New review: Kingsman: the Golden ring 01.10.2017

Matthew Vaughn hit the nail on the head when she released the first part of “Kingsman” just when the spy action-the film was shot with serious faces. It was a breath of fresh air, which was vasterival all the clichés of the genre, as well as, most importantly, gave tolerable and nothing like that spy movie with all the consequences. It was the movie that wasn’t ashamed of his stupidity (even on the contrary, I took it to the absolute and enjoyed), not shied away from ultramarine, and jokes, which I wrote like 15-year-old (Yes, that gaudy, but amazing running joke about anal sex). The movie was simply sincere and with a big heart.

As for the sequel, the naked eye can see that Vaughn and Goldman a lot of ambition, ideas and creativity fuse. But the only problem is that all of their ideas they wanted to cram into one movie and end up not focusing on any. Kind of want everything at once, but they can not concentrate on something one. And Thea who is seriously feared that the second movie will be more kinokontrol than anything else- can relax, it’s still purebred spy movie. True, this time it’s not filled with post-modernism and a reflection on former times, when bond smiled into the camera and loved every girl that was in the picture. Now it’s heavy (seriously, the film is two hours and a half) fighter, where there are a lot of storylines and unnecessary characters, the film naturally bursting at the seams.

But the most unpleasant that “Golden ring” — this is not a breath of fresh air, which was the first. Moreover, it suddenly lost among the other blockbusters this year just because he fundamentally has nothing to offer the viewer. That’s kind of changed locations (from England to America), but here the trouble: the film completely lost the British charm and began to look even more ordinary in Hollywood emasculated. Okay, so a bunch of Western stars, but no, for every 5 minutes of screen time, and the only one who paid more (Pedro Pascal) is a deliberately exaggerated, but totally unfunny and even boring.

Oh yeah, remember the beautiful phrase from the first film, when the lunch Firth declares the chief villain, in the performance of Sam Jackson, that the main thing in the old bond movies is the villain. So, here the villain is just as faceless and impersonal as the movie itself. Like her motive is very simple, and that’s why is funny, but it’s so lazily written in the action that she has only shared one scene with the main characters that lasts minutes three. Before that we only had eyes for what she evil and merciless.

No matter what, “Kingsman: the Golden ring” — this is not a bad movie, he’s just not good enough for the first part and Vaughn as the Director General. Sad to admit it, but Matthew Vaughn for the first time disappointed. Of the unique British Director, he, after the “Golden ring”, it seemed a craftsman who wanted to cash in on the fame of the original. I truly believe that this is not to direct the sequel-the ephemera of his plans was not included, but this is a worrying sign for the third movie if waiting, with considerable misgivings.

New review: Kingsman: the Golden ring 01.10.2017

Поделиться в соц. сетях

Share to Google Buzz
Share to Google Plus
Share to LiveJournal