Kingsman: The Golden Circle, 2017

Directed by: Matthew Vaughn

Starring: Taron Egerton, Mark Strong, Colin Firth, Pedro Pascal

IMDb

Took me a while to get around to this one, but I finally got to see Kingsman: The Golden Circle. I actually have a bunch I want to discuss, which isn’t all necessary to the criticism of this individual film, so I’ll do my mini review first.

Kingsman 2 is not really a “good movie” per se; it lacks the identity and “classic” qualities of the first one. That said, if you’re the type of person who can enjoy pure ridiculous insanity, there is a lot to enjoy. I had a really great time. It tried really hard to be ridiculous and fun, and it certainly succeeded. I recommend it pretty highly, just don’t go in expecting a quality story.

So what I really want to talk about are the elements that make it “bad”. Certainly its hyper-cliche’d story doesn’t help, but that seems to be completely intentional. The film seems to have no real interest in being “good”, and a lot of interest in getting a laugh out of dialling up the insanity to eleven, which seems to be a pretty common strategy for the film’s production studio: Marv.

Marv is responsible for a pretty inconsistent quality of film. On one hand, they made Stardust which I really loved, and Eddie the Eagle, which I’ve heard is pretty great. On the other, the were involved in the garbage fire that was Fantastic Four (2015). None of these films really fit in with what I would consider Marv’s signature style, which flourishes in the studios most lucrative series: Kick-Ass and Kingsman. I loved both Kick-Ass and Kingsman; they simultaneously contributed in and parodied the Superhero and Spy genres respectively, and they did it really well, delivering satisfying, funny, and extremely memorable films. Both films thrive on over-the-top, high intensity action scenes with creative and interesting cinematography and production, and they’re both a lot of fun, though Kingsman is technically a better film.

Kick-Ass 2, however, kind of sucked. It suffered from a version of ‘sequelitis’ that far too many Hollywood films do, making constant callbacks, often entire scenes, to its predecessor. If one element of the first film was particularly popular/ well recieved, Chloe Grace-Moretz’s profanely violent Hit-Girl in this case, it will be back in force, becoming the most major element of the sequel, where Hit-Girl effectively becomes the main character. This trend rarely ends well, as it usually misses the point of what made it good in the first film, and forces it to be something it’s not. Hit-Girl had a very simple story Arc, and a very simple character in Kick-Ass. Making her the main character of Kick-Ass 2, forced complexity on her, which unfortunately, as the film was a bit phoned in, resulted in her being pretty boring. Most of the film was like that. It tried its best to keep interest by being ridiculously over-the-top, but the cost of any interesting story developments was too steep. They tried to do “the same thing as last time, but bigger” and it backfired bigtime.

Kingsman 2 does the same thing, but is far more self aware. The film pretty explicitly states its thoughts on the crap-ness of its story, openly admitting that it doesn’t care, and just wants to provide pure bullshit insanity. There is more than one scene in this movie involving people being shoved into a meat grinder, both times without even a drop of blood appearing on screen. So if we’re not meant to take it seriously, can we criticise it for bullshit story? I probably wouldn’t, if it were a little more original, and didn’t make so many damn callbacks to the first scene. The “manners maketh man” bar scene is recreated, every major action scene evokes the “church” scene. The Swedish princess gag-character from the last movie is a supporting character now. Not to mention that her only memorable line from the first one is called back to two times. This movie has very very little identity of its own, and I doubt I’ll watch it again, I’ll invariably turn to its predecessor over it. It is, however, way better than Kick-Ass 2, and I think it’s its self awareness that led to this.

It did have some highlights though. Its opening fight scene in the cab was fantastic, and left me with a big smile on my face; the same applies to the film’s climax. The villain was fun, but not very memorable – bar the meat grinder. I had a lot of fun with the US government, despite the paper-thin plotholes in the president’s plan. I also liked the music, I thought the original soundtrack had a very ‘Avengers’ feel, which I thought fit pretty well.

Action movies have the capacity to be “good” and fun at the same time. ‘Kingsman: The Golden Circle’ doesn’t even try to do this, and it somewhat suffers from this. There is a lot to enjoy, but turning your brain off is a must. I personally recommend it, but it’s not a must for seeing in cinemas.

Advertisements

The Mummy, 2017

The Mummy was a bad movie, but not entirely unenjoyable. Tom Cruise played Tom Cruise with startling precision, the story was predictable and didn’t really leave room for any surprises, and the movie is gonna make me talk about feminism for the second time in a row. The movie takes one step forward by having the typically male role of the titular monster taken by Sofia Boutella (who does a great job for what she’s given), and then leaps backwards, somersaulting through the air in a spectacular fashion, by making her primary method of killing people kissing them, turning them into zombie-slaves. Imagine if Loki enslaved people in The Avengers by giving them a good old pash. It’s honestly pretty embarrassing. Not helping is Annabelle Wallis’ character, who acts as Tom Cruise’s love interest/damsel in distress who displays just about every cliché imaginable, and to top it off is the most boring character in the entire movie. Yet, the marketing touted the movie as ‘progressive’. It’s not. It’s shit.

The number one thing giving the movie any intrigue is that it’s supposed to kick off a cinematic universe with Universal Monsters, an idea which genuinely gets me pretty excited. The potential for a battle royale style romp with like 6 or 7 classic monsters makes me want to believe that this franchise will work out. This concept manifests in the inclusion of the best part of the movie: Russel Crowe playing Dr Jekyll. He was, fun, interesting enough and his inclusion was the only element breaking the usual shitty formula. I get the impression he’s supposed to be the Samuel L. Jackson of the franchise, and the way that they set that up works well enough for me that I’ll inevitably watch the Bride of Frankenstein movie in 2019.

For now though, this is an aeroplane movie at best. There’s no reason to check it out in cinemas.