I don't know that there are so many people who criticize the second part in the comment area. I see that everyone's comments are even a bit nitpicky and deliberately finding fault.
One of the characteristics of the ace secret agent is that the screenwriter asks people to take a lunch and die without mercy. I want to ask, what's the point of good people living well one by one? When jb died, I should be the most uncomfortable one in the whole movie theater, but what's the psychology behind you scolding the screenwriter and the film?
Don't you think it's cool to incorporate American cowboy elements? I've been watching British etiquette for a long time and nothing new, so statesman is also pretty cool, and there's nothing to complain about.
The second film re-established a new pattern and had a new idea. It was very exciting to watch, very moving, and there was nothing wrong with it. It’s good to be strict with your favorite movie, but there is no need to deliberately black it. The more you read the comments, the more angry you are , just to say a few words, support the likes, and don't deliberately black out if you don't.
In short, the second film has its advantages and disadvantages, but it is still a great viewing experience. It is really not necessarily better to change individual directors.
View more about Kingsman: The Golden Circle reviews
