|
I was really surprised there wasn't a thread for this, don't know if there was even one for the first film, but there you go. So where the first one was an unexpected hit, this one had mixed reviews. Now let's find out why people are remarking this assumption. - The story takes place after Valentine is defeated, Eggsy becomes the new Galahad after the old one (Harry) was killed off. Now there is a new terrorist organization known as 'the Golden Circle', they immediately kill off most of the Kingsman agents while the survivors now have to turn to a new secret service in America...known as 'Statesman'.  Taron Egerton - Gary "Eggsy" Unwin After joining the Kingsman in the first film, he is now the new Galahad, he's relocated to Harry's home with his dog, JB, and has a new fancy girlfriend, Princess Tilde. He catches up with an old nemesis and has to team up with Merlin to find a new secret service to assist them in stopping The Golden Circle.  Colin Firth - Harry Hart No joke, I seriously thought that was Rob Lowe at first.  Harry is back from the dead, after a fatal bullet to his left eye. Unfortunately he's lost his memory and it's up to Eggsy and Merlin to bring him back to the field agent that he once was.  Channing Tatum - Agent Tequila One of the field agents of the new American spy organization, Statesman. Although really he doesn't do much in the film and is pretty much a throwaway character, the REAL agent for Statesman is actually...  Pedro Pascal - Agent Whiskey He shows off how american spies take care of business, with his electric lasso being his go-to weapon of choice. He's cockier, a little old fashioned and  Mark Strong - Merlin The scottish tech guru for Kingsman. He joins Eggsy as they team up with Statesman, he works alongside...  Halle Berry - Ginger Statesman's reliable tech guru. Although she dreams of working as a field agent herself. (Personally, I don't get why she's called Ginger. I get that Merlin was Arthur's assistant and a reliable magician, so how does that apply to Ginger exactly, is that like an ingredient found in Champagne or is it commonly found in spirits and liqueurs?)  Jeff Bridges - Agent Champagne The head honcho of Statesman, where Kingsman run the suit and tailoring business, he runs the alcohol business. Although he looks a bit unrecognisable without the beard.  Julianne Moore - Poppy The psycho supervillain with her head stuck in the 1950's. Her front is selling drugs to the masses even though she is completely unheard of to the public. Before she carries out her scheme, she insists on taking out any secret services that could pose as a threat to her. - I'll go into further details where this film got good and where it had a few flaws. If you had a chance to see this, did you liked or hated it, feel free to discuss.
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 14:41 |
|
|
I just saw this today. It still looked great and had some awesome performances (although Pedro Pascal's character totally should have been played by Nathan Fillion), but is just way more bloated and messy than the first, and takes itself too seriously at exactly the wrong time. Like anyone who enjoyed the first movie wanted to see Eggsy relationship drama c'mon. But with the reviews I expected little and so managed to have a good time and just focus on the rad fights and needledrops. Worst thing was probably the death of Merlin, it felt so needless and unnecessary and only there to give the movie a tragic moment it didn't need in the slightest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
There were a few things that seemed a bit off-putting like the focus on Elton John and him being Poppy's prisoner and including a couple of his songs just to boost the soundtrack (Rocket Man and Saturday Night's Alright for Fighting). I read in an article he saw the first film and thought he should've had a role in that...now after seeing him in this one there's probably a reason why he wasn't there to begin with, talk about ego-stroking. And I was really disappointed that Roxy/Lancelot as killed off early on, she was fully established in the first film and we got to know her and Eggsy rather well, until she was disposed of in this film and doesn't even show off her skills in the field. It's like her character and all that build-up was for nothing. There's also a very, very subtle reference to a current affair and I believe was the director's or producer's opinion on that which felt forced if you ask me. One thing that did intrigue me though (and I apologise if I start to shitpost like SMG) was Poppy's plan where she diseased everyone who inhaled her drugs and they'll all die unless they're given an antidote, of course a term must be met and it's all drugs MUST be legalised. She opens this up to all world leaders, though in this film we're focused on the president of the United States, who plans to go along with her negotiations but also NOT agree to them. The reason for this is because he wants to win the war on drugs, and because anyone who's taken illegal drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc. they don't deserve any medical help because they've broken the law. Keep in mind about 500 million or so have taken illegal drugs so they'll all die in the process, so even though what they've done is technically illegal and law-breaking...can they be morally forgiven? Let's fix the subject and say instead of drug-taking, everyone was caught for online video piracy (like they were streaming or torrenting episodes of Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad, I know EVERYONE'S done it at some point), so they are immediately put in jail for doing said illegal activity. Now let's take some statistics (I'll be using the MUSO 2017 Global Piracy Report), we'll target the United States because they have the highest count of internet users (286,942,362) and they have the largest population in the world (324,118,787), this is roughly 88.5% of the population, over 4 fifths of the people are put in jail because they've watched or downloaded a film or TV show illegally. Now even though these people are not following and respecting the law, is this morally correct? Is it right or wrong to prosecute a large majority of people for not obeying the law like they should, in this case illegal drugs, whether or not they were experimenting or dealing them just to get by in life. Obviously in the film, they save everyone because this was a world-threatening situation, and every other action or superhero film needs a world-threatening situation. Although this did raise an interesting talking point. And then the story ends with the president being impeached and one of his advisors decides to take the president's place and run the country from now on. Again this part felt very obvious and hamfisted, clearly the director was pushing this in just to show his stance when it's not needed. All that aside, yeah I think the first film had a better story and actually used all of its characters with enough screen time. Also here's the report I brought up for reference.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Junior Jr. posted:And I was really disappointed that Roxy/Lancelot as killed off early on, she was fully established in the first film and we got to know her and Eggsy rather well, until she was disposed of in this film and doesn't even show off her skills in the field. It's like her character and all that build-up was for nothing. This bummed me out the most about the movie Especially when they killed Merlin and basically had Roxy acting like baby merlin in the beginning of the movie which would have made sense for her to take that role after being out in the field for this movie. Also pretty lame to kill one of the few female characters???
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
Good action scenes, everything else seemed a bit flimsy, with the main plot being quite similar to the first movie. Things could have been trimmed/streamlined a bit such as weird Glastonbury segment, all of the stuff with the boring princess. Overall it was fine, but a little bit of a disappointment, when compared to the first movie, which had more of a journey, the Church scene and an amazing villain. Colin Firth was great though but the Elton John joke was wayyy overused and just got cringey when he started to kung fu kick the henchmen and even save Firth's life from the robot dog.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 13:39
|
|
|
The princess stuff was in as a PR move. There was a bit of a backlash (rightly so) after she was simply a sex object in the first. They'd probably have gotten a better actor for her parts if they knew they'd have to increase her presence in the second. Weird movie. Felt quite a bit like the creators didn't fully understand the parts of the first that people really liked, all while making something a bit too-similar to the first. Defeating the villain with tainted heroin is kinda hosed up and not-cartoony in the way that everything else is. . The stuff with Merlin felt incredibly cheap, as in the sets for that jungle felt about six metres by six metres.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
It's really odd how the Kingsman movies pick a hot button topic like global warming or the war on drugs as the impetus behind their plots and then go wayyyyy out of their way to avoid making a clear statement about those issues. I guess they mixed it up a bit this time around by having a sympathetic character represent the "Not all recreational drug users are drains on society!" angle and a some friends of the protagonist as "casual users, not hurting anyone" types whereas the 'Zero tolerance' people were cast as amoral/unethical but still ends-justifies-the-means big picture conservatives characters who ended up dead or impeached and the "sugar is just as bad as heroin, prohibition is dumb and legalized taxation makes a ton of sense" person is a psychotic supervillain who was also gruesomely killed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
I think I'll skip this one and enjoy the first movie for what it was!
