Average watch at best, might watch again, and can't recommend.
There are several ways to look at this movie:
1) From a sequel stand point.
2) From a comics stand point.
3) From a stand alone movie stand point.
1) Sequel stand point
THERE IS AN ENTIRE MOVIE MISSING! This is the 3rd part of the "Harley Quinn Trilogy". We're missing an entire transformation of a character from one thing to another for this movie to even be able to happen. And if you're picking at that thread, then there is probably 2 or 3 movies before "Suicide Squad".
2) From a comics standpoint
OMG, they pooed all over almost every concept they borrowed from the comics.
-Harley leaving the Joker- This was a huge Gotham event, not from a Gotham standpoint, but in the revolution and rebirth of a character that literally is left out of the story here.
-Birds of Prey- Never mentioned in the movie, they come together our of necessity, like the Avengers, when the original concept was orchestrated by Oracle who hand picked women in the vigilante field to help her, but at least they included the originals, Huntress and Black Canary
-Huntress- I've never loved Mary Elizabeth Winstead more, but they turned the "Crossbow Killer" vs Huntress thing into a really poor joke, making her seem sad instead of powerful, when should be saying, "I am the Huntress" to install the fear of the name into criminals as she was a killing vigilante, the only reason Batman wouldn't work with her, and a main contention with Oracle.
-Black Canary- I understand that there are WAY too many white characters, but the solution is not to "wash" characters, just create new characters that help balance out the whole pool. Jurnee Smollett is awesome, and she does a great job, but she's not the same Black Canary that I know, that was an international spy / mercenary (basically an American Black Widow). The gritty reboot is good, I'd just rather it be her own character and have it stand on her own awesome footing.
-Cassandra Cain- What a creative way to ruin a future Batgirl movie. And that has to be what it is. They some contention with someone else wanting the rights (or they're elapsing) and we're seeing what happened to Spiderman and Venom, they're using the name so someone else can't. She was supposed to be the assassin turned vigilante, the daughter of Deathstroke, raised in the League of Shadows, but sure 2 bit pickpocket works.
-Harley Quinn- They are all over the place with her, from helpless girl to badass to bad fighter to lucky only to clueless to amazing intellect, to violent psychopath to emotional friend. Pick a lane. And the "word on face" thing didn't go over well with Joker, not sure why the kept such a distraction when her face is already the symbol with which she garners the desired attention.
3) Stand alone movie
I hate the stupid way they jump around with the story: I didn't like in in "Pulp Fiction" where it had purpose, I doubt I'll ever like it anywhere else.
That aside, this is actually pretty great, they spent a lot of money to get the production value where it needs to be, the cast is awesome, the story (when understandable) is pretty good, and the characters are entertaining as hell, even if Harley Quinn now seems to be a lot more Deadpool than I want.
Most of its problems are just that it is trying to be a Gotham Knights, DC movie when it absolutely doesn't have to be. Using names that people don't recognize and giving them a different experience only turns your great movie into a good movie.
I miss the days when people just made a thing they thought was good and saw if they were right. All this spreadsheet analysis of world wide information is definitely skewing movies, and we haven't even been doing it long enough to see if it's really effective measurement.
Long-short: it's a good enough movie to be potentially great if you just pretend you know nothing about anything else.

There's boring power fantasies for boys.
This is the same boring power fantasy, but for girls.
The characters are flat, the action well filmed but inconsequential, the story nonexistent, and the entertainment value... don't be sober if you want to be entertained. In the genre of mindless action entertainment, this is still at the bottom of the barrel - like some of the 80s action movies which are better off forgotten.
Nice styling and set design, though.
The actors did their best given what they had to work with, but it is only Margot Robbie who impresses by making the main character watchable by her acting.
Verdict: Even if you are in for mindless action, don't waste your time on this. Clips are enough to see style and script.

Whilst many films have a message its a fine line between informing and lecturing.
For me "Birds of Prey" fails to appreciate this distinction. Its incessant, brittle, feminist finger wagging, is downright tiresome and quickly exhausted any sense of pleasure, I might have derived from this film.
Its a shame too, as the underyling mechanics of the story could have worked well as a basic, by the numbers, action mash up.
Regrettably that was not to be and whats left, is not something I would pay to see again. Which also applies to any spin offs or future efforts, in this vein.
2/10.

Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn was one of the few highlights of Suicide Squad but once this one was announced, I felt indifferent and the trailers didn't do much to change that to the point I skipped this in theaters. Watching it now, I came away shrugging my shoulders. Some of the action scenes, supervised by Chad Stahelski, were okay but the pacing was all off and the actual BIRDS OF PREY, were sidelined and don't really get any memorable moments. Similarly, Ewan McGregor was alright but a weak villain.
As a fan of the Batman comic book, outside of HQ, none of these resemble their counterparts, most notably Cassandra Cain who was a great character (trained as an assassin as a little girl by her father, David Cain, before being taken in by Bruce Wayne).
IDK, in the end this was a misfire and don't think it was the fault of an inexperienced director (using the same script, not sure anyone else would've made all that much better). Could be a case of being too much of a vanity project for Robbie. **2.75/5**

If COVID-19 ushered cinemas off this mortal coil, I'm kind of strangely okay with telling people this was the last thing I ever got to see on the big screen.
_Final rating:★★★★ - Very strong appeal. A personal favourite._

**Very refreshing and funny**, The movie is very different from like any team-up movie I've ever seen, it will make you forget that it's a superhero movie entirely it feels like it's just a crazy movie with criminal minds all over the city moving quite freely in fancy dress until one scene of Black Canary where you realise yeah you're watching a super-hero movie they gota show their powers. **It's violent and humorous and Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn is Fantastic and I really loved the Crossbow Killer**,
DCEU has come up with really great works since the Justice League (ignoring the Aquaman) and if you're counting the upcoming DCEU movies then you'll see a very great future for DC with Batman, Shazam 2 and Wonder Woman sequel.

I am afraid to say,, but after watching Suicide Squad which was pretty good.
This is a let down and I was looking forward to watching it.
After watching this I think if there was a plot/story behind the movie, I couldn't see it it was all over the place and nothing seemed to follow.
All I can say about this movie is the Actors/Actresses were paid to be stupid and not funny, I hoped for better things and got trash.

'Birds of Prey' its absolute thrill ride. It's unapologetically fun and crude and violent. To quote Saoirse Ronan from 'Little Woman'... "Women."
- Chris dos Santos
Read Chris' full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-birds-of-prey-im-here-to-report-a-terrible-crime-dc-has-saved-cinema

I really dug “Birds of Prey (And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn)” because it is unlike any movie I’ve seen before. There are the conventional-minded and flashy action scenes that accompany most superhero characters, but this is a violent, R-rated, naughty-joke, potty-mouthed comic book tour de force made for women over 25. It’s a boisterous good time for feminists and girl nerds everywhere.
The film is told from the twisted and deliciously sarcastic point of view of Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), ex-girlfriend of the Joker. When the evil Roman Sionis (Ewan McGregor) puts out a hit on a young petty thief (Ella Jay Basco), the most nefarious villains turn Gotham City upside down looking for her. When Harley crosses paths with Huntress (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), Black Canary (Jurnee Smollett-Bell), and cop Renee Montoya (Rosie Perez), the women learn they have no choice but to team up in order to take Sionis down once and for all.
The heartbeat of the film lies in Robbie’s iconic character interpretation of Harley Quinn. She is terrific in making her naughty character with a mean streak easy to love. Harley isn’t exactly a woman you want to emulate, but it sure would be fun to hang out and be friends with her.
All of the supporting performances here really are first-rate too. McGregor chews scenery with audacious glee, and his villain is truly terrifying. With the addition of a diverse, kick-ass female supporting cast playing equally bad-ass superheros, the film takes a multicultural feminist slant that thankfully doesn’t seem forced by committee.
“Birds of Prey” is the type of scrappy mayhem that gives a sparkle of excitement to the mostly bland and boring DCEU. It’s colorful and chaotic, reckless and energetic, and I am surprised that I enjoyed this movie as much as I did. This is a really, really fun spectacle that could bring new fans to the genre.

Garbage.
Nothing, and I REALLY MEAN NOTHING good to say about this.

Pretty good Movie, I did not expect Harvey Quinn can kick ass like that. I can see some guy can be turn off this movie because all women hero team. I find it very entertaining and well made.

