Wow. Just... wow.
The ranks of dashing, terrifying badasses have a new member: take a bow, Mr Colin Firth. That was something else.
THE CHURCH SEQUENCE was just all types of crazy, brutal fun.
I agree I would have never viewed Colin Firth as a badass but after that sequence? Yeah. FULL OF AWESOME.
Liked it a lot when I saw if today. Found myself doing some clothes shopping afterword.
Truly awesometacular movie, cannot wait for the dvd.
The woman with the blades for legs was awesome!
Yeah I much prefer the film version of Gazelle to the comic version, where he's just a former agent with bionic legs.
Liked it a lot when I saw if today. Found myself doing some clothes shopping afterword.
If you're really keen on the clothes from it, you'll find that Matthew Vaughn partnered up with some well respected designers and tailors to create a Kingsman clothing line after changing the name of the film (the whole Kingsman tailors thing is original to the movie, in the comic they're just a top secret branch of MI6 and are simply called The Secret Service). Almost every bit of clothing in it is available for purchase.
Saw this last week. Good times! It's like a modern Bond movie.
The good:
Samuel L Jackson purposefully played a pansy villain. Oh, his PLAN is awesome and all, but the character is weak-hearted, nearly faints at the sight of blood, and is very soft-spoken. It's like he's playing the exact OPPOSITE of his usual character type, so it's good seeing him try something different. I hated his character (in-universe), so I'm totally OK with how he did it.
I will never hear Free Bird the same way again. And it's glorious.
VERY tongue-in-cheek and has things cranked up to 11. Some people might not like that, but it was fun, and apparently they were trying to have fun making it.
All the people who thought it was a great idea to decide who gets to live and who gets to die got what was coming to them in a hilariously beautiful way.
The clothing thing. It's pretty awesome they did that, so that any outfit you can see you can buy.
The bad:
Colin Firth's character goes down like a chump for no good reason, except to metaphorically make a hole for Eggsy to go up in rank. Which doesn't matter very VERY shortly thereafter. Hope they find some way of bringing him back for a sequel, and not as a silly Force Ghost.
Blade Runner girl was just silly, and almost stereotypical. The only thing really going for her was that she was the only person in the movie with tactical smarts and common sense. Which was the only thing keeping her from being a total stereotype.
"Eggsy" didn't choose the name "Excalibur" for his callsign, which I was expecting from the beginning of the movie.
The mid credit end scene wasn't long enough. ;)
Arturius, if you're going to be talking about specific plot points for a recent film like this, you should probably be using spoiler tags. I've flagged the post as needing them, so hopefully a mod will get to it soon.
In regards to your bad points:
As for the callsign thing... they don't choose their own callsigns. Besides which, given that they're all named after the actual members of the Knights of the Round Table, and are the Kingsmen, it'd be a bit silly for one of them to just be randomly named Excalibur. I get why people are suggesting it, and I could believe that it was an intentional reference by the writers/director, but there'd be no logical reason for him to be given it.
As for the mid credits seen. Yeah, I would have liked more of that :)
I completely missed the end credit scene, can someone outline what happened in it please (in spoiler tags if necessary)?
|
So I read a reviewer of the movie by a reviews I sooometimes agree with, and he said that while most of the movie is very well made, the violence is a bit too much. He seemed particularly upset about some scene in the middle where a bunch of innocents are brutally murdered for no reason by one of the main protagonists, and the movie expects you to find the scene funny when really it's sort of horrifying.
Is there truth in that?
So I read a reviewer of the movie by a reviews I sooometimes agree with, and he said that while most of the movie is very well made, the violence is a bit too much. He seemed particularly upset about some scene in the middle where a bunch of innocents are brutally murdered for no reason by one of the main protagonists, and the movie expects you to find the scene funny when really it's sort of horrifying.
Is there truth in that?
So yes, extremely violent, but I would question how anyone would consider these people to be innocent (unless they really weren't paying attention).
Also, this film never pretended to be anything but violent. It's based on a Mark Millar comic, and directed by Matthew Vaughn. Kingsman is to spy films what Kick-Ass was to superhero films, a blood soaked and darkly comic love letter. In the states I believe it's rated R, which as I understand it is 17 and up. Here in Australia it's MA15+, meaning if you're not 15 or older, you're not seeing it at the cinema, even with an adult.
Every classification system I've ever seen, they're very clear about why a film is giving a certain classification (though I don't always see eye to eye with their decisions). In this case for Kingsman, the Australian MA15+ classification came with the explanation "Strong Violence and Coarse Language" (so you know, ratings for impact of the various things the OFLC judges movies on are Very Mild, Mild, Moderate, Strong and High). Kingsman got Moderate for Themes, Language, Nudity and Sex, and Strong for Violence.
And to be clear, if it was violence for violence's sake, with no reason for it, then I'd understand where people are coming from. But it makes sense in the context of the film, and again, it's clearly marked.
It's like going into a Tarantino film that you know is rated for 18 and older, then complaining about the violence, drug use and so on. You know it's there, you should be expecting it, but people complain anyway. It's not as if it was advertised as a family friendly film.
Not trying to have a go at you here Lord Snow, I just find this to be one of the reason I find quite a few critics irritating. They judge films based on what they wanted them to be rather than looking at what they were trying to do and judging them based on if they achieved that. It's understandable, personal bias is always going to play into it, but it's something I try to avoid doing.
I completely missed the end credit scene, can someone outline what happened in it please (in spoiler tags if necessary)?
When he gets to the door, he stops, smiles, begins to lock the door and says (may not be perfectly accurate, but close enough) "A friend of mine once said, 'Manners maketh man'". One of the goons attempts to warn Dean as the rest of them look around apprehensively, then Eggsy uses the umbrella to hook the pint glass on the table by the door into Dean's head, turns around, and calmly asks if they're going to stand around all day or fight. Cut back to credits
It's just a beautiful end to the film.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not trying to have a go at you here Lord Snow, I just find this to be one of the reason I find quite a few critics irritating. They judge films based on what they wanted them to be rather than looking at what they were trying to do and judging them based on if they achieved that. It's understandable, personal bias is always going to play into it, but it's something I try to avoid doing.
To clarify, I wasn't saying what I think but citing a reviewer, and I wanted to get input about the subject from people here too. Generally speaking I am not the kind to be bothered by violence in movies, but like any other theme I want it to be implemented well.
In Kickass, I couldn't really connect with some of the violence. There's a scene where the little girl slaughters an apartment full of people who might not be nice guys, but are certainly not worthy of being murdered. I admit, that kind of turned me off from the main characters in the movie - they are worse than the bad guys at that point.
So I'm not in the "don't show me a broken bone or a decapitated head or my soul will puke!" crowed - I'm in the "justify your violence" crowed.
I'm the same about sex, which allows me to illustrate with an example: I'm completely fine with the sex in A Song of Ice and Fire (the books) because it is used well to increase verisimilitude or for character development and sometimes (rarely) as it's own thing. However sex in A Game of Thrones (the HBO show) is in your face, gratuitous and pointless - a scene has a lot of talking? that's OK, set it in a whorehouse and have naked women do acrobatic moves in front of the camera.
Not trying to have a go at you here Lord Snow, I just find this to be one of the reason I find quite a few critics irritating. They judge films based on what they wanted them to be rather than looking at what they were trying to do and judging them based on if they achieved that. It's understandable, personal bias is always going to play into it, but it's something I try to avoid doing.To clarify, I wasn't saying what I think but citing a reviewer, and I wanted to get input about the subject from people here too. Generally speaking I am not the kind to be bothered by violence in movies, but like any other theme I want it to be implemented well.
In Kickass, I couldn't really connect with some of the violence. There's a scene where the little girl slaughters an apartment full of people who might not be nice guys, but are certainly not worthy of being murdered. I admit, that kind of turned me off from the main characters in the movie - they are worse than the bad guys at that point.
So I'm not in the "don't show me a broken bone or a decapitated head or my soul will puke!" crowed - I'm in the "justify your violence" crowed.
I'm the same about sex, which allows me to illustrate with an example: I'm completely fine with the sex in A Song of Ice and Fire (the books) because it is used well to increase verisimilitude or for character development and sometimes (rarely) as it's own thing. However sex in A Game of Thrones (the HBO show) is in your face, gratuitous and pointless - a scene has a lot of talking? that's OK, set it in a whorehouse and have naked women do acrobatic moves in front of the camera.
