With the blockbuster summer season coming to an end, “Kingsman: The Golden Circle” was a movie fans were waiting to sink their teeth into.
With plenty of possibilities for the story, thanks to some ambiguity in the trailers, director Matthew Vaughnof “Kick-Ass” and “X-Men: First Class” had a lot of work and a budget of $ 105 million. dollars to accomplish the feat of a successful sequel to 2014’s “Kingsman: The Secret Service”. What fans got instead was a flawed sequel that seemed obnoxious and unnecessary with little merit to be sure. speak.
The story once again follows our hero Gary “Eggsy” Unwin, played by Taron Egerton, who went from an unlucky child in the first film to a full-fledged spy in the sequel. However, the plot kicks off in the film’s first half hour, when the entire Kingsman organization is wiped out by the mad Poppy (hilariously played by Julianne Moore), the leader of a organization called The Golden Circle. This forces the surviving members Eggsy and Merlin to team up with their American counterparts the Statesmen, with leader Champagne (Jeff Bridges); Tequila (Channing Tatum); Whiskey; and Ginger Ale (Halle Barry), in order to defeat Poppy.
The plot itself was a trivial plot to save the world, with Poppy poisoning anyone who bought her drugs and forcing world leaders to make a deal: legalize and tax her drugs, and the afflicted get the antidote. She’s also kidnapped Elton John for some reason, which is on screen a lot more times than I would have liked. There’s a twist to the end of the movie as well, but it was pretty much guessed after 45 minutes.
Colin Firth’s character Harry is also brought back from the dead, which the movie could have done without. It’s a shame because the writers took a much-loved character and actor from the first film, gave him a proper ending in said film, and then brought him back only to embarrass and completely negate everything audiences loved about. of this character. .
Right off the bat, the film attempts to bring audiences back with its style and flair, kicking off the action in the first scene with quick cuts and upbeat music. Unfortunately, this results in what becomes a slightly repetitive and uninspiring experience. The problem with the film – despite the enormous power of the stars – is that it doesn’t seek to improve on the original. The most prominent example of this is the introduction of the Statesman as a replacement for the Kingsman, which was too small a replacement and more like someone’s fan-fiction idea. We didn’t have the opportunity to really familiarize ourselves with this new branch because the writers just wanted to go and put the plot into action.
On the technical side, there is not much to say. Vaughn’s decision to use the same seemingly fluid camera cuts during the fight sequences that made the first film memorable and different – remember the church footage – oddly fell flat in its follow-up, even the action scenes being too short or jerky. This is perhaps the biggest disappointment of the whole movie, behind the underutilization of the cast, the rush or the lack of context for the story and the rare laughs.
The film generated $ 66 million in domestic box office revenue as of October 1, not to mention more than $ 192 million in total worldwide; however, lackluster reviews may prompt him to earn a little more than that. It’s a bit of a disappointment, considering all the hype surrounding its release and the general mystery surrounding its trailer.
In the end, I would give this movie 2.5 stars out of 5. These stars are for the effort and challenge to almost match the style of the first movie, but the ones that aren’t deserved are because of the movie less than good. fact that Vaughn took out. We can only hope he improves for Kingsman 3.
Contact Phillip Wong at [email protected] To learn more about the culture, arts and lifestyle of the JMU and Harrisonburg communities, follow the culture office on Twitter @Breeze_Culture.