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com
Since Wonder Woman that the DCEU has not missed a beat. Even though the latter is still my favorite of the universe, I have mostly a positive opinion about Justice League, Aquaman, and Shazam! Yes, these are not the greatest comic-book movies of all-time, but I would be lying if I denied that I was entertained. Birds of Prey follows the same path: it's fun, action-heavy, and it boasts a phenomenal cast. It has some issues regarding the actual plot and a few characters, but I'll get there.
First of all, let me get the mandatory compliments to Margot Robbie's performance out of the way. If there's a DC character better than Harley Quinn for Robbie to portray, please let me know, because I think she's absolutely perfect as a lunatic, over-the-top psychiatrist-turned-psychopath. Suicide Squad might be a total mess, but I doubt anyone denies how Robbie fits seamlessly into the Harley persona. From her looks to the way she speaks and from her physical movement to her facial expressions, there's just no better casting.
She embodies the whole film's chaotic vibe and even contributes to the (very) colorful set design. However, she's not the only one who delivers a spectacular performance. Jurnee Smollett-Bell offers a surprisingly captivating display as Dinah Lance / Black Canary. Even though Harley Quinn is the main character, I found myself caring a lot about Dinah. Her way of living suits the character's personality like a glove, and she's undoubtedly the best-written secondary character of the movie. Unfortunately, I can't say the same about the others, and this is one of my biggest issues.
It's a film packed with cliches and attempts of making the characters aware of those cliches, which is also, well, something pretty overused. What's more generic? Having the bad guy telling the hero their masterplan or having the hero stating how the bad guy is incredibly dumb by thinking of doing that? At first, I laughed, and I thought it was funny the way Christina Hodson was avoiding to write straight-up cliche characters by making everyone else aware of the way these talk or move.
But the whole "I know you're cliche, so you can get away with saying or doing cliche things" only works for a couple of scenes, not an entire movie. This is why I wasn't able to connect with Renee Montoya or care about her narrative at all. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is one of my favorite actresses, but she has the least screentime of the entire cast. I never criticize a film for not giving an actor/actress I like a more important role (unlike other people, I believe it would be unfair to do so). Still, I do complain if I think a particular character should have been given more screentime, which is the case of Huntress.
I find her backstory way more exciting and emotionally investing than Rosie Perez's character, but sadly Huntress' personal story serves only as a not-that-surprising third act twist. There are several past-present transitions in the storytelling, most work, but some feel extremely abrupt. Nevertheless, Winstead is outstanding every single time she's on camera! Ewan Mcgregor offers a good performance as the villain, but he leads me to my other major issue: the central plot. Trivia time: a MacGuffin is an object, device, or event necessary to the narrative and the motivation of the characters, but insignificant, unimportant, or irrelevant in itself.
The thread that connects every single character is based on one of the most overused MacGuffins ever. Now, don't get me wrong: a MacGuffin is NOT a synonym of bad writing or of a bad plot! It's merely something that leads to nothing. Having in mind that Birds of Prey is a character-driven movie, a plot centered around a MacGuffin is not unusual. As long as every character works, the primary story can simply be a passenger (Quentin Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood applies this method). However, in Birds of Prey, not every character has an interesting story...
Basically, Christina Hodson's screenplay isn't exactly bad, but it isn't great too. Just like the film, it has its ups and downs, and I saved some of the ups for last because I do want to end this review on a positive note. Finally, a DCEU movie where the action isn't overwhelmed with CGI, but with detailed choreography and long takes instead! Thank you, Cathy Yan, for bringing some of the best action sequences in this universe. Even if the third act gets a little sloppy due to the amount of characters, it's still a very satisfying ending. The score beautifully accompanies the action, and the visuals are truly gorgeous to look at. The comedy bits are on-point, I laughed quite often, but my final remark goes to a topic I rarely address...
Birds of Prey is a filmmaking lesson on how to produce an incredibly diverse movie without it feeling forced or unnatural. Only AFTER leaving the theater, I acknowledged the fact that the cast and characters are from various races, cultures, and have different sexual preferences. Why? Because this film doesn't waste its runtime by having its characters mention how black, white, Latinas, Chinese, gay, or whatever they are. They simply are what they are, and we all have eyes to see them. Congrats to Yan, Hodson, and everyone else who decided to treat the characters as if they're humans like every one of us.
In the end, Birds of Prey (and the ridiculously long subtitle) continues DCEU's streak of (at least) good movies since Wonder Woman came out. With a phenomenal cast led by an outstanding Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn, Cathy Yan delivers some of the best action of the entire universe in a genuinely entertaining superhero flick. A colorful, chaotic, and fun vibe is present throughout the whole runtime, as well as a pretty neat score. However, Christina Hodson's screenplay lacks creativity. The main plot revolves around the most overused MacGuffin ever, and some characters are straight-up taken from the book of cliches. It's a generic comic-book film with a formulaic narrative, but one that possesses enough fun and entertainment to overlook the typical story.
Rating: B-

