Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
458 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
SILLY SEQUEL: Here are the 10 Top Reasons to watch this crap:
Dr_Sagan26 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
SILLY SEQUEL: Here are the 10 Top Reasons to go and watch this crap:

(1). You want to see 5 Oscar winning people to the lowest point of their career.

(2). You want to hear Elton John saying constantly "F-ck You".

(3). You want to see a girl telling to a guy that she wants to pee on her.

(4). You want to see 2 people turn to ground meat.

(5). You want to see a man eating a hamburger made from human meat.

(6). You are enjoying lame green screen effects and CGI.

(7). You want to see another spy plot based on a deadly virus.

(8). You are enjoying silly, kindergarten jokes.

(9). You want to experience first hand the "Curse of the Sequels".

(10). You like fake butterflies.

Anyway, despite the (manipulated by the studio?) 7.2 here in IMDb, the consensus is that this movie is terrible.

It has nothing to do with the original, and is just a generic and forgettable action movie, that should probably wait to see on TV, next year.
106 out of 139 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
Great cast, pretty awful movie
dziemke21 October 2017
I hated to see such great actors coming together in a pretty bad movie. The plot was silly and some of the characters were overdone and equally silly (Poppy). The Elton cameo was good for the first scene then was way over done. So many things wrong after a pretty good first movie. Please don't make another one.
73 out of 100 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Lame, Forced comedy fills this instantly forgettable sequel
franciswaterson24 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Why is it that so many fun, inspired originals are followed by such lame, poorly written (and juvenile) sequels?

The first one was a hugely entertaining spy flick with some comedy in it to be sure, but this one puts the accent on the comedy, and is impossible to take seriously whatsoever. This would not have really been an issue if it was genuinely funny; but instead of wit and clever wordplay, we are 'treated' to an abundance of uninspired, vulgar and childish humour. Elton John repeatedly dropping the F-Bomb (Please, don't go on), a attractive woman asking someone to urinate on her (I can't stop laughing), or an old man stating that he has just soiled himself (Stop, my sides are hurting). Actually, my head hurt after sitting through 141 minutes of this. (Well over half an hour too long). I recommend waiting for Netflix.
170 out of 247 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Long, Boring and Overrated
Claudio Carvalho2 December 2017
"Kingsman: The Golden Circle" is a long, boring and overrated film. The story is silly and the jokes are unfunny, wasting a cast with famous names and countless cameos. This spoof of 007 and other agent movies never works since it is too violent for a comedy and too dumb to be taken as a serious espionage movie. The good thing is that the viewer can take a nap along the boredom and will not miss anything. The lead couple has no chemistry and the romance is also terrible. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Kingsman: O Círculo Dourado" ("Kingsman: The Golden Circle")
49 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
What a disappointment
moviesmq19 October 2017
I loved the first Kingsman movie. It was full of action, fun, jokes and the actors did a great job. I came into this movie theater hoping to delight myself with a sequel that would at least match the first installment. As soon as the first scene came on the screen, I knew I had been fooled and it would end up being some of the most dreadful 2 hours in my movies watching history! I was right. This movie might have some actions but every moment is "telephoned" long in advance. The story is absolutely stupid. I wish it would be possible to request a full refund when a movie is that bad and that each refund is counted towards its overall success/failure. It is not fair that people are getting paid with my money receiving millions of dollars for such a poor performance. The day this option becomes possible we might finally see some serious work being done in the movie industry!
72 out of 105 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
Takes The Low Road
Carl Schultz24 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
If a movie would ever be produced to show the backstory of the Roger Moore version of James Bond—what his childhood was like, and how he became who he was—that movie would probably closely resemble 2015's "Kingsman: The Secret Service."

Under Moore's stewardship, the Bond series drifted toward a critical nadir, growing progressively more silly and ineffectual until by the end the pictures were little more than parlor comedies with nifty gadgets and occasional off-color gags—in other words, much like "Kingsman."

