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)

Vaughn’s enthusiasm really wants make us belileve that it offers something more than the usual. But in the end, it is just as schematic and far-fetched as all other similar films. However, what speaks in favor of Kingsman is the feeling of a British gentleman, the progressive action scenes (the church!) and the boldly playful jokes and lines. But it's still single-use entertainment and I don't feel like watching it again. (10/03/2015)

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)

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)

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)