Very funny movie. An unlikely cop, and a airhead cop. Equals 2 very hilarious cops.

The Jump Street reboot, amazingly, just works. Lord & Miller were somehow able to completely nail this, to my shock, and now a _21/22 Jump Street_ re-watch is a yearly occurrence in my household.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._

I was forced to go see this with my girlfriend and her best friend.
While objecting to the film, I summarized the plot for them garnered off of knowledge achieved by watching a single trailer...including all coming twists.
It turns out that I was correct on all counts.
The question you have to ask yourself is..."Do you really want to see a movie that is that predictable?" I know I didn't.

home the man who made them a family.
This movie could easily have been a five out of five stars movie. The story is not that bad but the script and the special effects are absolutely ludicrous. Do not get me wrong, the special effects are, in terms of visual effects quality, really good but they are also utterly unbelievable.
What kind of total idiot did they put to play out his juvenile wet FX dreams on this one? I do not mind over the top special effects and I do not demand 100% realism, at least not in a movie like this, but the effects in this one is just so unbelievable and unintelligent that it really spoils the fun. Take submarines that outrun speeding cars…while acting as ice breakers at the same time. How the hell did they get the submarine from being propped up in dry dock into the water in less than an hour? Also, this guy seems to think that you can just turn on a nuclear sub from being moth balled to ready to go with the turn of a switch as well. The movie is loaded with stunts like this. Stunts that are so ludicrous that it hurts to think that anyone can be stupid enough to dream that kind of crap up. Maybe the guy thought he was writing the script for a comedy or something.
It is a bit of a shame since the story itself is not at all bad. I have to went my frustration about another gripe I have here though. The movie blurb is not only misleading but it is blatantly false. The “mysterious woman” do NOT “seduce” Dom into anything. Said woman has a much more sinister plan. To me this was very good indeed. I was very hesitant before seeing this woman since I really did not like the idea of Dom being “seduced” into betraying his friends.
Well, apart from the above I have to confess that I liked it. It would have gotten five out of five from me if it was not for the unintelligent FX porn in it.
Vin Diesel and The Rock are great as usual. I have always liked Michelle Rodriquez. The rest are not bad either. Charlize Theron is actually making a fairly charismatic villain as Chiper.
There are of course a lot of fast (macho) talk and faster cars as well as plenty of things that go boom in the movie. It is a action movie so anyone expecting something else picked the wrong movie. After all, it is the eighth movie in the franchise so if you are surprised over what you got when watching it you must have picked it up by mistake. Even then, seeing Vin Diesel, The Rock, Statham etc… on the cover should have given you some idea. The one star reviews are just nonsense. They usual are. Very few movies deserve a single star. However, a full set of stars, that, it is not getting.
The movie was enjoyable, fun and action filled but could have been better.

