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
I didn't.
I get it--it's a love letter to the Moore Bond films. But I'd rather watch the real thing.
I think "Kingsman" basically is a near-perfect concoction of several elements from other (franchise) films:
--> Movie spoofs (from whatever kind of franchise, James Bond included): The lairs from the villain's for example, the completely unbelievable big tunnel all these luxury jets had to fly into, or how the actual villainous schemes are executed (
--> Tarantino: The violence in the movies is very Tarantino-esque.
--> Marvel's comic book adaptations: I couldn't help but thinking of "X-Men: First Class". Both the X-Men and the Kingsmen have these near-ridiculous training facilities (Nobody cares about how these underground tubes have been created in the first place. We destroy "Skyfall" for that kind of unexplained elements, but not "Kingsman"). Also the fight sequences ooze a huge dosis of "Marvel" for me at times.
--> "The Matrix": Once introduced in "The Matrix", slow-mo fight sequences still carry a certain cool vibe with them. Seeing Kingsman Harry Hart walking on walls or ceilings, or seeing guys rolling over as if they were feathers, by simply throwing a beer glass at their skulls, is off course ridiculous, but it works in "Kingsman". And it worked in many other sci-fi movies.
--> Some realism from Matthew Vaughn's previous films: IMO the world-threatening scheme from Valentine worked, because in essence the way both Eggsy and Valentine talked, their use of slang and dialect, gave the characters a bit of realism. They start off as quite ordinary guys with any lack of gentleman-esque element. That makes one believe in the characters.
--> "James Bond": I actually felt so good, so....heart-warmed about all the James Bond references :-). It really gave me a smile. It's what I liked about "Kingsman". The wunderful lush locations, the gadgets (Harry Hart explaining the gadgets in a Q-esque facility), the exquisit eye for detail with regard to clothes and food (with a McDonalds twist), a remote controlled taxi cab ("TND"),
All the above references were turned into a near-perfect cocktail that, and I want to stress this, can only work for a Kingsman-movie. This formula, invented by Matthew Vaugh, can not be used for a template for a future Bond film. This movie gives Fox Pictures their own new franchise. Fox can create their own franchise out of this. IF they do it properly off course.
Because I do think this movie was created by having in mind two options: A) The first film of an entire franchise, or B) really a one-off film. I'm saying that, because I perhaps would have kept the character of Harry Hart (Colin Firth) for more movies to come. To kill off an entire range of characters, played by acting heavy-weights, like Colin Firth, Michael Caine and Samuel L. Jackson, shows that they used these characters and their deaths as a highlight for only one film.
Personally I would have let Harry Hart live and turn him into the new head of the Kingsman Secret Service. Because now.....how would a 2nd Kingsman film become succesful? I don't think Taron Egerton can't pull off a 2nd film in which he's the true leading character.
While I agree with you, I think they knew the risks when they did this. I'm sure they have a trick or two up their sleeves when (and I'm sure it will be a when) they make part 2. Perhaps Sir Connery, Moore or even Dalton can make an appearance? :)
I don't see why Taron Egerton can't carry the sequel on his own. Most people seem to agree he did a great job and he carried a lot of the movie on his own (Firth was absent for all the training bits and the finale). The next film will be successful because of the Kingsman name. They've used the big names to sell the first one, now it's a hit and people will probably go and see the sequel regardless.
And he already is the "true leading character". Harry Hart is the cool gentleman spy who introduces Eggsy to the Kingsmen. Eggsy is the three dimensional character who develops over time, Eggsy is the character who has a backstory. We see his family, his mates, what sort of person he is, and he's the character that drives the plot forward. Eggsy was the main character, not Harry. That's not to say Harry wasn't great (Colin Firth was a fucking badass in this film, he did a fantastic job) but Eggsy is the main character. Harry Hart was a badass gentleman spy and... that's it. That's all we really know about him. Eggsy was the main character.
And while I agree on the references, I think you're wrong when you say
I don't think that they lost much by
I'm not sure how they're going to pull off the sequel...even Austin Powers ran out of steam by the time goldmember came out. Maybe that's the problem with movies that rely way too much on the nostalgia/reference factor? This is all just my humble opinion :)
I kind of agree with Gustav_Graves that this movie is what Tarantino Bond movie might look like minus the humour of course.
I too don't know how they would pull of a sequel, and even if I would like to see a sequel, I am perfectly fine with this being a one-off movie.
I completely concur with @Tiger. Put it this way: @DoubleOhNothing once, on the old boards stated that films create their own reality and rules to that reality. DAD is an example of Bond going off of that mark. Invisible cars do not belong in Bonds universe. In X-men you will see special powers, you won't see any ghosts, etc.
In Kingsman they take it all too far imo. You're either serious or not.