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
Dog Kisser posted:I think I'll skip this one and enjoy the first movie for what it was! Ah, it wasn't THAT bad, it has its moments and some of the action is really cool. I didn't realise that the first movie had backlash for having the princess as a sex object. In that case, they should have had a better actress and a better role.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:It's really odd how the Kingsman movies pick a hot button topic like global warming or the war on drugs as the impetus behind their plots and then go wayyyyy out of their way to avoid making a clear statement about those issues. I guess they mixed it up a bit this time around by having a sympathetic character represent the "Not all recreational drug users are drains on society!" angle and a some friends of the protagonist as "casual users, not hurting anyone" types whereas the 'Zero tolerance' people were cast as amoral/unethical but still ends-justifies-the-means big picture conservatives characters who ended up dead or impeached and the "sugar is just as bad as heroin, prohibition is dumb and legalized taxation makes a ton of sense" person is a psychotic supervillain who was also gruesomely killed. That's true, the main theme was heavily centred around drugs, and I know Marv didn't put in that glasto scene for no reason...there are loads of drug users in music festivals. It makes me wonder if he had a person issue with drugs himself or his family. Whereas the first film was meant to be a parody and homage to spy movies (mainly the James Bond ones), this film was trying to be more serious rather than fun and corny, and it sends very mixed messages on exactly which direction it's supposed to be going. I can't say this is a great film because it just left me feeling awfully confused.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
henpod posted:Ah, it wasn't THAT bad, it has its moments and some of the action is really cool. I didn't realise that the first movie had backlash for having the princess as a sex object. In that case, they should have had a better actress and a better role. I think there was a reason WHY she was being used a sex object. If you remember the scene in the first film where Harry and Valentine were reminiscing about the "old spy movies" like James Bond (and there are plenty of references to those films), you should get an idea that this film was clearly following the typical tropes of how every James Bond story played out. * Bond is briefed on his mission * Bond gets his fancy gadgets and car * Bond meets love interest (Bond girl) * Bond meets supervillain * Bond infiltrates secret enemy base * Bond is confronted by supervillain and tells him his/her master plan * Bond thwarts plan, defeats villain and saves the world * Bond gets the girl and sex as a reward When you keep in mind of these tropes and watch the first film, you know exactly what you're getting into. Of course you'd be thinking the princess DIDN'T HAVE TO bring it up, but because this is supposed to play out like a Bond movie, that's usually what happens. Hence she just goes ahead and says "we can do rear end in a top hat" after the world is saved. If you think this is sexist or not, that's fine because that's how you think and feel about the scene. Personally, I think it's corny and a little awkward, but I don't blame the film for trying to imitate and pay homage to the best spy films out there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
I'm guessing Halle Berry's Ginger, as in Ginger Beer, which, despite the name is usually non-alcholic. I was really disappointed with the film, which was a shame, as I liked the first one. It's not perfect, and it's there's a tonal clash between the more realistic domestic violence scenes, and the hyperrealised action scenes, but it kept the pace up, was funny, good actions sequences, good acting etc. This one just felt very messy, and perfunctory. While the action scenes are enjoyable, I don't think any are on the same level as the church scene in terms of execution. Echoing the bloated comment; there's way too many characters who don't actually do anything, or pointlessly killed off. Like, Colin Firth's "death" in the first film serves multiple purposes; it highlights the effects of Sam L. Jackson's plan, it robs Egsy of his mentor/father figure, prompts him for revenge, and heightens the tension by showing that they can (and will) kill off important characters. What does Merlin's death achieve? Or Lancelot's? Nothing really other than "we can kill of characters". It doesn't effect Egsy's character outside of a few seconds where he mourns them. Lancelot is killed because it's part of the villain's plan, but not as a concequence of her plan (the drugs and poo poo), and Merlin dies because Egsy didn't look where he was going. They reduce some of the roles to mere cameos, and it's kinda pointless if they're not going to do anything with them. Like, I think Egsy's mum shows up at the end during the wedding despite not having been in any other scenes, Roxy does, not a lot, Ginger does, not a lot, Tatum does, not a lot. I'm just saying it's weird when Elton John has a more pivotal role than Michael