**Fast + Eight = Fate**
We all miss Paul Walker here, but the franchise has grown bigger with more new casts from a couple of previous installments and with this, still counting. Yes, it marks the arrival of Jason Stathom as hinted at the end of the previous part, as well as Charlize Theron in the negative role. And guest appearance of veteran actors. This is where the bald guys rule. One of the most unique franchise.
This is the costliest film in the series, but did not earn as much as 'Fast 7' did. At least it stands second out of the eight. Now the billion dollar club becoming normal. The best thing about this series is, the race days are over. It's now more a cop-thief kind of cat- mouse action-adventure game that moves all around the globe. It opened in Cuba with a small race, which is what it's known for, but soon falls back to the manhunt.
Yep, Toretto abandons his family and disappears. Soon he'll be found on the wrong side of the battle between the security/secret agency and the international criminal gang. Now it is the clash within the family that involves outsiders too. A new recruit, Deckard Shaw joins the team, alongside Scott Eastwood as Little Nobody. Finding what they're up to and striking them to avert their plans are followed in the remaining film.
The original films had awesome automobile stunts, but what was missing is the fist fight, which came to life with more masculinely since Dwayne Johnson's entry. Now add Stathan as well to it. I hope he stays in the series, rather just for one film as a guest appearance. The regular cast was good as always. The story had a small twist, but mostly predictable. A good film compared to a few earlier films, otherwise a decent watch. Now its time to wait for Fast 9 or is it called Fine!
_7/10_

Might be the dumbest of the franchise to date, and if nothing else, that's an achievement. More importantly, _Fate of the Furious_ continues the tradition that the series has upheld since all the way back in the... half-way point: _Fast 5_. That was when these movies actually got bearable, and _Fate of the Furious_ delivers on the promise of that fun.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

The film starts out on the streets of Cuba with Dom doing some street racing to help out a relative.
Dom (Vin Diesel) is honeymooning in Cuba with Letty but married bliss does not last for long. A cyber terrorist called Cipher (Charlize Theron) has something on Dom, enough to get him to turn his back on his family and go rogue.
Hobbs ends up in jail because of Dom's betrayal. Even worse he is the same block as Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) the man he put in jail in the last film.
Mr Nobody (Kurt Russell) manipulates both Hobbs and Shaw to team up, together with Dom's crew they go after Cipher.
The film has several big action pieces the best of which are auto-driven cars being hacked an causing mayhem in the streets of New York. The Russian set action scenes on ice being a bit dicey.
It is still a loud, dumb action picture. Popcorn entertainment.

I agree it was good for like the first 10 season but it started going down hill after that

Yeah, it's like ER meets China Beach, and, as my dad classically said about China Beach "I don't remember Vietnam being anything like that."
It's really who is dating who in a hospital setting and we have seen both before in a myriad of different settings.
Unfortunately, sexual tension is really all the tension here, it's the only source of actual drama. And after a season, it gets too much.

Worst show ever. Shonda needs to stop right NOW.

Well it took ten years to try and recalibrate this franchise after the disappointing sequel, and to be fair - they have at least had a think about the story before rehashing the theme of the detective agency charged with policing the earth of our visiting friends from planets far away. Clearly, "J" (Will Smith) has become much more experienced since the days of the talking dog, but suddenly he finds himself ill-equipped for this latest trauma that is gong to need him to engage with his partner "K" (Tommy Lee Jones) and even travel through time to work with his younger version (an uncannily similar Josh Brolin). All of this is now under the leadership of new chief "O" (Emma Thompson). The plot is all a bit old hat - they have to save mankind from imminent annihilation, but at least this time around there is a bit more humour - usually more effective from Thompson - and a bit less of the constant diatribe from the over-powering Smith. At times it's a bit "Dr. Who" and the action scenes recycle themselves as they pursue the eminently un-menacing "Boris the Animal" (Jermaine Clement) towards a predicable, but colourful, denouement. Could Andy Warhol have been in on the whole ET-thing? It's better than the second but nowhere hear as much fun as the first one. Maybe we should stop now.

