Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Kingsman: The Golden Circle | Review
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 03. 2024
- Those darn nanobots...
Support the channel: / calvindyson
Also follow me on other social media:
/ calvin_dyson
/ calvinmdyson
/ calvindyson
letterboxd.com/calvindyson
Calvin Dyson sounds like the name of a secret agent. Coming soon:
Kingsman - The Dyson Years
Having said that, it also sounds like a film about a vacuum cleaner. 😄
I can hear the villain already...."I expect you to die soon, Dyson!"
"Do you expect me to talk? About it in a series of videos released every Sunday?"
It does seem like the first movie like KICKASS was lightening in a bottle and it couldn't be replicated. Its not impossible, but sometimes film makers get way to over their heads that they forget what made the first one special.
12:30 that's what people felt like with Star Trek 3 compared to Star Trek 2. I'll say no more as you need to watch them. But I hope everyone here knows what I'm on about 😉
Julianne Moore saved this movie for me. She is amazing and in this film, she played a pretty great villain. Really evil with a smile. She was great.
I hate what they did to Pedro Pascal’s character at the end of the movie, and I fully gave up on the franchise for being too mean spirited
Bro pretty much wanted to get rid of drugs because users killed his wife and instead of talking him down they just threw him into a meat grinder.
As someone who likes The Golden Circle (sentimental value as it was my first R-16 rating movie I saw in the cinema) even this felt wrong.
Right? It was an opportunity to address the issues with people who have legitimate grievances against drug use/users. But this film's only stance on that was "Fuck you! Meat Grinder!" @pelicanchampion8629
I was very disappointed when I saw this. So many terrible choices.
- bringing Colin Firth back
- killing Mark Strong, cause getting your face blown off is no problem but deactivating a land mine is impossible? 🤷♂️
- the abundances of cameos for the sake of cameos
- the whole weird theme with legalization of drugs, where everyone is just a harmless weed smoker and no one is using hard drugs and the only person pointing out that there is actually a darker site to this as well, gets quickly pushed into a meat grinder cause they don't fit the narrative.
- Everything Elton John
AND WORST OF ALL:
The Finger subplot, which is so cringe, so awful and so excruciatingly dragged out.
Indefensible.
The finger sublot was really disgusting and unnecessary. It was like they wanted to top the ending of the previous film but at least that was mainly for humour which it certainly isn't here. Also agree on the drugs issue-hard drugs seem to be ignored as it would complicate the argument but tackling it at all feels out of place in a film like this which is hardly taking itself seriously [like curing death!].
@@jamesatkinsonjaExactly that. 💯
The finger thing felt like Matthew Vaughn hearing the criticism about the end gag of the last film.
And deciding tj stick it to them by going even further this time.
I'll say it again, more people have walked on the moon the ever liked this film.
The humour veers from sly innuendo to an attempt at a belly laugh, the plot goes off on so many tangents the seconds act sags liked an eighty-year-olds beer gut and whilst there are some interesting ideas in here they swamped in the dizzying blur that is this film.
I think this will be one of those films that screen writers study as an example of how not to write a screenplay.
This movie pretty much cemented how I feel about the franchise as a whole: it’s pretty much Men In Black but with British spies.
Think about it. The first film kind of follows a similar formula to Men In Black: top-secret organization, mentor figure (Tommy Lee Jones/Colin Firth) either dies or retires and our protagonist, the young new recruit and protégé (Will Smith/Taron Edgerton) pretty much takes their place. It was a hit and once we get the next one, it feels like a retread of the first film and they need to bring back the mentor character who has no memory of their past as an agent.
Never had made that connection before myself but now that you mention it that is a spot on comparison. They even did a story set in the past as a third movie, only that it was a straight-up prequel instead of a time travel movie.
@@GermanLeftist And if we call Argylle part 4, have pretty much a new cast for the 4th installment!
Tons of frustrations about this movie but a whole lotta fun too.
My biggest annoyance was probably deleting the entirety of Kingsman just to justify Eggsy and Merlin working with the Statesmen. Why? Just have them be assigned to this mission in tandem with the Statesmen. Everything the built and setup in the first movie just removed. Lancelot 'dying' was an insanely strange choice after being such a prominent up and coming character in the first.
This movie to me killed the franchise's momentum with how big their 180 was on everything.
P.S. While The King's Man isn't that much better, I'm curious to see your review. That trench scene is 👌
I agree on feeling a bit lukewarm with the whole romance, fish-out-water and "taming the beast" subplot. I just didn't connect with it.
And also, as someone from a working class background who I suppose "successfully" elevated myself into Middle class culture I don't like that movies have to say "upper class/middle class equals good, working class is bad...forget your roots, be ashamed of it etc". Trust me as someone that use to hide my roots and try and "tame my dad" when I introduced him to my middle class/upper class bfs it's deeply personal to me and I hate that Hollywood still does this.
And yeah, I think it was a mistake bringing back Colin Firth. They could have another respected English actor like Firth and had it be about Eggsy struggling with his new relationship with a new partner who is trying to emulate that relationship again or not understanding his struggle to play some good conflict.
But yeah, apart from that I am with you and really enjoy this flick.
