Kingsman 2 The Golden Circle

Slydice

peteeeed

new trailer

Mr E

It was .... OK. A bit too long and a few too many (underutilised) characters.
The action was decent, CG was very patchy in spots and actual belly laughs were thin on the ground.

The trailers made the movie look gorier than it actually was too. Pretty tame.

Elton John stole the show.

I see Kingsman 3 is already on Jane Goldman's CV, so hopefully the next one is better.

NyOmnishambles

Mr E wrote: »

It was .... OK. A bit too long and a few too many (underutilised) characters.
The action was decent, CG was very patchy in spots and actual belly laughs were thin on the ground.

The trailers made the movie look gorier than it actually was too. Pretty tame.

Elton John stole the show.

I see Kingsman 3 is already on Jane Goldman's CV, so hopefully the next one is better.

The use of Elton John was a masterstroke in fairness
Agree with the rest, it was grand, much the same as the first one but now lacking in freshness as we have sen it before
It would have been fairly pedestrian without something of what they did with Elton John

ancapailldorcha

I saw it last night. It's fun, assuming of course you saw the original. As was mentioned above, it doesn't feel as fresh though the addition of Statesman and

bumping off a few of the original characters

certainly helped. I was expecting Channing Tatum to have a bigger role which is a bit of a shame as he's little more than a side character. It's a bit wackier than the original which is something of a mixed blessing given that at times it was almost straying into Marvel territory.

silverharp

the 16 rating is bs, was going to bring my son but he is only 13. i doubt there anything he would bat an eyelid at. there doesnt seem to be anything else worth going to see

gandalf

Saw this the other day and does exactly what it says on the tin. Not as fresh as the original which is to be expected but it delivered on entertainment. The 16 rating surprised me as well, I assume it was because of the

mincher scene

. I agree with others Elton John was excellent in a very fowl mouthed way

MilesMorales1

I thought it was absolute rubbish, not a patch on the original, similar to Kick-Ass 2 in that respect.

alchemist33

That was excellent - I really enjoyed it. Elton was awesome. He could have been a disaster but he really threw himself into it.

Notorious

conorhal wrote: »

There's more than a whiff of 'Kickass 2' about this TBH.

After watching I think this is pretty apt. Kingsman 2 was nothing like the original. I think that it expanded on everything good about the original film, but it just didn’t stick together.

There was too many characters and plot points that were either underused or just irrelevant. When Elton John was thrown into the mix I laughed out loud. He was a hilarious addition, but hearing him shouting “f**k” got old fairly quickly.

The camera work was fantastic; especially during one of the final scenes. The music was so-so which surprised me as I thought the original had a stand-out soundtrack.

Yet again there was a lot ruined through the trailers (the bar scene with Colin Firth and Pedro Pascal).

I have to say that I was disappointed with Kingsman 2. It seems that Matthew Vaughn tried so hard, but it seriously came up short. It had a lot to live up to after the unexpected success of the first film; perhaps that had cast a shadow over the second outing?

Overall: 2/5

Saw this on Saturday.

I have to say.. it really was nowhere near as good as the first movie. Kingsman suffered the same way as Guardians of the Galaxy; the first movie went under the radar and surprised most. Then the sequel comes along, which is bigger, better, more famous faces, but loses so much when compared to the first.

Biggest issue: there are too many people in it.

When you have the likes of Channing Tatum, Halle Berry, & Jeff Bridges in your cast it just feels odd to give Elton John more screentime than any of these.

Tatum was given so little screentime. I would have much preferred they had replaced Pascal with Tatum.

Next issue: when you start bringing characters back from the dead (with such half-heartedly explained "science"), it removes so much peril, making the fight scenes seem less exciting.

Colin Firth's character was dead. It should have been left that way. Hell, even in the movie

Pacal's character gets shot in the head at point-blank range. But it's OK - alpha-gel will save the day

.

Next - there were too many winks and nods to the original.

In many places it sort of just seemed like there were just a few winks and nods. There's one scene with Elton John and another character, which was pretty much just a nod to "hey, hey, remember that anal scene that caused so much controversy? Wouldn't it be hilarious if Elton John said it this time?"

Not to mention the whole ... Glastonbury sequence

Banjaxed82

I really enjoyed the original, but this wasn't great.

Just all feels a bit lazy, from everyone involved. As mentioned, more than a feel of Kick Ass 2 from it. Whatever hymn sheet everyone was singing from in the original, is most definitely well gone. Really missing the spark of the first one.

Agent Coulson

Very disappointed with it I have to say it had none of the charm of the first one and everything about it seemed cheap and thrown together as a quick cash grab after the success of the first one.

Looper007

Not as bad as many are making it out but not a patch on the first film sadly, just lacks that heart that the first film had even with all violence and silly humour.

It was way too overlong, the film could have lost a good twenty minutes of it's running time without hurting the film that much (Glastonbury section especially). Julianne Moore's Poppy was a weak villain and Moore really phoned it in for me. Even the twist with

Pedro Pascal Whiskey turning villain seemed tacked on to throw on another fight

and I did like the return of Edward Holcroft's Charlie but even he lacked any real danger.

