-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Kingsman: The Golden Circle Review Thread
- Thread starter dcelw540
- Start date
CosmicGroinPull
Member
I think it's because it's not an agreement but a bill(?) to make drugs legal. Can't renege on that.
Don't ask about
how they fully believed her words about having the drones ready to deliver the antidote or whether she told them the real password before putting a bullet through her head though... heheh
I'm guessing that was an executive order? If that's the case, he could totally issue another order nullifying Poppy's.
Monocle
Member
This, 100%. The joke strips away the euphemisms and pretense that let the audience pretend they don't know exactly what's going on.
But oh noes, if you say it directly it's offensive! And heaven forbid you see the butt that the joke refers to.
CosmicGroinPull
Member
Ah, I see.
andythinkpad
Member
Yeah the president can just let the congress overrule him like so many past international promises. What a dumb movie.
It has a cool caged stadium scene though. Is the presidential aide played by Kelly from Married with Children?
IISANDERII
Member
Yeah this is another reason why I think the studio took control of this: They killed off the Brits and have made the franchise American.
Even Colin Firth with diminishing capacity gives an excuse for him to step aside and have Chaning Tatim as partner to Eggsy.
Lol what?
They only had Tatum return so they can do the "fish out of water" stuff they can't do with Eggsy. And Harry's likely gonna be their new tech guy.
It doesn't matter if you refuse to accept it, it was clearly what they were aiming for. Same with the Statesmen being useless. One agent turns evil and can't seduce for shit, the other is a drug addict, and their most capable agent sits behind a computer.
The entire film was destroying the idea that American secret agents are close to the quality of British secret agents.
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
Who the hell is harry again?
There were some cool actions sequences (save one that was truly poorly done), but I didn't find any of the hand-to-hand combat in this film to have outdone the ones in the last film, which felt fresh. Also the story was a mess, the evil plot was poor, and I didn't understand how a number of key turns in the plot were supposed to be tied together (like how
).
Harry suspected Whiskey of being a double agent
More_Badass
Member
Yikes, think I have to agree with a lot of the criticism of this. The opening and finale were pretty great but everything in between felt like a disjointed mess that especially dragged during the middle. The opening felt like the Kingsman sequel that I went to see, but the shift to the Statesmen felt like a sloppy attempt at we need to expand this world and go bigger, an interesting idea that was just that...an idea plastered over the void of charm, style, character, and pacing that was so present in the first film.
Poppy was an attempt of an eccentric supervillain, but instead of eccentric, she just seemed jarring and out of place, a bad Mad Lib of a villain. A cartel kingpin at a 50s dinner base in a hidden Cambodian temple with robots, and her plan was stupid.
Bringing Harry back felt like a mistake, and treating him as a joke was never funny IMO. But the saving grace was Egerton; hes still a joy to watch and really sells both the gentleman agent and the fun streetsmart bro.
Poppy was an attempt of an eccentric supervillain, but instead of eccentric, she just seemed jarring and out of place, a bad Mad Lib of a villain. A cartel kingpin at a 50s dinner base in a hidden Cambodian temple with robots, and her plan was stupid.
Bringing Harry back felt like a mistake, and treating him as a joke was never funny IMO. But the saving grace was Egerton; hes still a joy to watch and really sells both the gentleman agent and the fun streetsmart bro.
The first movie was filled with British tropes and iconography. The second with American ones. It's deliberate.
In this one
the US president is ultimately more evil than Poppy is! It's very much not coming down on the side of "drugs are bad, m'kay" when the most sympathetic character on that axis is the President's chief of staff.
I get the intent but it didn't work because he still went along with it. Had they presented it, and he thought it was gross and refused to do it, it would have been a more effective scene, subversive and a call out on other "seduce the enemy" tropes. They could even make a joke about all of the technology they have, that there must be a better way than sticking his finger inside her vagina.
Regarding Poppy Maybe I missed it.
But from what I gathered she was mad that she had a billion dollar empire that she couldn't openly show to the world because drugs are illegal. But what about the fucking robotics goldmine she is sitting on? She has terminators that any world military would kill for. She has super advanced limb replacement technology which could easily give her a legal corp raking in hundreds of billions. Did they state in the film why it was her drug business that she cared so much about? Was it just a principle thing for her? Like, drugs should be legal because it's the right thing to do, or was it simply she wanted it legal so her empire could be legal?
Also, how stupid that she only had like a handful of human guards, one terminator, and two robo dogs. Makes no sense why she didn't have, like, 100 of those dogs, and 1,000 of those terminators.