Thanks for this and yeah sounds like we're on the same page. Broadly speaking, I enjoy watching the film very much but when I come away and start thinking about it there's a lot that really bothers me...
Vaughan's own privileged background doesn't help with this theme.
People have actually survived head wounds as bad or worse as Harry did, so the nanobots were just unnecessary. They could have just said the bullet "almost" killed him and it would have been more realistic- heck, even Renard survived a head shot in the Bond movies themselves.
Killing off the Kingsman organisation (after the first film where they sided with the villains) undermines Vaughns intention to turn this into it's own cinematic universe- imagine if FRWL or QoS opened with MI6 exploding and M, Tanner, Moneypenny and Q all dying before Bond's eyes; it also doesn't make much sense for Poppy to do that (even as a favour to her henchman) as they had nothing to do with her plans before she made an enemy out of them.
I also think there are far too many scenes of Poppy just by herself or with only one or two characters- it always feels like she exists on a different filming location- Drax, Stromberg, Blofeld, Sanchez etc were almost always surrounded by lackeys and sometimes even a whole army of them, which made them feel more powerful and in-control of things in a way Poppy doesn't. I think they focused too much on her eccentricity and her gimmick to the point it pulled me out of the movie.
They final act is where it really falls apart for me as it just has too much going on with too many villains, and the stakes feel a bit weird since people could have just agreed to her demands and killed her later (it's a bit reminiscent of OHMSS, but more over-the-top and less believable).Little hard to believe that the American bad guys would be so insanely anti-drug that they'd let a terrorist drug lord poison millions of people, if only because Americans hate being bossed around by anyone (and let's face it- if Trump hadn't been President the subplot likely wouldn't have been in it), and Poppy should have just had a better plan and been the sole villain imho.
It's just too overstuffed and confused with itself, and relies too much on shock value than building a coherent story or universe Matthew Vaughn has ambitions that he doesn't have the wisdom or discipline to achieve, and in that regard he is his own worst enemy.
I hope we do not get a third film. It's just been diminishing returns at this point, and they've built up the mythos of the Kingsmen while killing them all for shock value which makes it hard to care.
Good point about the head wound. I probably would have been more inclined to roll with it if they hadn't complicated things with the nanobots.
@@calvindyson Same.
Well have I got bad news for you:
THEY ALREADY MADE THE THIRD MOVIE IN 2021 (The King's Man).
@@NebLleb I didn't count that as it was prequel
I guess the idea of killing off the Kingsman was to say 'anything could happen' and show Poppy is a serious threat but it just makes you wonder why bother bringing back Sophie Cookson and having Michael Gambon when you could have just had Eggy's working with the statesman from the start. I'm guessing Julianne Moore was only free for a short time, hence why she's pretty much confined to one set.
Vaughn said when promoting the film that he cut 80 mins out of the film [while saying he was going to release the full version eventually which has yet to materialise] so it originally ran 3 hours and 40 mins! Even at it's current form it's way over long but they needed to do the tightening at the script stage as there are many sub-plots that could have been discarded to help the pacing+ simplify matters [not helped by the clear set up for a statesman spin off which probably will never happen].
With Vaughan funding things it's all very George Lucas and the prequels.
OH REALLY.?? woow then that explains this movie then
The sequel I wanted to see was The Kingsman rebuilding the world after the events of the first film considering the globe suffered from an outbreak of mass rage and most of the world's leaders being killed. It could have kept the subversive nature of the first film by showing the impact of a villain's plot on the world.
The Golden Circle was sadly a disappointment. I agree with most of the criticism against the film like the cartoony action, the overstuffed script, and the baffling choices like killing off all the Kingsman (Sophie Cookson got screwed over), bringing Harry back from the dead, and the infamous fingering scene.
Only channel I watch every upload of Calvin. 👍🏻
Calvin, are you ever going to review Tenet? I just rewatched it a few weeks ago in IMAX 70mm (my first time seeing it on the big screen) when it was re-released in theaters for a week in February. Much more visually impressive to say the least ( especially the battle royale in the final act ) than what I experienced on streaming or home video. I think it is worthy of a review by you. Love to see you do one on some future date.
ooo man this is a tough one. I honestly can see your point about the film controversies in why it's not the best. However in a similar vain I as well agree with what you like about it however what I like about it brings it up a little more to about 8/10 instead of a 7/10. I feel like the films are just fun to watch with a drink or with friends or just casually as I'm doing work, it keeps me entertained as I look up for a few seconds before going back to what to what I was doing or something like that; but something like Argyle on the other hand I don't like. It feels like the movies like Argyle and "THE KingsMan" demand attention because how deep the plot is and what not so when you look up when your doing something your just confused what's going on. And if you actually paid attention the plot just feels lack luster and not worth your time. I really hope for another kingsman sequel to finish Eggsys story but I hope it's done in a fun way.
I quite agree with your comments re "Argyle" and "The Kings Man". I'm looking forward to revisiting the later when I get to making a review of it because I can't say I was too impressed from my first watch. I think you're right that the plots are a bit too deep and you can't just gist it and roll with it like I think you can the first two Kingsman films.
@@calvindyson
Yea great points here.
I rewatched Argylle last night with my kids and although everyone enjoyed it
There were constant cries of “ What??!!” at the many many complications,twists and turns.