Based on a series of comic books, the primary similarity between the first "Kingsman" movie and its sequel is in the quality of the humor— sophomoric. But the first picture had the advantage of being innovative —its immediate focus was to introduce and establish the characters, which it did in an acceptably entertaining fashion. The actual story, such as it was, became of secondary importance.

In "Kingsman: The Golden Circle," the level of maturity is about the same as in the first. The difference with "Kingsman 2" is that when a gag is set up, if there's a choice between aiming high toward genuine wit or aiming low toward a cheap laugh, the script will invariably follow the low road.

And that's only when there's a payoff at all—there are plenty of set-ups in "Kingsman 2" which lead nowhere, as if the filmmakers forgot where they were going, or that their primary purpose was to entertain the audience instead of simply amusing themselves.

This problem extends to the casting: After the first "Kingsman" picture earned over $414 million in worldwide revenues, the studio raised the budget of the second installment by over $20 million. Much of the budget was presumably spent on luring a number of veteran Academy Award- winning motion picture actors to the series—Julianne Moore, Halle Berry, and Jeff Bridges are among the familiar faces joining the "Kingsman" cast for the second installment.

But apparently after the expense of paying for the extra acting talent, little or no money remained to invest in developing the story or the screenplay for the actors to work with. This problem is especially apparent in the picture's third act, which dissolves into a melee of senseless, violent silliness.

As in the first picture, "Kingsman: The Golden Circle" embraces the sort of cartoonish brutality familiar to fans of videogames. Considering the picture's unfunny gags, unpersuasive effects, absence of a compelling plot, and lethal overlength—a totally unnecessary 141 minutes—"Kingsman" time passes slowly indeed.

Even the old Roger Moore James Bond pictures were better than this.
80 out of 121 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Kingsman: The Golden Circle
ronnietg8 October 2017
It is ironic that when a writer concocts so many sub-plots which take the audience off the Hero's main goal/desire, the main story line gets lost in the shuffle. This was what was happening in the first 10 minutes, until we got to the change of venue at Poppy's hang-out. We are introduced to the psychopathic opponent, Poppy, who does not flinch when one of her "soldiers" is committed into a meat grinder. She calmly makes a "humanburger" out of the hapless sub- opponent; dares her next "soldier" to eat the thing, while the audience tries to avoid vomiting. Not necessarily because of the disgusting concept of grinding a human being and then filming the "humanburger" for all to see, but because of just plain grossly overplayed attempts at humor with a classless script.

Billed as action/comedy, this script continued to exacerbate the patience of an audience that actually was relieved by the special effects/blood/carnage/ destruction/body parts flying - I noticed the audience turning on their hand-held devices and catching up on e-mails, which was even more obnoxious than this script.

The Hero, a young recent recruit into the secret service, simply did not have a believable story line. As with the genre of Mythology, this Hero set out to smite the dragons, one after another, using tools, weapons, impromptu devices, sci-fi gadgets, etc. This type of writing is predictable because after slaying one dragon, the rest are ho-hum going to be slain. There are no surprises in this script, other than a vast array of curious characters who enter and then depart.

The Opponent, Poppy, is not particularly opposed to the Hero for any particular reason. She is not blocking what the Hero attempts to do because so many other unrelated characters march in and out of the script, as if they were tacked on to increase the Narrative Drive. This technique did not work. The audience attention was not on the Hero's character arc because the vast character displays with no significant web to speak of kept taking the audience OFF of the Narrative Drive - the exact opposite desired effect.

The dialogue was in your face, with very little subtext. Predictable character development, to the point where except for the British crew and the British accents vs. the southern characters and the whiskey drinkers and down home brawls - The characters could have been interchangeable they were drawn in such a surface manner. Colin Firth, with temporary memory loss, did a superb job as usual because he is a fine actor. Jeff Bridges also did what he could with his whiskey saturated good old' boy routine leading a crew of men who all want to fight on the side for good vs. the evil "out there."