Also, how stupid that she only had like a handful of human guards, one terminator, and two robo dogs. Makes no sense why she didn't have, like, 100 of those dogs, and 1,000 of those terminators.
Bobo Dakes
Member
You want to see my chiropractor after that stretch? I liked the movie as well, but holy shit, you're projecting.
That statement is just as silly as the one you responded "lol what to".
Gonna be petty for a second and respond to that claim with "well If the Kingsman are so great and better than the Statesmen how come
90% of them are dead?"
More_Badass
Member
Id say he has a point though. They do lampoon the
revenge-driven womanizer superagent as a reckless misogynistic asshole who cares about money rather than peace
#sorrynotsorry
Member
Roxie
Still agree they should haven't killed her though. She could have been good
I haven't seen this yet but I got a haircut over the weekend and the hairstylist asked if I had any weekend plans, I said no, and then he suggested I see the new Kingsman movie. I asked if it was good as the first one and he just sighed and went "nah, man."
He did a complete 180 on it within two sentences.
He did a complete 180 on it within two sentences.
Yeah, but then they subvert the "blonde piece of @ss prize" trope by having Eggsy
have a serious relationship with her and marry her in the end.
More_Badass
Member
She had character. She didnt have character development. She was portrayed as efficient, smart, personable and friendly, able to be ruthless if needed. Lets not forget she was the only recruit to actually complete the Kingsmen training.
Bobo Dakes
Member
But his motivation was
peace and money. It came off as a two birds, one stone kind of thing. Watch the assholes that killed his fiance die and get rich.
Still not a fan of his characterization, but it made sense, sort of.
* sigh * The more I think about it, they really should've cut Harry and decided between Tequila and Whiskey so they'd have more time to better develop these characters.
Bobo Dakes
Member
I still don't get the rationale behind the dog thing.
"Fuck you Eggsy for not wanting to shoot the dog you spent the last few months raising, get out of here coward"
Though I did laugh my ass off when it got brought up again here. At least when Eggsy
initially brought out the gun.
truth
was the most nonsensical part of that first movie, especially when they tried to justify it as
nobody actually gets hurt by training, you really think we'd actually kill your dog--how the fuck are the recruits supposed to know that? hell any one of them could've died during the skydiving part if they were truly convinced they didn't have a chute and they didn't pull it or didn't pull it fast enough. merlin did jackshit to make sure that wouldn't happen.
old manatee
Banned
It's enough of a spectacle to be entertaining from start to finish, but that's really all it has going for it. It's like a C- movie.
Turbo Killer
Member
Saw it yesterday and like it. It was over the top and fun like the first one, a little too long maybe. Also, they better
.
bring back Merlin in the next one, I dont care how I love Mark Strong
they apparently had a scene they cut that had a leg-less merlin crawling into the diner at the end with the logic of "his suit was actually explosion proof and protected him"
that aside, can we not. this franchise started out with some emotional depth to the actions its characters took and very quickly veered off course and made nearly everything emotionally meaningless. doing what you suggest would complete that.
OrangeAtlas
Member
They hammer it in in like every second line in this movie:
"No emotions, remember your training."
The point is for them to emotionally disconnect so they can be better agents.
Second one felt like it embraced the zaniness of the first but went too far with it and didn't keep any of the grounded nature of the first. Like the first made more sense plotwise (including why a couple agents had to take out Valentine themselves), but in this one it just didn't seem to make as much sense.
Poppy was great as a villain (disturbing in all the right ways), but they focused too much on things like the meat grinder (two separate deaths in it?), and gave little screentime to Tatum.
All in all I feel like this movie could have been a good sequel with some simple changes, but oh well. I have hope for the third to be better.
Poppy was great as a villain (disturbing in all the right ways), but they focused too much on things like the meat grinder (two separate deaths in it?), and gave little screentime to Tatum.
All in all I feel like this movie could have been a good sequel with some simple changes, but oh well. I have hope for the third to be better.
TheUntamedLegend
Member
But didn't he also create a solution where only the rich and powerful were going to survive while the poor ripped themselves apart?
Shouta
Member
It's pretty obvious why that was a thing.
