Kingsman-The Golden Circle: Movie Review (No Spoilers)
By Michael Momper
It has come time for a review of a brand-new movie with very mixed reviews and some surprisingly negative backlash: The second addition to the Kingsman franchise. I am writing this review not to play Devil's advocate, but to tell you why I believe many of the top critics are looking at this movie in entirely the wrong light.
En route to a somewhat disappointing opening weekend, the newest Kingsman movie had quite a lot of hype after the first movie came seemingly out of nowhere to entertain millions. This surprise success, directed by Matthew Vaughan, was not only bolstered by incredible action and very creative special effects, but also did a great job of satirizing the seriousness of some spy and heist movies. The first Kingsman movie had some great characters (namely Colin Firth's secret agent mentor, Harry), but also had a very fun and lighthearted approach that acted as a catalyst for the superb action sequences. It was a wildly different spy movie, in a good way, but apparently many top critics expected the second installment to have the same feeling of freshness and complete originality- a totally unrealistic and honestly ridiculous notion.
Many of these critics believed the movie to be an example of tired re-hashing, but I think this most certainly misses the point. Though I certainly do not intend to compare Kingsman to the almighty Lord of the Rings franchise in terms of quality, I do think that there is something to be learned by looking back to this classic trilogy. LotR was an absolute marvel of special effects when it was released, and its first installment, Fellowship, blew audiences away with its realism and fantastical feel. With a movie this original and note-perfect, critics sung its praises and also did so for both of its sequels, which had the same phenomenal acting, story depth, action sequences, and slightly better effects with each addition. The first LotR was revolutionary, and so was the series as a whole, but naturally no one expected the second movie to have the same impact as the first with regards to the shock factor- rather, we all just wanted to see a story that was as perfectly plotted and paced as the first movie, and Peter Jackson delivered with both sequels. For some reason, critics expected the newest Kingsman to "reinvent the wheel" in the same way that the first one did- and this expectation truly baffles me.
Like LotR, or John Wick, or any other action series that has sequels with quality similar to their predecessors, you should not see the sequels if you did not like the originals, plain and simple. Critics also seemed to not take this into account- many of them said "If you liked the first one you will like this one- everyone else will have no tolerance for it". Ummmm ok.... that could be said of almost every franchise that I have seen where the movies are all of comparable quality. I also laughed when i saw a few especially sensitive critics bemoan a very "inappropriate and beyond-the-pale joke" in this movie- after paying very close attention to all of the jokes, I still had absolutely no idea about what they were referring to.
On its own, I think The Golden Circle is actually quite a stand-out summer movie, with some fun new additions and effects/cinematography that is just as top notch and even a little more stylish than the first movie. There are plenty of quick cuts and tracking shots during the action scenes that not only bring you into the fight but also deliver an excellent stop-and-go pacing, resulting in a great feeling of frenetic energy throughout. The new characters, played by Julianne Moore, Channing Tatum, and Jeff Bridges, are all worthy additions too, as they bring even more humorous stereotypes to the mix and add some color to the good-vs-evil backdrop. Though these movies continue to be funny mockeries of some spy movie tropes, they also are extremely entertaining cat-and-mouse games of their own variety, keeping the sense of fun at the heart of it all. What continues to amaze me with both of these movie is the sense of pacing. Despite the fact that the action scenes are frenzied, bloody, and hectic, they are still met with doses of human emotion and substantive character development. Most importantly, I never felt bored throughout, nor did I feel drained by a slog of nonstop action- this is the true proof that The Golden Circle's pacing hit the mark yet again.
Critics certainly have their purpose and their usefulness with regards to my selection of trips to the movies. With this one, however, I am glad that I obeyed my hunch. I think that The Golden Circle is very much on par with the first movie, and does not contain the major detractors that the critics found to appear in this movie (but somehow not in the first movie?). Forget the world for a couple hours, and bask in the wild and cartoonish delight of the Kingsman world.
