Manners Maketh Man: A Kingsman Review

Movie Sign! A Review of Kingsman: the Secret Service

Kingsman: The Secret Service (Kingsman, hereafter) had it’s opening last weekend against the cinematic juggernaut 50 Shades of Grey. I’m happy to report that Mrs. Sith and I saw the former film. OnTheDie doesn't do many movie reviews, because there are very few films that interest me enough to write one. Kingsman is such a film, and so here we are.

A Brief Digression

As is typical for OnTheDie, we’re going to begin with a brief digression telling you why Kingsman merits a review. For those of you who want to get right down to business, you can skip to this part of the review.

One of the most important things about me, even as a Sith Lord, is being a gentleman. I have always believed that if you are going to be a villain, you need to be a proper one.

For me one of the most influential reasons for this is The Avengers. No, not the Joss Whedon film, and no, definitely not the 1998 disaster. No, I’m talking about the 1960s and 70s show. When I think of a Gentleman Spy, I think of this:

Patrick Macnee

Aha, the 1970s. It was a more civilized age where a man and his umbrella could protect Queen and Country from such diverse threats as the Communist Block, space aliens and … killer plants. I kid you not. Yes, an umbrella. Not so clumsy or random as a gun, mind you.

For a child of the 80s like me, the TV hour after getting home from school and finishing chores but before the dinner hour was magic. It was watching all of the shows that used to be prime time, but had made it to the after school audience. Star Trek, Wild Wild West and The Avengers are the things that forged (or was is warped?) my young Sith mind.

And The Avengers, with the oh so cool and sophisticated John Steed were such a huge part of it all. The witty banter between him and Emma Peel was a thing of legend to young and impressionable me.

The Avengers is one of those shows that “you had to be there for,” you can find it now, but it’s more likely to elicit snickers at the lame sets, special effects and costumes (i am told these were quite fashionable in the 70s) and what’s more, the banter will remind you of putting some Moonlighting quips in a blender with bad stage theater. But in its time and place, it was magic.

The Review Proper

With that in mind, we move to an actual discussion of Kingsman: the Secret Service. First the basics: Kingsman is based on a comic by Mark Millar and Matthew Vaughn of Kick-Ass. Interestingly enough, it is illustrated by Dave Gibbons of Watchman fame. Based on that, what can we assume coming in? Kingsman will be a violent film with intense visuals, and biting satire, both of society and the genre it’s taking on as well. It won’t just be a violent spy thriller, it will be ultra-violent, and it will play on all the themes we expect from them, while turning them on their head. Vaughn and Millar write for people who have seen the things they're going to satirize, and get the jokes. If you're the sort of person who is likely to ask "is all of this really necessary?," this is probably not the film for you.

And for the record, yes, it is necessary.

That’s what the film is designed to do, so how does it succeed?

It’s brilliant.

How Does it Look?

Let’s talk about the visuals first. Kingsman is everything that Michael Bay wants to do, only it actually works. I imagine Bay seeing one of Vaughn's films and then crying himself to sleep at night because someone is actually able to make sense of the rubbish style that he attempts. Now he goes to sleep on a bed made out of solid gold, mind you, so let's not shed too many tears.

Ahem.

You have several amazing, over-the-top action sequences, but the wonder of it is that you can actually see what’s happening and keep up with it. All of the shaky-cam works, all of the first-person shots work, all of the slow-mo works. You can tell what’s actually happening through all of it. There are a few parts of the film that look like a first person shooter (completely intentional) and it all makes for loads of visual wonder, without the viewer being overloaded.

There is one amazing action sequence about two thirds of the way through the film that has a manic sort of energy I haven’t really seen before, well, ever.

I actually want to stop you there for a moment to consider what I’ve just written: this movie had something in it that I had never really seen before. It’s an action movie. Consider how many of those I’ve seen. I hadn't a scene done this intensely ever.

The scene goes on for several minutes (think of how long Freebird goes on and you can get the idea) and it keeps you clearly understanding all of the horrible things that are happening. That would be amazing in and of itself, but once you know that the entire thing was done in one take, you won’t believe it.

As another aside: this is the scene people refer to when they ask if the level of violence is necessary. Yes, it is.

From a technical standpoint, the film is exactly what you’d expect from the Director with Wanted and Kick-Ass as previous works. The cinematography is top-notch. It’s amazing.

So those are the visuals. Vaughn delivers here in top form.

Playing the Spy Game

Next there’s the genre and genre conventions, and how it’s turned on it’s head. If you've seen Kick-Ass, you've seen Millar and Vaughn deconstructing the ultra-violent comic book genre. Now consider that same thing for the spy genre.

Every detail is on point: from the music, to the one-liners, to the plot conventions. Everyone in the film knows these details, and they take this into consideration. Samuel L. Jackson’s Valentine puts a bio-metric security system on his doomsday weapon, saying that it’s really dangerous and important, and a simple toggle switch just wouldn't offer proper security. Of course he says this while having a giant countdown clock of doom at the same time.

