KINGSMAN: THE GOLDEN CIRCLE | Sep 22, 2017 | Trailer on page 15

[AJG]

So... Yeah... This deserves it's RT score.

 

Some of these action scenes are amazing, but the movie isn't well thought out at all.

The political satire and villain is sloppy and ridiculous. It's light hearted but not really comedic, however there's an Elton John gag which is the most forced, desperate and unfunny thing I have seen in a film this year (just to give you a hint at how much time the Elton John stuff goes on for: he's in the film for longer than Channing Tatum). 

Things happen to certain characters to raise the emotional stakes and they too are forced moments that fall flat on their face that left me wondering 'Why would you even do that?' It was like the film couldn't schedule certain actors for the full shoot.

 

It was like watching a first draft of a potentially good movie. I was quite disappointed.

 

Edit: I'm just gonna add this to make sure you fully understand: the Elton John gag is Atrocious. I'm trying to think of a bigger failure of a celebrity cameo and I've got nothing, maybe the Lady Gaga Simpsons episode... I just don't know.

Edited September 20, 2017 by AJG

[somebody85]

Well if this doesn't do good, that's two movies this summer, that's trailers were attached to nearly everything I saw. Couldn't escape The Dark Tower.

 

[rukaio101]

15 hours ago, AJG said:

So... Yeah... This deserves it's RT score.

 

Some of these action scenes are amazing, but the movie isn't well thought out at all.

The political satire and villain is sloppy and ridiculous. It's light hearted but not really comedic, however there's an Elton John gag which is the most forced, desperate and unfunny thing I have seen in a film this year (just to give you a hint at how much time the Elton John stuff goes on for: he's in the film for longer than Channing Tatum). 

Things happen to certain characters to raise the emotional stakes and they too are forced moments that fall flat on their face that left me wondering 'Why would you even do that?' It was like the film couldn't schedule certain actors for the full shoot.

 

It was like watching a first draft of a potentially good movie. I was quite disappointed.

 

Edit: I'm just gonna add this to make sure you fully understand: the Elton John gag is Atrocious. I'm trying to think of a bigger failure of a celebrity cameo and I've got nothing, maybe the Lady Gaga Simpsons episode... I just don't know.

Is it weird that, despite loving the hell out the movie, I actually do kinda agree with a lot of this? The Elton John stuff in the climax was absolutely terrible (although I liked the song) and the story definitely has a very rough, disorganised edge to it, especially compared to the narrative tightness of the first movie. But it still all really worked for me. It was a 'throw everything at the wall' sort of movie, yes, but it never felt like any of the threads got in each others way and nothing ever felt too over/under-explored for me. Perhaps it was because the threads were mostly character-based, perhaps it was down to the high-quality of the cast/directorial style, but the execution entirely worked for me. I was never bored or unengaged.

 

Also, as mentioned, I personally really liked the villain and, while not perfect, I thought the political satire was at the very least pretty interesting. Plus, let's be honest, deliberately over-the-top/ridiculous villains and political satire is kinda par for the course with this series. 

[Cochofles]

Is the Elton John thing even tangentially related to the plot in any kind of organic way? I can't think of a more random pop star to cameo in a 2017 would-be blockbuster than Elton John. 

[rukaio101]

40 minutes ago, Cochofles said:

Is the Elton John thing even tangentially related to the plot in any kind of organic way? I can't think of a more random pop star to cameo in a 2017 would-be blockbuster than Elton John. 

...Unfortunately yes.

 

Spoiler

Remember those terrible-looking CGI robot dogs I mentioned? They were programmed to recognise Elton as a friend so his presence shuts it down long enough for Elton and Colin Firth to smash one of them with bowling balls.

 

I probably wouldn't have minded that much if that was it, but this came right after a really cringy fight scene of him beating up two thugs. Like reaaally cringy. Without that, I probably would've just been ambivalent towards his cameos.

 

So yeah, his cameo and the CGI robot dogs are among the things I'll unambiguously say are pretty bad about the movie. But I still really enjoyed it overall.

 

 

(As for why he's there in the first place, Julianne Moore used Valentine's kidnapping spree in the first film as a cover to snatch him because she wanted him to play at her private theatre. And because she's slightly cuckoo.)

 

[AJG]

1 hour ago, rukaio101 said:

Is it weird that, despite loving the hell out the movie, I actually do kinda agree with a lot of this? The Elton John stuff in the climax was absolutely terrible (although I liked the song) and the story definitely has a very rough, disorganised edge to it, especially compared to the narrative tightness of the first movie. But it still all really worked for me. It was a 'throw everything at the wall' sort of movie, yes, but it never felt like any of the threads got in each others way and nothing ever felt too over/under-explored for me. Perhaps it was because the threads were mostly character-based, perhaps it was down to the high-quality of the cast/directorial style, but the execution entirely worked for me. I was never bored or unengaged.

 

Also, as mentioned, I personally really liked the villain and, while not perfect, I thought the political satire was at the very least pretty interesting. Plus, let's be honest, deliberately over-the-top/ridiculous villains and political satire is kinda par for the course with this series. 

 

I kinda disagree. This movie is the first one where the political satire stuff has been attempted and it's sloppy as hell.

For the thing to have actually worked the audience to see and understand where both sides are coming from and the pros and cons of both the villain and the presidents case. The actual idea of the villains plan and the president's plan is actually pretty good BUT there's one big problem:

Spoiler

 

They included weed and recreational party drugs, They went overboard.

 

If they had just kept it to hard drugs like heroin, crack, and meth the president's reaction might have come across as being kinda relatable, I know people that would've supported and applauded what he wanted to do, and I know people that would disagree with him, but by including weed and ecstasy the whole situation falls apart.

 

People don't deserve death for smoking weed, people's attitudes have changed dramatically in the last few years. It's such a strange choice and it makes the movie feel outdated (especially for the audience it's going for). People that smoke weed and take party drugs are still able to function, work, and contribute, and we all know people that occasionally dabble. The president's plan would've seen these people all be killed. He has immediately become an unreasonable and cartoonish villain, similar to those one-note 'take over the world' superhero villains. Not only do these people have voting families who would remember this, but their numbers would be in the tens of millions. The population would be decimated, the average age of Americans would skyrocket, the stock market would plummet, the price of rebuilding would trigger recession so bad it would take decades to for the US to experience any good economic outcomes. What exactly is the president trying to gain through this?

 

Take away those 2 drugs, focus on drugs commonly associated with junkies and criminals, and the overall problem disappears. You now have something that's interesting, something you could debate with others over AND the villain and satire would've been able to be seen as being over the top and ridiculous keeping in tone with the film.

 

 

 

 

 

This is what I mean by sloppy, this is a such a small tiny thing, but it's impact is big. 

 

58 minutes ago, Cochofles said:

Is the Elton John thing even tangentially related to the plot in any kind of organic way? I can't think of a more random pop star to cameo in a 2017 would-be blockbuster than Elton John. 

 

Nope. At times it looks as if he's CG'd into the movie and working on a different schedule than the actors (in a lot of his scenes he's present but not actually physically interacting with the other cast members as well being positioned in places where it would be easy for him to be added into the full scene later). You could remove him or replace him from the movie and you'd have the same film. He's only there because Julianne Moore 'just wanted a famous person around.' They try to give him a purpose towards the end of the movie but you can tell they forced the scene in last minute, if you remove Elton John from the scene the movie would have played out almost the exact same way.

Edited September 21, 2017 by AJG

[wildphantom]

Just saw it. 

Pretty tough going for the first hour getting used to it being such a crushing step down from the first one. 

It does pick up and there is some fun to be had. Sheer good will just about carries it. 

 

In isolation it’s decent enough, but by its own standards I was really disappointed. 

[rukaio101]

10 minutes ago, AJG said:

 

I kinda disagree. This movie is the first one where the political satire stuff has been attempted and it's sloppy as hell.

For the thing to have actually worked the audience to see and understand where both sides are coming from and the pros and cons of both the villain and the presidents case. The actual idea of the villains plan and the president's plan is actually pretty good BUT there's one big problem:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

They included weed and recreational party drugs, They went overboard.