The amount of phoning it in from some of the new cast was shocking too, only really Channing Tatum got to shine but even he was wasted. The amount of talent just picking up the cheque in this film was crazy, Halle Berry, Jeff Bridges, Michael Gambon and even the underrated Emily Waston who was given the most useless role, made some of their easiest money on this.

One thing that really sucked for me was the treatment of Sophie Cookson's Roxy, such a important character for Eggsy in the first film,

The way she was given such a death and then completely forgotten

did stick with me throughout the film.

Anyway onto the good things, Taron Egerton, Colin Firth and Mark Strong especially were all excellent as was Pedro Pascal as Whiskey, also Elton John stuff was funny as hell, shouldn't have worked but did. The Action scenes were good but nothing came close to the Church scene from the first film. Not a patch on the first film, but worth a watch. 6/10

TerrorFirmer

I agree with the above, not as bad as it's being made out to be, though admittedly I felt the same about Kick-Ass 2. Ultimately neither lived up to expectations but they're both highly entertaining and at the very least offer your ticket's worth.

My main criticism would be that it's about 15 minutes too long and the film's excellent cast largely goes to waste - generic, underwhelming performances from most concerned, including Julianne Moore's villian and Channing Tatum in particular is horribly side-lined. It's also frequently over stylised and edited, attempting to up the stakes on the action sequences of the first but they end up looking cheap and forced in some cases.

Good turn from the main cast though, and good ol' Oberyn Martell does a great job with what he has. Though the soundtrack was pretty OK. Loved the John Denver!

Loved Elton John, can't believe he'd commit to a role like that. It toed the line between hilarious and just plain stupid a few times but Elton manages to pull it back every time. Very impressed.

Overall a decent action film. Could've been a lot better, maybe should've been, but undeniably a good fun watch all the same.

brevity

I thought it was awful myself.

Not a patch on the first one.

Looper007

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I agree with the above, not as bad as it's being made out to be, though admittedly I felt the same about Kick-Ass 2. Ultimately neither lived up to expectations but they're both highly entertaining and at the very least offer your ticket's worth.

My main criticism would be that it's about 15 minutes too long and the film's excellent cast largely goes to waste - generic, underwhelming performances from most concerned, including Julianne Moore's villian and Channing Tatum in particular is horribly side-lined. It's also frequently over stylised and edited, attempting to up the stakes on the action sequences of the first but they end up looking cheap and forced in some cases.

Good turn from the main cast though, and good ol' Oberyn Martell does a great job with what he has. Though the soundtrack was pretty OK. Loved the John Denver!

Loved Elton John, can't believe he'd commit to a role like that. It toed the line between hilarious and just plain stupid a few times but Elton manages to pull it back every time. Very impressed.

Overall a decent action film. Could've been a lot better, maybe should've been, but undeniably a good fun watch all the same.

Kick Ass 2 is a good shout, not a patch on the first film but nowhere near as bad as many make it out. Someone mentioned Guardians of The Galaxy 2 a few posts ago, I have to disagree on that one. Think that film is the equal of the first but sadly is undervalued by many. I think GOTG 2 is fantastic.

Fair play to Elton John, not afraid to rip the piss out of himself about his past drug habit which nearly killed him and his diva behaviour lol. It's silly but Kingsman is OTT at times it works.

I don't think bringing back Colin Firth was a good idea, even though he's probably the best thing about the first film, that ending for his character was fantastic and upped the danger for Eggsy. I wouldn't be surprised if Studio heads got involved in that one, plus having bigger names on marquee.

Not a great film but still better then most blockbusters.

tunguska

Like most here I really enjoyed the first film(and was not expecting to) but was weary about this sequel. Was pleasantly surprised though.........for the first hour. Then it kind of went all over the shop and I lost interest. Definitely too long. Taron egerton looked a bit bored to be honest. Like he knows he's a better actor than this and was kinda phoning it in. Mark strong, great as always but I just didnt get anything from Julianne moore's character. She's a brilliant actress but this part was just one dimensional. Jeff bridges phoned it in, as did Channing tatum and Haille Berry. Pedro Pascal was good but Elton John stole that film. He was surprisingly(or unsurprisingly) believable as a grumpy mega star. Although the flying kung fu kicks in giant heels........not a chance.
There'll be a third one for sure, but I hope they focus more on creating a solid plot than just gimmicks.

ZeitgeistGlee

Saw it this evening having managed to dodge most spoilers beyond

Harry's survival.

Loved the original, but sadly this isn't even the same sport let along the same league.

To a large degree it feels like all the polish and cleverness (for the lack of a better word) that had made Kingsman so great is missing from The Golden Circle. Aside from the opening scene the plot seems to lurch from action scene to action scene with the barest elements of story development and a lot of that development veers on the nonsensical.

The new characters arere horrendously shallow, which makes the money spent to bring in big names like Moore, Berry, Bridges, Gambon and Tatum only to have them phone-in their performances a major disappointment. I actually genuinely thought

the redneck guy in the bar that Pascal calls Moonshine and who kicks off the Manners-Maketh-Man 2.0 brawl was supposed to be a Stateman until I realised he was actually just some asshole in a completely different bar.

