Tuesday 26 September 2017

Film: 'Kingsman - The Golden Circle'

On one level this is a monumentally daft film of the third in the 'Kingsman' sequence of comic-book originals - and yet I didn't find it quite the dud that many have done, my being mentally engaged for much of its extra-long 2 hours 20, which would have benefitted by being shorn of a good 50 mins. Nevertheless, it maintained what I assume is the simple and silly child-like atmosphere of its source material - namely set piece of conflict after set piece, the protagonists always ending up without a scratch against a multiple onslaught of weapons, both from humans and robots, as well as fists - and all with barely enough time in between in which to take a breath.

Colin Firth leads a roll-call of well-known names  - Julianne Moore, Jeff Bridges, Mark Strong, Halle Berry, Channing Tatum - with a thoroughly embarrassing Elton John where, for some reason, a large part of the audience when I attended, found every one of his too many appearances super-hilarious! 
In this yarn of London-based, Secret Service, dapper men-in-suits (Taron Egerton, with Firth and Strong) are armed with a range of gadgets, which would have turned even 007 green with envy, and are struggling against nasty world-threatening drugs trader-baroness (Moore) who, from her headquarters in South America, has infected internationally, widely-used 'recreational' drugs with fatal consequences, except that she alone has enormous supplies of the antidote, the release of which depends on the American President agreeing to her wicked demands.  
The basically simple plot had a lot of heavy weather made out of it. I felt that the explanation of how Firth, after being killed off in the previous film, is 'resurrected' with this being depicted in such a fashion as though the film-makers themselves were far from convinced that it would work. Also, his regaining of his former personality was over-extended, and hence just starting to get boring.  

The CGI chaps must have had a field day in their creation of the many fights, most of which come up to the expected standard for films of today.  

This is director and writer Matthew Vaughn's second 'Kingsman' film though I did prefer his previous effort ('The Secret Service' of 2014), the second in this series, this latest one following the expected pattern. I can't see any fans of the series being especially disappointed by what he does here.

Not much else to say. Further analysis would imply that the film deserves more weighty significance than it actually does. I gave the previous 'Kingsman' feature a rating of '7'. I accord this with a .............5.5.

16 comments:

  1. Ray,
    Pat and I saw this film last week when I was visiting him in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Normally I wouldn't have sent to a movie like this but the heat was so unbearable in Hamilton, we sold refuge in the air conditioned cinema complex. Both of us had a hard time understand the dialogue at the beginning of the one actor with the heavy English (Cockney?) accent. I found it interesting that so many Oscar winning stars were in this comic book of a film. But overall, I was amused, partly because Pat loves these over the top "action" type of films. He makes fun of my fondness for films like "Downton Abbey" which he calls "an endless search for Lady Mary's teapot." I would give this film a 6. Now to find your review of "It". And where is your review of "Mother!" Now that's the review I want to read from you sir, you excellent reviewer. I'm still surprised you haven't been discovered and some newspaper pays you to write a review for their paper. You are that good Ray. Excellent!
    Ron

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ron, all those big-name actors made me think that they 'wanted' to be in this film (although they really didn't) because it would look good for versatility on their C.V. I bet that by now they've all forgotten they were ever in it.

      For once, I had no trouble with understanding the dialogue, Cockney or otherwise. But I dare say I had a certain advantage there

      I've seen your views of 'It', and remarked on same - and 'Mother!' is for later today - or, if not, tomorrow.

      I've still never seen 'Downton' nor have any inclination to do so, though I do get Pat's take on it.

      Thanks yet again for your praising of my reviews, which I still think of as being hopelessly trite. Blobby's are far better as reasoned, expressed and cogently argued. Have you seen them? Pity he doesn't go to see that many films.
      As to your thoughts on my being 'discovered' (perish the thought!), it's a bit late for that now as I definitely feel I've reached the winding-down phase.

      Delete
    2. Ray,
      I read Blobby's review of "Kingsman". No offense to Blobby, but you are a far better movie reviewer. You stick to the movie and don't veer off into other areas that have nothing to do with the movie. When I read a movie review I prefer to read a well written review of the movie, not other subjects. This morning I was talking to Pat on FaceTime and told him of your minimizing your review abilities and he also disagrees with you. You write very well and we are both wonder why some local publication where you live hasn't hired you to write reviews. I don't find your writing "trite" at all. You are an excellent writer Ray and this comes from a person who has literally read thousands of authors during my seventy-five years on this planet. I've read all types of authors Ray. To me you either have the natural writing skills or you don't. You can't fake something like that. I'm glad I discovered your blog Ray. You're interesting, intelligent, funny and never boring. You're a treasure.
      Ron

      Delete
    3. Stone me, Ron! That's an awful lot to try to live up to. While not doubting your sincerity for one second I ask you to do me the same favour of believing when I say that I just can't see what you see in my film postings, many of which just make me want to curl up in embarrassment and disappear - hence I rarely re-read them after posting, unless it's to iron out grammar points of which I wasn't sure, but I never change my written opinion of a film even though they do change, all written just within a few hours of seeing them.
      But, as I've indicated before, I'm starting to get a little weary of writing them, though I'll probably now carry on until I've reached number 5,000 - currently 4,842 - so it's unlikely to be before the end of 2018, maybe longer.
      Anyway, thanks for the praise, even though I don't consider myself worthy of it.

      Delete
    4. Believe me Ray, you're worthy of my praise. Pat feels the same way about your reviews. Excellent. I would rather read your on the spot review than a rambling review with a lot of references to subjects that have nothing to do with the movie. Plus, your writing style is very easy to read. I never acclimated myself to the hoity toity reviews that were hard to understand. Same with blogs. Maybe it's me, but I find most blogs boring. Of course that doesn't include mine (smile) but that's me. No apologies. I know what I like and I like your blog and your reviews. I hope you keep at it a long time.
      Have a great day!
      Ron

      Delete
    5. Your kind and generous thoughts are noted, Ron - though that's hardly new. What else can I say? If I think of something original I'll write it. :-)

      Delete
  2. Omg i wouldnt bother going to see this if i was given a free ticket

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I still think it's worth paying at least a little to see it, J.G. Maybe a quid or even two, but no more.

      Delete
  3. We went to see it Saturday. There were parts I liked, some not so much. For me, the first one was better. There were just too many cheesy/over the top scenes. I think there probably was in the first, also, but they seemed less jarring, for some reason. (maybe the choice of actors?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very much a film for thrill-seeking adolescents, Sadie, and they would have got what they demanded. As for any semblance of profundity, forget it! - but there again, that was what they were NOT aspiring to.
      The choice of star actors helped me to maintain a degree of interest, though Jeff Bridges above all looked like a fish out of water.

      Delete
  4. I liked the last one ... though I saw it on TV and didn't pay for it ... but I think I'll avoid this one ... until it's free.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not one you're going to regret not having seen in the cinema, Bob, but it ought to make for a passably agreeable evening spent on the TV couch.

      Delete
  5. well you already know my thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I was conscious of your opinion throughout, Blobby, and I wouldn't really take issue with anything you said though I'm not quite sure why you singled out the cable car scene(s) as it was just one of similarly egregiously silly goings-on.

      Delete
    2. oh i didn't single out that scene....but if you want to go there.....who designs an internal rotating cable car? I mean.........WHO?????

      Delete
    3. Sorry, B. Of course you're right about not having mentioned the cable car. I've picked that reference up from someone else. I think that by the time we got to its doing a 'roundabout' I'd long gone past questioning whether any scenes up to then were plausible - and hardly any one them was!

      Delete