Gambon. Just echoing the rest of the comments in the thread, really; it's fine and watchable, but frustrating and falls short of the mark of the first film. And has some poo poo that should have probably been cut or streamlined (as previously mentioned, that whole Glastonbury stuff). It's written itself into a cul-de-sac too, for any direct sequels with how it ends. Like, what more can you do with Egsy? The first film is about him as an underdog and his place in the class system, and his growth culminating in him sticking his finger up to society and going "gently caress you I am worth something". That's largely dropped for this film, and the other obvious progression i can see is if he maybe becomes a father or the princess is killed off? Where else new can you take that character? I've heard there's interest in doing a Statesman spin-off, but the issue with that is what do you do to make it different enough that it's not just rehashing Kingsman, but with Americans, when it's intentionally designed to be "Kingsman, but American". That's all hypothetical and poo poo, I guess it boils down to how much money this film has made, and how they respond to the luke-warm reception. Pesky Splinter fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Oct 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Her name is Ginger Ale, they say it when they introduce her.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Dog Kisser posted:I think I'll skip this one and enjoy the first movie for what it was! If you liked the action scenes and needledrops in the first one you'll still get enough enjoyment out of this despite the less good stuff imo
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
Escobarbarian posted:If you liked the action scenes and needledrops in the first one you'll still get enough enjoyment out of this despite the less good stuff imo I agree. This one was good if a bit disappointing and muddled. There were just a bunch of small moments that felt really off and atonal compared to the first one. The Elton John stuff was funny at first but it went on way too long. Roxy and Merlin getting killed felt empty. Good use of John Denver though. The twist with Pablo Pascal's character was actually surprising, if only because they had zero lead up to it and the uncertainty gave some weight to Eggsy's doubts about Harry being back at 100%. Poppy was an interesting but underbaked villain. None of the action scenes lived up to the church shootout from the first one. The sequence in the ruins was okay, but honestly I think the car fight in the intro was probably the best fight. The final fight with Eggsy and Harry versus Whiskey was good but you knew that there was no way either of them was going to lose or die, so there was no tension. I also agree that I don't really see where they go with it from here if they make a third one. Hopefully they can course correct a bit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Pesky Splinter posted:They reduce some of the roles to mere cameos, and it's kinda pointless if they're not going to do anything with them. Like, I think Egsy's mum shows up at the end during the wedding despite not having been in any other scenes, Roxy does, not a lot, Ginger does, not a lot, Tatum does, not a lot. I'm just saying it's weird when Elton John has a more pivotal role than Michael Gambon. Yeah it's sounding more and more like they needed another few passes at the script before filming to tighten things up, or at least an editor who was more ruthless. The film was way too long. I remember when I bought my ticket and noticed that the screentime (including previews and ads) was about 2 hrs 40 min and my reaction was something like "Oh you wankers."
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
It was an 'ok' flick. I left after they put the last guy in the meat grinder because I had to piss out the rum and the movie was taking too long. They could of cut down alot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
This was one of those movies where I liked it but mostly came away with criticism. If Kingsman was like Saints Row 2, then this movie was like Saints Row 3. They killed off characters without real payoff and brought back ones that didn't need to return. It felt like they just didn't know what to do with Roxy so they just killed her off, and they had the idea for a cool death scene for Merlin but it didn't fit into the narrative. Roxy's death in particular was shot as though she could have survived if they want to bring her back. Meanwhile, Harry and Wesker's stories were done, and their characters weren't really interesting enough to warrant resurrecting. Poppy also wasn't as interesting a villain as Valentine was. Her psychopathic boss schtick was kind of by-the-book and didn't stand out much. There also didn't seem to be any reason for her followers to give her the fanatical loyalty they do. Still, the action was fun and I enjoyed Whiskey's action scenes in particular. I also appreciated that it didn't do the interchangeable bond girl thing with Tilde. It gave the plot a personal stake all of Eggsy's other friends being dead and was at least a baby step with the genre's approach to female characters. Tenebrais fucked around with this message at 10:34 on Oct 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 10:03
