Will 'Kingsman: The Golden Circle' harm the franchise?
Everything about “Kingsman: The Golden Circle,” which opened Friday, reeks of such overkill that even the film's reviewers keep resorting to the word “overkill.”
The Hollywood Reporter bemoans the sequel's running time, writing: “The spirited continuation of Matthew Vaughn's disarmingly clever 2015 introduction of the bespoke-suited British secret agent ... has already begun to err on the side of overkill with an unnecessarily long 141 minutes.”
IndieWire cites a season that's chockablock with similar fare, writing of the movie: “It's fun, but it's blockbuster overkill after an already-crowded summer season.”
And the New York Daily News finds bloat and excess throughout the film itself, writing: “Unfortunately, overkill is the order of the day — and it takes a toll. There are too many supporting characters, too much exposition, too many gadgets, too many 'Matrix'-inspired, slow-motion fight sequences, too many plot holes instead of twists and too ham-handed a political message about the war on drugs.”
Given such critical reactions, though, the central question becomes: Will audiences care?
Rather than be warned off by overkill, perhaps such insane excess is precisely the chief selling point for many moviegoers.
“When does a good thing become too much of a good thing?” THR's Todd McCarthy asks. “When is enough enough?”
“Kingsman: The Golden Circle” currently gets a mere “49” average reviewers' score on Metacritic and an less-than-fresh “54 percent” on Rotten Tomatoes.
That compares poorly with the “58” score and 74 percent “fresh” for 2015's original “Kingsman: The Secret Service,” which grossed $414 million worldwide on a reported $81 production budget.
Colin Firth and Samuel L. Jackson helped make the bloody — and bloody stylish — first film a smash of an R-rated comic-book adaptation. The new film boasts four Oscar winners, including the returning Firth, but the future of the franchise is at stake.
The Hollywood Reporter sings the sequel's praises, saying: “Considerable shrewdness is applied to the conception and execution of nearly every scene to make this old spy stuff feel fresh, which it mostly does.”
And IGN writes that “Vaughn has once again tailored a film that's an outlandish mix of over-the-top action, subversive social commentary, and oddly sweet character dynamics” that is also “as absurd, ultraviolent and darkly humorous as it can get.”
The site Consequence of Sound, meanwhile, calls the movie “a big, vulgar, Saturday morning cartoon of a film, to both its benefit and detriment.”
Critics also call the film “choppy,” “sloppy,” “spotty” and “scattershot.” And Entertainment Weekly eviscerates the movie, writing: “Vaughn's bespoke secret-agent follow-up is massively disappointing. More than that, it's dispiriting — a too campy, tonally schizophrenic barrage of idiotic plot twists, wasted star cameos, and over-the-top gags that aren't nearly as entertaining as their creators think they are. It's rare to see so much thrown at the screen and so little of it sticking.”
Reviewers also called the first “Kingsman” film “slick” and “silly” with “ultraviolent” escapism. The debut outing felt fresh to many of them, though, gliding along on Firth's charm, Jackson's charisma and early whip-smart editing of those over-the-top effects.
This time around, its filmmakers had better hope that audiences have an insatiable appetite for overkill. Because, according to critics, the second helping is not so fresh.