**This film knew how to honor and equal the first film.**
Despite their popularity, the first two MIB films, from the turn of the century, are films I don't really like to watch. The first movie, from 1997, is still worth it, but the second one was so bad that they had to wait more than ten years for this movie to come out, and even then, we still remember it. Good news: this movie is virtually as good as the first one and knows how to meet the public's expectations.
The plot is reasonably simple, but it guarantees entertainment: over the years, the boss of the MIB organization became a woman. Meanwhile, the escape of a dangerous alien from the lunar prison will force J to travel back in time, to the beginning of K's career, to try to prevent planet Earth from being invaded by a destructive galactic force. The script does a reasonably effective job and there is a lot of movement and action.
Will Smith shows that he has matured as an actor, and he knew how to imprint that maturity on the MIB agent he played: J is no longer a rookie or someone who accepts lessons, he is a senior agent with experience, who knows what he is doing and is sufficiently trained to deal with what you have in hand. Of course, K remains a veteran, and Tommy Lee Jones won't let that go by the wayside: sullen and seemingly unflappable, Jones' character will take particular pleasure in lecturing and lecturing Smith whenever appropriate. And, ultimately, it's the way the two actors interact that makes the movie funnier. The villain is worthy of our dislike and has some good jokes and tongue-in-cheek lines, but Jemaine Clement seems to have sometimes exaggerated things a bit. Michael Stuhlbarg and Josh Brolin do a very honest and committed job, and they help substantially to increase the quality of the film.
Technically, there is a serious and substantial bet on CGI, computerization and computer-made effects. It's something almost predictable, nowadays it's a very widespread resource and sci-fi or action movies have learned to master it. However, the authenticity of real scenes always tastes good. So the ending seems to be a bit out of step with the rest of the movie, but that turns out to be a minor problem. The cinematography is quite well executed, the sound and soundtrack are effective, the visuals as well. The sets and wardrobe, as well as the props, are in line with what you would expect to find in a MIB film.

Personal low point in the series to me. Brolin does do a commendable job of playing a young Tommy Lee Jones, but the script doesn't deliver. Not only is it not a very good one, it just offers the same story. **Again**. This is three Men in Black movies in a row where the A-plot is totally encapsulated by one sentence: "Stop the creepy-crawly in a human suit from getting the jewelery." There's a supporting role alien that was pretty endearing though.
_Final rating:★★ - Had some things that appeal to me, but a poor finished product._

Picking up from the first story, "Eggsy" (Taron Egerton) is now working for a new team of agents led by Sir Michael Gambon ("Arthur") and living, happily, with "Princess Tilde" (Hanna Alström). A cab journey one night, though, reintroduces him to his fellow trainee "Charlie" (Edward Holcroft) who now has an interesting new arm - and still clearly bears a grudge. Why? Well it appears that the mysterious Golden Circle might be behind it, so it falls to "Eggsy" to investigate. Tragedy ensues - big style - and he and "Merlin" (Mark Strong) head to the USA where they encounter a sister organisation "Statesman" where "Tequila" (Channing Tatum) and "Whiskey" (Pedro Pascal) work for "Champ" (Jeff Bridges) - and they discover another fairly surprising person too! Meantime, "Miss Polly" (Julianne Moore) announces that she has been lacing all the recreational drugs in the world with a deadly pathogen that will kill everyone, excruciatingly, unless all drugs are legalised. They have got to track her down and thwart her cunning plan before the bodies start piling up. This is a fast moving and quite entertaining boys-own adventure. Egerton is quite engaging, and there are quite fun contributions from Sir Elton John and a trio of lethal mechanical mutts. It's not as good as the first one - some of the fight scenes just go on for a bit too long, but the cast seem to be enjoying themselves - and who doesn't like a bit of John Denver?

**A mix of glaring errors and notable qualities, in a film that is fun enough to watch and forget soon after.**
I'm not really aware of the box office results achieved by “Kingsman”, but I can guess that they were quite good, guaranteeing the continuation of what was already seen as a potential franchise. And so, here we are looking at his second film, a logical continuation of the story of the first.
We see an attempt to smooth out some rough edges that were criticized in the first film: unlike what happened before, and except for some more bizarre deaths, it is a more serious bet on the family segment, with no problems regarding graphic violence and gore. Matthew Vaughn did a satisfactory job of balancing action and humor, and reinforcing the dose of choreographed and flashy fights and spy gadgets, where the technical and effects department had enough ground to shine. The soundtrack isn't bad, maintaining the essentials of the first film, and the cinematography and costumes work. The editing is very well done, and despite being a very long film for the genre, this is not a really important problem.
The script is fun and entertains the audience well, trying to maintain the quality of the previous work. However, he is forced to make concessions: the character of Colin Firth, who was applauded for his work in the first film, is resurrected, and the film's setting is, almost entirely, the USA. In fact, the inclusion of an American spy organization hidden in a bourbon whiskey distillery in the middle of Kentucky, although well framed by the script, is still just a maneuver to win over the country's box office. With an aggravating factor: the North American characters are clichés and behave like simple cowboys, with more agility and physical strength than brains and tactical thinking. Everything a spy would need the less, in life or fiction. Finally, a note about the villain: despite the actress's efforts, the character is bad, was poorly thought out and poorly developed, in a kind of kitsch revivalist delirium without any sense or taste.
Once again, Colin Firth does an impeccable and praiseworthy job. Taron Egerton appears more mature and resilient, more capable of ensuring the protagonism required of him. Mark Strong is also excellent, largely because he had better material in this film, where his character has a lot more centrality. Jeff Bridges is also good enough for the job. Unfortunately, there are several actors who were not given decent characters or material, and who struggle against this without great results. That's the case of Julianne Moore, Channing Tatum and Halle Berry. They are good, they do what they can with what they are given, but it is a vain effort.

