![]() ![]() It was a bit odd watching the movie revel in violent action scenes, then stop to commiscerate the horrors of war, then go back to ridiculous violence again at the end, with our main character preaching non-violence and passivism throughout, only for the apparent character growth to be that its perfectly alright to mercilessly slaughter groups of people as long as you think they're morally wrong which is an interesting message, to say the least. The other theme of the film seemed to be violence vs non-violence. Its such a weird, pro-class nationalist theme for the film that makes me very uncomfortable. Meanwhile, Tsar Nicholas is a drug-addicted bully being manipulated by Rasputin, Kaiser Wilhelm is a gullable idiot and the main villain is a displaced Scottish peasant who wants to kill everyone for petty revenge. The rich (specifically English) aristocrats are flawless beings: Oxford is an altruistic saint, Kitchener is doing all he can to make the world a better place and King George is a wise and noble ruler. This film seems to take the exact opposite tone. While the rich weren't inherently evil, the film pushed the message that anyone can achieve great things if given the right opportunities and the early part of the movie really pushes the idea that poor kids from disadvantaged areas are pushed towards crime while there are a lot of rich people willing to sacrifice the poor for their own ends. The original Kingsmen movie had very clear anti-classist politics. In this film, it's just utter nonsense all the way through. Don't get me wrong, the plan in the original Kingsmen movie is insane too, but Sam Jackson is able to sell it and his motivations are coherent, even if his actual plan is nuts. It's honestly insane and I have no idea why all the other characters just go along with it. But the worst was the main villain himself, a random Scottish guy who is angry at the British government for taking his father's land so decides to recruit the most famous and influential people in the world in order to plan and execute the most devastating war to ever occur just to get petty revenge against a king. I think Rasputin worked in his weirdness, but the more characters they pulled into this conspiracy, the more strained my suspension of disbelief became, up until the end scene where we see Lenin and fucking Hitler shaking hands. All these scenes are good on their own (honestly, the Dead Man's Land fight was really well done in my opinion) but strapped together, it felt like total mood whiplash. Then we suddenly go into a much more dour and serious World War 1 film as we follow the son through the trenches to his sudden and surprising death, then we get a whole section with depressed Ralph Fiennes and then suddenly we're back to Goofsville as he sword-fights a random Scottish man on top of a cliff with goats. ![]() This felt the most like a Kingsman film to me and led up to the Rasputin fight. We have the start where its a somewhat goofy spy movie. It almost felt like three seperate films stapled together. The film didn't feel particularly consistent or tight.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |