Kingsman: The Golden Circle
"Now I remember why I wasn't in love with the first one."
I'd like to blame my reaction to Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) completely on its clash with my personal taste. And, while that may be a piece of it, I don't think I'm entirely wrong in saying "irreverent for irreverent's sake" is a terrible plan for a film.
Not that it's terribly unfun. For all intents and purposes, our second venture into the secret service of the British variety is a fairly good time. After the Kingsman headquarters is destroyed, they turn to Statesman, their allied spies in the West, to bring down, "The Golden Circle," the newest bad guys trying to take over the world.
To be honest, there are a few moments with a little heart. I imagine you've seen it by now [SPOILER ALERT if not], but the interaction between Colin Firth's "Harry Hart" and Taron Egerton's "Eggsy" are surprisingly moving and a little heartbreaking, especially if you've seen the first one. The "mentor and mentee that at first butt heads and then eventually come around to deeply respecting each other" may be a stereotype of the action movie, but it works well here and is one of the more beautiful parts of the film.
And I will admit, I'm in love with the way Kingsman's action scenes are done. With a combination of slow-mo and intriguing camera work, it manages to bring a little new life to something we've become desensitized to. A slightly stylized approach to an, at times, unbearably common scene, not only keeps it interesting but also returns them slightly closer to an art form.
A slightly stylized approach to an, at times, unbearably common scene, not only keeps it interesting but also returns them slightly closer to an art form.
But then there's the rest of the film, which I just cannot bring myself to stomach. I do understand the concept of "irreverent for irreverent's sake" and can see, if not appreciate, the attraction to it. But, if your greatest goal is to be the "shock jock" of the movie industry, well, you can kiss goodbye to any meaningful plot.
This isn't to say that everything needs to be deep or thought-provoking. Indeed, it'd be a great disservice to the public for filmmakers to neglect an audience's need for something that's purely fun and genuinely good (sans, as much as possible, agendas and a pretentious seriousness).
However, while we can be desensitized to the beauty and intricate choreography of a fight scene, we can also be desensitized to unspeakable violence and base humor. As I sat in a theater full of kids (not that adults should have had to see that either), I watched as a man was ground up in a meat grinder and subsequently served in burger form. Then there's the woman in charge of the Golden Circle demonstrating the effects of the drugs she sells, which, spoiler alert, involves a rash, mania, paralysis, and eventually, as blood begins to pour out of your eyes, exploding. Not to mention the controversial Glastonbury Music Festival scene where it's almost as if the filmmakers themselves are uncomfortable; our main man Eggsy calls his girlfriend, apologizing for the fact that he has to essentially cheat on her in order to place a tracker on another woman (I can't imagine a top-secret fake spy agency has no better way to keep tabs) and then the film delves into some anatomically-correct CGI animation that'll scar whatever kids (and adults) who hadn't the misfortune to be so during the human hamburger scene.
Jarring comedy isn't inherently wrong. Shock factor can, in some ways, be good. However, its tendency to undermine your message is tough to escape.
Jarring comedy isn't inherently wrong. Shock factor can, in some ways, be good. However, its tendency to undermine your message is tough to escape. For instance, a basic idea of the movie is whether or not to save people who do drugs; do they even deserve saving considering the harm they can do others? The film says yes and I'd have to agree. But a movie trying to say that humans have inherent dignity, despite the bad things they may have done, probably shouldn't be chopping them up and exploding them all the time. Food for thought.
And, on just a mildly irritating side note, there's this strange cameo-turned-role that Elton John had playing himself. It somehow manages to strike a chord that's too strange to be good and too weird to be funny. To the film's credit though, that's actually kind of difficult to do, even as an accident.
So, was it worth the five dollars? I guess so. As I said earlier, it's not entirely unfun and at some moments it actually delves into genuine laughter and heart. However, I will say I'd rather films make me uncomfortable because they bring me face to face with real injustice going on in the world and not because I feel like I should wash my eyes out with soap and make a beeline for Confession afterward.