Poppy, the opponent, was so ridiculous, the attempt at parody was lost. A good opponent works punch-counter-punch with a good Hero - back and forth, constantly giving the audience Reveals. This was not the case with this script. The result - Very boring, predictable, and clichéd.
51 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Positively the most idiotic movie I've seen in decades.
lggardner-7682423 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
1(awful).... Actually that is a KIND rating, but there's no option for a negative rating so I went as low as I could. Simply stated, I went to this film on the basis of its prequel which while not great, was entertaining. This film is so STUPID and poorly written that I'm frankly astonished that any of the "talent" hired to play the roles, agreed to do it at all lest their resumes be thoroughly sullied. I've walked out of 3 or 4 movies in my life. Tonight I added another. Don't waste your time unless you enjoy AWFUL films and you're a cinematic masochist. My time would have been better spent sorting socks.
154 out of 245 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Kingsman 1 was original & fun, Kingsman 2 was everything BUT - regrets all the way
ineptio-8087726 November 2017
I almost never feel the extreme urge to write a review but this time - since I am sincerely disappointed, I can't control myself.

The first Kingsman was great, witty and original. The second one needed to top that, which would be difficult but they tried to make it work by using too much BAD CGI. Almost all fights are CGI and even when it would have been cheaper to put a real object in place, for some reason they chose to replace it with terrible CGI.

If you try to use CGI, learn from Neil Blomkamp & Oats Studios, otherwise, GIVE MY MONEY BACK. I really want to un-see this movie. It made me feel like an idiot.
65 out of 99 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Kingsman: The Golden Circle is one of the worst movies of the year so far.
matheushm24 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
What I thought of Kingsman: The Golden Circle The humor was predictable and cringe worthy, the plot minus well be nonexistent, they barely develop/use the villain. All the characters that were cool in the first movie were given nothing to do. And the new characters that they do introduce are so irrelevant that they minus well not be there. There is only one new character that is given anything to do, but he is so obviously a secondary villain waiting to be revealed that he should just have been a secondary villain to begin with. There was also a bunch of attempts at shock humour attempt, but those were just more obnoxious than actually shocking. The action is also not really well done, because there are times where you just can't really tell what's happening. The movie keeps zooming in unnecessarily because I guess the director thought that looked cool. I basically hated almost everything about this movie, and what I didn't hate, I was completely indifferent towards it
132 out of 214 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Foul Witless Trivial Overblown Dumb Boring Rot And Piffal
georgewilliamnoble21 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This idiotic mess assumes that the whole world is in to recreational drugs the writers of this bum numbing epic seem to think, they should get out of Hollywood more often. They also assume that the F word is always funny as they just stack one uttering on the other, over and over.On every level this expensive syrup honks to the core.It is all in the trailer which mercifully was two and a half minutes not two hours twenty one, in true turkey style the film is packed with big names taking big cheques that means they don't care that they have embarrassed there career.All the jokes nods and satire's fall splat flat, then there is the action which is hardly exciting as all is so vastly over the top.Exactly how anyone can imagine there is 221 minutes of entertainment in this grim, dare i say blockbuster is beyond me.Judging by the rustling of feet and popcorn around me this movie was not hitting many targets.The pit was reached when sir Elton John filled the screen from corner to corner yelling F-F-F. It has been i am told the worst summer at the north American box office in 20 years and little wonder it has been a summer season filled with tired laboured sequels, prequels, reboots, and remakes all lacking originality and little in the way of skilled film making, this Kingsmen debacle simply tops of a doomed industry.Who must go back to film school and learn real film making,with real story's, it does not take $200 million a pop, but it does take talent.Not F's!
99 out of 162 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
such a bummer!
Fujiko-san3 October 2017
After loving the first installment, this was just so, so disappointing. The first film was flash but not too flash- walking that tightrope of fabulous to solid plot but remaining coherent with characters we could really dig.

Not this film. This film falls off the tight rope and right into the sun.

Don't get me started on all of the character development that doesn't happen, blatant inconsistencies and just plain WTF? of this lazy, lazy script.