 

If they had just kept it to hard drugs like heroin, crack, and meth the president's reaction might have come across as being kinda relatable, I know people that would've supported and applauded what he wanted to do, and I know people that would disagree with him, but by including weed and ecstasy the whole situation falls apart.

 

People don't deserve death for smoking weed, people's attitudes have changed dramatically in the last few years. It's such a strange choice and it makes the movie feel outdated (especially for the audience it's going for). People that smoke weed and take party drugs are still able to function, work, and contribute, and we all know people that occasionally dabble. The president's plan would've seen these people all be killed. He has immediately become an unreasonable and cartoonish villain, similar to those one-note 'take over the world' superhero villains. Not only do these people have voting families who would remember this, but their numbers would be in the tens of millions. The population would be decimated, the average age of Americans would skyrocket, the stock market would plummet, the price of rebuilding would trigger recession so bad it would take decades to for the US to experience any good economic outcomes. What exactly is the president trying to gain through this?

 

Take away those 2 drugs, focus on drugs commonly associated with junkies and criminals, and the overall problem disappears. You now have something that's interesting, something you could debate with others over AND the villain and satire would've been able to be seen as being over the top and ridiculous keeping in tone with the film.

 

 

 

 

 

This is what I mean by sloppy, this is a such a small tiny thing, but it's impact is big. 

Definitely going to have to disagree here. Valentine's plan in the first Kingsman movie was pretty obvious political satire (albeit more about class and the perceived expendability of the lower classes rather than global warming) and even ignoring that, there's a fair amount of subtle (and not-subtle) commentary on class scattered throughout said first movie.

 

As for spoilery stuff...

Spoiler

This may just be a difference in personal experience, but I entirely know a lot of people who are so religiously against any kind of illegal drug use, including recreational and marijuana, that they would probably think anyone who did said drugs would get everything they deserve. Especially with the sort of druggie stereotypes that get peddled so much in the media. So that felt entirely believable to me.

 

And yeah, while I would've agreed with you that the president's plan makes him somewhat cartoony and stupid in any other movie, the fact that it's Kingsman and they did the exact same thing in the previous movie with the world leaders who agreed to Valentine's plan just made it work for me. It felt less brain-breaking and more like a cute callback and fitting to the tone of the series. 

 

[Eric is Quiet]

I HAD NO IDEA THIS WAS A THING  

[kayumanggi]

I have just seen this. I enjoyed it, but I thought the first was better.

[dudalb]

That it is so stupid means I will give it a pass. I see so much stupidity in real life that stupidity on the screen has ceased to amuse me.

 

[Brainbug]

 

Ralph destroys it. And he really liked the first one. Means, i wont see this. Ralph has practically the same views on movies like me.

[B D Joe]

It's too bad this movie won't do well/apparently isn't very good.  I would have liked to see Kingsman continue as a fun throwback franchise to contrast the dour Bond films.

Edited September 21, 2017 by B D Joe

[eddyxx]

Some one who has seen this.....Is it worst than Kickass2 or about the same?

[marveldcfox]

I find it funny that some guy in the China thread was saying that this is waaaay better than first one. LMAO.

 

Maybe it will do well only there.

[AJG]

2 minutes ago, eddyxx said:

Some one who has seen this.....Is it worst than Kickass2 or about the same?

 

About the same. Both have good moments, both are a huge step down from the original.

[marveldcfox]

Bottomline Matthew Vaughn can make 1 good movie in a franchise and then his style doesn't work for 2nd movie cuz it's mere repetition but lacking magic. Kick ass 2 suffered same. 

[sabrecmc]

Saw free screening of this.  Glad I didn't pay for it.  Was just really stupid trying to be funny or something.  I don't know.  Didn't work for me. 

[Taylor]

44 minutes ago, marveldcfox said:

Bottomline Matthew Vaughn can make 1 good movie in a franchise and then his style doesn't work for 2nd movie cuz it's mere repetition but lacking magic. Kick ass 2 suffered same. 

Vaughn didn't do Kick-Ass 2.

[Lucas]

Both this and The LEGO Ninjago Movie are at 50% now so I guess if I watch them both tomorrow they'll collectively make it a perfect experience at the movies.