What happens when you combine Men in Black with X-Men: First Class and the James Bond franchise, circa 1970? You get Kingsman: The Secret Service, director Matthew Vaughn’s tribute to spy films from past generations that favored style and fun over gritty action and gravely serious plotlines.
That might sound like I’m knocking Kingsman for being derivative, but that’s not my intention. If anything, this film — and the graphic novel by Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons upon which it’s based — is a love letter to an era of film that seemed gone, but could very well be on its way back with films like this and this summer’s The Man From U.N.C.L.E., spy thrillers serving up the adventure with a wink and a smile.
This material fits Vaughn’s sensibilities perfectly, which is surely why he opted for Kingsman over X-Men: Days of Future Past. Vaughn is basically a better Guy Ritchie — with whom he began his movie career as a producer — who loves fast-cutting action and slick camera moves, and isn’t afraid of pushing the boundaries of good taste. (Interestingly, Ritchie is directing The Man From U.N.C.L.E., so both men apparently had a spy movie itch to scratch.) Yet I would argue Vaughn has a better sense of story and character in his films.
Unfortunately, the action in Kingsman is one of its more disappointing aspects. I’ll presume that many will disagree with me on this. The fight scenes and shootouts are exciting, with quick cuts, CGI-enhanced set pieces and beautifully framed shots in which Colin Firth looks really cool breaking someone’s arm or firing off a handgun. The film is essentially built around these sequences. But in my view, the action felt just a bit too slick and at times bordered on incoherent.
I’ll admit, however, that I’ve become spoiled by recent films that I think have raised the bar in movie action. The Raid, The Raid 2, Captain America: The Winter Soldier and John Wick are among the movies that have pushed what’s possible on screen to a different level, and when other films don’t quite get there, it’s a disappointment.
Of course, there’s a danger of many movies looking alike if they all employ the same sorts of techniques and choreography with their action. I think that happened in the 2000s with the frantic, hand-held, close-up camera work we saw for fight scenes in Paul Greengrass’ Bourne movies and Christopher Nolan’s Batman films. Moving too far in the other direction was Zack Snyder’s slow-motion, speed-ramping style that seemed to fetishize every punch and stab.
The brawls and gunplay in Kingsman are better than what’s seen in any of those films, as are the artillery and gadgets. Guns, umbrellas and shoes have never looked this cool. So maybe I’m being a bit harsh on Vaughn, his cinematographer and second-unit directors.
Yet the saving grace in most of Kingsman is the sight of Firth being an ass-kicking dynamo on screen, one that can take out a room full of thugs or a crazed mob and still look immaculately dapper in his shirt, tie and sleekly tailored suit. (Oh, and the glasses. As a bespectacled writer, I should be even more impressed by an action hero wiping out the opposition without his frames even moving askew on his nose.)
It’s a refreshing play on Firth’s debonair, gentlemanly image, and he clearly relishes the opportunity to mess with that perception. I also like to imagine that Firth was channeling Roger Moore a bit. Agent 007 never moved like this, which I suppose is sort of the point here.
Yet the script by Vaughn and Jane Goldman is also all too willing to hit you over the head with that point, as if the entire movie itself didn’t already convey such a message. Remember when Bond films were cool and fun? Yes, we get it. That’s probably why most of us wanted to see Kingsman in the first place. However, the movie just comes right out and says it at one point in a cheeky exchange between Firth and Samuel L. Jackson, who plays the story’s villain. Modern movie and TV spies are outright referenced in another scene as well.
I imagine Vaughn and Goldman thought this would be clever. To me, it’s a borderline facepalm moment, one that just thudded on the screen. This was an unpleasant surprise from Goldman, who’s become one of my favorite screenwriters with her work on The Debt, Kick-Ass and the past two X-Men films involving Vaughn.
Maybe she felt there was no need to be subtle here, especially in adapting material by Millar. If you’ve ever read any of his comic books, you know subtlety — especially when it comes to violence and sex — is far from his strength. A quip about sex toward the end of the film and Jackson’s Richmond Valentine being an obvious play on Russell Simmons with his lisp and attire further add to a script that feels unnecessarily ham-fisted throughout.
At least you knew that the “Austin Powers” films were satire. This wants to make fun of old Bond movies, yet be that same kind of film at the same time.
Kingsman is a film I expected to love, something that would give me an action movie fix until the big comic book blockbusters start hitting theaters in May. Yet I really only liked it, which felt disappointing as I watched the credits roll. That’s not to say that Kingsman isn’t enjoyable. If you need some action and adventure at the movies, this fits the bill. And it is a reminder of the “men want to be him, women want to be with him” days when spy thrillers and big-screen espionage were fun. But you might just be better off watching Roger Moore’s seven Bond films instead.