I wont do more than mention the overdose of swaggering Americana- and I do mean Over Dose. (All of the US agents come off as hackneyed fools- except Halle Berry, and the whole movie you're thinking, "when will Halle get to DO something? Why the heck is she even IN this movie?")

I wont do more than say that Colin Frith just looked extremely annoyed the whole movie, like he'd rather be anywhere else - and you can tell why. None of the actors were used to their potential. None. (For that matter neither was the story line.)

The action sequences were not even that great, more cobbled together and repetitive, and the one or two good scenes couldn't make me stop just WISHING IT WOULD JUST END.

I left the theatre depressed over what could have been and totally was not.
66 out of 108 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
It feels like the fifth film in a franchise struggling to maintain it's relevancy, not like the follow-up to what was perhaps the most promising new property in Hollywood.
Pjtaylor-96-13804429 September 2017
It's essentially all a big joke played on those who took umbrage at the few select sexualised moments from the final act of the first film, a joke whereby everything is consistently ramped up to eleven regardless of its negative impact on the story in a standoffish move meant to further separate the apparent 'critics' from the so-called 'fans', a move that only successfully provides both categories with a much worse experience, because while I and many other 'fans' didn't mind (or at least excused) the passive, clearly satirical crude jests and occasional absurdity of the original picture, we certainly didn't want a follow-up based entirely around what would obviously be considered the weakest aspects of the piece - elements which were only mitigated by the joyous fun found in the brilliance of the other parts such as the subtle yet witty satire and the very well developed characters, pieces of the puzzle now missing; though it is at times passively entertaining, what we're left with is a fairly by-the-numbers 'save-the-world' plot and a string of odd action set- pieces seemingly incompetently put together, with abhorrent use of rampant speed- ramping making it literally look like someone hit the fast-forward button and haphazardly stitched-together short takes that are supposed to make some sequences look like one fluid shot but instead make them look like cheap cartoons - in his quest to ignore the naysayers, Vaughn disappointingly squanders all of the good-will he had built with his predecessor and bizarrely wipes the slate clean relatively early on, wasting time setting up a less interesting new set of characters instead of working with the better characters already expertly established at the end of the prior title, while also reintroducing a previously dead character (seen in the trailers), after making him an amnesiac no less, in a move that should be reserved only for a waning franchise at least five films in that's struggling to maintain it's relevancy, not for what was once perhaps the most promising new property in Hollywood. 6/10
92 out of 159 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Entertaining, but never quite reaches the heights of its predecessor
adamonfilm20 September 2017
'Kingsman: The Golden Circle' has everything fans of the first film could have possibly wanted and more. Action, humour and special effects are all in abundance and visually it's very impressive. The plot is decent, especially for a sequel, but it never quite reaches the same level as the first film. The British/American theme works well though and there are some very funny cultural jokes and references.

As someone who loved the first 'Kingsman', I'm pleased that the sequel didn't disappoint. It remains true to everything that made the first film such a success, including taking some big risks and thinking out of the box. The end result is an imperfect and at times messy film, but a rewarding and highly entertaining one nonetheless. 'The Golden Circle' is much better than expected but just not quite on the same level as the first film.
145 out of 261 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Big NO for Kingsman 2
michalmm8924 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Well, previous movie was a man being born to wear tuxedo, this movie is man that has no idea how to wear tuxedo, but owns one.

I expected that part 2 will be worse, but this movie is a disaster.

If you expect human body being turned into hamburger and then eaten, which really happens in movie (!!!) then go, but otherwise, big NO.

Disappointment.
70 out of 122 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
The worst spy movie I have ever seen
trevren1129 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
***Contains spoilers***

I rarely review movies, but this one was just so bad. I wasn't expecting much from the sequel to a pretty decent first movie, but everything was just terrible. It was a good premise and had so many good actors but the writing was downright sad.

