Kingsman: The Great Game (2019)

191012141535

Comments

  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,253
    Let's see... The USA has 318 million people.... China 1,3 billion. Now which one will be the bigger market?
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    It's bad form to be sarcastic when one doesn't really know what one's talking about. India has a population of 1.2 billion, do they have the second biggest movie market? If you compare the top ten countries in box office and top ten countries in population I'll wager you'll find that there's not a perfect correlation. Perhaps there's something else at play?
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,253
    Sark wrote: »
    It's bad form to be sarcastic when one doesn't really know what one's talking about. India has a population of 1.2 billion, do they have the second biggest movie market? If you compare the top ten countries in box office and top ten countries in population I'll wager you'll find that there's not a perfect correlation. Perhaps there's something else at play?

    Assumption is the mother of....
    Indeed, it was a shortcut. India has Bollywood, an industry that turns out twice as many films as hollywood does. However, the average income for an Indian is about 60 to 100 dollars per month. That's up to 1200 dollars a year, against the US median income of 51.000.
    China has, this year, a median income of about 8000 dollars. That's up in almost 10 years from about 3000 dollars. Mind you, these are the very rough numbers, but you see the picture I hope. 1,2 billion chinese with incomes more then doubling every ten years. It was a matter of time before they'd surpass the US market.

    India is a completely different story, but I won't go into that here as those geopolitical lectures may be a bit off topic. My point was, albeit poorly put, that China was going to surpass the US as a movie market anyway, sooner or later.

  • edited March 2015 Posts: 4,622
    Man I hated this fillm. I did appreciate the Bond inspired natural rock formation villain lair, along with outiftted henchmen, and Firth's John Steed stylings, but otherwise cringeworthy, moronic, overacted by many ( Sam Jackson's horrid Bond villain caricature), not to mention his awful lisp.
    Movie died for me when Firth was gone. And his killing was so ignominious. Ha ha. I get it, in this film, the villain just kills the gentleman spy.
    That's fine, but call me crazy, I prefer the original schtick.
    This movie was a mess. I hope it goes away and dies.
    Women attacking their children with knives. I don't mind OTT violence. Tarnatino's films IMO were better conceived than this dog's breakfast ( and suitably dogs play a promient role in the film, maybe canines wrote the film too. I amuse myself at least )
    Filmis uneven. It tries to be bold and schocking, but just comes across as preachy, and yes there is no shortageof half-arsed social commentary in this film, I felt like my head was going to explode. Not surprisingly many heads did explode in this film. Most I think had had enough of the film by this point. I am not sure all those bursting heads at the end were only special effects. Relief for some I think.
    Oh and such tense drama, threatening to blow away dogs with guns. So edgy. Yawn. Hope the pug, pooped on the rug.
    Oh and great fun, watching people tear each other apart on the beach, and in the streets, and the church massacre etc.
    OK I get it, the preachy filmmakers are trying to tells us there are too many people in the world, and the planet is dying because of it, but we better watch out,or the planet might kill us instead. I know these are the rantings of the film's villain, but I get the impression, this was also the filmmakers message too, couched as villain rantings. Whatever.
    No wonder they milked the people killing people scenes.
    Next film, killer trees and plant life will attack humanity. Volcanos will erupt, to wipe out us pesky human that dare to live here.
    I can't count the number of times, I had to break theatre etiquette to check my smartphone in the dark, to see how much time was left, especially after Firth was gone, who looked real good in a suit, I must admit. Best John Steed knockoff ever actually.
    This move though was made by a maniac. Vaughn should be commited for foisting this mess on the paying public.
    And I am not prudish. I love the Evid Dead films and nothing is gorier than those movies, but those movies had a context. They had some style.
    Kingsman is instead tasteless, disgusting, uneven and supremely stupid. And the final cherry on top, is that it thinks it is so friggin clever a film. Double yawn.

    The ending reminded of CR67, which was a way better movie, with way better looking girls. In fact this film had a paucity of girls.
    You'd think in an OTT spy spoof, we'd get a decent serving of pulchritude, but really nothing that jumped out.
    At least Bond, Helm , Flint, Avengers, Uncle never failed to delivered the jiggle and the glam.

    1 out of 5 stars. Please.Nooooooo sequel. Just go away!!!

    I did like the pug though!
    maxresdefault.jpg

    Give the pooch a sequel, as opposed to the pooch of a film!

