News

Cambridge Residents Slam Council Proposal to Delay Bike Lane Construction

News

‘Gender-Affirming Slay Fest’: Harvard College QSA Hosts Annual Queer Prom

News

‘Not Being Nerds’: Harvard Students Dance to Tinashe at Yardfest

News

Wrongful Death Trial Against CAMHS Employee Over 2015 Student Suicide To Begin Tuesday

News

Cornel West, Harvard Affiliates Call for University to Divest from ‘Israeli Apartheid’ at Rally

‘Kingsman: The Golden Circle’ Mixes Fun with Stupidity

Directed by Matthew Vaughn, 3 Stars

By Yodahe Heramo, Contributing Writer

As evidenced by numerous Hollywood franchises, making sequels is hard. How much of what worked in the previous film should be replicated? Should it even be replicated? Should the film submit to the expectations of the audience or subvert them? Matthew Vaughn’s “Kingsman: The Golden Circle” clearly grapples with these questions. The director makes it obvious that he is overly eager to recapture the magic of the first film, and the result of that desperation is a film that celebrates its predecessor’s unique humour and stylized violence, but has little substance beyond that. The good news is, at least the humour and violence are still working.

“Golden Circle” does not know what kind of story it is trying to tell. It dabbles in a little bit of everything, but fails to make any clear, pointed statements. At the beginning, it seems that the central conflict is the protagonist Eggsy trying to balance his domestic life with his spy life, but that plot line gets immediately dropped when the action starts, and is only picked up every once in a while at the story’s convenience. Halfway through the film, however, the director gives up the efforts altogether, and informs the viewer that instead of balancing two different lives, Eggsy is actually struggling just to establish a life outside the spy world. The confused viewer is further disturbed when, towards the end of the film, the director suddenly starts to make social commentary by including a US president that is something of a satire of Donald Trump.

Fortunately, while the overall story is pretty senseless, the humour that is scattered around provides good distraction. This is much to the credit of the film’s ensemble of charismatic actors. Channing Tatum’s big scene as Tequila was entertaining, fun, and delightful, even if his accent does slip every now and then. Jeff Bridges’ Champ was good ol’ Jeff Bridges—funny, cool and extremely charming. Pedro Pascal’s Whiskey is the coolest guy with a lasso you’ll ever see. Julianne Moore was wonderfully unhinged, and her appropriately campy performance was much less distracting than Samuel L. Jackson and his Mike Tyson-inspired lisp in the first movie. The surprise star of the film, however, was Elton John. A bizarre take on himself, Elton comfortably embodies the deranged humor that defines “Kingsman”. The one new character that fell a little flat was Halle Berry’s Ginger. Not given much to do, she never gets the chance to fully match up with Mark Strong’s Merlin. Some viewers might also be disappointed to find out that the ad campaign for the film grossly exaggerated the presence of these new characters. Pascal is the only one given the appropriate amount of screen time, with Bridges’ and Tatum’s roles not amounting to much more than fun cameos.

The biggest takeaway from this film, however, are the stunning action sequences. Vaughn has an unparalleled ability to capture actions that have not yet before been seen on film. The camera is never static during fights. It flies and whirls across the viewer’s field of vision, changing perspectives and shifting frames. However, the movement is never distracting. It is a wholly immersive experience that takes its audience to and through the middle of the fight. Comedic beats are sprinkled perfectly throughout the violence, unlikely weapons are used in the unlikeliest of ways, and gruesome deaths are brought about by absurdly brutal means. On the surface, Vaughn manages to preserve much of what made “Kingsman” so successful the first time around.

“Golden Circle” is by no means a perfect movie: Character arcs take a back seat to the entertainment, background stories are shoddily put together, and plot points happen not because of the characters’ motivations but because the movie needs them to happen. That said, it is still a surprisingly pleasant viewing experience. Although not up to par with its predecessor, there is still something so refreshing about the world of “Kingsman” that makes it unlike any other franchise. Its humor, its camp, its action, its violence—a welcome deviation from the many self-serious blockbusters of today. Go into the theater with minimal expectations and let yourself be taken for a ride. “Kingsman: The Golden Circle” is a film of very little substance but a whole lot of fun.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags
FilmArts