bruv. ;-)
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.
But isn t Trump different?
the real number of the beast is 616 ;-)