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
The critics must all of had a humour bypass, Lots of crazy action ? fight sequences
some great jokes and plenty of "Easter Eggs" to Bond, even a few very well acted scenes
giving just a hit of Male emotion.
It's not Bond or Bourne, Kingsman walks its own path, Think a Family friendly Tarantino
Exactly. I don't want Bond to be like Bourne or Kingsman to be like Bond, or vice versa. Kingsman is a super-OTT throwback to old school Bond films, comparing them to modern Bond films is futile. Bond is a 55+ years old franchise that needs to stay both true to its roots and relevant in the current world to work. Kingsman is only aiming at being an homage to a bygone era disguised as an OTT crazy action flick. Neither Bond, Bourne, M:I or Kingsman have any requirements in common. Bond movies are Bond vs a villain, very different to the team effort of the M:I world, or the man-on-the-run by his own former employees in the Bourne films, and Kingsman does not have a 24 films history/luggage or the necessity to have its main character stay relevant in a world that is nearly 70 years removed from the very first iteration seen in Fleming's 1st novel in 1953.
How can this movie be family-friendly if you basically see how a man is being shredded into hamburger meat? And how can this movie be family-friendly if a henchman is sliced in two near an log cabin?
I actually agree with you. In the first "Kingsman" the Kingsman-agent is something one could really try to become. A means of bettering your life. But in "The Golden Circle" it's nothing more than an empty shell. All the stylishness and expensive suits are even more empty and hollow, once we see Eggsy throw a plastic bag of soft drugs on the coffee table.
"Kingsman 2" is quite ridiculous, just like "Austin Powers", "The Man From UNCLE", "Get Smart" and "Spy". But it goes many more steps further by completely glorifying a 'street' culture that is bordering petty crime and theft.
At least James Bond, to me, has real style, and not a 'street style' that can be camouflaged with some expensive suits. Well, that's how I think about it :-).
Do you . You too busy looking for things to offend you, and hidden anendas ;-)
You certainly don't understand British humour.
Also thanks for all those spoilers for anyone who hasn't seen it yet.
Probably. But if Bond behaved like that, if Bond is doing bad-ass things on an ice rock in DAD, if Bond now starts slamming girls in their faces again, then the world is too small and even Bond fans feel a certain shame :-). Ah well, perhaps I am exaggerating, but there's a slight anti-Craig sentiment in the air these days, as if Kingsman should be the real new template of the next Bond film. To me that's ludicrous.
One thing I DO agree with, and that I would like to see copy-paste to the next Bond film, is the sheer fun and joy Matthew Vaughn seems to have in producing his own Kingsman franchise. Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson could learn a lot from that zest. But only that.
To stick with the film: I think "Kingsman: The Golden Circle" was OK. But to me not as good as "Kingsman: The Golden Circle". Seeing Julianne Moore as a bad-ass Bree van de Kamp from "Desperate Housewives" was awesome. Makes me think: Julianne Moore could be a perfect Bond villain, a perfect Irma Bunt.
Contradiction from you again. You are calling Kingsman 1 and 2 actual Bond films if you use that argumentation.
For the last time, since you don't seem to understand: Kingsman are not Bond films, so why are you wasting your time again trying to explain that Bond films shouldn't do like Kingsman, or that Kingsman is too OTT? They are 2 different franchises, is that too hard for your mind to understand? No one wants Kingsman to be like James Bond, and vice versa, no one wants James Bond to be like Kingsman.
Ooowh come on:
https://life.spectator.co.uk/2017/09/move-over-bond-kingsman-are-the-real-spy-masters/
Well, perhaps I misunderstood the film then. I didn't enjoy it as much as some others in here. But I also said that I really liked the 1st Kingsman. I found the ridiculousness of that film a bit more balanced, especially in comparison with Eggsy's background.
I'm entitled to my opinion no? No need to call my arguments wasted. This is a discussion forum and every one's opinion should be respected and should matter. No need to 'jump on me' this forcefully or trying to 'drag' answers out of me like I'm a nitwit. @Thunderpussy isn't doing that either.
You got angered by that article a few days ago and you are quoting that very artice again? i didn't even read the article, so are you a masochist or something? Do you love being angered? Do you love not answering simple questions? You are not entitled to your opinion when you don't have an opinion of your own, because if you had one you would have no problem explaining your beliefs instead of refusing to and being 'offended' and causing a mess that lasts multiple pages. I asked you a week ago to explain your previous 'opinion', and you throw a tantrum like a little kid that went on for several pages instead of answering. So instead of accusing people of being offensive towards Newman and Mendes, please look at yourself in the mirror as you are the main child on this forums. Asking you 1 simple question and you throw your toys out of the pram.
