Yeah, like in My Fair Lady

Rating: 7/10 (23 September 2015)

Kingsman: The Secret Service is about a spy agency and guns and killing but it's also about class divides. It demands that you look past the superficial and into what really makes a person: as the mentor Harry Hart or Galahad would say, it's not what you wear that makes you a gentlemen. He also quotes Hemingway whilst urging Eggsy to improve and change. But does Vaughn really add much more to that discussion? The young rascal Eggsy (Taron Egerton) is low class from head to toe; the jeans, the shoes, the cap. And his accent and actions speak further too: one sequence has him steal a car and go for a joyride while Dizzee Rascal's "Bonkers" blares at us. Another has a long take where he parkours through the government housing to get away from his stepfather's goons. It's impressive to be sure. Would we look at it differently had he be dressed in a suit, and be chased by similarly suited goons? I'm not so sure.
Eggsy is swept up into the world of Kingsman after yet another misdemeanour. He's clearly a fish out of water, judging by his colleague's mockery when prompted over which private school he attends. Yet he excels against all odds as our protagonist should. The world of Kingsman is sleek and stylish; first started in the mid 20th century, it's been clearly modernised to take on ever evolving threats and we are just as impressed as Eggsy upon first viewing that vehicle hanger.
Yet the bigger plot is the more engaging one, a peculiar villain occupied by Samuel L Jackson who speaks with a lisp, wears a purple snapback and is, despite his nefarious intentions, appalled by bloodshed. I am not sure what Vaughn is going for here. In one dreadful scene, he shows up for no particular or logical reason in the Kingsman's own secret front store, and we are supposed to marvel at the tension beneath the pleasantries, but it's a very frivolous and artificial attempt at upping the stakes. Moviegoers have praised this sort of subversion of the villain role, and yet we marvel at the action scenes that are delivered with clear technical prowess. The most talked about scene is of course the one in the Westboro clone church, where Free Bird ushers in a frenzied take-down of 100 or so civilians by Harry. The choreography and shooting style is precise and excellent, constantly roving and tracking to visualise every brutal take-down from the Kingsman agent. And yet, in the midst of it, Valentine looks away with disgust. Vaughn attempts to have his cake and eat it too, portraying the civilians as the scum of the earth and cheering on Harry and laughing at Valentine only for his intentions to be revealed after all the bloodshed. Only then are we in two minds about the whole affair.
Are we poking fun and relishing the parody of the spy genre (as seen with the raunchy jokes, the meta- references to "that kinda movie" and the intentionally corny opening titles) or is it an uneven as it is violent? Mark Millar's ultra-violence was portrayed well in "Kick Ass" and was appropriate, whereas here it's rather odd. When Colin Firth brutally attacks the goons in the pub, it's starkly contrasted with his gentlemen motivations, but at least we cheer for the good guy. When Taron Egerton initiates the exact same fight at the end of the film, it's rather tiresome even with his noble intentions. There are some good performances (Firth first and foremost, and Cookson is also impressive), some jokes which merit a chuckle (McDonalds, Eggsy's pug, the James Bond martini reference) and some stunning action sequences (I really love the use of Elgar's Pomp and Circumstance Marches, but then again it begs the question, why is this stylised and a an axe to the neck not? Are we going for comic or ultra-graphic?) but overall I'm not sure what Kingsman is trying to achieve. But at least it's entertaining.