Kingsman and its sequel were much closer to Bond in their simple direct easy to follow stories -and I think audiences like that much better.
I also really enjoy “ Golden Circle”.
I think the one thing it’s missing is that mid film memorable action sequence.
The action is mostly loaded in the front and back and could have used more in the center to better balance it, I think.
Fun fact: Julianne Moore (real name: Julie Smith) and I hung out a couple of times during college. Even back then, she was a positive force of nature. Great gal.
I will say that the death of Merlin was not only impactful, but for a good few years, it was the most emotinal movie moment for me. I guess the combination of the circumstances of what happens, Strong's great accent work and belting out the song IN that accent just gave it something very special.
6:20 Oh my god Calvin
Great review Calvin and I agree it's a film I enjoy even if I don't love it. It struck me how similar these films are to the Men in Black series. Both MIB and Kingsman are inventive takes on the grizzled mentor and down to earth newbie, both of them have the training at the secret HQ and at the mentor is taken out of the picture and the newbie takes his place with a new female sidekick. Then there respective follow up movies unceremoniously ditch the female sidekick and contrive a way for the old mentor to return because people loved the dynamic in the first movie. (And to stretch this further MIB3 and the King's Man go back in time to see the origins of the organisation). Like you say the first films are using Campbell's monomyth but the second is I guess a kind of Hollywood aversion to risk taking, replicating what worked in the previous film even if it doesn't make sense on a story level. But I'm guilty because I do want to see more of Colin Firth and or Tommy Lee Jones logic be damned.
And like Men in Black, any follow up fails to recapture the originals magic.
It's a testiment to how bloated this movie is that Predo Pascal is barely even mentioned in Calvin's review
Shame as I felt he stole the show a bit [especially as he wasn't the name he is now so he was a bit of a wild card]
Funny you should mention people being cheated by Merlin’s death. Vaughn actually said that Merlin would have survived because his underwear was bomb proof. Vaughn found the scene really funny but the test audience didn’t share his sense of humour & did feel cheated like you said so it was cut and he does for real
The old guy who gets relieved from the action in front of him at the winter resort. I had to pause the film and laugh for several minutes. Hysterically.
I was flicking through TV channels, landed on this film and that bit came up. I had a similar reaction!
The first two kingsman movies almost feel like tributes to the first two eras of Bond cinema (Lazenby notwithstanding)
Original flavor Kingsman has that kind of classic Connery vibe (they say as much multiple times), but Golden Circle is more like the Moore era with its brighter colors, more over-the-top villain, even having the heroes work with another intelligence agency.
Can’t wait for the Dalton and Brosnan pastiches
Thank you, Calvin. I'm not the only person who loves this equally as much as the first one. this & Jack Reacher: Never Go Back, I think would make a great doublebill. as underappreciated spy sequels. :)
I'm an apologist for 'Never go Back' too [I seem to have a soft spot for films where the characters from a 'surrogate family'].
Calvin uploaded, its a good day boys!
13:23 TV Tropes currently says about fan favourite character Roxy being killed off 'to many fans she must have outrun the missile explosion at the mansion'-yeah right! As for bringing Colin Firth back-it probably seemed essential but having a way to 'cure' death does strip away any tension while feeling very self indulgent [12:57 is spot on]. Maybe the original idea-Firth's character having a twin brother-might have been better [or just use Mark Strong as the sole wingman].
Yeah Vaughan really did realise they'd made a big mistake after Harry became such a beloved character. He can say they brought him back because they loved working with Colin Firth but it was really for money reasons.
The twist of bringing Harry back literally from the dead is straight out of a soap opera complete with him having an eyepatch haha.
@@spencerkindra8822 as nice as it is having Colin Firth back I agree if that's the only way they could do it then it's embarrassing to do so. What's funny is how they try and spin it as a bold non-studio decision only Kingsman/Matthew Vaughan would do. When it's done for the most studio reason, money by any means.
@@davidjames579 Maybe a bit too 'Men in Black 2' but if they'd gone with the 'twin brother' idea [say the DNA of a device would only work on Harry's brother so they need to bring him into the fold] and said brother isn't already an agent they could have had Eggy's be his mentor thus switching the dynamic without undoing the death [while Firth gets to play a different spin on his character].
@@davidjames579 Right? Franchises bring back characters from the dead for money all the time, you're not fooling anyone, Matthew Vaughn haha.
Not the best follow up but for sure a fun movie. Can't wait for the 3ed installment.
When a certain character got blown up would they return for a 3rd film
I remember loving this film when I first saw it in theatres as a teenager. I was a huge fan of the first film, so I was anticipating its release. Definitely need to rewatch it.
4:24 "Cartoony, artificial, schtick." You absolutely nailed it with that description. That was fine in the first Kingsman movie because it was something new but when they dropped the trailer for Argylle and it was full of that stuff, I groaned. Matthew Vaughn's visual style is so annoying to me. That's why I wasn't sad they never made another Kingsman sequel. One of the things I liked about the The King's Man was it didn't have any of that crap. I think the fact that it was set during WWI grounded the movie in a realistic visual style. The 1910s setting just doesn't allow for that hyper cartoony schtick. Hopefully Vaughn will now abandon that style since Argylle got bad reviews and did poorly at the box office. Also you mentioned the A Single Man reunion because Colin Firth and Julianne Moore are in the movie but you missed The Big Lebowski reunion since both her and Jeff Bridges are in this haha.