Just some of the poorly contrived ideas:

The plot: Nobody is going to want to do drugs ever again, the whole idea was to force the governments to make drugs legal, OK that is fine, but to attempt to kill (and successfully kill many thousands at least) every single drug user unless governments comply would turn off so many of the users, effectively killing their business they are trying to grow, and since they had a monopoly on it it would also have to deal with antitrust laws etc. anyway. The little trust they would have would be obliterated

The cages: To treat the diseased, everyone is placed in human cages inside of stadiums. First off, those cages didn't just happen one day, somebody had to be like, "You what we might need in the future? Tens of millions of human cages." These cages are stacked on top of each other to the height of huge stadiums (note that everyone is dancing inside of these small cages, no way it would topple) even though nobody is even dangerous.

The electric whip: No only are all of the Statesmen extremely 'American' and have stupid names, the whip extends ~20 feet and has a power source powerful enough to cut a body in two (yeah, it happens), but it all fits within a small handle that is the same thickness as the first ~10 feet of the whip.

The floodable padded observation room: I can just imagine the designers now, "Gary, we need this observation room to be floodable in a moments notice"

The goo bomb: Is nobody going to explain what that was? Just some huge bomb that solidifies mid explosion? OK

The amazingly spinny ski lift: Because it needs to have the option to spin at 120 rpm in the off chance somebody is escaping down the mountain at 10 miles per hour. The fact that it rotates even though it is already completely glass doesn't make any sense either

The number of drones: Nobody missed an order (or thousands of orders) of hundreds and hundreds of drones to treat everybody in the world with? I'm no expert, but I don't think anybody lives close enough to Mount Blanc to be reached by drones anyway

Elton John: He had one good part getting in front of the dog, but everything else just seemed like they were using him for cheap laughs that didn't pan out like they were hoping

The finger condom: You are telling me they have so many advanced gadgets but they have to use a finger condom to get a tracker on someone. Not to mention their watch supposedly already should have hacked the concert skanks phone when they got close which would have given them the GPS and audio they were wanting in the first place.

Viva las vegans: The whole code that saved humanity was something that the movie wasn't even about.

The head bandage that can freeze a brain so we can regrow the brain and all of the neural connections. Because that is remotely believable

Drug lord lady: Not only does she have a 50's style mini-town on a mountain with very obvious (yet undiscovered) ruins right by it complete with a theater that can fit over a thousand people that nobody has seen, she has all of these outlandish technological advances like the killer robot dogs, but has a simple minefield keeping invaders out. Also the dogs should have been hacked just like the second arm (and the first that conveniently wasn't hacked in the time they were under water)

Robot dogs: Just why

The mine: OK there was only a split second to reapply pressure on the landmine that killed one of the only cool characters, but why not put a very large rock on it. They don't take a lot of pressure and all I could think about was what if another one of them stepped on a land mine, then only one person would be standing awkwardly in the forest without a tripped land mine (especially since they stopped using the land mine detecting bat)

Everything that the Statesmen had in their arsenal: The bat that was a land mine detector, yeah that was a good idea Gerry. The baseball grenade with a HUGE red button as the trigger (what could go wrong), and everything else under the pool table.

Suitcase gun: It was OK in the first one, but why did they need it when they were landing in the jungle, it just seems unnecessary.

The lady that led to the impeachment of the president was mostly just mad she almost died because she was a druggie. And her reason for using was she worked 20 hour days 7 days a week, not only is that just dumb to even say, you are the adviser to the president, he can get another helper if you are too busy, so that was all her fault.

They weren't really gentlemen throughout the movie, so when Eggsy pulls out the chair for Halle Berry it seemed awkward and forced.

There are probably some errors and my views are likely different than yours, it is just my opinion of this terrible, terrible movie. I would suggest you reserve the viewing of this film for a late night when you are all out of Sharknado movies
47 out of 79 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Difference between 1 and 2 is night and day!
kparr6530 November 2017
I had to force myself to make it through The Golden Circle...just pure rubbish. Whoever was the writer of the story line should be embarrassed. And if you think it's COOL to hear the word F*ck come out Eggy's mouth every 10 seconds, you need to get a life. On a scale of 1 to 10 based on f*cks, I give zero f#cks for this load of trash. Oh, sorry IMDb for using PROHIBITED words, when the movie was full of them.
37 out of 62 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Why?
Cinefan28 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I must admit I kinda waited for this movie because I liked the approach in the first movie and I thought they will stick to their flow and come up with something newer and greater but their sequel failed to deliver. The movie was just a chaotic.

