I think I open up every post I write about the original Kingsman movie like this, but what an effing surprise it was. In a rare occurrence I didn't catch the flick in theaters, and despite the positive reviews I still thought it looked pretty dumb. A Matthew Vaughn directed spy parody trying to cash in on the comic book adaptation craze? It just looked like nothing much at all, and I'm a huge James Bond fan. Then, about a year after its release or so, I was flipping through Netflix (or maybe Hulu) and just decided to watch it.
Guys, it's so good.
The movie had just the right amount of snark, charm, and self-awareness to actually be one of the better "spy" films to come out in a while. It got a lot of its charm from playing itself straight while still being ridiculously over-the-top, and of course being crammed full of Vaughn's signature action direction. It played with conventions, but not in a cheesy sight gag sort of way (think Austin Powers). Its cast was fantastic and played their roles with a sly wink to the camera, and everything just worked.
An now we have a sequel, Kingsman: The Golden Circle. Can the perfect balance of parody and playfulness be recreated or, like many sequels, does more not necessarily mean better?
via destructoid http://ift.tt/2wCZ1yY