The thing that annoys me most about using the nanobots to resurrect Colin Firth, is that they weren't even necessary. Think about it. Valentine has a blood phobia. Before shooting Harry, with a gun he is holding in one hand, he closes his and turns his head away. It is entirely plausible that this alters his aim slightly so that when shoots at Harry, the bullet passes through the outer part of the eye, smashing part of the eye socket and maybe fracturing the skull, but not penetrating the brain. Harry would still go down and it makes enough mess to look fatally convincing, the Statesmen arrive in time to save Harry from dying of blood loss (the fact they wre on their way I had no problem with at all), the trauma causes The Harry's amnesia, the eye is unavoidablely lost, necessitating the eye patch. Everyone is happy and there are buns for tea.
I would wonder why Gisele didn't shoot Harry again herself to be sure in that scenario but it would make more sense than essentially 'curing death'.
Killing off Roxy annoyed me. What a waste.
The Poppy plot and the President plot were weirdly disconnected. The heroes never even meet the President. This film has pacing and structural issues.
I did like that Eggsy and the Princess still being a couple.
Own both on Bluray, rewatch the first every few months. Watched the second only twice in the 3 years I've had it. Not a patch on the first. I await the 3rd with mild nervousness.
I agree with what you said, bringing back Firth, great as he is, totally destroys Eggsy's journey and his reason for "stepping up". All emotion taken away by his reappearance. Not a fan. 😁😁
I didn't like the film at all and I was soured once they killed off Roxy. Then they introduced the Statesmen and all I could think was "Where were these guys in the first film?". And I was thinking "Why are they named after alcoholic beverages? Why not after, y'know, Statesmen like Franklin, Hamilton, Jefferson?". Then they brought back Colin Firth and that was it for me, I got off this bus.
The King's Man is just as bad for other reasons and finding out Argyle is part of this universe just makes me want to avoid it all that more.
Anyway, I still enjoyed the video, Calvin. You do great work even if I once in a great while find myself disagreeing with you. People don't always have to see eye-to-eye to appreciate another's viewpoint
I hate to be that guy but the Lego DB5 is missing a piece on the wheel, just letting you know in case you weren’t aware
It has a very OHMSS influence. From the top angle poster, to the meat grinder scene, and color palette of the skiing/alps scenes
As someone who hated the first one, people disliking this one and even more so the King's Man and Argylle, it's been very cathartic seeing the Vaughn gimmick run out of steam. They could have been a good franchise to have around but they focused too much on violence and silly hijinks instead of the character dynamics for the first one, murdering characters left and right for the sake of raising stakes, when stakes are probably what people care less about in these movies considering half the world is killing each other in the first yet we are just supposed to care about an infant on a bathroom while MILLIONS of innocents are being butchered by their friends families and strangers. The tonal dissonance of this franchise has been there since day one, just this one showed it in all its fetid, meanspirited glory
I feel still a third movie (fourth sort of, I guess) will still happen. But only if it’s Vaughn’s next film at this point. If it’s another multi-year gap…I can’t imagine it will happen. It’s just been so long.
The first film stood out from the pack by it's R-Rating for better or worse. It certainly went to far in places for me and the CGI is iffy. While entertaining enough, I didn't enjoy it as a 'Bond alternative' as much as the 'Mission Impossible films. So this felt like more of the same but for sure a step down, messy and without the originals freshness although I'll take it over the 'prequel' which I didn't feel worked very well [looking forward to your take on it one day].
I saw a few people saying Kingsman 'showed a Roger Moore esq Bond could work now' when it being more harder edged and cruder than a Bond film is it's selling point [Argylle was criticised by some for feeling watered down with it's 12/PG-13 rating].
Speaking of 18 cert spy films, Dev Patel's directorial debut Monkey Man looks interesting. Kind of Slumdog Millionare meets John Wick, I think it's probably more that or vigilante film but it has spy film similarities, along with interesting setting, look and action. Patel has been on lists suggesting Bond actors and here in a tux he does look the part. The seemingly bone breaking violence is novel.
These two movies are great fun. I agree with you though, it was a shame they felt the need to bring back Colin Firth. It was an indulgence whereas there are no indulgences in the first movie. I had forgotten that they brought back the princess, such was her impact in this second movie. What both movies have in spades is outrageous, charismatic villains. I think only Goldfinger matches them in the Bond series.
I liked that one of the American action heroes had a Burt Reynolds mustache.
Other than that, it feels like a comic book movie. A Marvel comic, but not MCU. Specifically, the mid-70s Doug Moench/Paul Gulacy run on Master of Kung Fu. They basically took the Bond-adjacent Enter the Dragon and ran off with it. With over the top villains ranging from Razorfist - a man with two swords for hands - to a small robot that looked oddly like the Big Boy mascot. It was quite different from most of the Marvel comics of the era - they were doing espionage stories... but with a "it's comics, it doesn't have to make sense, deal with it" kind of attitude.
On the HappySadConfused podcast Vaughan says that The Kings Man was supposed to be a TV series then somehow it turned into a movie script. So if he intended that and Statesman as TV, plus the KM films, then yeah it would have been cluttered.
Given I felt 'The King's Man' was very episodic and cluttered it did make sense when he said it was meant to be a TV series originally. It does feel a bit 'over confidence' going for spin offs etc that early in the game-bit like the DCEU doing 'Batman Vs Superman' [with guest star wonder woman!] as the second film.
@@jamesatkinsonja as he was talking on the same podcast about a shared universe made up of all the Kingsman properties, Argylle and an unnamed third spy property he seems to be overreaching audience demand. And to do that with original properties as well.....
@@davidjames579 According to him he's already filmed the first film of his 3rd spy franchise [titled currently 'project X' on wiki] and the 3rd Eggsy film is penciled in for filming in 2025 [along with an Argylle prequel] but given 'The King's Man' [still getting a sequel according to him] and now Argylle's poor performance I fully agree he's overreaching the demand [especially as the first Kingsman is coming up to 10 years old now].
@@jamesatkinsonja I don't know how much is self publicity to create demand for the films he's greenlit. But if he honestly believes there is enough then that raises questions of judgement over the running of his own company. I do wonder how much of this is George Lucas Syndrome and if there is anyone he listens to who can tell him to not do certain things. Or if it's his decisions all the way. I think he has good creative ideas and I genuinely would like to see a spy shared universe as he's proposed. But the way he talks about it being like Marvel is ludicrous.
@@davidjames579 There is certainly some self promotion about it [talking about Kingsman when promoting Argylle in theory would get that series fans to watch it] as well as drumming up fans+studio interest in the projects [He said it had done well on Disney Plus but doing a sequel to 'The Kingsman' is a very hard sell without fan pressure]. I do get the feeling he has total control given there isn't anyone to say 'no' [like the indulgences in golden circle] but certainly comparing his spy universe to Marvel is delusions of grandeur [especially as the first two Kingsman films made just over $400 million, very good but nothing like Bond's box office and 'The Kingsman and Argylle about a quarter of that].
This movie’s a bit of a guilty pleasure. It’s not really as good as the first one and there are some major problems with it, but I enjoy it for it is. And oh man, I love the idea of having Elton bloody John be a side character as himself.
I will say though, as much as I love having Colin Firth in the movie, I don’t like the idea of bringing a character back from the dead like that. It’s just… why should we worry if someone gets shot in the head in this movie? We have a cure for that.
I too enjoyed this movie thoroughly. It of course wasn’t as good as the original, but as far as I sequels go, it was very good. Honestly I’m glad they brought Harry back, he was such a great part of the first film.
I also loved The King’s Man. I hadn’t known that it wasn’t very well received. You should do a review of that one as well. Cheers
The best way for me to describe this film is that it is the "Men in Black II" f the "Kingsman" series.
While I am not the biggest fan of the first film due to its mean-spirited nature and tone-deaf nature of its thematic storytelling, but I didn't mind the plot point of killing Harry off since it is a clear critique of the "plot armour" trope that a lot of spy films tend to have to give it some stakes (even if the rest of the film does kind of play it like your typical spy film affair), but bringing back Harry much like bringing Kay in "Men in Black II" not only comes off as a desperate studio demand because "people liked them in the first film", but it completely missed the point of the first films as bringing back Harry in this film makes a lot of the thematic storytelling of the first film even more tone-deaf and more an afterthought than it already is as now everyone has plot armour and now "Kingsman" is sort of your typical spy movie affair.
I do wonder Calvin, do you reckon EON or at least Wade and Purvis may have wanted to do nanobots in a Bond movie before doing NTTD? Imagine of thats what brings back Colonel Moon from the dead or something in Die another Day. That movie suits nanobots as a deadly device too for destruction rather than the GIANT LAAAAAZUUUUUUR
I do wonder! Think the first time I ever heard/saw Nanobots used in a film was "Jason X"...
Nanobots did get mentioned in Red Dwarf in 1997! Given how Sci Fi 'Die Another Day' is [with the DNA altering plot etc] Nanobots would fit right in.
oh was that when rimmer and lister were made to peel potatos??? it would be good to know what the script stages of that movie was like . Especially before Tamahori came on@@jamesatkinsonja
@@DafyddBrooks It's that and the finale of series 7/set up from 8 where Red Dwarf and the crew are rebuilt by naonbots!
I prefer the golden circle. It's so absurd and I love it for it.
Juliane Moore is having SO MUCH FUN in this film.
Pedro Pascal is also really good here.
The “no-one stays dead” thing is why I don’t like nearly all superhero films. Unless they have something else going for them like a very good script I’m not interested because there are no stakes.
I'm very similar. Especially since multiverse stuff became a fixture I just lost all interest. Not that my enjoyment of any story is cruxed on the suspense of whether a character will die or not, but it just means I can't become invested whenever anyone sacrifices themselves to save the day etc because if the actor is popular enough they can always find some magical way to bring them back in the next one.
I don't know if your into 'Fast & Furious' but that series has a bad habit of brining back characters clearly killed off. As it doesn't take itself very seriously I kind of fits but in recent installments it does add to the self indulgent feeling for a series outstaying its welcome in later installments [with the next one being the finale].