Lord Snow,
I actually would rank the movie as less violent than Kick-Ass, although there is a higher death count.
As for the scene in question, it's worth noting that none of the people involved were in control of themselves. It was a test of a weapon that the main bad guy was planning on unleashing on the world. The director/writer does certainly try his best to make sure the audience don't feel too much remorse for what happened to the Pseudo-Westboro Baptists (I noted no kids or babies in attendance), and the main character does seem...not happy with the aftermath. But I don't think the viewers were out and out suppose to cheer in that scene for what is going on.
My two cents though would be...well...you have to turn your brain off for parts of the movie, especially the ending (which despite what the movie implies, would essentially result in the collapse of world society as we know it). There are some amazing action sequences, some nice playing with spy movie tropes, and pretty much everyone gets their comeuppance. BUT some aspects of the plot/character motivations are completely glossed over, and the plot...hhmmmm...well in some cases I couldn't help feel that a good chunk of the audience probably thinks the villains plot is happening in real life.
Not trying to have a go at you here Lord Snow, I just find this to be one of the reason I find quite a few critics irritating. They judge films based on what they wanted them to be rather than looking at what they were trying to do and judging them based on if they achieved that. It's understandable, personal bias is always going to play into it, but it's something I try to avoid doing.To clarify, I wasn't saying what I think but citing a reviewer, and I wanted to get input about the subject from people here too. Generally speaking I am not the kind to be bothered by violence in movies, but like any other theme I want it to be implemented well.
In Kickass, I couldn't really connect with some of the violence. There's a scene where the little girl slaughters an apartment full of people who might not be nice guys, but are certainly not worthy of being murdered. I admit, that kind of turned me off from the main characters in the movie - they are worse than the bad guys at that point.
So I'm not in the "don't show me a broken bone or a decapitated head or my soul will puke!" crowed - I'm in the "justify your violence" crowed.
I'm the same about sex, which allows me to illustrate with an example: I'm completely fine with the sex in A Song of Ice and Fire (the books) because it is used well to increase verisimilitude or for character development and sometimes (rarely) as it's own thing. However sex in A Game of Thrones (the HBO show) is in your face, gratuitous and pointless - a scene has a lot of talking? that's OK, set it in a whorehouse and have naked women do acrobatic moves in front of the camera.
Yeah I knew you were referring to a critic, just wanted to make sure you knew I wasn't having a go at you directly, as it's easy to lose tone on messageboards and my post was a little heated.
And yeah, as MMCJawa said,
The violence in Kick-Ass made sense to me from the point of view that it was "this is how so-called heroes would have to act in the real world if they don't want to get slaughtered." Look at what happened to Dave when he goes in to that apartment alone to try tell Rasul to stay away from Katie. He gets thrashed and is probably about to get himself killed (there's no suggestion that they're planning on letting him leave). Hit-Girl on the other hand is trained to take down the threats hard and fast so that they don't get a chance to hurt her, which is a valid tactic when she is, after all, only human, and a little girl at that. Admittedly it then spirals into more unrealistic areas (a jetpack with gatling guns attached), but the idea that they're up against overwhelming numbers of people willing to kill them means that they do need to react with overwhelming violence. Look at what happens with Mindy/Hit-Girl fails to take out Frank D'Amico quickly, and ends up on the ground, beaten, about to take a bullet to the head until the cavalry arrives with a bazooka. What I'm saying is that to me, the violence is justified.
Sorry, got a bit off topic there. Point is, like MMCJawa said, the film isn't as brutal as Kick-Ass (though the scene we were talking about before is the most brutally violent moment in the film), despite having a higher kill count.
Also, I'd really like to see a proper film adaptation of Mark Millar's Wanted. Not the "Assassin's who can curve bullets" one we got, which, aside from some character names, had about as much to do with the comic as I have to do with Brad Pitt. Someone get Matthew Vaughn on that.
|
|
I don't really buy your justification for kickass, Tinkergoth. When your scene is a little girl using a blade to kill an entire gang of dangerous young men, citing an attempt at cynical realism is not really possible. If you rely on suspension of disbelief enough that you can allow the girl to win that fight, might as well let her do it with less lethal means.
