Type in any movie or show to find where you can watch it, or type a person's name.

User Comments for: Kingsman: The Golden Circle

kvdsteege says...
7 years ago
Kingsman: The Golden Circle can't compete with the original, but it still gives us a bold, action-packed and fun spy movie. The visuals are spectacular and so are the performances, with a great cameo from the fabulous Elton John.
Like  -  Dislike  -  3200
Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]
faithful soul says...
7 years ago
As good as the first film? No, not really, but then sequels rarely are. It was big and bold, but the story was a little weak. However, the movie is still very entertaining in parts, and while I perhaps wanted a little more plausibility, it may be that I had unrealistic expectations for a film of this sort. Great action, a delicious turn from Julianne Moore, a rocking soundtrack, and a mincing turn from Keith Allen (what, you expected me to say Elton?), made this a film I will go back to. So not as fresh or as funny as the original, but it could have been a lot worse. And remember, before you have a go at me for giving it a lower rating than others, manners maketh the man!
Like  -  Dislike  -  2001
Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]
Reply by FinnQuill
5 years ago
@faithful I wouldn't have a go at you, but I think I felt the same way as you on first watch and having watched it a second time, I think it isn't as good as the original, but it holds up damn well. Ultimately, the main characters are as likable as they were, and that means, like a lot of good movies like this (and like Harry mentions in the first movie), the villains really drive these movies. While the [spoiler]twist villain in Whiskey[/spoiler] wasn't overly interesting, Julianne Moore's quirky, almost wholesome Poppy is as great a gimmicky weirdo as Samuel L Jackson's lispy, hemophobic original villain.<br /> <br /> But for me, what makes this plot good under everything, is the [spoiler]ethical dilemma posed by holding specifically junkies hostage. Which, to any rational person, should be an unacceptable choice to allow a blanket loss of life in such a widespread demographic of people based on personal choice people disagree with... But even giving a little push to ask, if this happened in the real world, how many people would make the same stand as the movie's President. In this current political climate, how likely would _our own_ President be to at least consider the same exact stand... Not to mention the parallels it draws to the issues with bigotry going on in the country now (and the tensions that were building when the film was released). I like that it used a demographic less obvious, that might seem more 'reasonable' as a target, while still posing the same sort of ethical question, basically rolling two major issues (drug use and bigotry) into one plot.[/spoiler]<br /> <br /> That underlying theme, along with another stellar villain, really makes this movie stand up as, not as good as the first, but absolutely a worthy successor, and has it teetering between an 8 and a 9 for me.
Reply  -  Like  -  Deslike  -  00

Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
Nancy L Draper says...
7 years ago
I was really disappointed by this sequel. I enjoyed the first movie as it developed the theme of polishing a diamond in the rough, an unlikely but likeable hero, with wit and clever direction and writing. This second film did the opposite, it celebrated the crass and the writing was bad - there were huge holes in the story lines, and the character arches were undeveloped or fractured by missing/unwritten elements. The heros and villians were silly without comedic intent. The only bright spots were Taron Epstein, Mark Strong and Haille Berry's rapport, and Jeff Bridges. Colin Firth's character was butchered by the writers, Elton John' s part was unnecessary, unexplained and poorly executed, This movie is just BAD, and a waste of time. I give it a 3 (bad) out of 10. [Comedy?, Action, Adventure, Spy}
Like  -  Dislike  -  1100
Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]
echelon_four says...
CONTAINS SPOILERS
7 years ago
Needed more Channing Tatum. Fine enough, otherwise.
Like  -  Dislike  -  700
Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]
holmsius says...
6 years ago
CG was so cheap that I couldn't just stand it. Absolutely not for me, they went too cheap in many places and I had a nice nap during fighting scenes. I mean c'mon this movie could be lot better. Instead of involving USA culture in here they could involve Ireland for example. I hope next movie will be lot better.
Like  -  Dislike  -  500
Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]
SpeedDemon says...
6 years ago
This was the WORST movie I've ever seen, since the last worst movie I've ever seen!! What a waste of time. The first movie was great, but this just blew chunks. Stupid "story" and plenty of bad acting. Dropping the F-bomb every other word doesn't make a movie funny or intelligent it just proves the writers have nothing to say. 0/10
Like  -  Dislike  -  400
Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]
FinFan says...
6 years ago
Not nearly as good as the first one but still entertaining. Maybe a bit too long. Suffers from all the typical sequel problems by trying to outdo its predecessor by overdoing almost everything, by just adding more without adding something new. And Julianne Moore is no SL Jackson. Best thing really was Elton John.
Like  -  Dislike  -  300
Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]
jarmengol says...
7 years ago
Not as good as the first one but keeps you entertained...
Like  -  Dislike  -  200
Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]
gamzekirisoglu says...
3 years ago
The movie that Pedro Pascal's character dies, yes, again.
Like  -  Dislike  -  200
Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]
Back to Top