Kingsman has become an franchise. There is a prequel.
I personally really liked the third act of this movie with the Assault on Poppys lair .
Juilanne Moore's Poppy isnt as cool as Samuel Jackson's Richmond Valentine,but the combination of her Lair being a 1950s town built into a South American Temple,her Robotic enhanced second in command, and her Robot Maid and Dogs Benny and Jet were really cool and maybe the most unique lair ive seen in a Spy film in this era.
Especially compared to Dominic Green's Lair in Quantum or Blofields it makes those look so barren and lame and lacking in SUPERVILLIAN esque qualities.
If i could give a criticism its the treatment of the female Lancelot character Secret service where shes just killed in the beginning
In fairness Craig's Bond era is much more realistic in tone compared to classic Bond so it makes sense for the bases to follow suit while Kingsman isn't taking itself too seriously.
The King’s Man is actually not a bad film at all, in fact it’s very good, but it’s very difficult to switch up a franchise when the first film ( or season ) is so successful and sets expectations. I guess the epitome of this was the Friday the 13th series which was intended to be an anthology of different stories, but Jason was so popular audiences wouldn’t except a Friday the 13th without him.
It's box office wasn't helped by the pandemic delays [and releasing it against Spiderman No way home] but it probably would have made less money if released in 2019 than if it was a 3rd Eggys film as that's what audiences were expecting [apparently it was going to be a TV show at one point].
I enjoyed the prequel more than the sequel. A 3rd one is still meant to be happening though
I kind of have the same reaction about this film: I certainly found it entertaining while watching it at a theatre, but now I only remember what I didn't like about it.
My main complains are :
(1) In the first movie, they take time to create an universe, and in the sequel, of course, they blow up everything and reset the universe they carefully created in the first film! This is not specific to Kingsman and this is VERY irritating (see also: X-men 2 ; Star Trek Beyond)
(2) Colin Firth character's resurrection
(3) The fact that the characters care more about the lives of pets than about human lives.
PS: I am wondering what the real princess of Sweden thinks about the first movie's joke.
I liked kt. Not as much as the first one which is one of the best action/spy movies of all time, but still good. Loved the Elton fighting scene with his song.
Every time I hear "universe" in relation to a movie I'm filled with dread. This was no exception
Absolutely loved the first one, this one not so much. I remember leaving the theater feeling let down when it was over, I liked argylle a lot more. On a related note, if Mark Strong's Merlin is truly dead I would love to see him be the new Q in Bond 26, I think he would be perfect.
I saw Kingsman The Golden Circle in Cinemas in Melbourne, Australia and I remember being somewhat disappointed and impressed at the same time.
Of all the outlandish things that happen in the movie, the president getting impeached so easily was the least realistic thing.
I really enjoyed this movie. Julianne Moore was one of the best villains ever. The Elton John plot cracks me up. Merlin’s sacrifice was fun and moving. Shame not more people liked it.
In a very long era of Bond and Bond wannabes taking themselves far too seriously, it was great to have these fun movies with inventive gadgets. X
Check out the TV show the Saint starring Roger Moore... it's pretty close to 007 with the character he plays
To be fair, this is the series where bringing back a character by means of the almighty nanobots didn't feel out of place to me. The first movie didn't take itself that seriously, even though there was a lot of violence, gunfights and all the stuff that makes spy movies fun in the first place. The framing and presentation always gave me the feeling that this is a lighthearted action movie where a main character can be killed off just as easily as he can be brought back. For example if a series like Star Wars would do a similarly random resurrection, that would be really unfortunate.
Boy, if I had a nickel for every time Halle Berry showed up in a British spy series with the promise of a spin off that’s never happening… I’d have two nickels, but it’s weird that it happened twice, right?
Unnecessary hamburger scene, the whole Bringing Back the Dead issue. Aside from that, enjoyable in the same way that Kiss Ass 2 was ...(a poor reflection of the first film). Excellent review and explanation of your perspective. Like they brought back Sean Bean for the GOT finale.
Bruce Greenwood is also P.O.T.U.S in Benjamin Gates & the Book of Secrets so they can do a crossover with Nicolas Cage
Kingsman the Secret Service was the Shrek of the James Bond franchise. A movie that lovingly spoofed/made fun of the series. While being a fun R rated spy movie that the James Bond franchise. Rarely ever got to be as violent as the first Kingsman movie. Yet instead of getting a Shrek 2 of a sequel for the first film. We got a less terrible version of Shrek the Third instead. Honestly the best parts of The Golden Circle are slightly more entertaining/enjoyable. Than Shrek the Third however the biggest reason I compared this franchise to Shrek. Is because the Kingsman franchise essentially wanted to accomplish the same goal. Of lovingly make fun of spy films like how Shrek lovingly made fun of fairy tales/Disney fairy tales. Unfortunately this movie needed to become a Shrek 2 this franchise needed. In order for a successful franchise to be more than a lucky fluke with the first movie. Being the only good movie in the series.
At least it took another film for Firth to come back from being shot in the head, Sean Bean managed it after a title sequence, and they didn't even bother to explain it with nanobots.