I don't really buy your justification for kickass, Tinkergoth. When your scene is a little girl using a blade to kill an entire gang of dangerous young men, citing an attempt at cynical realism is not really possible. If you rely on suspension of disbelief enough that you can allow the girl to win that fight, might as well let her do it with less lethal means.
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Regardless of that, the film never pretended to be anything but extremely violent, and to have done it in any other way wouldn't have been true to the source material. They already changed enough from the story in the comic, the film is actually far more upbeat. And surprisingly, less violent. Big Daddy doesn't go after anyone with a chainsaw for example.
That said, I wasn't trying to say it was realistic, merely that it's more logical for her to use lethal force to ensure that they aren't going to get up and continue being a threat. Which is why I said it gets "more unrealistic" above instead of just "unrealistic". In the context of a film where I've already suspended my disbelief for the fact that this kid is stupid enough to believe that he's going to make a difference by putting on a mask and pretending to be a hero, and the immediate result is not him getting himself killed, I've got no trouble with the concept of Hit-Girl.
I'm about done with this topic, given that the thread is actually about Kingsman. Sorry for the derail, and yes, I highly recommend the film.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
The bad:
Blade Runner girl was just silly, and almost stereotypical. The only thing really going for her was that she was the only person in the movie with tactical smarts and common sense. Which was the only thing keeping her from being a total stereotype.
Disagree! She was one of my favorite parts. Total classic Bond henchman, ala Jaws.
Arturius, if you're going to be talking about specific plot points for a recent film like this, you should probably be using spoiler tags. I've flagged the post as needing them, so hopefully a mod will get to it soon.
That makes sense. Do I need to go back and re-edit the thing to apply them, or let the mod handle it?
Uh, if by innocents you mean a hate mongering group of bigots preaching that everyone except them is going to burn in hell for all eternity, then sure
If you think their attitude and beliefs make them not 'innocent' and instead deserve to be brutally murdered, then it's your morality, not theirs, that should be called into questions. Beings as none of them likely had a personal bodycount higher than Colin's character, I'd say the 'innocent' tag would apply.
In the context of the film, them getting chosen as a test scenario for the villain's plot makes perfect sense, as the image this group has would make it less likely for people to get suspicious about a riot breaking out.
Makes sense as a test purpose simply to make the audience feel better about it, maybe.
Doesn't make sense in that such groups direct their hate outward toward others and anyone with a bit of sense will be like "Hmmm, isn't it odd how all these people who band together to hate others decided to just all randomly kill each other, instead of drinking poisoned Kool-Aid or something?"Also doesn't make sense as dude is wearing a suit that's bulletproof to pistols, and he couldn't just lift his arm in front of his face and duck back into the church.
As for the callsign thing... they don't choose their own callsigns.
Dude was the guy who just took down the people that took down the majority of his special team, and he personally tricked the traitorous leader
It's just a beautiful end to the film.
On this, we agree.
---
When your scene is a little girl using a blade to kill an entire gang of dangerous young men, citing an attempt at cynical realism is not really possible.
Agreed, especially when we see her wearing grenades the whole time, which could be easily (and realistically) used to wipe out clumps of baddies even by a little girl in the real world.
---
Disagree! She was one of my favorite parts. Total classic Bond henchman, ala Jaws.
I got more of the 'girl with the blades' from Kill Bill. I get some people like her, I just wasn't much of a fan. But it's cool, the movie was still awesome.
Arturius, if you're going to be talking about specific plot points for a recent film like this, you should probably be using spoiler tags. I've flagged the post as needing them, so hopefully a mod will get to it soon.That makes sense. Do I need to go back and re-edit the thing to apply them, or let the mod handle it?
You only have an hour to edit your posts. If the mods decide it's worth it, they'll come and put the tags in.. Also please don't take stuff that I've put in spoilers specifically because they're spoilers, then post them again out of spoiler tags.
As for the other stuff, like I said to Lord Snow, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think they were innocent. Did they deserve to die? Probably not, no, but they're definitely not innocent. Then again I don't think there are many people in the world who really are completely innocent. That's just my opinion on it.
As for the other stuff, like I said to Lord Snow, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think they were innocent. Did they deserve to die? Probably not, no, but they're definitely not innocent. Then again I don't think there are many people in the world who really are completely innocent. That's just my opinion on it.