You also have casting. You have Samuel L. Jackson, who’s having a blast here and actually (gasp!) acting in this role, rather than simply playing himself. His presence here in the film and how he plays his role is an excellent circumvention of genre and what you expect.

You also have Michael Caine who made many of the films this one is satirizing, and then you have Colin Firth.

Earlier I said that Patrick Macnee is the very definition of a gentleman spy? In Kingsman, it becomes Colin Firth. Take a look here:

Colin Firth, complete with umbrella

Yes, that’s Colin Firth with a tricked out umbrella.

If anyone is absolutely perfect for the role, Colin Firth is it. He's been Mr. Darcy more than once, and he is the perfect model gentleman. And a spy.

The look of the film as a perfect homage to spy films is perfect down to the sets for the villain’s base that have fake looking rock walls like we see in films like Doctor No. We even get the very funny send up of the end of a Roger Moore era James Bond film, done with an edge.

You take that perfect spy world and introduce Taron Egerton as Eggsy and you find that the film is actually a send up of My Fair Lady of all things. Yes, you read that right.

Eggsy is our view into the world of the gentlemen spy, and represents Colin Firth’s attempt to see if being a Kingsman is about pedigree and breeding or if it’s a quality that can be learned. Do manners maketh the man? That’s what we’re going to find out. He's a rough, crass character, yet Colin Firth sees that he has potential. Is he going to be proven right? Well...

Paging Doctor Campbell

So what’s really happening is we’re getting a spy film that mashes up My Fair Lady with Campbell’s Hero’s Journey. As I write that, I beg those of you who understand the Monomyth to not think about that too much, as it will give you some spoilers for the film. You can, however, bring a checklist with you and check off the major points.

Films like this, when done seriously, check the same boxes, and this one is aware of that. It works within those constraints and has a lot of fun with them.

The send up of a genre, within the confines of characters who are living out that genre is really quite funny. There are several times when characters act out of character for this kind of narrative, but in the larger context, everything works perfectly.

The Larger Picture

I think you’re getting the point that I believe this film really works. It clearly does what it sets out to achieve, but one question remains: is what it is trying to do really worth doing? Don’t blame me for this question, it’s Aristotle’s Fault.

I believe that Kingsman succeeds on a larger level than simply being entertainment on two levels.

First, it creates an exceptional model for people to live up to. The My Fair Lady aspects of the film consist of Firth’s character attempting to mold Eggsy into a hero, and a proper hero at that. He talks at length about a gentleman being loyal, brave, selfless and even self-sacrificial. He talks about how none of these qualities are something that one is born with. They are what everyone can strive to become, and are a duty that those who have exceptional ability have. One might say that with great power, comes great responsibility.

This is something that I really enjoyed, and something that you don’t see very often these days. I expect that there will be some younglings who see this movie and “get” it on a profound way. A lot has been made of Eggsy and how he starts off as a street thug, as if the point of the film is to glorify that lifestyle. That’s really rather missing the point. If you read about the Hero’s Journey (after seeing the film!) you’ll see what it’s really all about.

And this is really the reason I felt Kingsman merited an OnTheDie review: I can see how it would have affected me if I was younger, in much the same positive way as The Avengers did back in the day.

Let's get Political and Ruin it

The last point that I wanted to make about how the film’s goals are laudable deals with the villain’s end goal. This may get a little political here, something that OnTheDie avoids where possible.

The villain in the film describes having a sort of Eureka moment where it all becomes clear to him. Make no mistake: Samuel L. Jackson is a villain here and his plan is pretty diabolical. Very bad stuff.

I kept thinking, however, that this is the sort of thing I've actually heard from people in the real world. As I've been reading up on the film, I came across a fair bit of "well, that plan would actually be a good idea in reality," from different folks. As I'm writing this, I know that I'm taking things a bit too far, but I have to say that there is a little cautionary tale underneath all of this.

Vaughn tells us that it's all part of the joke: usually you have the villains coming from a right-wing perspective, so in his send up, they're going to be out there to just "help us." The results of all of this are frightening and as funny as a James Bond villain who believes they're just out there to save Gaia from us.

I don't want to give the impression that this is some deep philosophical treatise on Libertarianism, but if you've seen Vaughn/Millar's other works, the tone is there.

The Kid Warning

A mandatory part of all of my reviews is to talk about whether this film is suitable for younger viewers or not. In this case it's a big "or not." I would place this film within a strong "PG-13" warning (take note: the actual rating is R). What I mean by this is that I'd place the lower age limit for seeing the film to around 13, but at the same time I think it would be a very good film for high school aged kids to see. They'd love it.

Wrap-up

As I write my Kid Warning, I can tell you why I liked Kingsman so much: it appealed to the teenager still inside me. Watching this film made me want to go get a couple two-liters of Mountain Dew and play some Top Secret with my high school buddies.

If there's a similar person locked up within you, go catch Kingsman and let it out. 

That's all for now ... see you next time, and until then, Make Mine 20.