It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Yep,Brosnan was always a pseudo Bond,even in 'The Fourth Protocol' when he played a Russian spy,i always thought Bond.
Exactly.
Little tip for you - have a couple of Belgian beers first. I have a few days off so thought I'd take myself on a cheeky Eurostar minibreak (I get cheap Eurostar subsidised by TfL - I agree it's disgusting but you mugs voted for Sadiq 'Don't let the terrorists divide us' Khan!) to Ghent. A plate of Vlaamse stoverij and a brace of 7.5% beers under my belt and the rain starts (don't think I've ever been to Belgium and it hasn't rained) so the options are either sit in the cathedral and seek reconciliation for all my sins with the Lord until it stops or go and see Kingsman.
I really can't see why the reviews were so harsh; yes it's too long but whereas the first film felt like it was constantly ripping off Bond this felt more part of its own universe. Yes the Bond references were still there but it certainly had more of its own identity.
Again the action is not amazing and the reliance on CGI is depressing. I think either the Glastonbury or Italy sequence could've been ditched to bring the running time down and the villain's scheme is basically the same as the first film with the general public all about to die. Call me old fashioned but what's wrong with a classic bomb countdown? And the fact that
But this nitpicking misses the point. This is basically a Roger Moore (although Egerton is hardly in that league) Bond film turned up to 11 and not restricted by a PG cert and what's wrong with that?
My one big criticism is that for a franchise that prides itself on homages and callbacks I can't believe
It's not often I laugh out loud (The Wizard refuses to type LOL) but after Elton's fabulous 'F-bomb off or I will F-bomb* you up' I emitted a genuinely audible guffaw. Can only assume that despite being a good sport Elton thought it was a bit too much as I'm sure Vaughn wouldn't have missed a slam dunk line like this that would've brought the house down. Given the whole point is he funds his own films to get freedom from studio interference and I'm sure would love sticking it to middle America with references to gay sodomy I imagine it was Elton who decided it was a bit excessive.
Overall though tremendous fun which may be due to going in with low expectations following the (relative - I was pumped after Kick Ass) disappointment of the first film and the poor reviews.
The key thing though is setting yourself up nicely with some Belgian beer as stone cold sober it might actually be terrible.
*Obviously that line is better as originally said but the twee and infantile 'F-bomb' seems to be the only incarnation of the word we all use numerous times a day that the Mods can stomach. Alas this just ain't that kind of forum bruvs.
I actually really liked the drugs plot. Although a classic bomb countdown could be cool for the next one. Or a giant space weapon of some kind. Since Kingsman is basically Roger Moore amped up to 11 it only seems right that they close out the trilogy with Eggsy's MR. Ooh and sharks. That's one of the tropes they haven't done yet. I bet Kingsman's take on the villain with a personal shark pool idea would make LTK's scene look U rated in comparison.
That's my wishlist for the next one. Space, sharks, and actually getting to see Eggsy's E type in action (the car chase was cool but using a black cab for that and then having him turn up in a classic jag in the next scene? Think they got it the wrong way round). And I read that
I'm not sure how much it cost them to advertise, but it's already exceeded its listed budget, which is good news.
Those days sometimes the thirth or second week doing better in cinemas. If the movie doing 3,2 - 4.0 i think Fox can very happy.
Ooooh, so close to an entire post without a dig at the mods.
But, if you are so desperate to use your little F word then there are plenty of other forums out there where the members will laugh like drains when you do so. Mostly 13 year olds, but still.
You've clearly never seen The Thick Of It then? Only probably the best comedy of the last 10 years and totally impenetrable to teenagers.
I thought the whole point of this excercise was so that 13 year olds couldn't read such words but according to you they find it hilarious? So just who are you trying to protect then?
You can ban our 'F-bombs' but now are we not even allowed to criticise it either? Seems like the slippery slope to totalitarianism to me.
You have your view and I have my contrary view. What's the point of a discussion forum if you're going to whine every time someone disagrees with you?
Ah Wiz, that, as they say, is a good one. Never has anyone whined at being disagreed with quite as you have over the years. Never has anyone refused to drop an issue if they don't get the answer they want, quite like you.
But, that said, I agree we have contrary views. I stand by the forums rules and you disagree with them.
But, I'm too old and grouchy to stand too much provocation, so I'll leave the ball in your court to keep this one going if you so wish...
I'm not interested in continuing this in the slightest. You have made your position clear: the quaint 'F-bomb' is the only accepted iteration we are allowed to use and I have adhered to that rule. The fact I think it's inane is irrelevant and won't change anything.
It was you who took things down this cul de sac so I suggest we get back to Kingsman before I have to flag you for veering wildly off topic!
http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/kingsman/news/a837316/kingsman-3-trilogy-matthew-vaughn-golden-circle-colin-firth-taron/
Good news imo. They're great movies but I think the novelty will eventually wear off. Three seems about right. I'm interested to see where they go from the end of the second one
That sounds cool but I think there's a danger of them getting gimmicky if they go that route again. I'd prefer if it the next one didn't bother with the Statesmen either (except maybe in a cameo or joining in the finale or something) and instead just focused on the Kingsmen, especially if it's going to be the last one. An asian setting would be cool though.
That is how trilogies tend to go!
In all seriousness, I assumed as much this would happen, and am eager to see how he closes it all out.
If that pans out, it'll make the villain of each trilogy installment an American.
That is all
1) No Harry. His death meant something and now the stakes feel permanently lower. Instead
2)
3) Less CGI. Get rid of the cable car scene, replace it with a ski chase.
4) More screentime devoted to
5)
This would have got it from an 8/10 to a 9/10 easily imo.
Not that I mind so many people liking it, but where The Man From UNCLE was slayed for the exact same reasons as Kingsman is praised, I can only watch in disbelief. At least UNCLE had style and flair. Or is it the horror-element that makes it çool'? I just wonder.
I don't mind the plot not making sense at all. It's meant to be stupid and OTT. It's just little things that bugged me like what they did with certain characters, which has nothing to do with how believeable/serious the story was.
I think Kingsman has done better than UNCLE because it's self aware and at least has the violence and general out there-ness to set itself apart. UNCLE was just a bland attempt at recapturing the magic of the Connery movies but a period piece is never going to live up to the real thing. A spy movie needs to do something to set itself apart imo. Kingsman has the violence, the shock factor from stuff like the church scene or the Glastonbury scene and a general sense of self awareness and subversiveness. Bourne owns the whole gritty post 9/11 cut back to Langley ballpark. MI changes things up every film (or at least it used to) and has the insane stunts that Bond had lacked lately. UNCLE didn't really do anything to set itself apart. I guess there was the buddy movie aspect? But that wasn't enough and you could even argue that Kingsman already did that with Harry and Eggsy.
UNCLE felt like a Bond knockoff (to be fair that's probably down to the source material being one of those Bond inspired 60s TV shows), Kingsman is a homage that actually acknowledges Bond and plays with those tropes, and is violent and insane enough to differentiate itself from the films that inspired it. But I think we've all been pretty clear about why we like these movies so I don't get why you don't understand the appeal. If they're not for you then fair enough, nobody's forcing you to watch them.
The first Kingsman film at least properly developed Eggsy, Roxy and Harry so that we would have a reason to root for them. Moreover the acting quality was just in a different league (it's not even worth comparing).
Add to that a dynamite villain and a sexy and deadly henchwoman and Bob's your uncle.
Liked some elements but with a plot as dumb as that I lost interest.