When I first saw this, I fixated on the degree to which Cruise dominates this film. On rewatching it this time, what leapt out at me was the way in which this is J.J. Abrams' movie through and through. This is particularly true for the film's weaknesses: namely, its monotonous tempo and it's too-clever-by-half MacGuffin.
Everyone says this but Seymour Hoffman is incredible. You could not have drawn up a more generic character and yet he arrests your attention in every scene in a way very, very few actors ever even approach.
Kingsman's ultra-violence repulsed me to such an extent I almost didn't make it to the end of the movie. I've been considering for the past week whether one can make a rational distinction between Kingsman and your typical spy film. I've never had the same issue with James Bond: what's different here?
My initial thoughts were that there's a sickening glee with which Vaughn presents each death but can't the same argument be made about almost any action film? Is…
The older I get and the more times I see this, the less I like it. Perhaps it was never as good as I first thought and it was merely the sheen of seeing my first Bond on the big screen. Or maybe in the shadow of the Craig Bond movies, you can see what they were going for but also how far they were for achieving it.
There are still some brilliant set pieces. The opening mission is as…