"Somehow Trevelyn Has Come Back"
There is a difference in fairness-Trevelyan is faking his death at the start of Goldeneye [as he's secretly collaborating with Ourumov] while Firth was murdered by the villain. It would be like Sean Bean surviving the end of Goldeneye and returning in TND!
Alec had already defected to Ouromov at that point. The implication was that Ouromov used a blank, he didn't actually shoot him. It's contrived because he shoots and actually kills one of his own men for shooting at Bond hiding behind the gas tanks like a minute later which begs the question "were both bullets real or blanks and if so did the soldier pretend to die?" but there you have it haha.
I think the Kingsman franchise needs to end come the third film. The second film didn't wow men, the prequel I found to be very lackluster. I like the chemistry between Edgerton and Firth, but the stories and tone are just not consistent enough to stick with these characters. I'll give "The Golden Circle" this, it led to a nice wholesome relationship between Taron Edgerton and Elton John and the development of "Rocketman", one of my rock bio pics.
I do think Matthew Vaughn needs to give spy films a rest for a bit as Argylle continued the downhill nature of these films. Vaughn was a producer on 'Rocketman' so Elton's appearance here feels like a nice 'teaser'!
3:00 resurrected by nanobots? A bit Red Dwarf...
Not seen this one. Although I kind of enjoyed the first one, the graphic violence mashed with rather in your face humour felt a little iffy.
Harry's now got a hard Hologram body.
Mark Millar fairly recently said that one of the ideas to promote the first 'Kingsman' they wanted to do a trailer with all the Bond actors present. Maybe surprisingly he said they got close with 5 of the Bond's agreeing and Eon raising no objections. However, Connery was in poor health at the time so wasn't interested and without him it drifted away.
As epic and logistically impressive as that sounds, I don't think I'd want it to promote Kingsman.
@@davidjames579 It would have been weird to have the only time all 6 Bond's unite to promote a different franchise!
@@jamesatkinsonja knowing Vaughan I have a feeling it wouldn't have been entirely complementary. Or at least pictured them as irrelevant.
From your awesome review Calvin this film should have been split into two parts
According to Vaughn there was talk of that but it was rejected [maybe thinking the franchise wasn't big enough to do a 'two parter' yet].
The first Kingsman is always my favorite.
However, the opening fight and car chase is incredible. So Bondish.
'Let's go Crazy' by Prince in the background is a great touch to that fight.
I really like this Kingsman sequel. I really enjoying this movie and the prequel if you gonna review it as well. The only criticism on the prequel is the historical inaccurate portrayal of the events and somewhat historical accurate. But I absolutely love the kings man franchise nonetheless. Maybe I’m gonna give argyle a try.
A big issue I had with the prequel was the accuracy. They plod thought the actual events of WWI but also splice in made up nonsense. Ultimately, no one is going to use it as a history lesson so why not just go wild with it?
I don't like that they killed off the female Kingsman from the first movie and brought back Colin Firth. I think he should have stayed dead, she should have the secondary role and Merlin should have been the new mentor!
Shout out to the other “a single man” fans in the comments
I enjoyed both this movie and the prequel.
Nanobots aren't just a get out of jail free card, they're also a one way ticket to the grave yard. Right, Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli?
Well bond also got shot [bleeding heavily and struggling to walk] so he was on his way out whatever the nanobots were doing. Allegedly it was a virus initially but was changed during scripting [maybe as Hobbs & Shaw did it in 2019].
@@jamesatkinsonja I never bought that those gunshot wounds were fatal considering he got shot off a very high bridge in Skyfall which would've been more than enough to kill him but whatever. The virus angle would've been more convincing too.
We'll probably get a third film in 20 years' time.
While it's not perfect, I do really enjoy this movie.
Yeah it has it's flaws. Eggsy dating the Princess was a drag, the weird reviving Nanotech is a bit too much and the villains I don't feel as quite as memorable, even if Poppy is amazing.
But there's still so much good in this movie I can't help but love it. While yeah bringing Harry back was not something I think was the perfect decision, I do think that them using that to flip it on it's head and have Egsy be the talented one, showing not just how far Harry has fallen but also just how amazing an agent Egsy has become.
I can't hate the Statesmen. I just can't. The idea of secret agents all based around cowboys and lassos and having their codenames be alcohol is fucking brilliant and I want more of them. Seeing Pedro Pascal kick ass with that whip was amazing every time I saw him pull it out.
saw the film in cinema
action scenes feels more generic compared to TSS and galahad's lazarus wasn't necessary
I love both this one and the original and actually prefer this one
Kingsman: The Golden Circle is my favorite Kingsman and I'm scared of getting hurt too bad 😂
(jk - I love anyone's good-faith critique of a cinema, even if we end up disagreeing)
If we do count Argylle as an actual Kingsman film, then Golden Circle would still be my least favorite of the franchise. I think calling it a 7 out of 10 is a great score. I'd give King's Man an 8 and both Secret Service and Argylle a 9.
I think the main problem I have with this movie is the loss of Roxy. She was a big part of the first film, and the film feels weaker for missing her, since the only other female characters are either not able to do anything, or evil.
Honestly, if they want to come up with a reason for her to be back in a possible finale film, I would be more than willing to accept whatever they gave to us.