That's how generic the characters are. I won't even mention the US political characters because they were just embarrassingly bad.

The returning cast likewise suffer, Eggsy obviously wasn't going to undergo as dramatic a character evolution as he had in the original but it doesn't feel like he grows at all here. About the only actual change is

his decision to marry Tilde and he was already clearly leaning towards it from the beginning

.

Harry is the same unflappable, gentleman-badass he's always been which makes his butterfly-lapses weird rather than tragic given there's no real downside to them.

Merlin

dying felt forced (they'd literally just been using mine detectors) and his emotional state overplayed. His obsession with whisky was just pedantic.

If I heard Country ****ing Road one more time in that movie I was liable to repeat the Church Massacre scene in the cinema. Confine the soundtrack to country and western if you want but use more than one ****ing song please.

I seem to be the odd-man-out regarding

Elton John's

scenes, aside from a couple of his quips towards Poppy I thought they were hugely overplayed to the point of being silly. I actually didn't even realise

it was John himself in the role

, thought it was supposed to be some vaguely grotesque piss-take. Really they could've made his character a lot more believable by just establishing him as a former Kingsman or candidate.

I wasn't particularly bothered by the runtime but there were definitely scenes which could've been lost with no issue, most of that awful Glastonbury segment for instance to bring it down to a more management time.

I genuinely wanted to like this movie as much as I liked the first one, the basic elements were all there, but the end result is just so messy and mediocre. 5/10 for me.

Biggest small gripe for me was

Roxy being killed. She was such a great balance to Eggsy in the original so to lose her so quickly especially after her few scene in the movie was just a major disappointment for me.

eviltimeban

Bit late to the party on this one, but saw it last night. I went in after being unimpressed by the first one and wary of the second one having watched Mark Kermode's review of it. But I have to say I really enjoyed it, more than the second one.

Sure it was too long. Sure it was OTT. Sure there were bits where you questioned the decision making. But it was a pure entertainment, leave-your-brain-outside, nothing else to do on a rainy Tuesday night type of movie.

I liked the Whisky character a lot, a felt that Pascal was almost channeling 70s Burt Reynolds. Elton John was a bit meh for me, a one joke trick stretched a bit thin. Mark Strong was excellent, a

shame he dies

, but as we've seen, that doesn't really mean much in Kingsman world!

RastaRed

Absolute rubbish, not a patch on the first, Elton John bits were terrible, moore and bridges completely wasted in their roles, unblievable waste of time and money and should have been left as a standalone movie

Harry Palmr

The sequel has been the near equal at the box office so a third is likely.

joombo

Recently watched Kingsman : Golden Circle (2017) 9/10

Loved it.
The whole 'chavvy' James Bond is a concept that I love.
Hopefully they make another one!

TheIrishGrover

I thought it was........ OK. Didn't think it was as much fun as the first one. It really looked like Channing Tatum was just totally edited out of it. VERY strange to cut such a high profile actor. Especially given the tone (Tatum being very willing to send himself up). It looked like there was a severe hair cut in the edit.

Elton John? Stole the show.

It did reek of setting up a sequel with the sequel being Kingsman V Statesman with Egsy and Tatum caught in the middle. Colin Firth's character alluded that the Statesman org might not be what it seems. Doubt we'll get that at this stage though.

Walter Bishop

I loved the first one. This one was terrible, not funny, way too long, Elton John nonsense dragged out. Crap.

Unearthly

Thought it was good craic. Agree with others it was too long though. Some of the scenes especially the opening had very dodgy CGI.

RIP JB:(

JP Liz V1

Moore was a very poor villian, not a patch on the first film but Elton John stole the show

Agent Coulson

‘Kingsman 3’ Set For Nov. 2019 Return With Matthew Vaughn On Board

Manners maketh man. And writer/director Matthew Vaughn and co-writer Jane Goldman are going to make the third Kingsman film.

The third ‘Kingsman’ film – now simply called Kingsman 3 – is set for theaters on November 8, 2019 in what’s being called the capper to the previous two-part series.

Reports on just who will be involved are mixed. Some stories indicate no actors are on board, but others claim Taron Egerton will reprise his role as Gary ‘Eggsy’ Unwin. Fans are hoping Colin Firth, Channing Tatum, Halle Berry and Jeff Bridges from the prior film will also appear.

The British Goldman has hinted that there will be third installment in the past, but this is the first confirmation. There are also rumors of a prequel in the works to the beloved action film, although its second chapter, Kingsman: The Golden Circle, killed off much of the secret organization.

The films are based on Dave Gibbons and Mark Millar’s comic series, The Secret Service. The films are beloved for their stylized action sequences.

https://deadline.com/2018/09/kingsman-3-set-for-nov-2019-return-with-matthew-vaughn-on-board-1202469621/

CastorTroy

"The British Goldman"?

The first one was pretty much Taron's first big movie? Hopefully he does come back

Guy:Incognito

CastorTroy wrote: »

"The British Goldman"?

Jane Goldman, who is British. Innit.