It has come time for a review of a brand-new movie with very mixed reviews and some surprisingly negative backlash: The second addition to the Kingsman franchise. I am writing this review not to play Devil's advocate, but to tell you why I believe many of the top critics are looking at this movie in entirely the wrong light.
En route to a somewhat disappointing opening weekend, the newest Kingsman movie had quite a lot of hype after the first movie came seemingly out of nowhere to entertain millions. This surprise success, directed by Matthew Vaughan, was not only bolstered by incredible action and very creative special effects, but also did a great job of satirizing the seriousness of some spy and heist movies. The first Kingsman movie had some great characters (namely Colin Firth's secret agent mentor, Harry), but also had a very fun and lighthearted approach that acted as a catalyst for the superb action sequences. It was a wildly different spy movie, in a good way, but apparently many top critics expected the second installment to have the same feeling of freshness and complete originality- a totally unrealistic and honestly ridiculous notion.
Many of these critics believed the movie to be an example of tired re-hashing, but I think this most certainly misses the point. Though I certainly do not intend to compare Kingsman to the almighty Lord of the Rings franchise in terms of quality, I do think that there is something to be learned by looking back to this classic trilogy. LotR was an absolute marvel of special effects when it was released, and its first installment, Fellowship, blew audiences away with its realism and fantastical feel. With a movie this original and note-perfect, critics sung its praises and also did so for both of its sequels, which had the same phenomenal acting, story depth, action sequences, and slightly better effects with each addition. The first LotR was revolutionary, and so was the series as a whole, but naturally no one expected the second movie to have the same impact as the first with regards to the shock factor- rather, we all just wanted to see a story that was as perfectly plotted and paced as the first movie, and Peter Jackson delivered with both sequels. For some reason, critics expected the newest Kingsman to "reinvent the wheel" in the same way that the first one did- and this expectation truly baffles me.
Like LotR, or John Wick, or any other action series that has sequels with quality similar to their predecessors, you should not see the sequels if you did not like the originals, plain and simple. Critics also seemed to not take this into account- many of them said "If you liked the first one you will like this one- everyone else will have no tolerance for it". Ummmm ok.... that could be said of almost every franchise that I have seen where the movies are all of comparable quality. I also laughed when i saw a few especially sensitive critics bemoan a very "inappropriate and beyond-the-pale joke" in this movie- after paying very close attention to all of the jokes, I still had absolutely no idea about what they were referring to.
On its own, I think The Golden Circle is actually quite a stand-out summer movie, with some fun new additions and effects/cinematography that is just as top notch and even a little more stylish than the first movie. There are plenty of quick cuts and tracking shots during the action scenes that not only bring you into the fight but also deliver an excellent stop-and-go pacing, resulting in a great feeling of frenetic energy throughout. The new characters, played by Julianne Moore, Channing Tatum, and Jeff Bridges, are all worthy additions too, as they bring even more humorous stereotypes to the mix and add some color to the good-vs-evil backdrop. Though these movies continue to be funny mockeries of some spy movie tropes, they also are extremely entertaining cat-and-mouse games of their own variety, keeping the sense of fun at the heart of it all. What continues to amaze me with both of these movie is the sense of pacing. Despite the fact that the action scenes are frenzied, bloody, and hectic, they are still met with doses of human emotion and substantive character development. Most importantly, I never felt bored throughout, nor did I feel drained by a slog of nonstop action- this is the true proof that The Golden Circle's pacing hit the mark yet again.
Critics certainly have their purpose and their usefulness with regards to my selection of trips to the movies. With this one, however, I am glad that I obeyed my hunch. I think that The Golden Circle is very much on par with the first movie, and does not contain the major detractors that the critics found to appear in this movie (but somehow not in the first movie?). Forget the world for a couple hours, and bask in the wild and cartoonish delight of the Kingsman world.
Agreed Michael!
ReplyDelete