I like not love this this movie. It’s not as bad as people say but not quite at masterpiece level
3:43
I’m from outside the USA, from Europe, and grew with US Presidents being represented as the ultimate good guys. Senators can be bad, CIA directors can be bad, but not presidents. But then came the dreaded Orange Man, and everything changed. For me this Golden Circle US President is obvious substitute for said Orange Man, and the VP is meant to symbolize unfairly defeated (in the opinion of people who influenced this subplot appearance) Hillary Clinton and her struggle against the “right-wing” vis-a-vis, who has taken tough stance on the unfortunate. President’s removal from the post is a fate that the scriptwriters thought the Orange Man deserved. I know it’s tasteless to be political, but it’s the only explanation and it was obvious at the time, because a) never US Presidents had this treatment in western filmmaking and b) the man was heavily being dissected by the media right around that time, this was just another punch
Apparently the president was going to resemble DT more directly but as it was made by Fox they re-shot it to pull it back a little.
Yeah, I really hate this film😅
It is too over the top technic wise, the princess plot is shit and I despise the drug usage side plot
The Golden Circle was a disappointment, but that made "the Kings Man" such a pleasant surprise 😂 There was too much "message" in the Golden Circle. It highlighted the double standards of the war on drugs well, but that just kept going.
I absolutely HATE this film. They ruined Firth's character, the villain is awful, Tom Strong's death sucks and chubby Elton doing karate is absolute cringe. This film SUCKS 🤮
I thought it was a disappointment. That meat mincer scene was just... Revolting.
I really loved the Kings Man, hated this one though. Argyle was also awful imo
I went to see this in the cinema with a friend and his girlfriend. I had to go to the toilet but they wanted to go get seated. I didn’t actually know what screen we were in, so he messaged me Screen 13. Yep, Kingsman poster outside, oh shit I must have missed the first few minutes. No worries, I can catch up. Couldn't see my friend anywhere. Boy they are referencing a whole load of stuff that must have happened between films. And then it was over an hour later and I thought it was too short and too shit to be considered a feature film. It was only an hour after I left that I got a text from my friend saying the movie had just finished, and asking where I was. I quickly discovered that he had accidentally typed 13 instead of just 3, and I had sat in the screening that started an hour earlier. Annoyed, I went home and resolved to watch the whole thing when it hit home media.
Watched it then, and it still sucked.
😂 omg. I did a simular thing with The Others. Walked in just before the twist ending. Then it finished. Found my screening hadn't even started, so went to that, knowing that the characters are ghosts throughout (spoiler for 23 year old movie). After your screening, did you hang around the cinema for an hour? Or message your friend? Anyway top tip, buy your own ticket so you can check your phone/stub.
@@davidjames579 well, your one sucks more because The Others is an actual good movie. And I messaged my friend a few times, got very annoyed that he wasn't replying, and went home in a huff. I was already on the train when he replied asking where I was. Still very annoyed about it seven years later.
@@rachelblake2350 lol. I have to say I did enjoy The Others, even though knowing the twist gave it a unique perspective to the rest of the audience. I can imagine how frustrated you must have been. During The Others I had a feeling I might be at an earlier screening as it didn't feel right for the start of the film. Even the music seemed to indicate this. But I didn't want to leave in case I was wrong. Its a weird feeling that I still remember.
@@davidjames579 I had The Others spoiled for me when I was a kid because my older cousin liked telling me about all the "movies for adults" he got to watch. Eventually watched it as a teenager knowing the twist, still enjoyed it a great deal. I don't like horror movies because they rarely feel like the pretentious "high art" films I usually like, but it stuck out to me as something artfully made and memorable. The misty environs of the manor house and the autumnal visuals have always stayed with me. Good movie.
@@rachelblake2350 I haven't heard someone describe something they like as 'pretentious'. Lol. I had a similar situation with The Sixth Sense where my uni lecturer spoilt it or so I thought by saying "the one where the kid's a ghost". When I watched it I thought that was going to be the twist, so was pleasantly surprised when it turned out to be Bruce Willis (spoiler for a 25 year old film).
Love this movie,what a cast. Who cares if its silly, so is the first one.
Matthew Vaughan has the political subtlety of a sledge hammer. Forget that, he is downright offensive. He's gone too crazy
the first film was too subversive, showing a whole host of world leaders and media figures who would conspire with a bond villain, who operates from a mountain in the swiss alps
Absolute tripe
I seen this movie on TV this is a entertaining enjoyable fun movie I love the tone to it it remind me of my Bond film it has gadgets over the top villain campy fun the kingsman the Golden circle amazing fun movie greatness of amazing fun video Calvin Dyson
A disgustingly terrible, self-masturbating sequel.
Not seen your video yet OR the film but I'm looking forward to your review of the latest Kingsman film..
At the time I thought it had so much fun that NTTD was lacking. I ENJOYED watching it, although it descended into nonsense at the end. Uncle Ralph was brilliant in it.
You might have reviewed it already and I've forgotten!
Such a good movie!
A definite downgrade on the first. Very disappointing. The introduction of the Statesmen in an attempt to expand the universe (and therefore spin offs) was very ill conceived
It does feel like 'running before you can walk' going for expanded universe only on the second film.