Its quite a lot like the first film, really: Lots of flashy, well-constructed absurdity taken to ridiculous levels. Spoiler
It doesn't really address the effects of a global outbreak of mass insanity in the last film, much as it quickly glosses over the long-term effects of this film's events at the end, though it has a surprising amount of continuity with its predecessor. Likewise, I again felt that it had what could be considered a Right-wing political bent at times (elected leaders are portrayed as corrupt while royalty is portrayed sympathetically, sexism, etc.), but its so wilfully preposterous that I feel a bit ridiculous myself trying to do a political analysis of it. Its more of a mixed bag this time in any case, I think- the primary villain, for example, could probably equally be seen as an anti-feminist straw man or a parody of 50's housewives, if one is inclined to make such an analysis, while a couple other villains are pretty clearly Right-wing stereotypes.
You could also get into all sorts of interesting social and political ramifications of the identity switching/cybernetic/drone tech. in this film... but it really isn't that kind of film. Its ridiculous, over-the-top, not-always-for-the-weak of stomach insanity, very well-executed, but with some surprisingly powerful and emotional moments.
The only thing that seriously offended me (in a film where people get churned up in meat grinders and made into burgers on-screen) was the part where Eggsy has to seduce one of the villains' girlfriend so that he can implant a tracking device in her vagina, complete with close up of him sticking his hand in her panties (yes, really). The main ethical issue with this is portrayed as it being him cheating on his girlfriend, and not the fact that this could be considered rape by deception, and the film really doesn't play it that way. Said woman's subsequent death could also be seen as "the woman being punished for being a victim", though I very much doubt that that was the intent. It left a bad taste in my mouth.
Oh, and I'm kind of pissed by Roxey's death. She was sidelined into a fairly minimal role in the first film, and I was hoping that they'd give her a bigger role this time. It looked at first like they were going to develop her (purely platonic) relationship with Eggsey a bit, but then she gets killed off in the first act, and while its effectively shocking and horrifying, its also a pretty blatant case of fridge-stuffing, and a waste of a character.
I was half-expecting (wishful thinking) for her to turn out to be alive and come back for the finale, since we never saw a body, but no such luck. Then again, Harry came back, so maybe she'll show up in the third film as a cyborg or something. I'd like that.
On a similar note, introducing Eggsey's black buddy, for pretty much no reason but to have him die in the same attack that kills Roxey. I'm sure it wasn't their intent, but it immediately brought to mind the old "black guy dies first" cliché. Because they literally introduced a black guy so he could die first.
On the other hand, I very much liked that the Swedish princess from the first film actually returned, now as Eggsey's long-term love interest. Turning the last film's gag/one-night stand into a recurring character, with a real emotional connection to the protagonist, played very effectively against expectations and sexism. I approve. In fact, this film did a good job of surprising me repeatedly.
The villain also had a shear sense of creepiness and terror like few I've ever seen, that I think the first film's antagonists lacked, for me. As well as being Umbridge-level detestable (and that's a very deliberate comparison on my part- her veneer of saccharine cheerfulness overlying sadism and malice is very much reminiscent of everyone's least favourite DADA teacher). She'd actually work as a villain in a more serious film, I think, while still not feeling out of place in this one.
In fact, the performances were generally quite good.
One more note: My first response to the President using the crisis to stack all the drug users in America in cages and kill them off (huh, I wonder how the rest of the world's leaders responded- the film just focusses on America, Britain, and a bit of Sweden
), was to think that it was over the top villainy even for this film.
Then I remembered what happened on November Eighth.
I mean, I'm not saying Trump has reached that level yet, but when the real PotUS is basically a cartoon villain, I guess films with over-the-top evil politicians kind of have to dial it up another notch to keep from seeming too much like real life.
I mean, at this point, if a film had the President plotting to poison puppies on national television, I'd probably shrug and say "Yeah, I can see that".
On a not-unrelated note, the scene at the end where said President gets impeached and taken away in handcuffs still gives me a warm fuzzy feeling every time I think of it.
Though really, its a really merciful villain fate for one of these films. I mean, didn't the last film blow up Obama's head, along with most of the other world leaders?
You could also get into all sorts of interesting social and political ramifications of the identity switching/cybernetic/drone tech. in this film... but it really isn't that kind of film. Its ridiculous, over-the-top, not-always-for-the-weak of stomach insanity, very well-executed, but with some surprisingly powerful and emotional moments.
The only thing that seriously offended me (in a film where people get churned up in meat grinders and made into burgers on-screen) was the part where Eggsy has to seduce one of the villains' girlfriend so that he can implant a tracking device in her vagina, complete with close up of him sticking his hand in her panties (yes, really). The main ethical issue with this is portrayed as it being him cheating on his girlfriend, and not the fact that this could be considered rape by deception, and the film really doesn't play it that way. Said woman's subsequent death could also be seen as "the woman being punished for being a victim", though I very much doubt that that was the intent. It left a bad taste in my mouth.
Oh, and I'm kind of pissed by Roxey's death. She was sidelined into a fairly minimal role in the first film, and I was hoping that they'd give her a bigger role this time. It looked at first like they were going to develop her (purely platonic) relationship with Eggsey a bit, but then she gets killed off in the first act, and while its effectively shocking and horrifying, its also a pretty blatant case of fridge-stuffing, and a waste of a character.
I was half-expecting (wishful thinking) for her to turn out to be alive and come back for the finale, since we never saw a body, but no such luck. Then again, Harry came back, so maybe she'll show up in the third film as a cyborg or something. I'd like that.
On a similar note, introducing Eggsey's black buddy, for pretty much no reason but to have him die in the same attack that kills Roxey. I'm sure it wasn't their intent, but it immediately brought to mind the old "black guy dies first" cliché. Because they literally introduced a black guy so he could die first.
On the other hand, I very much liked that the Swedish princess from the first film actually returned, now as Eggsey's long-term love interest. Turning the last film's gag/one-night stand into a recurring character, with a real emotional connection to the protagonist, played very effectively against expectations and sexism. I approve. In fact, this film did a good job of surprising me repeatedly.
The villain also had a shear sense of creepiness and terror like few I've ever seen, that I think the first film's antagonists lacked, for me. As well as being Umbridge-level detestable (and that's a very deliberate comparison on my part- her veneer of saccharine cheerfulness overlying sadism and malice is very much reminiscent of everyone's least favourite DADA teacher). She'd actually work as a villain in a more serious film, I think, while still not feeling out of place in this one.
In fact, the performances were generally quite good.
One more note: My first response to the President using the crisis to stack all the drug users in America in cages and kill them off (huh, I wonder how the rest of the world's leaders responded- the film just focusses on America, Britain, and a bit of Sweden
), was to think that it was over the top villainy even for this film.Then I remembered what happened on November Eighth.
I mean, I'm not saying Trump has reached that level yet, but when the real PotUS is basically a cartoon villain, I guess films with over-the-top evil politicians kind of have to dial it up another notch to keep from seeming too much like real life.
I mean, at this point, if a film had the President plotting to poison puppies on national television, I'd probably shrug and say "Yeah, I can see that".
On a not-unrelated note, the scene at the end where said President gets impeached and taken away in handcuffs still gives me a warm fuzzy feeling every time I think of it.
Though really, its a really merciful villain fate for one of these films. I mean, didn't the last film blow up Obama's head, along with most of the other world leaders?
If you've seen the film, you'll understand.