In the beginning they flushed bunch of characters with useless bombs and left in the characters who, they thought, will entertain audience the most. Did they? Not really. Jokes were mostly worn-out and characters lacked of depth and stayed very one-dimensional. I can't even name one character who stood out because they developed NONE. The movie was also lacking of pressure and bad guys having power over everything making good guys having really hard time.

What were those action scenes? There were no impressive and new moves which i was kinda waiting for and even their technology seemed very "i have seen this somewhere".

Also, cinematography had some issues- I kinda noticed that the image was more shaky and blurry that it should have been. For this budget I expect better quality.

Honesty, I have no idea where my 3 stars come from. It just feels wrong to give it lower rating as I see the average is kind of high.
23 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
"Kingsman: The Golden Shower"
The Inquisitor30 November 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This is what I call it... "The Golden Shower" I feel like anyone who actually pays money to watch this dumpster fire of a movie is volunteering to been urinated upon by Hollywood. It really is awful. How so?

1. Most of the set pieces, and action scenes in this movie rely almost exclusively on dated looking CG/green screen effects. This isn't 2005. Nobody wants to wants to see actors jumping up and down in front of imaginary opponents. It's dated, and it's cheap. This movie cost over 100 million dollars, and they give us these tired old tricks.

2. There are enough A-list actors in this movie to make 3 completely different movies, but most of them are inconsequential are far as the plot is concerned. Some of them barely have speaking parts. What happened here? I want to understand. Why would you put Jeff Bridges, Julianne Moore, Halle Berry and Pedro Pascal in a movie, and then just not give them anything to do?

3. SPOILER! The mental gymnastics that this movie goes through just to set up a conflict is so convoluted, it's almost impressive. They resurrect a major villain from the last movie so he can become a minor villain in this movie...then he helps kill off almost all of the minor heroes from the last movie so they can make way for a whole new cast of minor heroes in this movie, who've apparently resurrected one of the main heroes who got killed off in the last movie. He got shot in the face point blank, and was dead for at least 20 minutes...but they had the miracle healing goo that they put on his face...so everything is...ughhh *pained expression* Seriously. What the hell is going on with this piece of s**t?

4. The humour is just bad. I don't know how else to explain it succinctly. They tried to do "campy" but they got "tacky" instead. I detected a bit of tongue-in-cheek criticism of U.S drug prohibition, which I can usually appreciate. Although somewhat predictable, this subtext COULD have been relevant. However, after about 30 minutes of viewing, expecting any audience to reflect thoughtfully about major legal, social issues is a bit of a stretch.

I think I'm actually dumber for having watched this abomination. Unless you're interested in learning how to not make a movie, I couldn't recommend it.
14 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Doesn't get any worse
drjgardner22 September 2017
This film is just about the bottom of the barrel. Dumb script, uniformly bad acting, blaring music and ridiculous special effects do not a good movie make. If it were any worse it would be a spoof, but it isn't a spoof, it's trying to be real. What's more amazing is that such good actors would do such a poor film, without even a wink in their eye.
104 out of 200 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
A boring movie, no where near as good as the first
kevgill-4283123 September 2017
A boring movie that had me yawning all the way through. The main character keeps popping in and out of accents. Harry makes a weird comeback around an hour into the movie. A soulless, unfunny movie that could have been a lot better after the first hit.

Save your money and see something else unless you're on Limitless.
41 out of 74 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
This film is pandering nonsense. The first was better
MovieSoupDragon24 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Kingsman golden circle is a hot steaming pile of pandering nonsense. The plot is all over the place, characters are stilted whilst others are not utilised properly. The music is terrible, the camera work passable and the whole feel of this movie is BLEH. A far cry from the first one and has none of the charm or wit.