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Good thing I had no intention of seeing this movie. :))
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    I agree, the movie died for me when Firth was gone too. L Jackson shouldn't work again after his dire contribution to this film.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Come guys. It was not a bad movie. I think these reactions are solely caused, because of irritations and expectations. From a Bond-perspective we would have liked to see Harry Hart alive. But this isn't Bond. This is "Kingsman".
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Other people are allowed to have opinions too. If they didn't like it, they are entitled to it. 8-|
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Murdock wrote: »
    Other people are allowed to have opinions too. If they didn't like it, they are entitled to it. 8-|

    Yes, you know that English saying about other people. They are like assholes.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Come guys. It was not a bad movie. I think these reactions are solely caused, because of irritations and expectations. From a Bond-perspective we would have liked to see Harry Hart alive. But this isn't Bond. This is "Kingsman".

    I agree. I think that this movie is its own animal and is designed primarily for the Asian & youth market - where they see their heroes die all the time in the movies, and also where the violence traditionally is more pulpy.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Wow, thanks for that minor spoiler, see my previous post.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Murdock wrote: »
    Other people are allowed to have opinions too. If they didn't like it, they are entitled to it. 8-|

    Yes, you know that English saying about other people. They are like assholes.

    Like that scene in Spaceballs? =))
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    bondjames wrote: »
    Come guys. It was not a bad movie. I think these reactions are solely caused, because of irritations and expectations. From a Bond-perspective we would have liked to see Harry Hart alive. But this isn't Bond. This is "Kingsman".

    I agree. I think that this movie is its own animal and is designed primarily for the Asian & youth market - where they see their heroes die all the time in the movies, and also where the violence traditionally is more pulpy.

    This moment was in the comics. I haven't seen the film yet, but read the comics as and when they were out. I always enjoyed this aspect of the story, it's quite a cliche in the world of Mark Millar, but suitable. Not sure it was put in for any other reason than it was the way Millar/Vaughn conceived it some time ago now. Vaughn is obviously adept at transferring Millar's lust for pulpy violence and subversive narrative beats to the big screen.

    One thing I will say having read comments on here regards content/violence - I really hope they get Millar's 'Nemesis' off the ground. If people think Kick-Ass and this are overboard, 'you ain't seen nothing, yet', as the saying goes. Nemesis is an awesome read and a film version will have a lot of people losing their shit if it's faithfully adapted. Last I heard Carnaghan was doing something with it, but who knows?

  • Posts: 11,119
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Come guys. It was not a bad movie. I think these reactions are solely caused, because of irritations and expectations. From a Bond-perspective we would have liked to see Harry Hart alive. But this isn't Bond. This is "Kingsman".

    I agree. I think that this movie is its own animal and is designed primarily for the Asian & youth market - where they see their heroes die all the time in the movies, and also where the violence traditionally is more pulpy.

    This moment was in the comics. I haven't seen the film yet, but read the comics as and when they were out. I always enjoyed this aspect of the story, it's quite a cliche in the world of Mark Millar, but suitable. Not sure it was put in for any other reason than it was the way Millar/Vaughn conceived it some time ago now. Vaughn is obviously adept at transferring Millar's lust for pulpy violence and subversive narrative beats to the big screen.

    One thing I will say having read comments on here regards content/violence - I really hope they get Millar's 'Nemesis' off the ground. If people think Kick-Ass and this are overboard, 'you ain't seen nothing, yet', as the saying goes. Nemesis is an awesome read and a film version will have a lot of people losing their shit if it's faithfully adapted. Last I heard Carnaghan was doing something with it, but who knows?

    Did you like "Kingsman" a lot @RC7? Rating on a scale to 10 ;-)?
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    RC7 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Come guys. It was not a bad movie. I think these reactions are solely caused, because of irritations and expectations. From a Bond-perspective we would have liked to see Harry Hart alive. But this isn't Bond. This is "Kingsman".

    I agree. I think that this movie is its own animal and is designed primarily for the Asian & youth market - where they see their heroes die all the time in the movies, and also where the violence traditionally is more pulpy.

    This moment was in the comics. I haven't seen the film yet, but read the comics as and when they were out. I always enjoyed this aspect of the story, it's quite a cliche in the world of Mark Millar, but suitable. Not sure it was put in for any other reason than it was the way Millar/Vaughn conceived it some time ago now. Vaughn is obviously adept at transferring Millar's lust for pulpy violence and subversive narrative beats to the big screen.

    One thing I will say having read comments on here regards content/violence - I really hope they get Millar's 'Nemesis' off the ground. If people think Kick-Ass and this are overboard, 'you ain't seen nothing, yet', as the saying goes. Nemesis is an awesome read and a film version will have a lot of people losing their shit if it's faithfully adapted. Last I heard Carnaghan was doing something with it, but who knows?

    Did you like "Kingsman" a lot @RC7? Rating on a scale to 10 ;-)?

    Like I say, I haven't seen it yet. I read the comics as they were released. I've been cooped up working since it's release and I don't like stuff to inform what I'm writing. I'll probably see it next week.
  • Posts: 12,837
    Murdock wrote: »
    Other people are allowed to have opinions too. If they didn't like it, they are entitled to it. 8-|

    And other people are entitled to disagree with those opinions.

    You're just saying this because you want desperately for this movie to be bad because of what Millar said before release. You slagged it off before release, went quiet when it got good reviews and then when it gets a negative response from a few members you suddenly start contributing again and say (in as many words) "looks like I was right after all".

    If you really have no interest in seeing this movie, stop reading this thread. As much as I disagree with @timmer and others, at least they've actually seen the movie before judging it, rather than writing it off straight away (despite the majority liking it) because the writer criticised the Craig movies and you thought the trailer looked like "serious Austin Powers" or something (and as others have already said, the trailer undersold/didn't represent the film).
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    And other people are entitled to disagree with those opinions.

    You're just saying this because you want desperately for this movie to be bad because of what Millar said before release. You slagged it off before release, went quiet when it got good reviews and then when it gets a negative response from a few members you suddenly start contributing again and say (in as many words) "looks like I was right after all".

    If you really have no interest in seeing this movie, stop reading this thread. As much as I disagree with @timmer and others, at least they've actually seen the movie before judging it, rather than writing it off straight away (despite the majority liking it) because the writer criticised the Craig movies and you thought the trailer looked like "serious Austin Powers" or something (and as others have already said, the trailer undersold/didn't represent the film).

    No doubt people are allowed to disagree. (forcing an opinion is a different story, which I haven't done.) I never said I wanted Kingsman to be bad. Quite the opposite. I went quiet because it became old news. I never boasted anything of the sort. Did I ever say "looks like I was right after all?" No I didn't. I just jokingly said that I'm glad I didn't bother with the damn movie in the cinema. I'll eventually see it when it becomes available to rent at the library but why should I stop reading this thread? The comments amuse me.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    I wanted the film to be good. But it wasn't. I wasn't upset that Harry Hard died, just the fact that he was the only decent character in the film. Not feeling the 'chav' hero!
  • Posts: 11,119
    suavejmf wrote: »
    I wanted the film to be good. But it wasn't. I wasn't upset that Harry Hard died, just the fact that he was the only decent character in the film. Not feeling the 'chav' hero!

    I find that not true. IMO Eggsy was quite a multi-layered character. He certainly has quite the background, amidst those London's East End hooligans. He grew up in a flawed family, and gets the chance to improve his live....to fully use his talents that he never used before.

    Sorry, with the character Eggsy, I think "Kingsman" really distinguishes itself from James Bond. Because it's a character you'll never see in a Bond film. Period. It's also quite a typical Matthew Vaughn-character, and reminds me about "Layer Cake".
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Whether or not he is a layered character his accent and family are very chavesque, which is part of the overall character. I personally dislike this type of leading character...they belong in a 'kitchen sink' drama such as Eastenders.

    I like Layercake by the way though.....a slick well made british gangster film.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    That's true @Gustav_Graves, but Eggsy is truly a punk, if you'll forgive me. Without the likes of Hart, Merlin, Arthur or even Valentine, this kid is an uncharismatic joke, along with his Roxy.

    They will need to add more quality actors to make a sequel worthy, unless they only want to bring in the pimply crowd.

    My call is for Timothy Dalton in the next one!
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Good call on Dalton.
  • Posts: 11,119
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Whether or not he is a layered character his accent and family are very chavesque, which is part of the overall character. I personally dislike this type of leading character...they belong in a 'kitchen sink' drama such as Eastenders.

    I like Layercake by the way though.....a slick well made british gangster film.

    Have you ever seen "Green Street Hooligans "http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0385002/combined ? Great movie. Certainly not kitchen-sink soap, but realistic drama. The recent hooliganism of Dutch football club Feyenoord in Rome actually proofs it. It's realistic enough, and for me it was a reason that Eggsy stood out. These people really do exist you know? It's not that they are only created on the writing tables of "Eastenders".
  • SarkSark Guangdong, PRC
    Posts: 1,138
    Whether chavs exist isn't really the issue is it?

    I think you're in the minority thinking that Eggsy can carry a movie himself. Many of the critics and general public thought the film slowed greatly after
    the death of Colin Firths character.
    .
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,253
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Whether or not he is a layered character his accent and family are very chavesque, which is part of the overall character. I personally dislike this type of leading character...they belong in a 'kitchen sink' drama such as Eastenders.

