It is stylishly and audaciously made, with slick visual effects, very imaginative camera work and editing in the action scenes and audacious production design, if just lacking the operatic grandeur of the first film in the action. However, like 'Kingsman: The Secret Service', 'Kingsman: The Golden Circle' has a huge amount to enjoy. As enjoyable as the climax was, Poppy's defeat did feel anti-climactic, and Halle Berry is fairly wasted, as is Channing Tatum in what is essentially a pointless plot device role. The first film had more content but wasn't bloated and everything served a point. For example Eggsy's excursion to Glastonbury did feel dragged out and didn't serve as much point to the story as it could have done. Especially when it tries to cram in a lot, not everything feels necessary and some of the narrative is on the flimsy and not quite as eventful side. Like some have said already, 'Kingsman: The Golden Circle's' biggest flaw is the length, at nearly two and a half hours (much longer than the first film, which was just over two hours) it does feel too long by about 20-25 minutes or so and it does affect the pacing, which drags in place. The follow-up and Vaughn's first sequel has enough of what 'Kingsman: The Secret Service' so good and is an entertaining film on its own but at the end of the day it feels like something is missing. I still don't know if they'll avoid it feeling contrived, but you've convinced me that it's not completely nonsensical that he could have survived.Having really liked/love Matthew Vaughn's previous work, 'Kingsman: The Secret Service' was one of my favourites from him and was surprisingly brilliant, with only the somewhat tasteless ending disappointing.
I'll accept your points that people in real life can survive gunshots to the head (Malala, for one), and that Kingsman isn't especially concerned with realism. I don't remember the time frame for the rest of the film, so perhaps you're right there.įair enough. Precisely because you expect closure for a beloved character, they deny it to you with no close-up shot and an abrupt death. It's possibly a deliberate cinematography choice.
There are plenty of cases in reality of people surviving gunshots to the head but, even more so, Kingsmen is far from being based in reality (exploding heads, villain's lairs, partying over mass genocide, etc, etc), so a slightly absurd reason for Galahad's survival actually wouldn't be out of place given the context. I imagine he was recovering from being shot in the head. The film only lasts for maybe another half-day if that. His body is abandoned by Kingsmen until surely after the end of the film. You never see a close-up of the body at all and his vitals are never checked.
Don't you find it funny that such the 'death' scene of such an important character is filmed so different to the rest of the deaths in the film?
0 kommentar(er)