I find it weird that you had such an issue with this in the second one (the whole "street culture" thing) rather than the first which focused a lot more on it?
Neither film glorifies crime at all. It's Eggsy getting into trouble with the police that leads to Harry getting involved in the first one, because he feels he owes it to him to set him on the right path. And what does Eggsy do that's so bad that makes you think they're glorifying anything? Steals a car in the first one, which he only did to get one over on his mums abusive boyfriend. That's about it. Harry says he's been involved in petty crime before but it isn't glorified in the slightest. It's seen as a bad thing.
And in the second one he already starts off as a Kingsman so there's no crime to glorify. But wait, oh no, I forgot, a young man got his stoner mate some weed for his birthday? What a morally bankrupt film. I don't want to be rude but if you think that's such a bad thing then you've either let a bad experience you or someone you know had colour your perception of that sort of thing to a ridiculous extent, or you've lived a fairly sheltered life. People do drugs. Lots of normal, decent people at that. That was actually one of the messages of the film. It's not glorifying anything, it's just showing a fairly realistic depiction of what a lot of young people (and older people in fact, I don't smoke myself any more simply because as I've grown older I've found that the friends I have don't but I know that our old friend @SirHenryLeeChaChing for example still enjoyed it on occasion even as he grew into a middle aged family man) get up to in their spare time.
I think what you're suggesting is quite damaging to the theme of the first one too. You seem to think that by fulfilling his potential Eggsy should have ditched all his old mates and become a completely different person (do you think he should have taken some eleqution lessons in between movies too?). That to me would have damaged future watches of the first one because then it's less a story of a working class kid bettering himself and more of a story of a posh bloke rescuing a chav from his filthy commoner life.
Your issue with the film seems to be that Eggsy didn't transform into a completely different, posher character once he became a Kingsman but I think it's actually quite snobby and prejudiced to think that the film would be better if he would have. They're not "camaflouging" anything (is he not allowed to wear expensive suits because he hasn't completely forgotten where he came from?) and there's nothing bad or shameful for them to camaflouge. But what I find really hilarious is how the only instance of the glorification of this dirty "street culture", which is apparently your main issue with the film, is an inconsequential moment where Eggsy gives his mate some weed as a birthday present. It was literally a moment. That's it. And yet you seem to be using it to slate the whole film. Unless your issue is with how drug use as a whole was portrayed? But in that case why treat that as an issue with Eggsy's background/culture? Drugs are far from exclusive to "street" culture. Plenty of well off people experiment when they're younger too. Something which the film shows (the princess smoking a spliff).
Yeah agree with every word of this. Didn't seem to all come together quite as well as the first one, missing a certain spark, but still a great film and a worthy sequel. Edgerton's brilliant and you're right that he wears the suits really well. Even managed to make an orange dinner jacket look cool. I know it'll never happen but I do think he could make a good Bond when he's older (he's Welsh in real life but proved in the first film in Valentine's base that he can do an RP accent).
The guy playing Charlie to me seems a bit too posh imo, I think Bond should be sophisticated but needs to have a rough edge to him too. But to be fair I've only seen him in Kingsman where the character he plays is supposed to be a stuck up snob, so he might have just played that part really well and be more than capable of toning it down.
As an aside, it's interesting that Vaughn
Don't forget peeps,people like me are waiting to see it on SKY rather than the cinema,so for now,spoilers need to be hidden,or I will have to stay out of the thread,when I want to hear members opinions on the film.
Which im pleased to see,it looks like most members really like it.
(I've pre-ordered the film with SKY Store,so it wont be long until I get it,and can join in !)
Then there's the storyline: it would've been an interesting starting point if it weren't for the childish backstory of our villain. Is it OTT, certainly, OTT is the starting point. There's going overboard and there's swimming away from the ship as fast as you can until it's completely out of sight.
There are so many interesting angles that could've been used that are utterly underused for the sake of beeing gimmicks, cheap jokes.
And I agree with @Gustav_Graves when it comes down to family friendly, it certainly isn't (and in this case it wasn't girlfriend friendly either even though she loves action films).
Many of the jokes fall flat, especially the way they find out about their cousins, the Statesmen. Again it could've been an intersting twist, but it was cheaply done for laughs. It holds no gravitas.
Is it stylish? I don't think so, it's stylised, but it holds no body, it has no soul. And the way they brought an old friend back to life, you know dying isn't really that much of a deal in the Kingsman world. So what's left then?
I will do that when I get home tonight.
Enjoy the second. I can't wait to add it to my
Blu-ray collection.
Had to come home and put on Saturday Night's Alright For Fighting.
Wasn't Brosnan a pseudo Bond in Remington Steele? I've never seen it but I know that's what got him on the Bond radar