Shooting the dog is about their resolve to do what is necessary. If they have to make a hard choice down the line, the Kingsmen need to know that they aren't going to falter at the last minute and end up costing them their lives or even worse, the lives of countless others. Can't have an agent get the feels at the last minute make the absolutely wrong choice.
ronaldthump
Member
Why is this 50% on RT while the audience score is 75%?
saw it yesterday and had a blast. Laughed quite a lot and loved the slick action. It's a superheroes-que comic book movie - looked great and had fun action. Bizarre it's scoring so poorly. I watched a review that said the glastonbury bit
but its clearly btw consenting adults. The camera was all sorts of lol
I'd watch the next one too. This was great.
Based on my time with it. 8/10.
Eg. I think what's his face; eggsy was extremely charming. He's perfect for the role.
+
I was okay with
I liked that the movie had stakes.
saw it yesterday and had a blast. Laughed quite a lot and loved the slick action. It's a superheroes-que comic book movie - looked great and had fun action. Bizarre it's scoring so poorly. I watched a review that said the glastonbury bit
was a bit like sexual assault
when his finger slid down.
I'd watch the next one too. This was great.
Based on my time with it. 8/10.
Eg. I think what's his face; eggsy was extremely charming. He's perfect for the role.
+
I was okay with
female kingsman dying. Why are people moaning about it. She was the only female agent that died. All the other kingsman got wiped. There was at least 12+ male kingsman that died.
It's not fascist, it's definitely anti the Rodrigo Duterte approach to drug use(rs), but it's still definitely "drugs are bad, m'kay" conservatism.
Why else do we have Thomas Turgoose being told off for smoking weed ("I told you that shit was bad for you!"), swearing he won't touch it again at the end, and then Whiskey being told to stick to booze.
The idea that alcohol is okay but weed isn't is classic conservatism.
The idea that alcohol is okay but weed isn't is classic conservatism.
recreational bad, medicinal good is what I got, which is conservative, but not the bad kind
The Scollard
Member
Except Fox also used drugs to cope with her job and one of Whiskey's motives was that, since the drug users were dead and others are afraid to use them, the Statesmen stock prices would rise.
I took the stuff at the end as saying "stick to the legal stuff" and being pro-legalization, since the fact all those drugs were illegal allowed Poppy to spread her poison. It's similar to the idea that you don't really know what's in the illegal drugs you buy; they could be cut with dangerous substances. Whereas using drugs like marijuana in places where it's been legalized is safer, since there are regulations and quality checks.
Also, the President was literally putting all drug users in cages. I don't see how much more "on-the-nose" and anti-War-on-Drugs a statement you could make.
Brian_FETO
Banned
Taking the film as conservative/"drugs are bad" is a misreading
If you want their perspective,
If you want their perspective,
it's the woman in the President's office
Maybe you guys aren't aware that Matthew Vaughn is a hardcore Tory/Thatcherite?
Yeah, the movie is anti Whiskey's unchecked no morals capitalism.
The movie does make the point that people use drugs medicinally or to cope with high stress situations, granted.
At most it's for medicinal legalisation, but I think it's telling that Poppy's proposal is a very specific far-left argument ("taxed and regulated") rather than her just saying "make all drugs legal, I'm evil, raaaaaaarghh!".
I called Tatum 'whiskey' instead of Tequila in my last post, my bad.
Yeah, the movie is anti Whiskey's unchecked no morals capitalism.
The movie does make the point that people use drugs medicinally or to cope with high stress situations, granted.
It's not pro-legalisation at all though. How much more blatant do you need to be than having the good-aligned recreational drug users being literally told off on screen not to do them anymore and one of them being told to drink instead?
At most it's for medicinal legalisation, but I think it's telling that Poppy's proposal is a very specific far-left argument ("taxed and regulated") rather than her just saying "make all drugs legal, I'm evil, raaaaaaarghh!".
Like I said, it's not fascist, it's not for the Duterte ideology, it's just kind of comfortably centre right.
The woman in the president's office is arguing that sometimes people need drugs. Drugs use for fun and enjoyment is blatantly frowned upon in almost fourth wall breaking messaging.
Yeah, that's true. But in times like these, why even make a climate change activist a megalamaniac villain? People are susceptible enough to propaganda that it's a fabrication already. I'm suspicious of the ideology behind that choice.
Brian_FETO
Banned
"Sometimes people need drugs"?
She uses because she works long hours and unwinds, that's not out of necessity that's recreational
Seems more like the message is "be careful what you're putting into your body"
(especially when her blue virus wasn't just in weed)
And let's be real,
you seriously wouldn't reconsider smoking if you almost died from a bad batch? Are the characters supposed to celebrate by sparking one up?