The plot revolves around this woman who wants to make drugs that kill people and bribes the president with an antidote in return for fame. The president is an evil man who gets impeached and replaced with a "strong, truthful" woman who is his vice president (VP). This is strongly prevalent during the film and is obviously a poor analogy for the Donald Trump situation at the moment.

The fact that the VP looks like Hillary Clinton as well is majorly pandering to the audience and this part of the plot is so rammed down our gobs that we choke on this pretentiousness. It adds nothing to the movie and is just a sad attempt at getting political in what was meant to be a goofy, fun spy movie.

The rest of the plot is disjointed at best with Colin Firths character getting a downturn. In the first film he was a master spy with great reflexes and a charm that left us all rooting for him. In this film he is such a wimp that he needs help from Elton John (of all people!!?) to kill a robot dog. Even his "manners maketh man" scene is done again for no reason. In the first that fight made sense and had a point to the plot. In this the fight happens for no reason other than the studio wanted to rehash it.

The villain in this film is poor as she has no real personality and is so dull. She also spends all of her time in a 50s diner and never leaves. Not even when she knows the Kingsmen are coming for her does she run out or try to escape. She is so removed from valentine who was a great goofy villain. In fact she is so boring that I even forget what she is called and I saw the movie 1 hour ago….That is how forgettable she is!

The Swedish woman, who was barely in the first film, is very prevalent in this one for some reason?? I thought she was just in the first one for comic relief and so Eggsy could fuc* her in the a*s. I don't know why they killed off Lancelot (Roxy) and kept the Swedish woman in the film. Roxy was very prevalent in the first one and she gets killed off in this for no real reason and it's such a lacklustre, boring death as well that leads me to believe that she wasn't really important in the first film after all.

The statesmen are a really stupid idea. They all have southern accents and wear denim jackets and cowboy hats. I don't know if the writers have actually been to the US but that is not how all Americans act and dress. You don't see the Kingsmen pandering to English stereotypes like drinking Tea all the time and having fish and chips. So why then do we get this from the statesmen? It seems too stereotypical and just a dumb thing to throw into a plot.

Channing Tatum got a huge portion of trailer time however he is hardly in the film at all. He has one 30 second fight scene and that's it. I think he was just put in so women who get wet at Channing Tatum and will go see it. Sorry girls but he ain't in it….but the sexy Mexican guy from Narcos is…..Not Pablo Escobar! the other one.

To cap it all off the technical parts are terrible, especially the music. First that dam "country road" song by John Denver plays in this film which is becoming a standard for films in 2017. It was used in Alien Covenant AND Logan Lucky AS WELL AS this film. Maybe that's a mark if a film is sh*t now. If country road is playing you know the film is garbage! All the action scenes for the last half of the movie have country songs in the background which just takes away so much from the scenes that you feel bored watching them.

The good stuff is few and far between. The taxi chase at the start is great and sets the movie off well and the camera angles and shots are competent. Mark Strong is okay and is trying his best with what he is given. The comedy is okay in bits but is let down by all the rubbish and painfully unfunny Elton John scenes which kill the comedy dead.

All in all this has been a rubbish sequel to a great first movie. I liked the first one and was going to give this one a chance however so many things fell short. The characters were boring and in Harry's case were turned into wimps. The Statesmen where caricatures of what people think Americans look and act like and to cap it all off the political pandering this film does if just so BLEH!

I hate Donald Trump as much as everyone but having an analogy in a fun spy movie about his politics is completely boring and takes the heart away from this film series. The main thing this film is missing is the fun and goofiness the first had and it is just sad to watch if I'm honest.
39 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Not as good as the first one, but still a very enjoyable action spy flick
exilexx20 September 2017
I found the golden circle to be a bit too cliché in some parts, and the antagonist's role to be somewhat forced. There was plenty of good action and humor though with awesome references to the first movie. For anyone considering watching this who hasn't seen the first part, please make sure you see it first so you're much more "in" on what's happening with this one.
67 out of 129 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Not As Good As The Original But Still Entertaining
garethvk20 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Eggsy (Taron Egerton) is back in action for the ultra-secret Kingsman in the new film "Kingsman: The Golden Cirlce". The film opens with a fantastic action and chase sequence through the London streets and shows a franticly paced mix of action and humor.