I disagree. Like I said, you should not too much "think" in terms of a Bond film or a Tarantino film or a Marvel film. What Matthew Vaughn did was creating his very own kind of universe, that IMO is quite a good effort. See it, like I said in the previous page, as a skillful cocktail of elements blended in the one and only Kingsman-universe. I never felt irritations or whatsoever. It actually creates quite a good shock moment when
I think we're judging "Kingsman The Secret Service" way too much from the perspective of a Bond fan. I think one should try and judge this films as if there were no Bond films at all, as if you are a true Kingsman-fan. By doing so, you can actually feel more heartwarmed about all the James Bond references :-).
It was not quite what I thought it would be. I'm also not quite sure how to classify it genre wise. I agree and have also noted earlier that I see early Tarantino'esque elements here. All the elements did not come together quite as well as Tarantino himself would have done it imho, but it was an interesting take on the spy universe, if nothing else.
The score, on the other hand, was a true marvel. Thomas Newman has a lot to surpass this year with SP based on just this score alone (who knows what greatness Man from UNCLE and MI5 have for us). Can't wait!
I was saying this earlier today to a friend of mine:
One question I have for you though. Did the movie not put a smile on your face? In all honesty, when I saw the film here in Barcelona, the cinema was in complete laughter! Perhaps that made me laugh to. But for me personally it was just great fun to discover all these Bond references :-).
And not only that. If you have checked some interviews with Colin Firth and director Matthew Vaughn, it leaves me heart-warmed to know that Matthew Vaughn is in essence no different from Sam Mendes: Both are extremely nerdy and geeky, like all of us in here. Both of them are most definitely Bond fans ;-).
After I left the cinema I had two thoughts. One was this: So wonderful that Bond has inspired Matthew Vaughn and a comic book to come up with this entirely new franchise. A franchise, like I said, that has created this wonderful unique Kingsman universe. The second was this: I am so frikkin' proud to be a Bond fan these days. It shows what recent Bond films have done, not only in the past, but also (especially) the past decade with Daniel Craig. I love to see it like this: "godfather" franchise James Bond has created so many lovely "offspring", like Kingsman, but also The Man From UNCLE and Mission: Impossible. And obviously the "godfather" and its "offspring" love each other immensely. I know it when I hear Matthew Vaughn talking. I am an immensely proud nerdy geeky James Bond fan ;-). And I'm listening to the track "Finale" from Kingsman while I type this ;-).
Let's hope 20th Century Fox continues Kingsman with a 2nd film.
I take it you did not like the "Our Man Flint" films?
For me the Kingsman universe isn't consistent. First it's all comic-like, with those flowery head explosions as great example, then it's all serious with bloody fights and mothers going after their kids with knifes. Perhaps I just don't share the same sense of humour, but for me, as I said before, it was just too inconsistent.
Kingsman isn't Bond (thankfully), and it isn't, say Austin Powers or Johnny English. It's something in between and on both sides at the same time. I hope it stays with a one-off.
As for perception, I'll judge any film by it's own standards. I didn't measure Bourne up to Bond, nor the Untouchables to The Man Who Would Be King, etc, etc. As I said before, every film or frenchise creates it's own universe. Bond always stays the same age for example. Batman has technology that's perhaps possible in thirty year's time, whilst the Avengers is pure fantasy with superpowers, etc. But when that set of rules is set, it isn't broken. When it is (as it was with the Vanish in DAD), the film comes off as inconsistend and no fun anymore. And that's exactly what happened to Kingsman.
Daredevil did did it very good on rental dvd's back in 2003, not a very good American and worldwide boxoffice. Kingsman possible wil do very well on celling dvd's/BD and soon will have worldwide boxoffice twice as money as Daredevil. Total count of Daredevil (Budget 78 million) in 2003 was around 180 million, Kingsman (Budget: 81 million) on this moment around 223 million. Total X-men Firstclass be Vaughn his biggest movie, in The Netherlands it is Kingsman, becauxe X-men first class flops with 1,1 million. I think a sequel wil deliever more money, inspecialy if he returns.
Domestic: $98,028,000 39.5%
+ Foreign: $150,315,000 60.5%
= Worldwide: $248,343,000
More good Korean box office news from Deadline.com:
So the R-rated film is greenlit in China for a March 27 release. My prediction of nearing the $500,000,000 mark worldwide is in contention :-). Fox will most certainly kick-off a franchise now... They have found it; They found their "Bond" ;-).
Expect a certain $400 Million worldwide now. It still needs to open in big markets like China, Brazil and Germany.
Moreover, it seems that the Chinese don't care if the movie is a "top" or a "flop" in the USA. "Jupiter Ascending" is a big flop so far, but, again, NOT in China. Mark my words, China will show all of us this year that its market has now become bigger than the US market. Financially at least.
-- $75 Million: China
-- $50 Million: South-Korea (so far $25 Million)
-- $28 Million: Brazil
-- $24 Million: Mexico (so far $14 Million)
-- $22 Million: Russia
-- $18 Million: Germany
-- "Kingsman" will at least cash $178 Million more. Which puts it north of $425 Million worldwide. But China can be so crazy. I would not be surprised if it will go towards $95 Million in China (around $450 Million worldwide).
That's not really a revelation. It's been common knowledge for some time.