CraigsCritique

You can take two tacts when looking at Aardman and Nick Park's latest claymation cinematic foray, firstly you can either point out how charming, quirky and essentially British it is, or secondly you can focus on how in comparison to the likes of Pixar's Coco and Laika's Kubo and the Two Strings it's never ever going to operate on any kind of emotional or poignant level that the very best animated films can these days.

However one thing I will say is I did laugh (or more accurately I chuckled) quite a bit throughout the film but that is mainly because of the large football based plot point that had a link to Manchester in the U.K (that's where I live) throughout the film so a viewer may be in enjoyment trouble if that is not your area, this is a film that is certainly operating with very basic storytelling devices (something is took from our heroes, they have to get it back through a challenge that can only be achieved through teamwork) so nothing new here then.

I enjoyed the film but I'm not sure I'd watch it again and I just don't think it's a broad enough film to break it out of its humble film corner and when we're seeing Laika reaching ridiculously high levels of poignant storytelling with Kubo & ParaNorman in the stop motion film area Early Man can in a sense of film irony look slightly prehistoric.

Well the cinematic adaptation of Stephen King's It was interesting to say the least, to describe it as a film of horror skits wouldn't be unfair and that is meant to be both a compliment to those successful film moments but also a word of warning that the film succeeds or fails by the effectiveness of them and I tend to go with the former.

I perceive the best way to view this film and get the most out of it is to not go in expecting a horror film masterclass and instead go into this film in a more entertain in the moment kind of cinematic experience.

My criticisms of the film include the fact that you could easily pinpoint a couple of pointless scenes where you could knock at least ten minutes off to make the film leaner, also given the films author unfortunately those King-isms as I refer to them do occasionally make their presence very much felt in film form, also I get it film, you're set in the eighties you don't have to endlessly tell me in every scene of the film with a poster here a song there and so on, Stranger Things may want a word with you for this reason which to an extent is ironic given that Stranger Things in essence is a heavily influenced Stephen King project.

Significant film positives include the performance of the young cast where a lot of the films goodwill can be attributed and also in Bill Skarsgards performance as Pennywise that well...will not improve anybody's already delicate fear of clowns, at its best it's a wonderfully detailed and stylized horror segment piece that does what the best horror films do, make you feel the characters fear, we can all have our own personal things that give us the chills but the best of horror films go beyond this to make you fear something through someone else.

It's an example of skilfully made horror segments/skits tied clunkily together with a main narrative deemed necessary to propel the film forward, is it an brilliant horror film? No it's not but it's a pretty damn entertaining one.

OK I'm just going to lay it out on the table...I thought given all the talent and circumstances involved although Kingsman: The Golden Circle was sporadically fun it was also rather laboured and I'm annoyed that I've come away from it going 'ahh that had so much more potential', it's unquestionably way too long, it takes a lifetime to get going and although all the acting talent are most certainly game I felt the material wasn't substantial or engaging enough.

It's well documented that director Matthew Vaughn has always been wary of sequels, he directed both the hugely critically and financially successful Kick-Ass and X-Men: First Class yet declined to return for their respected sequels, is there something in this where maybe he thought he would just be repeating the same idea only with less enthusiasm? You know what quite possibly as he finally decided to make a sequel and I think many of his concerns are in play here.

Now don't get me wrong when I did laugh I laughed heavily, what's more concerning is that a big portion of these laughs came from Elton John's involvement, the idea of The Statesman in principle is a great further idea in the Kingsman world but were they an absolute necessity to the plot in this film? Think of the two biggest players on that side in Channing Tatum and Jeff Bridges and think 'did I get my money's worth?' the answer for me is emphatically no and I just won't have the argument they are building to their larger involvement in another sequel, sorry that just doesn't satisfy me for the reason they were an active ingredient in this film.

Here's the thing...the best explanation/comparison I can give is to compare both Guardians of the Galaxy and Kingsman: The Secret Service, the impact of both films were pretty similar, both were surprise box office and critical hits with much of the praise going to the performance of the actors and generally the characters interactions therefore funny scriptwork, whereas yes Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 doesn't particularly move a lot along storywise it did continue to entertain throughout and this is where Kingsman: The Golden Circle falls flat as although yes this is a very serviceable sequel as is generally competently made it doesn't feel like it particularly moves anything along but the main problem is it can't quite keep up the hit rate of entertaining interactions in the process, there's a quite stunning final fight scene with some good satirical political humour in play so there are great positives to shout about but maybe it's just me but I've come out more frustrated with wasted potential for this entry and I really wanted to love it as well but there we go