They used a villain with an evil plot that's rooted on principles you may actually agree with. It makes the situation more interesting vs. standard "I'm gonna kill people and it's gonna be bad, rahh"
No, it's because she works 20 hours seven days a week. She doesn't ever unwind. She literally needs the drugs to keep going.
Sure, I would avoid drugs after that. But Kingsman is not about real people, it's a fictional constructed world that's been written and edited in specific ways that communicate the worldview of its creators. The characters being told off for smoking weed was not a necessary thing to include.
The movie is constantly linking the rash with a more general anti-recreational drug use message. It's not subtle.
"I told you that shit was bad for you!", when it first spreads, "I'm never touching that shit again!" at the end, and the big one, Halle Berry telling Channing Tatum, "From now on, stick to booze."
Why is it necessary to feature Tequila being told off for doing drugs instead of drinking? The takeaway for a viewer watching this is drugs bad, alcohol ok.
Why is it necessary to feature Tequila being told off for doing drugs instead of drinking? The takeaway for a viewer watching this is drugs bad, alcohol ok.
If you find it that hard to believe that the movie could be communicating a conservative message, don't.
Just got through watching this at the theater. It fails to really expand on the world or characters in any meaningful way and, despite it being almost 150 minutes, feels like they rushed a ton of the story. The action was still great but that's probably the only thing that carried over from the first film.
I hope we do see the four hour cut one day. It certainly feels like a ton of corners were cut with the story. Should've been a two parter.
I hope we do see the four hour cut one day. It certainly feels like a ton of corners were cut with the story. Should've been a two parter.
Vincent Alexander
Member
My opinion on the drug discussion...The movie doesn't want to come off as anti-drugs, but it kind of does because it sacrifices it's message and theme for shit, one-off jokes we have heard a billion times already, like the examples given two posts above.
"Stick to the booze." Har har. That laugh just cockblocked your movie's message.
"Stick to the booze." Har har. That laugh just cockblocked your movie's message.
brianjones
Member
just worse in every way from the original
bummer
there was no reason at all for it to be as long as it was
bummer
there was no reason at all for it to be as long as it was
OrangeAtlas
Member
I've been thinking over all the plotpoints that go nowhere - presumably due to the heavy cuts - and this is what I can come up with:
Anything else?
Whisky's reasoning for denying Ginger Ale's agent application
Angel has a lengthy introduction and a lengthy death but absolutely nothing in between
As revealed in this thread, Merlin's surprise survival
Presumably some more Tequila footage
Any repercussions from Eggsy yelling at the king
Random agents (Bacardi?) who fight in the bar
Angel has a lengthy introduction and a lengthy death but absolutely nothing in between
As revealed in this thread, Merlin's surprise survival
Presumably some more Tequila footage
Any repercussions from Eggsy yelling at the king
Random agents (Bacardi?) who fight in the bar
Anything else?
Film seemed pretty pro-drugs, at least when it comes to legalization and destigmatizing the "types of people" that use drugs.
The passionate speech by the older lady seemed to sum up the 'message.' It seemed even clearer when one of the main villains, the president, was the avatar for hardcore anti-drug people and all of his arguments were defeated and criminalized, while the lady was rewarded. That mass incarceration image for drug users also seemed too on the nose to dismiss as actually being anti-drugs imo.
Bobo Dakes
Member
Why not say THAT instead of Arthur (and even more confusingly) Harry getting mad at him for it.
In their last conversation together I honestly couldn't tell if Harry was more upset about Eggsy stealing to the car or not shooting the dog.
Movie seemed pro-decriminalization and against the use of hard stuff. Plenty of drugs are extremely bad and Poppy wasnt just dealing in weed so it seems like a pretty fair stance to take. If you thought this was hardline anti-drug users then youre stunningly misreading the film.
Really?
How is this even gonna be a thing, especially with how much time they devoted to foreshadowing the mines and his final stand? Like, c'mon son.
Anyways, I'm in general agreement with the consensus-- Fun film, some actual laughs, great opening action scene, but overall worse than the first in every way due to how overwrought and badly edited the story was. Villain was superficially amusing but not as memorable as Jackson's. Felt excessively cartoony at points, what with robot dogs and shit. Lots of hanging plot threads that go nowhere. Good for a watch, but it lacked the emotional core and soul of the first.
At least there were (real) puppers. Can't go wrong with puppers.
OrangeAtlas
Member
Some animators have literally said in this thread that they worked on a scene where a legless Mark Strong crawls into the diner at the end of the movie because his suit is "armor" or something.
It's silly and kind of sucks, but it's fact.