That's cool, I can agree to that. More or less. Though your view reminds me of the Warhammer approach: "There is no innocence, only degrees of guilt." But as long as you're not OK with them being butchered just because of what you believe, I'm cool with it.
|
The point about the 'heroes' in Kick-Ass is that they are all a flawed vision of what it means to be a hero.
With Hit Girl being moulded by Big Daddy we see that Big Daddy's version of 'heroic' means 'murder whoever you regard as a villain'. Despite how cool Hit Girl is, her upbringing is essentially child abuse, and it will take a long time for her to overcome that, if she manages at all.
Mark Millar is a self-confessed super-hero hater, and when he writes super-hero stories we see his version of why they are wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The violence in Kick-Ass made sense to me from the point of view that it was "this is how so-called heroes would have to act in the real world if they don't want to get slaughtered." Look at what happened to Dave when he goes in to that apartment alone to try tell Rasul to stay away from Katie. He gets thrashed and is probably about to get himself killed (there's no suggestion that they're planning on letting him leave). Hit-Girl on the other hand is trained to take down the threats hard and fast so that they don't get a chance to hurt her, which is a valid tactic when she is, after all, only human, and a little girl at that. Admittedly it then spirals into more unrealistic areas (a jetpack with gatling guns attached), but the idea that they're up against overwhelming numbers of people willing to kill them means that they do need to react with overwhelming violence. Look at what happens with Mindy/Hit-Girl fails to take out Frank D'Amico quickly, and ends up on the ground, beaten, about to take a bullet to the head until the cavalry arrives with a bazooka. What I'm saying is that to me, the violence is justified..Actually the point of the movie is that it really is a stupid idea to spandex yourself up and go vigilante and expect it to be anything but an extremely dirty, violent buisness with a high probability of getting yourself maimed or worse. And that anyone that would take it this far either has some serious screws loose, like Kickass, and Hit Girl's father, or has been raised by a seriously screwed parent, Hit Girl herself.
Millar asks a very serious question. Why would we approve of amateur vigilantes doing the sort of things we'd condemn professional cops for?
There are about quite a few people in the US and beyond that dress up as superheroes. Some of them even have groups. For the most part though, they aren't vigilantes.
None of which invalidates what I was saying. It's extremely stupid of Dave to dress up in spandex and go in to a situation like that thinking he's got it under control with just his taser, and yes, he's got some loose screws rattling around in his head. As you said, it's dirty, violent and likely to get you killed... which is exactly why Big Daddy taught her to use lethal force with no hesitation. I whole heartedly agree that it's incredibly messed up, what I mean when I said the violence was justified was that in the context and logic of the situation, it makes sense to me.
To clarify as well, I was specifically referring to people dressing up as superheroes and acting as vigilantes, I should have been clearer. I am aware of the Real Life Superheroes thing and it's most definitely not what I was talking about.
Not trying to have a go at you here Lord Snow, I just find this to be one of the reason I find quite a few critics irritating. They judge films based on what they wanted them to be rather than looking at what they were trying to do and judging them based on if they achieved that. It's understandable, personal bias is always going to play into it, but it's something I try to avoid doing.To clarify, I wasn't saying what I think but citing a reviewer, and I wanted to get input about the subject from people here too. Generally speaking I am not the kind to be bothered by violence in movies, but like any other theme I want it to be implemented well.
In Kickass, I couldn't really connect with some of the violence. There's a scene where the little girl slaughtered an apartment full of people who might not be nice guys, but are certainly not worthy of being murdered. I admit, that kind of turned me off from the main characters in the movie - they are worse than the bad guys at that point.
So I'm not in the "don't show me a broken bone or a decapitated head or my soul will puke!" crowed - I'm in the "justify your violence" crowed.
I'm the same about sex, which allows me to illustrate with an example: I'm completely fine with the sex in A Song of Ice and Fire (the books) because it is used well to increase verisimilitude or for character development and sometimes (rarely) as it's own thing. However sex in A Game of Thrones (the HBO show) is in your face, gratuitous and pointless - a scene has a lot of talking? that's OK, set it in a whorehouse and have naked women do acrobatic moves in front of the camera.
didn't read the comic, did you?
I still keep giggling at the whole Swedish Princess bit.
"If you save the world, we can do it in the a$$!"