I remember being blown away by Kingsman in the cinema when I first saw it. It was just such a surprisingly different action film, and of course the combination of Taron Egerton and Samuel L. Jackson was incredible.

On rewatch, it's still a huge amount of fun, still a fantastic performance from Taron Egerton, all the more impressive given who he's cast alongside, and still a brilliant movie. The weird explosive ending actually got better with a second viewing, probably because I was expecting it, and genuinely felt in-keeping with the rest of the film. Samuel L. Jackson throwing up still feels gratuitous and a bit weird. The moment Eggsy's mum is going all Shining on her bathroom door is still nerve-wracking and tense. The soundtrack still rocks. Yeah, definitely a firm favourite we'll be revisiting many times in the future!

I've only just noticed that the title "Kingsman" is singular, which seems a little odd. Whilst the focus of The Golden Circle and its predecessor are on protagonist Eggsy the bulk of the content is really following the Kingsmen organisation, right? Still, singular or not the first film was an unexpectedly wonderful, riotous piece of fun, so can the sequel live up to the hype?

Well, the answer is a little bit yes, a little bit no. The Golden Circle isn't better than The Secret Service, but it isn't much worse either; if anything I'd say they're remarkably well paired. It retains the clever dialogue, incredible action and overall campiness without really pushing any boundaries. In many ways it is a perfect sequel, producing exactly what we loved from the original and repeating it without feeling like a retread. That's quite impressive and doubly so when you really look at the plot. On paper, The Golden Circle falls foul of every irritating issue that plaques big-budget sequels. Jokes and entire scenes that have become fan favourites are repeated with mild twists, the plot is incredibly similar just with a few key character swaps and there's even an unnecessary celebrity cameo which lends little to the plot. And yet... every one of those aspects not only work well but actively enhance the experience. Honestly, it almost feels like Matthew Vaughn decided to make The Golden Circle an incredibly clever parody of the process of sequelisation in general. Whether intentional or not, the result is somewhat brilliant.

Which is to say that no, it really doesn't matter that the "Manners maketh the man" scene is repeated. The subtle differences and role reversals should feel like nauseating fan service, but really they just help set up several plot threads and introduce the new character of Whiskey, whilst making his lasso tricks all the more badass. Nor does it matter when Eggsy repeats punchlines from the first film, because they feel so in-character you just accept it instead of feeling forced (a la The Hobbit). And of course, the inclusion of Elton John is utterly fantastic. It's a nice nod to the first film's plot, both in the explanation as to the kidnapping and the use of a Sun newspaper headline on the wall behind Eggsy's desk, but once the action kicks off it also leads to some very clever editorial work. Not only is Elton's fight scene hilarious (that freeze-frame moment is gold) but his continued inclusion as a legitimate plot device to save Harry was fantastically unexpected.

There are, of course, some moments which work less well. The introduction and subsequent poisoning of Tequila still feels a little odd. I'm a fan of Channing Tatum but not convinced he was much more than trailer bait here, which could also be said of Ginger Ale which was not the best turn for Halle Berry I've seen. And then there were the odd moments of over-reliance on CGI. I'm not sure if Kingsman suffered the same fate as films like The Hobbit, where the CG was designed with 3D in mind and feels flat in 2D as a result, but there were several moments of jarringly bad animation work. I can understand having to CG the introductory chase sequence (though, frankly, it was poorly done and would have been completely badass to do properly) but could they really not have used stock footage of Glastonbury, or even just a proper set? For a film with some truly spectacular moments, the times it was noticeable the effects were pretty awful.

Minor negatives aside though, The Golden Circle remains incredibly fun, campy action. The plot isn't exactly all that deep, but it's executed well enough and whilst remaining pretty heavy-handed with any notions of 'morals' or 'meaning' that really doesn't matter here. The main characters all shine, just as in the original, with the introduced Statesman agents a little more hit and miss, but frankly you watch Kingsmen for Taron Egerton, Mark Strong and Colin Firth, all of whom deliver in spades (offset by a frankly wonderful villain in Julianne Moore). If you enjoyed the original, there's plenty more here to love and personally I'm now very eager for a third helping.

To my shame, we completely missed this in cinemas, despite how big a fan Alison is. Honestly, I think that ended up being okay. It's not that The King's Man is a bad film, but it really highlights have much the original two movies were carried by Taron Egerton, both as an actor and as a character. Where the Kingsman franchise really excels is in pointing out the hypocrisies of classism and the inequalities inherent in the world, all whilst maintaining a distinctly over-the-top, campy atmosphere.

On the contrary, The King's Man is firmly focused on the upper class. Yes, several of the main characters are deliberately played as distinctly working-class servants, and they make a big point about their network of informers all being of a similar status, but here they are used as tools for the upper class to advance their own means. Yes, they're shown as deeply competent and easily the equals of their wealthier colleagues, but the story still casts them into the shadows. Which is a shame, because Gemma Arterton and Djimon Hounsou are both hugely entertaining in their roles.

Instead, the focus is on the morality of war and nationalism, which I guess are at least pertinent discussions for our current political atmosphere. It's not a bad message either, and I felt that Ralph Fiennes did a fantastic job in the lead role. I was equally shocked and impressed that they chose to kill his son, Conrad, particularly after his phenomenal escape sequence from No Mans Land. In fact, the whole Conrad plot, and the way the movie drove home how utterly moronic the Great War was, and how abhorrent the notion of honourably dying for one's country is, was great. Conrad himself could have used a touch more depth, but his journey of revelation and realisation that his father was right is kind of the point, so that's understandable. It's a surprisingly bleak take and something I wish more war movies really doubled down on.

Of course, this is still a Kingsman film, so that whole sombre plotline is set against a diabolical, comic-book plot about world domination, secret societies, and shadowy figures. It's all a bit by the numbers, and they make a big thing about keeping the leader's face secret for this big reveal that, oh no!, it was that adviser all along! Unfortunately, you don't really care all that much, and outside of Rhys Ifans' fun take on Rasputin and one clever line from Lenin balancing "left and right", I just wasn't all that bothered by the villainous cabal. They're a good excuse for some fun action sequences and I actually thought they wove their nefarious schemes in actual world history surprisingly coherently, but pinning it all on Scots Nationalism versus British Imperialism was just a weak payoff. I mean, it works, but meh.

Also, what was that lair all about? I know Kingsman villains tend to have ridiculous hiding places, but a plateau where a specific species of goat lives? It made for a great parachute scene (oh lord, my vertigo did not approve; ice and heights *shudder*) but it was almost too unbelievable and kept taking me out of the plot.

The result is an entertaining film that yo-yos a bit too heavily in terms of message. I think there's a great movie in here dissecting the abhorrence of war, the utter absurdity over the loss of life, and the inanities of the whole "dulce et decorum est pro patria more; it is sweet and proper to die for your country" concept. That film would focus solely on the relationship between the Duke of Oxford and his son; it would be dark, emotional and poignant. Then there is a Kingsman movie, which is all absurd action and espionage, where the servants and workers of the world unite to actually get the job done. Mashing the two together doesn't quite work, even if affords them the chance for some pretty excellent lines of dialogue. It's not bad, it's just a little confused.