    I like Layercake by the way though.....a slick well made british gangster film.

    Have you ever seen "Green Street Hooligans "http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0385002/combined ? Great movie. Certainly not kitchen-sink soap, but realistic drama. The recent hooliganism of Dutch football club Feyenoord in Rome actually proofs it. It's realistic enough, and for me it was a reason that Eggsy stood out. These people really do exist you know? It's not that they are only created on the writing tables of "Eastenders".

    Well I did see 'Green Street Hooligans' and it indeed is a very good movie. In that movie characters are indeed well shown, their troubles and their lives. But it's utterly different from Kingsman in so many ways I don't know where to start. For me Eggsy is as light a character as they get. His backstory may be 'rough' but it's told in such a 'oh well it wasn't easy you know' way it never made any sense at all. He didn't really seem that bothered.
    And for someone lined up for Sandhurst he quit mightily easy. Yes, his mother was afraid to lose him too but couldn't care less how her boyfriends treat him?
    does that make sense to you? Doesn't to me. He isn't multi-layered one bit, or it's all celluloid.

    Then there's the originality of a young boy from a lousy background with unexpected talents, getting through to the high life. nope, never been done before.... come on, how cliché IS that story.

    And no, I still don't compare him to Bond nor did I have any expectations of what the film would be like. I went to the cinema to see a 'spy movie', that's all. If it had turned out like Johnny English, Austin Powers or a Carré film, I didn't know, but would have been interested as long as the film itself would have been consistent, but it wasn't. It's fine by me that you're so enthousiastic, but stop discarding other's opinions if they dont align with yours.

  • edited March 2015 Posts: 12,837
    "but couldn't care less about how her boyfriend treats him"

    What? Did we watch the same film? Every time her boyfriend hits him or tries to do anything to him she tries to stop him (and gets a smack herself). Even after her boyfriend hit her she tried to stop Eggsy going after him because she didn't want him to get hurt.

    "He didn't really seem that bothered"

    Yeah when he went on the big rant in the pub or when he had a go at Mark Strong's character for choosing him to be the one with no parachute he didn't seem bothered at all did he.

    I think if he'd spent the whole film bitching about how hard he'd had it then he wouldn't be a likeable character. I come from a background similar to Eggsy (I grew up on a council estate in East London) and it isn't that bad at all, so if he'd spent half the film moping about how hard his life was while kids are dying in Africa and places then I think it would have made him unlikeable.

    As it stands I thought Eggsy was a good character. Likeable, charismatic and with different layers to him. I don't know why people are saying he couldn't carry the sequel because as I've said before, he carried this film already. Firth's character was a badass gentleman spy and that was it. Colin Firth did an amazing job and was probably the highlight of the movie but Eggsy was the real protagonist. He was the one who was a fleshed out character, the one who we actually get to know, and he spent half the film away from Firth anyway, and probably got a decent amount more screentime.

    Also, Green Street is a terrible movie.
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Whether or not he is a layered character his accent and family are very chavesque, which is part of the overall character. I personally dislike this type of leading character...they belong in a 'kitchen sink' drama such as Eastenders.

    So you didn't like him because of his accent or his background?

    There's a bit in the film you could've done well to take notice of. Eggsy asks Harry if he's going to teach him to speak "properly", and Harry tells him that being a gentleman has nothing to do with your accent, and then says this quote

    "There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self."

    @Murdock I said you should stop reading the thread because you have "no intention of seeing the movie". A lot of your comments so far have been you saying how you don't give a shit about the film. If you're not interested in the movie and have nothing to contribute, don't read the thread, that's all I was saying.

  • Posts: 12,837
    Sark wrote: »
    Whether chavs exist isn't really the issue is it?

    I think you're in the minority thinking that Eggsy can carry a movie himself. Many of the critics and general public thought the film slowed greatly after
    the death of Colin Firths character.
    .

    Could you point out some of these reviews for me? Not saying you're wrong, it's just I'm curious because nothing I've read seems to indicate that.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,253
    Sorry @thelivingroyale it just didn't come over to me that way. There's a difference betwee saying something and acting like it. For me his acting came over as if he didn't really care at all. They (Kingsman) want someone who can endure, who's strong and keeps on going. Eggsy for me looked like a quitter.
  • Posts: 12,837
    Fair enough. I think I can see where you're coming from but I think that was the point, Eggsy was a quitter who'd never even had a job but Harry saw his potential and gave him an opportunity. Then, through Kingsman, Eggsy managed to make something of himself. Anyway, think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
  • Posts: 1,859
    Are there any fan sites for Kingsman?
Sign In or Register to comment.