**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.
