Kingsman: The Secret Service

Kick-Ass made in a style of classic Bond movies. And it is done so consistently and one to one (again, it is genre conscious as much as subversive, furious, with a considerable portion of meta exaggeration, it emphasizes being cool in all circumstances and the resembles in clearly seen also in the course, the type of roles, allusions, etc.) that is clearly to its detriment, because the Vaughn/Millar duo are undoubtedly capable of doing more than just copying themselves. However, if (and as long as) it is such a thoroughly likeable incorrect fun, who would mind it? PS: Too bad the official subtitles, which are not very imaginative are not very good. At least Valentine's speech impediment directly calls for a playful approach. (05/02/2015)

I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a film that so accurately reflected teenage mentality. In some of its details, Kingsman is excellent and breathtaking, in others, I found it awful. Overall, I had fun with it, thought rather reluctantly. Many people value its attempt at being constantly entertaining, tough, controversial, fierce and refreshing, but, unlike with Kick-Ass, for instance, Vaughn here doesn’t keep a measure on things and in some places he falls into a cesspool of a category I can call spoilt brat. That’s what bothers me the most about a film that’s supposed to be about gentlemanhood. The brutal violence against bystanders is here portrayed and presented as cool fun. That not only goes against my moral principles, but also brings up another internal conflict: how are we supposed root for the heroes to thwart the villain’s plan, if it is only when villain wins that we can get another serving of eye-candy brutal action, as in the church (which is the most talked about, not only here)? And what skills of the candidates was the last task of the admission process supposed to reveal? The ability to follow even the most stupid orders without question? Thanks very much for that. Maybe if I was a bigger fan of the old Bond films, my feelings towards Kingsman would be more positive. Or probably not. (20/02/2015)

Matthew Vaughn again shot an almost perfect entertainment which has everything a funny gangster movie needs. A villain with a lisp, portrayed by Samuel L. Jackson, macho agent Colin Firth or a really likeable muddler Taron Egerton. Add in a rather classic story, but with a truly excellent interpretation, which is most apparent in the rather brutal, but all the more fun action scene in the church. I don’t know if Matthew Vaughn is a genius, but he is one of the few directors whose films I keep revisiting and after watching them again I rate them even higher. After Stardust, this flick is the best he managed to entertain me with so far. And I hope it was not the last time. (02/06/2015)

Manners, not clothes, make a gentleman. Even though Vaughn works visually outside all pigeonholes (the church massacre is something so unholy I'm surprised American churches aren’t screaming loudly) and sprinkles adolescent quips with the mischievousness of a 16-year-old class brat, which is then perfectly matched by the dream cast, obviously he and Goldman got embarrassed by superficial Bond jokes. You just end up wanting more happy meals and lines about "other movies"; four stars is actually a slight disappointment in the context of Vaughn's output, but he is still far ahead of his genre contemporaries. (04/03/2015)

Vaughn and Goldman wanted to show off how they are able to exploit the legacy of Bond movies, when in fact they pillaged their own store. This is their third recruitment-training film after Kick-Ass and X-Men: First Class, though somewhat unfortunately crossed with a rather serious social drama. The stereotypical depiction of the working-class setting (pubs, brawls, domestic violence) lacks the exaggeration that characterises the rest of the film, which leads to the narrative having a disjointed tone and pace during the first two-thirds. At the same time, the protagonist’s education in “being a gentleman” (which here, as in the early Bond movies, contains a proper helping of chauvinism) is in conflict with the film’s egalitarian message – Eggsy can only become a Kingsman after he repudiates his lower-class origins (through his demeanour, wardrobe and speech). As the technophobic presentation of the villain illustrates, the film’s pseudo-anarchistic casing conceals a conservative heart. Vaughn may not have a clear idea about what he wants to convey with the film, but he lets us know with every scene how badly he wants to be cool or, more precisely, how badly he wants to please teenage boys who devour comic books and play video games. Cartoonishly exaggerated violence, action scenes with video-game aesthetics, low-brow jokes and appalling sexism (call me a bore, but I don’t find the offer of anal sex from a woman who has spent recent days locked up in a cell to be funny, but simply offensive; the only active female character in the narrative is pacified by being shot into space at the end of the film). The pretence of adulthood is limited to superficial discussions about Bond movies and self-reflexive lines such as “this isn’t that kind of movie”, though of course it is exactly “that kind of movie” at its core. Denial of its own clichéd nature has become a new cliché. First Class, which didn’t need to so blatantly draw attention to its Bondian stylisation, thus remains Vaughn’s most Bond-esque film. None of this would be a reason to dismiss Kingsman if the first half of the film didn’t suffer from a lack of dynamics and suspense in the unreasonably divided narrative, and if SO MANY scenes didn’t suffer from being absolutely gratuitous. Vaughn doesn’t know when to stop. He is unable to recognise when a scene has exhausted its potential and transitioned into another “look how cool I am” exhibition of hackneyed visual ideas and mediocre digital tricks. In its attempt to be entertaining at all costs and without any regard for good taste, Kingsman is amusing here and there with its coarseness, but it’s mostly just tiresome. 70% (16/02/2015)