This is indeed a silly, even childish at time, movie but to me it was also a really really fun movie to watch.
The movie starts by the Kingsman organisation getting screwed over royally by the psychopathic Poppy Adams which forces what remains of the organisation, all two people, to work with their counterpart in the United States. Just as the Kingsmen are parodies on the stiff upper lip British gentleman the Statesmen are parodies of the southern US gentleman (if you can actually call them that) only even more so. Maybe it is my European heritage but I personally feel the Kingsmen are fairly cool where the drawling Statesmen are more on the silly side.
Once again Eggsy is the main character although I have to say that I personally like Harry, the original Galahad, much more. He has much more charisma, elegans and smarts. Since he is portrayed on the movie posters I guess it is not much of a spoiler when I say that, to my delight, the rumors of his death were greatly exaggerated. Unfortunately Eggsy is sometimes quite cool and plays his British gentleman role quite well and sometimes he is just dumb as a doornail.
Poppy Adams is okay but she is bordering on the ludicrous too much for my taste. The we have a certain English artist, a Sir no less. I do not know how much they had to pay to get him to take part in this movie but I am fairly sure I would consider it too much. He was just silly as far as I am concerned.
The movie is of course loaded with gadgets, most of them of the variety that makes noises of varying levels of loudness usually resulting in one or more bad guys biting the dust. It is almost gadget overload but I really liked. Sometimes this amount of totally unbelievable gadgets is dragging down the movie more than anything but in this one it was mostly a success. To me Harry and the gadgetry is what makes this movie.
Given that I am originally from Sweden I have mixed feelings about Eggsy’s girlfriend and the Swedish royalties. I guess those parts were okay but I could have been without them as well. At least I feel that however wrote the scene with the “royal” dinner could have read up on Swedish etiquette. Knocking on a glass with your spoon, knife or fork means you are about to give a speech, NOT that you want the plates to be changed. A professional servant, and the Swedish royalty DO have professional servants, do not need to be told when to change plates.
The actual story is, well it is original at least but I would not rate it any higher than okay. It served as a vehicle for stringing together all the stunts and jokes so it served its purpose. The worst part of the story was that I was actually finding myself agreeing with the president. This might perhaps shock some people but I am sorry, if you are dumb enough to ingest that crap, which is also highly illegal, then I have no sympathy for you.
If you get upset about stupid plot details and plot holes then be prepared to be upset. There are plenty of them in this movie. To me it did not matter too much since this is not really a thriller or drama. It is a spy parody / comedy. Having said that it did piss me off a bit that this advanced organisation did not have brains enough to deal with the piece of equipment left in the London cab at the beginning of the movie. I mean, it was just soo obvious what would happen.
Anyway, on the whole this movie was great fun to watch. I hope we get another sequel. Perhaps one with a Japanese version of the Kingsmen? There ought to be plenty of cultural stereotypes to play on there.

This _Kingsman_ sequel might not be an outright terrible movie, but it is a **massive** disappointment. Virtually every enjoyable aspect of the first movie has been either turned down to and unsatisfyingly low level, or blasted way the fuck up into the realm of off-putting nonsense. _The Golden Circle_ somehow manages to both underserve all of its elements, while still feeling far too long. A couple of good fights, nice suits and maybe a single laugh can be found throughout the movie, but it does not do the original one iota of justice.
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

Probably the third time seeing this (once in theaters, another when it came out on Blu-ray) and still highly enjoyable, even think this is a tad better than the first if only because of Jared Harris as Professor Moriarty as a great adversary to Holmes. **3.75/5**