|
|
|
I already posted some thoughts in the Rate the Last Movie You Saw thread, but the more I've thought about this movie since seeing it last weekend, the more I realize how much I didn't like it. It had its moments with some action scenes and a couple of funny bits, but I keep finding things I either didn't care for or downright hated (ie: Elton John's part; killing off Roxy and Merlin so pointlessly; too many cameos; the plot in general and on and on). I think whoever said the movie's creators may have misunderstood what it was that made audiences like the first one is probably right. This movie was incredibly disappointing and squandered so much potential.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
The second movie this year with channing tatum and a southern song 3/5, fun but iffy. I actually liked the elton john stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
Junior Jr. posted:And I was really disappointed that Roxy/Lancelot as killed off early on, she was fully established in the first film and we got to know her and Eggsy rather well, until she was disposed of in this film and doesn't even show off her skills in the field. It's like her character and all that build-up was for nothing. I sortof felt like this at first too, but I went back and re-watched the first movie, and I'm more ok with it now. In the first movie, she basically does nothing useful, no real acting, and is mainly just filler. In the trials, the only useful thing she does onscreen is noticing the air in the toilets option of the first trial. After that, she does basically nothing useful on-screen. She's even shown just walking around with a balloon that Eggsy is supposed to shoot at one point. Even in the parachute scene, she doesn't actually do much of anything. She just follows instructions, and lets Eggsy handle everything. Both the "train trial" and "dog shooting" sequence with her are done off-screen, with not much extra thought into it other than her passing them. Then once they're finally agents, she is immediately sent with a balloon to the edges of the atmosphere, and is barely on screen for the remainder of the movie. Then in the sequel, she's only in there for a few minutes, and then killed off. I'm sortof fine with that. Also, I really liked the sequel. Probably the most fun I've had at a cinema this year.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2017 10:39
|
|
|
This is what I'd imagine a movie filmed in The Zone from Stalker would look like. Culture folds in on itself until it explodes into an inverse universe where ideas are unrestrained to the point that they can no longer form anything coherent. A cowboy with an electric lasso tries to kill British gents who are superspies inside a 50's diner which was built as an homage to 70's media's nostalgic homage to 50's culture. Reality is a hoax.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
TrixRabbi posted:This is what I'd imagine a movie filmed in The Zone from Stalker would look like. Culture folds in on itself until it explodes into an inverse universe where ideas are unrestrained to the point that they can no longer form anything coherent. A cowboy with an electric lasso tries to kill British gents who are superspies inside a 50's diner which was built as an homage to 70's media's nostalgic homage to 50's culture. Reality is a hoax. Not just that, but the fight literally ends with The British spies Alley-oop-ing the cowboy for a dunk into a meat grinder. It was pretty obvious from the beginning that they were just going to take the insanity to truly dumb levels in this movie, and I think they nailed it. I think my favorite small and dumb thing of the movie was when the robot responsible for making the golden circle implants unexpectedly showed up with a rocket launcher towards the end. That and everything with Elton John.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 13:02
|
|
|
I don't want to call it dumb. I'd call it unrestrained. A seemingly endless budget aided by modern filmmaking technology has allowed the free flow of ideas to pour out onto the screen and never stop pouring. It's everything going on in the filmmakers' minds all at once. edit: Did Julianne Moore's narration explaining Poppy Land remind anyone else of planet people from The Holy Mountain?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 14:41 |
|
|
If there's a third Kingsman movie, and I think it's getting more likely as Golden Circle creeps to $100 million domestic and $400 million total, Roxy will turn up having rolled into the Kingsman headquarters panic room right before the blast, and Merlin will have robotic legs or something because his flak jacket prevented him from dying. If they saved Harry and Tequila from getting shot in the face, any not-fully-onscreen death in the Kingsman universe is reversible. As for the movie, I enjoyed it but markedly less than the first one. The politics were just as muddled and strange, the good jokes were funny and the bad ones blew, and the action scenes were derivative of the first but still fun.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2017 22:07
|
|