The film then shifts into setup mode and the next hour or so is very light on action and instead focuses on Eggsy and Merlin (Mark Strong), dealing with a devastating attack on the Kingsman from a drug dealer called Poppy (Julianne Moore), who runs her empire with a ruthless and manic style from a 50s themed lair complete with robotic guards and a retro diner and theater.

Poppy runs an organization called The Golden Circle and she has unleashed a devastating plague on the world in an attempt to force the U.S. President to legalize all drugs which would allow her unlimited power and money to further her global agenda.

With their ranks depleted, Eggsy and Merlin head to the states to enlist the help if their U.S. counterparts, the Statesman who while at first reluctant, soon accept the two into their confidence and plan a mission to end the threat Poppy presents once and for all. Of course complications arise for Eggsy such as his girlfriend and her parents as well as the revelation that Harry (Colin Firth) is alive but suffering amnesia and thus having no memory of his past life and skills in the service of the Kingsman.

One would think that with this setup and cast including the arrivals of Channing Tatum, Jeff Bridges, and Halle Berry, the film would be a slam dunk to surpass the original. Sadly this is not the case. Writer/Director Matthew Vaughn has opted for a film that has a very large gap of it related to setup and exposition. The film opens and concludes with a nice action sequence, but there is really not much in between to get the adrenaline rush going. The original film had the fantastic church sequence that became one of the most talked about moments of the film and sadly the sequel offers nothing nearly as memorable. The other issue is that the villain is not nearly as memorable nor interesting as Samuel L. Jackson was to say nothing of his sword footed henchman from the original.

There are some amusing moments in the film but It seems that the new cast was not used to their full potential and that the large gaps of the film that lacked any action was a real setback especially with how well the film opened.

In the end the film is an enjoyable but flawed effort that fails to live up to the original but does manage to offer some decent entertainment for those who set realistic expectations.
49 out of 92 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Fun and entertaining sequel
lynseylinzlu20 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Like many others I'm sure, I went into Kingsman 2 apprehensively.As a massive fan of the first I was concerned that like many other sequels, it would disappoint.I left entertained and pleasantly surprised HOWEVER it is not without its flaws .

The story briefly- Eggsy (a brilliant again Taron Egerton)and Merlin have to team up with the American Kingsman 'The Statesmen' to get to the bottom of a virus being spread by Poppy, our films 'bad guy' played by a wonderfully evil Julianne Moore. There are some twists and turns along the way (the trailers already spoil the surprise return of Harry Hart but I will not give details of how this happens)some of which you wont expect (others are pretty obvious but more on that in a minute!)

What I liked- For me it was great to revisit loved characters from the first and there are some interesting new characters. It is a fun film that is very reflective of the fact it is comic book material.It entertains with some great OTT action sequences and some real laugh out loud moments.The acting is strong and this helps to carry the story which somewhat engages. What will surprise many (as it did me) is the emotion to the film. It delivers some real emotionally charged moments and one scene delivers a particularly powerful gut punch.

Where it does fall down-as already mentioned the story isn't the strongest and at points falls apart from too many players and some obvious plot twists.This creates a longer run time than the film can carry so it does lag at points. A good 20 minutes shorter would have made for a higher rating from myself. The action scenes whilst great also are very apparently CGI heavy which might bother some. It also does that cheeky thing of selling on some certain big stars which whilst this wasn't a particular draw for me, it might disappoint some to find they are actually only in the film for a few short scenes (those who see it will get exactly who I am talking about!!) To me it is comparable to Guardians of the Galaxy 2- some great moments that make you glad you decided to return, but it doesn't quite deliver on the story. That being said I would still recommend Kingsman 2 and would revisit this film again in the future as well as hope for a further installment.
63 out of 122 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews