Quantcast
please donate

since 1997 | by maryann johanson

Kingsman: The Golden Circle movie review: deliver us from “edgy”

Kingsman The Golden Circle red light

MaryAnn’s quick take…
Save us from male artists who think they are dangerously, uniquely innovative. This stew of toxic masculinity and CGI-cartoon violence is nothing but tediously mundane.tweet
I’m “biast” (pro): love the cast, mostly
I’m “biast” (con): hated the first film
(what is this about? see my critic’s minifesto)

Here’s a phrase I do not recall from Kingsman: The Secret Service: “independent intelligence agency.” This is uttered in Kingsman: The Golden Circle in connection with the American counterpart to Kingsman: Statesman, to which we are introduced here. But what does that mean, precisely? It means they’re mercenary spies, doesn’t it? I have a vague recollection of Secret Service mentioning something about Kingsman being funded by the crown heads of Europe, which at least offers a veneer of governmental authority and fealty to law and order — though of course there are deeply problematic aspects to that as well; justice and order do not always sit side by side, and maintaining a status quo that the rich and aristocratic want is rife with… issues. But who funds Statesman? Secret Service suggests that the organization is backed up solely by sales of the Statesman-brand Kentucky bourbon that is the organization’s front in the same way that the Kingsman tailors is the British org’s front (though a nonfinancial one). But here’s a good basis for comparison: The most recent reported annual income for Jack Daniels, the clear inspiration for Statesman bourbon, was $121 million. Even if this represented profit, not revenue, it is nowhere near enough to fund a spy outfit with international operations.

“Hello, we’re Channing Tatum and Halle Berry, and we will barely be appearing in this movie. Thanks for coming!”

“Hello, we’re Channing Tatum and Halle Berry, and we will barely be appearing in this movie. Thanks for coming!”tweet

So: Where is the money coming from, and why? Who benefits from having globetrotting spies at their beck and call? What the actual hell is going on here, and how are Kingsman and Statesman any different from the international drug cartel they join forces to go up against in Golden Circle, private money wielding its power in whatever the hell way it pleases?

I wish I could say that there is the slightest hint here that returning screenwriter and director Matthew Vaughn (X-Men: First Class, Kick-Ass) appreciates that he is on the edge of making a satire about profoundly entrenched global interests all acting as one enormous self-reinforcing cabal. But this would not be true. (Vaughn again teams up with coscreenwriter Jane Goldman [The Limehouse Golem, Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children], and again they are working from the graphic novel by Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons. But since that was limited to six issues, all of which were used up by the first movie, this one is wholly invented by Vaughn and Goldman. The atrocity of this one is all on them.) Vaughn seems to think that he is making a spoof of James Bond-type spy flicks, but he’s not doing that either. He is, instead, with full awareness, doubling down on Bond. The Bond franchise has been a full-on carnival of toxic masculinity — narcissism, sociopathy, misogyny, violence — but an unaware one, or unaware, at least, that its idea of masculinity was toxic rather than cool… until Daniel Craig took over the tux in 2006, and the character, and the series, got a lot more woke, and stepped back from the toxicity. If it wasn’t already patently clear with Secret Service, Golden Circle confirms it: Kingsman is aware of the hugely awful overtones of Bond (and the traditional spy genre in general) and has no interest in anything other than celebrating them. (This is a big problem in modern big-budget filmmaking: Male filmmakers — always men — think that they can condemn misogyny or narrow gender expectations or extreme violence or all of the above merely by engaging in over-the-top versions of them. They cannot.)

How, precisely, are Kingsman and Statesman any different from the international drug cartel they go up against in Golden Circle?
tweet

Let’s get this out of the way: Kingsman: The Golden Circle is bad, lazy, cheap storytelling entirely apart from its horrific overtones. It’s full of juvenile grossoutstweet — a swim through a shit-drenched sewer; a cannibalistic burger — even as it pretends that it’s about gentlemanliness. Its action sequences are literally cartoonish, all CGI’ed mayhem in which it’s impossible to tell what’s going on, entirely devoid of the athleticism and robust grace that a really well choreographed and photographed punch-up or car chase can have. (There is kineticism here, but nothing actually thrilling.tweet) It requires that its hero behave in the most stupidly unreasonable ways possible in order to keep the plot going.tweet (On a secret mission to steal a desperately needed vial of macguffin serum, the protagonist takes only one when he could just as easily have grabbed a handful, and you can guess what happens next.)

“Can you believe I’m playing the head of the world’s most powerful drug cartel, and I still spend most of the movie in the kitchen?”

“Can you believe I’m playing the head of the world’s most powerful drug cartel, and I still spend most of the movie in the kitchen?”tweet

There’s plenty more badness. The soundtrack is full of seemingly random pop and rock songs that are either shamefully on the nose or (much more often) horrendously unsuited to what is actually going on, including the least meaningful use of a John Denver tune in a year full of his music onscreen. The movie embarrasses some big names in supporting roles: Julianne Moore (The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2, Freeheld) as the villain and Bruce Greenwood (Gold, Fathers & Daughters) as the US president are performing pantomime, not creating plausible characters. (Even over-the-top characters in a comic-book movie still have to work within their own stories.) Emily Watson (Everest, A Royal Night Out) as an advisor to the president and Elton John (The Road to El Dorado) as himself are terribly abused by Vaughn. Jeff Bridges (Hell or High Water, Seventh Son) as the head of Statesman appears to have shown up on set for one day of shooting to phone in a couple of quick scenes that exist entirely apart from the rest of the story. And any Channing Tatum (Logan Lucky, The Lego Batman Movie) fans who turn out to see him as a Statesman agent are going to be very frustrated: he barely appears in the movie at all. (The only newcomers here who fare passably well are Pedro Pascal [The Great Wall (2017), Game of Thrones] as a Statesman operative and Halle Berry [X-Men: Days of Future Past, The Call] as Statesman’s Q, though the latter, being a girl, obviously doesn’t have much to do.)

Kingsman: The Golden Circle is bad, lazy, cheap storytelling entirely apart from its horrific overtones.
tweet

But the truly offensive aspects of Golden Circle are the ones that knowingly embrace toxic masculinity as if it were the only possibility.tweet As if gentlemanliness is itself a joke, a fantasy that doesn’t exist in the real world. As if any masculinity that isn’t toxic isn’t real. It’s a joke that, half the time, is pulled on its own hero, Kingsman agent Eggsy (Taron Egerton [Sing, Eddie the Eagle], an intriguing young actor who is not well used by this franchise). It plays for laughs the notion that Eggsy could be well educated and knowledgeable in a wide range of sophisticated subjects, such as classical art and global economics, and then “admits” that the only way that could be true is if Eggsy is cheating, getting information fed to him through a communication device. It scoffs at his grief over the death of his mentor, Harry (Colin Firth: Bridget Jones’s Baby, Before I Go to Sleep), who was shot point-blank in the head in Secret Service, by having him return from seeming death. (Harry was rescued by Statesman, which conveniently has technology that allows people to survive being shot point-blank in the head.) The film scoffs at Harry, who is suffering from amnesia and has reverted to his university-aged self, when he studied butterflies, snorting at this unmanly display of interest in pretty insects, so inappropriate in a virile secret agent.

“I sure hope none of you suckers bought tickets thinking me or Tatum or Berry were actually gonna be in this movie...”

“I sure hope none of you suckers bought tickets thinking me or Tatum or Berry were actually gonna be in this movie…”tweet

Golden Circle is a veritable stew of revolting attitudes about men, women,tweet the narrow expectations we are held to, and the (presumed) futility of ever escaping them. Vaughn holds up for ridicule Eggsy’s own tender feelings for Princess Tilde (Hanna Alström): he is now living with her in London after saving her (and the rest of the world) at the end of Secret Service. Recall: she’s the one who offered him, then a complete stranger, anal sex as a reward for saving the world (he accepted). This sequel turns that vile attempt at humor into a throwaway here: it appears that her standard good-bye these days as he goes off to his world-saving work is to remind him what he’ll receive as a prize when he gets home. But all of that is mere ugly prelude to Vaughn and Goldman’s nasty new misogynist contrivance: Eggsy is required to plant a tracking device on a woman (Poppy Delevingne: King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, Pirate Radio) in order to follow her to the location of her bad-guy boyfriend. The tracking device must be planted in her vagina. (I want to barf just typing this.) So not only does this scenario involve a kind of rape, as clearly the woman cannot be asked for her consent to insert this device into her body, but it also involves tormenting Eggsy, because he really does not want to engage in the sexual activity that this task demands, such is his devotion to Tilde. Vaughn has made it plain that the primary purpose and the primary “humor” behind his tortured concoction of this scene is Eggsy’s discomfort, not the violation of this woman, who is literally reduced to a vagina: we get a full-on gynecological perspective as Eggsy does the deed. (But don’t worry! Tilde is mollified over Eggsy’s cheating by a proposal of marriage. Because what else could a woman want from a man?)

Vaughn thinks he’s being edgy and unconventional, but absolutely everything he vomits onto the screen here — including the idea that a man’s feelings about being a rapist are more important than the woman he has raped — is tediously mainstream, if louder and more obnoxious than usual. Please, someone save us from male artists who think they are dangerously, uniquely innovative. We’ve had quite enough of them.


red light 0 stars

FlickFilosopher.com is wholly supported by readers. Please make a one-time donation (PayPal account NOT required) -- even $1 helps -- or set up a recurring subscription (PayPal account required).

Like what you’re reading? Sign up for the daily digest email and get links to all the day’s new reviews and other posts.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) | directed by Matthew Vaughn
US/Can release: Sep 22 2017
UK/Ire release: Sep 20 2017

MPAA: rated R for sequences of strong violence, drug content, language throughout and some sexual material
BBFC: rated 15 (strong violence, language, sex references, drug misuse)

viewed in 2D IMAX
viewed at a public multiplex screening

official site | IMDb | trailer
more reviews: Movie Review Query Engine | Rotten Tomatoes

If you’re tempted to post a comment that resembles anything on the film review comment bingo card, you might want to reconsider.

  • Danielm80

    I’m making popcorn now. I think we may hit every square on the Bingo card by Friday.

    https://media2.giphy.com/media/xjCKx4p58oamA/giphy.gif

  • Oracle Mun

    I heard Taron Egerton didn’t want to do that scene, and that’s why the hand in the shot actually belongs to her husband. Too bad nobody wondered if the whole scene needed to go back to the drawing board if their leading actor was so uncomfortable with the concept. And did anybody ask Poppy Delevingne what she thought?

  • RogerBW

    Whatever one thought of the first film, the death of Galahad was a fairly important point in the story; and now it’s meaningless. Sequels which retroactively break their prequels are a particularly lazy style of filmmaking.

  • Allen W

    I found this sequel to be generally “less” than the first one. The good parts less good; the bad parts less bad; the objectionable parts less objectionable. Not that there weren’t still examples of all three categories; it just all seemed oddly toned down. I have to wonder if people who were big fans of the first one will regard this as a sell-out.

  • Bluejay

    Ironic that Vaughn chose to remove some Trump references from the film:

    I wanted this movie to be escapism. And that means not suddenly have half the audience going, ‘That’s not cool, that’s not funny!’ as the other half is cheering.

    Apparently, upsetting half the audience with misogyny is fine, but upsetting half the audience with politics is going too far. *headdesk*

  • Pro Ishaan Puri

    “Save us from male artists who think they are dangerously, uniquely innovative. This stew of toxic masculinity and CGI-cartoon violence is nothing but tediously mundane.” It is because shitty reviewers like you that we can’t have good movies these days, just top headline made sure that it is gonna be a long feminazi rant instead of actual decent review that has something to do with the movie itself.

    -You guys are bunch of freaking hypocrites. If the roles in this movie were reversed, you would be all fine and dandy. Movies like these have been made throughout whole century now, its pretty much homage to James Bond movies, if masculinity and studness offends you that much, you shouldn’t have seen the movie in the first place. It is becomes less of an review and more of a salty opinion and that things didn’t go the way you personally wanted. These james bond movies has always been about men and for men with the guy getting sex and chicks cliche, don’t like it? Well, snowflake move on to a different genre then!

  • Bluejay

    B1, B2, I1. Also, self-upvoting.

    Well, snowflake move on to a different genre then!

    This review seems to have upset and angered you. Consider that perhaps the snowflake is you.

  • Kate W

    The first movie was so appalling and mysogynist to me, that I sped through the internet to find another reviewer who felt like I did, and thus I found the Flick Filosopher! No matter how many people tried to insist to me it was Satire, I just didn’t buy it. My poor husband, too, thought we’d enjoy it because Colin Firth, and instead we both stared in horror. Ghastly.

    Thank you so much for watching the sequel so fewer non-reviewers feel compelled to do so. I love your work.

  • Pro Ishaan Puri

    *Apparently, upsetting half the audience with misogyny is fine*

    >You mean women in general?

  • Pro Ishaan Puri

    *This review seems to have upset and angered you. Consider that perhaps the snowflake is you.*

    :Well, i can’t really help myself when a reviewer has given 0/5 because of the overused term “toxic masculinity” by the feminists and lefts. Like what is that? what is even that. Did she not know what she was going into when she saw the trailers and i assume she must have seen the prequel. Did she think it would have progressive empowerment movie about women in a film that pays homage to old James Bond movies and did the protagonist ‘s masculinity hurt anyone in the movie? Whatever happened to letting men portray roles in whatever they feel like. Have you ever seen where people hate on a movie because women in the movies are too womenlike? Except women themselves who hate on a movie because a particular movie portrays women too traditional. I love how feminism was suppose to be about letting women be whoever she likes, but when decides to be a mother or wife, you all go apeshit.

    -She is just hating on a movie like an immature brat because it isn’t her cup of tea. Since when people will stop hating genre for just simply being a genre. All of the things that she said about the movies about men and their roles and also masculinity was pretty much hinted through the trailers and since, it is a sequel it should have been all the more obvious. I love how she linked all of twitter quotes in bold text like she is proved Jesus’ 2nd coming, and her twitter page says “pioneering online film critic” pretentious much?
    and that horrendous donation page, but wait, why i am saying all of this? It has nothing to do with her review which is exactly like how she constructed her criticism in her “review”.

  • LaSargenta

    Yup, ‘fraid you ARE the snowflake. Why else would you have wasted all that energy on this rant?

    We can’t solve your fears for you, kiddo.

  • LaSargenta

    BRING ON THE POPCORN

  • Bluejay

    Wow, her review is making you feel all of these things. Poor snowflake.

  • Pro Ishaan Puri

    Yea, i am gonna have to remove it. I didn’t realize that the author is an arsehole too who post screenshots of the hate comments on social media and ruin their lives. Yeap, definitely gonna report and block this site and tell others too. Apparently, having a free opinion on this site is not a thing!

  • Bluejay

    Yea, I am gonna have to remove it.

    Coward.

    the author is an arsehole too who post screenshots of the hate comments on social media and ruin their lives

    Funny how the arseholes who post comments think their lives are ruined because their comments reveal them to be arseholes.

    Apparently, having a free opinion on this site is not a thing!

    Who’s stopping you from posting your opinion? But free speech also means OTHER people can say what they think about your comments. And if you post a comment on a public forum, it’s fair game to be shared publicly.

    Again, the only one being a pathetic snowflake here is you.

  • Dr. Rocketscience
  • Bluejay

    Our guest has deleted his comments, as is his right. But I’m sick of assholes erasing themselves and leaving gaps in the public conversation. So, since it’s MY right to copy-and-paste public comments and repost them, I’m doing so here. Enjoy.

    ==========
    Pro Ishaan Puri • 2 hours ago

    “Save us from male artists who think they are dangerously, uniquely innovative. This stew of toxic masculinity and CGI-cartoon violence is nothing but tediously mundane.” It is because shitty reviewers like you that we can’t have good movies these days, just top headline made sure that it is gonna be a long feminazi rant instead of actual decent review that has something to do with the movie itself.

    -You guys are bunch of freaking hypocrites. If the roles in this movie were reversed, you would be all fine and dandy. Movies like these have been made throughout whole century now, its pretty much homage to James Bond movies, if masculinity and studness offends you that much, you shouldn’t have seen the movie in the first place. It is becomes less of an review and more of a salty opinion and that things didn’t go the way you personally wanted. These james bond movies has always been about men and for men with the guy getting sex and chicks cliche, don’t like it? Well, snowflake move on to a different genre then!

    ==========

    Pro Ishaan Puri (replying to Bluejay) • 37 minutes ago

    *This review seems to have upset and angered you. Consider that perhaps the snowflake is you.*

    :Well, i can’t really help myself when a reviewer has given 0/5 because of the overused term “toxic masculinity” by the feminists and lefts. Like what is that? what is even that. Did she not know what she was going into when she saw the trailers and i assume she must have seen the prequel. Did she think it would have progressive empowerment movie about women in a film that pays homage to old James Bond movies and did the protagonist ‘s masculinity hurt anyone in the movie? Whatever happened to letting men portray roles in whatever they feel like. Have you ever seen where people hate on a movie because women in the movies are too womenlike? Except women themselves who hate on a movie because a particular movie portrays women too traditional. I love how feminism was suppose to be about letting women be whoever she likes, but when decides to be a mother or wife, you all go apeshit.

    -She is just hating on a movie like an immature brat because it isn’t her cup of tea. Since when people will stop hating genre for just simply being a genre. All of the things that she said about the movies about men and their roles and also masculinity was pretty much hinted through the trailers and since, it is a sequel it should have been all the more obvious. I love how she linked all of twitter quotes in bold text like she is proved Jesus’ 2nd coming, and her twitter page says “pioneering online film critic” pretentious much?

    and that horrendous donation page, but wait, why i am saying all of this? It has nothing to do with her review which is exactly like how she constructed her criticism in her “review”.

    ==========

  • sam

    all you faggots are overlooking the fact that fucking elton john round house kicked the shit out of some nerd. This shit was dope

  • harry potter

    there is something wrong with you if you found any of this irreverent humor to be misogyny. What’s ghastly is this review of the film.

  • Bluejay

    G1.

  • harry potter

    What complete hogwash this review is. Had the villainous female character been a man and Eggsy was a girl and had to place a device on his d**k without him knowing, you wouldn’t be even writing, but laughing (like every other normal viewer) instead. The movie’s protagonist is Eggsy, of course the scene would be about his struggle. Yes, men have hang-ups about this sort of thing, and it’s not wrong to portray it. As for the female villain being (not)”raped,” she was a villain.

  • Dent

    For (you),
    [spoiler]You can’t greentext on discus big guy[/spoiler]

  • Dr. Rocketscience

    If the moon were made of green cheese, then fish on bicycles would be singing La Boheme.

    There, no we have two random nonsense hypotheticals.

  • Dr. Rocketscience

    I’m sorry your mother never loved you.

  • Bluejay

    Had the villainous female character been a man and Eggsy was a girl and had to place a device on his d**k without him knowing

    Let us know when that movie comes out, and we can discuss whether it’s funny or misandrist or not.

    As for the female villain being (not)”raped,” she was a villain.

    So you’re saying she deserved it, because of who she was. I see.

  • CB

    “I’m edgy!” shouts the auteur.
    “So edgy!” shouts the chorus.

  • harry potter

    Yours was nonsense. Mine wasn’t.

  • harry potter

    It wouldn’t be misandrist. We have this sort of thing all the time, even in sitcoms. And it’s not so much she deserved it, it’s she was not an important character and she was a villain. Her head could have been blown off instead of her vag being tracked and you’d cry misogyny for the simple predicament that we got a female character, when we do this sort of thing to male characters all the time as dark humor.

  • Dr. Rocketscience

    Yours was complete bullshit, because such a movie doesn’t exist. No one else can respond to the imaginary things in your head.

  • Bluejay

    It wouldn’t be misandrist. We have this sort of thing all the time, even in sitcoms.

    Planting tracking devices on men’s penises by giving them handjobs? What sitcoms are you watching? I wanna see!

    Her head could have been blown off instead of her vag being tracked and you’d cry misogyny

    If the movie shows lots of men’s and women’s heads being blown off, it’s not necessarily misogyny (it would depend on how the movie portrays its female characters in general). If a movie shows ONLY women’s heads being blown off, it most likely is misogyny. And a head being blown off is not a sexualized assault. Vaginal penetration without consent is. Definitely misogyny. This isn’t hard to understand.

  • sam

    Yeah, thankfully I found true love with your mother

  • sam

    you are a massive cunt

  • bronxbee

    thank you, bluejay. i’m late to the review and discussion and was puzzling over just how bad the comments were. at least i know now. *sigh*

  • Tyler Foster

    Note also that this is a series that blew up Obama in the original.

  • Tyler Foster

    It is worth pointing out that the movie itself makes the horrifying argument that “she deserved it, because of who she was.”

    The scene is already horrendous for all the reasons already laid out, but Eggsy’s reluctance is actually so strong that he is standing at the door, ready to leave. Then the woman played by Delevigne turns around, revealing she has the Golden Circle tattoo shared by all the villains, and he regains his resolve.

  • Junio Estevez

    Yes the movie does make that argument, they also have her being rather unkind with her swiping left comment and then inviting Eggsy to pee on her. I suspect we are meant to think badly of her and just decide anything done to her is therefore ok. Although we have no back story and don’t know how she came to be someone offering up subservient sexual favours to men she has just met. There is something reprehensible about writing a female character in this way to get a crowd on side so they’ll applaud you when you then go on to give her the kind of treatment we are meant to think she deserves. I’m still processing but it seems a bit fucked up to me.

  • Michiel Deinema

    This movie is so offensive it almost seems deliberate. Though I guess I’m partly at fault for the fact they keep making this kind of stuff, since I keep buying the ticket and keep having a fun time in the theater.

  • Michiel Deinema

    Maybe I’m just old school, but the fact that her character consents to having sex with Eggsy means it’s not rape right? Or is all sex without an emotional connection rape?

  • Danielm80

    Almost seems deliberate?!

    Though I guess I’m partly at fault for the fact they keep making this kind of stuff, since I keep buying the ticket and keep having a fun time in the theater.

    You’ve just described the secret of Mark Millar’s success.

  • Bluejay

    She was having something implanted into her sexually that she was not aware of and did not give her consent to. What would you call that?

    Also, this was done purely for the titillation of the audience. There’s no plot-relevant reason that the device had to be something that can ONLY be planted in that spot, in that way. The writers just decided it would be a hoot if the hero had to finger a woman to accomplish his mission. Clearly, the film’s fans don’t have a problem with this. That doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

  • Bluejay

    There is something reprehensible about writing a female character in this way to get a crowd on side so they’ll applaud you when you then go on to give her the kind of treatment we are meant to think she deserves.

    Bingo.

  • PJK

    I’ll leave this alternative take on this movie here:

    https://www.themarysue.com/kingsman-the-golden-circle-review/

  • Pro Ishaan Puri

    Woaah, i can’t believe you actually did post my comment despite the fact i said “i will remove it” because you guys post it on social media and twitters for personal amusement and harass random people who are against your reviews and opinions, and i shall not stand for that. Its not your right, it was my comment and i wrote all of that. You don’t see me posting your article’s and site links on reddit forums for calling out to this movie as “toxic masculinity” which i say it again “IT ISN’T” or you know posting author’s salty quotes on my social links and harassing her. According to your broken arse logic, if a woman sends nudes in a group, it is completely for people to spread it everywhere because who needs morals and basic human decency?

    -But i am not gonna stoop down to your level. I should have known what was i going into, but it is much later that i realized the whole site is full of vicious hypocrites hyenas. You guys are all the same who call on men as cyber bully and harassment for comments that you don’t like and then channels like BBC and FOX make giant articles as for how men treat women on internet, and i am not a snowflake. You don’t see me calling a film that pays homage to old James Bond movies as “Toxic masculinity” or hating a genre for simply just being a genre.

  • Pro Ishaan Puri

    “She was having something implanted into her sexually that she was not aware of and did not give her consent to. What would you call that?”

    :That’s one of the most dumbest thing i have heard. Did you forget it was a movie and not a real life scenario? Who the hell in the first place would plant a transmitter inside someone’s private part in actual real life situation? Its only raw and grunchy comedy humor and even if the protagonist would have asked for her consent, what do you think the scenario could have been?

    -“I say, madame – perchance might I plant one on you?” lmfao, gtfo. You guys are literally nitpicking right now.

  • Pro Ishaan Puri

    harry potter:- Even if she is a villain or perfect persona of female hitler, no one deserves to be raped.

    Bluejay:- And How was that rape? So the protagonist planted something inside her private parts without her consent it has automatically turned into rape? Then what if he had cum inside her too, the semen came out of its own without asking her consent, does that consider rape too? Where do you draw line between consent and sexual harrasment? Like many things, this phrase was once pure and clear. The term has now degenerated into an overwhelmingly broad range of actions often determined by zealous feminists to be an inappropriate sexual advance. Have you ever seen romance in old movies? Do you see guys asking consent every second? Whatever happened to “sometimes feelings are more than enough or reading one’s facial expressions and body language?” Its a killjoy to ask woman’s consent in romance when she is clearly into him going all the way.

  • Danielm80

    Has MaryAnn actually reposted any of your comments? I follow her on Twitter, and I occasionally glance at her Facebook page, and I haven’t noticed her doing that. Did I miss it?

  • harry potter

    So she can have her head blown off a number of creative ways but not raped? Well, can’t say I agree. Hitler might deserve to be raped, about 6 million times over. That said, she wasn’t “raped.” it was a cheeky implant onto a mucous membrane, for which she totally consented to be fingered. That it was a trick isn’t “Rape” anymore than hacking your girlfriend’s iphone is “rape.” Stop cheapening the definition of rape.

  • Bluejay

    Dude. You posted your comment on a publicly viewed site, which makes it public property. Quotes, screenshots, and copy-and-pastes are fair game, even if you decide to take the original down. And by the way, what’s your problem? Don’t you stand by what you said? Or are you now suddenly embarrassed by your comments?

    You don’t see me posting your article’s and site links on reddit forums

    First, I’m not MaryAnn, and it’s not my article. Second, it would be your right to post links to this site (or any site) elsewhere. However: I am NOT encouraging others to “harass” you, nor have I doxxed you nor done anything other than strongly disagree with your comments. I merely quoted your own publicly stated words. If you think your words are damaging to you, that’s your fault, buddy.

    According to your broken arse logic, if a woman sends nudes in a group, it is completely for people to spread it everywhere

    Again: this is a public site. It’s wrong to publicly spread something that was meant to be seen privately by selected individuals. YOU voluntarily posted your comment on a public site for the whole world to see. So *I* get to quote it as much as I want. Learn the difference.

    i am not a snowflake.

    Oh, dear sweet child, yes you are.

  • Bluejay

    Did you forget it was a movie and not a real life scenario?

    Of course it’s a movie. Real people wrote and directed that movie. Real people decided what those fictional characters would do, and what would be done to them. Those real people made misogynistic choices.

    what do you think the scenario could have been?

    The real people who wrote this movie could have chosen to write a different scenario altogether, one that didn’t involve inserting a tracking device into a vagina or otherwise demeaning the female characters. That’s the whole point.

  • Bluejay

    So the protagonist planted something inside her private parts without her consent it has automatically turned into rape?

    YES.

    Then what if he had cum inside her too, the semen came out of its own without asking her consent, does that consider rape too?

    YES.

    Where do you draw the line between consent and sexual harrasment?

    IF THE WOMAN DOES NOT CONSENT TO WHAT IS BEING DONE TO HER. IT IS SEXUAL HARASSMENT. AND RAPE.

    It a killjoy to ask woman’s consent in romance when she is clearly into him going all the way.

    What is “clear” to you may be different from the point of view of the woman. Have you considered asking women what they think about consent and rape? Or is it all about what the MAN thinks and wants, and what he THINKS the woman wants? Jesus, you’re a scary little snowflake.

  • Bluejay

    That it was a trick isn’t “Rape” anymore than hacking your girlfriend’s iphone is “rape.”

    Jesus, you guys are terrifying. Do you have women in your lives? Please share your opinions about rape with them, so they can decide whether they want to be anywhere near you or not.

  • Bluejay

    Dammit, formatting error. After the last all-caps graf, that next sentence should be a blockquote — his words, not mine. DEFINITELY not mine.

  • amanohyo

    Hmm… it’s kind of weird to equate hacking a phone to inserting an unwanted object into a vagina. They are both an unwanted violation of privacy, but one is clearly also a violation in a physical sense. You and Pro Ishan might be getting hung up on the semantics of the word rape. Let’s used the word violation for argument’s sake. It’s a violation because although a person may have consented to sex, their consent does not extend to the act of inserting a foreign object into their body.

    If you pull a vibrating dildo out of your pocket in the middle of intercourse and insert it into a person you just met, they would probably be upset (maybe not, but because they might assume that the goal of the action was their pleasure and assume it was reasonable sterile). If you secretly inserted a device with the intent of testing for STDs, and they later found out about it, they would definitely be angry. If the object you insert is tracking their movements, they would definitely feel physically violated. This is not difficult to understand.

    As Bluejay noted, the core of your argument is not about the meaning of the word rape, but rather the belief that we, the good guys, are allowed to physically violate evil people. Do people give up the right not to be physically violated when they commit a crime? Our legal system officially says no, but the prison system seems give a winking yes. Do people give up the right not to be physically violated when they are merely suspected of committing a crime? I hope most freedom loving people would say no. Do people forfeit the right not to be spied on when they are suspected of committing a crime? I honestly don’t know the legal answer to that one. I do know that there’s a difference, morally and legally, between secretly sticking a tracking device to someone’s car/clothing or on the outside of their body and secretly inserting it into them during sex. You’ve probably heard the expression, “your freedom to swing a punch ends where my nose begins.”

    Given the long history of men inserting objects into “sinful” or “evil” women against their will to punish them, it’s understandable that this act performed for comedic purposes by a man to a woman would be considered offensive to many people. As MA says in the review, what is even more offensive is the movie’s perspective that the most important moral question is whether one should cheat on one’s girlfriend – it doesn’t acknowledge the violation because like you, it assumes that evil people deserve it.

    Just as an evil woman does not deserve to be physically violated, the families of terrorists do not deserve to be murdered (or raped or have devices implanted in their bodies) without a trial. People often make a fuss (rightfully) over Sharia Law and then in the same breath claim that we have the right to violate and spy on people without a trial (in fantasy-fulfilling entertainment at the very least) because they’re evil and they deserve it. I understand the emotional need for catharsis, I’m not immune to the allure of the vigilante anti-hero, but it’s not rational or moral in a secular humanist sense. Governments obviously do it all the time, but that doesn’t make it right. Heaven help us all if people who openly profess such an evil, immoral perspective ever come into power in larger numbers.

  • I heard Taron Egerton didn’t want to do that scene

    This makes me like him more.

  • I heard Taron Egerton didn’t want to do that scene

    Really?!

  • I didn’t realize that the author is an arsehole too who post screenshots of the hate comments on social media and ruin their lives.

    Oh, you’re adorable. Comments posted here are publicly viewable. If you’re embarrassed by your comments and think they might “ruin” your life, maybe reconsider posting them.

    definitely gonna report

    Bwahaha. “Report” to whom?

    Apparently, having a free opinion on this site is not a thing!

    This is not a free-speech zone. You are a guest in my house, and if you do not behave properly, you will be asked to leave, and you might be booted. You might also be ridiculed if your speech is asinine.

  • Had the villainous female character been a man and Eggsy was a girl and had to place a device on his d**k without him knowing, you wouldn’t be even writing, but laughing (like every other normal viewer) instead.

    No. I wouldn’t. That would be appalling too.

    As for the female villain being (not)”raped,” she was a villain.

    You terrify me.

  • Evan

    Did the widdle snowflake have his widdle feewings hurt? Aww. You poor thing!

    No one says you have to like her reviews any more than she has to like the movie. Keep in mind she had lots of reasons to dislike the movie other than the blatant misogyny (if you actually bothered to read the entire review). She’s entitled to her opinion or can the widdle snowflake not handle that?

  • It’s way more than “a bit” fucked up.

  • you guys post it on social media and twitters for personal amusement and harass random people

    This is a public forum. If you don’t want your words to be read by the public, do not post them here.

    You don’t see me posting your article’s and site links on reddit forums

    That actually happens quite frequently.

    “toxic masculinity” which i say it again “IT ISN’T”

    Well, you’ve convinced me!

    author’s salty quotes

    Ooo, I might have a new tagline!

    if a woman sends nudes in a group

    Sweetie, your comments are not nudes, and this is not a private forum.

    who needs morals and basic human decency?

    Ironic.

    ou don’t see me calling a film that pays homage to old James Bond movies as “Toxic masculinity” or hating a genre for simply just being a genre.

    Your lack of reading comprehension is astonishing.

  • It’s not the sex that is rape, it is the implanting a device inside her body that is rape.

    It’s cute that you want to litigate this, though. No, wait: I mean it’s horrifying.

  • Who the hell in the first place would plant a transmitter inside someone’s private part in actual real life situation?

    So why do it here? For the lulz, right? To show the bitch?

  • Then what if he had cum inside her too, the semen came out of its own without asking her consent, does that consider rape too?

    If she had consented to sex only with a condom, and he fooled her into thinking he was wearing one when he wasn’t, then yes, that’s rape. That is sex under false pretenses. And it is hugely problematic.

    Whatever happened to “sometimes feelings are more than enough or reading one’s facial expressions and body language?”

    Seriously, what the fuck? What the hell in her facial expressions and body language said “Please plant a foreign tracking device inside my intimate body cavity?”

    I worry about the women you might know.

  • Jesus wept. No. YOU stop acting like women’s bodies are playthings for men. Fuck’s sake.

  • Though I guess I’m partly at fault for the fact they keep making this kind of stuff, since I keep buying the ticket and keep having a fun time in the theater.

    Yes, you are indeed partly at fault.

  • From that article:

    It’s a modern sort of fairytale.

    Fuck, no.

  • Oracle Mun

    Same here.

  • Allen W

    Yes, really, IMO. The whole shoot-the-dog subplot in the first one was so jarring, and made so little plot or thematic sense, that I was was griping about it for the rest of the movie. There was no scene that affected me that way this time. I didn’t even mind the callbacks to the dog subplot.
    Likewise, the infamous end scene from the first movie is called back to twice, but in a toned-down, jokey (and in the second case, pretty funny IMO) way. Which is the kind of thing I was talking about when i wondered if Kingsman “purists” would feel let down.

  • Dr. Rocketscience

    Why?

  • Allen W

    Eggsy was having sexual contact with her under false pretenses, using a false identity. In and of itself, that’s arguably rape (though fairly common in spy movies).
    I don’t see how the fact that he was doing so in order to introduce a microscopic listening device to her bloodstream affects that one way or the other. It does, of course, constitute an additional extreme invasion of privacy.
    That being said, the whole subplot is ludicrous and offensive; plus I’m annoyed that Eggsy (or the writers) didn’t realize that there are also mucous membranes in the mouth and nose.

  • LaSargenta

    Lots of “fairy tales” are terribly problematic, to say the least.

  • Dr. Rocketscience
  • Dr. Rocketscience

    Seriously, I’m really looking forward to the endless “It’s not really rape” hot takes every time this movie comes up for the next 5 fucking years.
    https://media.giphy.com/media/26hiuiiTLnF9nHxQI/giphy.gif

  • Danielm80

    No, he’s a Nice Guy (TM).

  • Captain Megaton

    There is something uniquely vapid about the Kingsman films. They play like an answer to a dare: “I bet you wouldn’t do that.” “Hold my beer.”

    A laddish wish-fulfillment fantasy lacking in respect for even the first movie’s attempts at world-building, the sequel doubles down on the fan service and lazy tropes.

    If I care at all about these stupid movies it’s because of the missed opportunity. The basic concept of an “independent intelligence agency” with a strong 60’s retro vibe, properly executed, does not have to be mean-spirited or misogynist. Ladies and gentlemen I give you: Archer. Kingman could have been, should have been so much more fun.

  • amanohyo

    So, just to make it clear, this is your argument:

    1) Evil people deserved to be raped.

    2) Inserting a device into a woman’s vagina without her knowledge or consent is not rape.

    3) Placing a tracking device inside of a person’s body is morally analogous to hacking their cell phone.

    Are you a member of ISIS by any chance? If not, you should definitely send in an application. You’re gonna love Sharia.

  • Junio Estevez

    You should look back through the person who wrote that’s entries on The MarySue then you will understand that the same person posted the poster for this movie on that site before it was released and titled it “My hearts desire” every post she made prior to the review raved on about how in love she is with the cast. It’s not an alternative take of any merit when the person writing has such a bad crush they have zero objectivity and are a total fangirl.

    I mean that’s what I liked about the Vanity Fair Review the guy said right in the first line “Taron Egerton is my lil movie crush and I just loved watching my lil crush doing his lil movie thing so I have no objectivity at all” it was honest and let people know the vantage point of the writer. I think it is downright sad and pathetic that the MarySue can tout itself as a gatekeeper for female representation etc and then have a review this stupid where the writer has not owned her bias but it jumps out at you in no uncertain terms if you go back through her posts. So yeah she is beyond discredited and I don’t go to that site anymore.

  • Junio Estevez

    No I didn’t forget it was a movie. I watched the first one and I saw Harry place a tracker on Eggsy’s clothing and then I saw Valentine place a tracker on Harry via his drink. It seems only when we have to track a woman do we suddenly only have the option of tracking via a vaginal insert because the mucous membrannes in someones mouth just don’t exist if the someone is a woman and can be scantily clad and shown as wanting to be peed on before she is gratuitously fingered. It really doesn’t take an abundance of brain cells to see how cynical and exploitative this is.

    Come on dude. Just use this test would they do it to man. I mean when we get the call back to the anal sex joke in the first movie when Elton John refers to back stage passes towards the end of the second, we get a double entendre. However Vaughn defends his decision to show a woman wiggling her butt and to show the seduction scene in this movie in the way he did by claiming he is just making the double entendres from Bond explicit. Only Bond never had equivalent double entendres and when men are involved he still stops at the double entendre no explicitness there.

    So really if he was brave and edgy he wouldn’t hide behind such a lame excuse. He would simply admit there is an audience for sexist material, there are leering lads in the world that want to see this and he plans on making all the money he can from it. That’s the truth that he’s too pathetic to own.

  • Junio Estevez

    It was deliberate. Matthew Vaughn is at best a troll and at worst a very small petty man who can’t handle any criticism at all. MV is on record stating clearly that he intended for anyone who criticized the first movie and didn’t like things like the anal joke, to fucking hate this one. So he made a movie with this intent, so yes very deliberately, of having some people fucking hate it. However creating hate is a dangerous pursuit. As I have come across just as many people who liked the first one who now hated the second.

    There were a lot of people who side-stepped the ending of the first movie and still gave the movie a pass who are now finding it hard to escape the reality of what they’re watching second time round. Especially as this time there is a weaker story, less character development and he has minimized the very elements that encouraged more people than perhaps should have to give the first movie a thumbs up despite its issues.

    Now he has simply given the bloody humorless feminists he so wanted to hate this more allies. His miscalculation is this 1. The humorless feminists like me didn’t pay to see his sequel (I admit I watched a download) so the people he wanted to fucking hate it, most of them aren’t even paying to watch and quite a few of the people who liked it enough to pay to see a sequel are now wondering if maybe some of the humorless feminists have a teensy bit of a point. So really when you are a very privileged, very fortunate, very rich man instead of being such a baby cos a few people criticize something you did and justifiably so, you could just make movie for people too enjoy instead, but Mr Vaughn is convinced there is no money in that. Over the next few weeks we will see how right or wrong he was.

  • Michiel Deinema

    I did really hate mother!

    And I have a subscription to my local cinema so they didn’t make any extra money!

    and and, I got nothing else to try and redeem myself :)

  • Michiel Deinema

    Oh I do agree it’s ridiculous and abhorrent in the first place. Just though you were arguing he raped her. I’m not trying to defend this movie, it’s terrible.

  • Michiel Deinema

    I was saying the actual sex isn’t rape. You can’t paint me as some sort of horrible person for arguing semantics, I don’t condone this scene as anything resembling okay. It disgusting and completely unnecessary. I’m just very an… okay not doing that pun, thorough when it comes to semantics.

  • Dent

    So are you posting nudes or what? Or am I supposed to post nudes. Instructions unclear.

  • Dent

    If you woke up to find something in your dick would you not feel a little raped? The point is, unwanted objects being inserted into holes is very rapey, and it’s weird that the film thought it was funny.

  • Dent

    I think it goes without saying that the insertion of sexually unrelated objects during sex is cause for reconfirming consent.

  • That was actually Eggsy’s first assumption, when it was explained to him how the device works, that he was going to have to get it up her nose somehow.

    This device is entirely an invention of the screenwriters, who believed they were upping the ante on the whole “spy has to seduce someone” idea. They thought it was funny and provocative. That is the entire purpose of the scene, to be outrageous, and then it is compounded by the way it is shot. The writers could have come up with a device that could enter the bloodstream merely with a touch anywhere on the skin, for instance. That would probably not have been offensive (though I’d trust that Vaughn would find a way to make it so). But the writers knew what they were doing. They concocted this scene for outrage.

  • It may not be that the writer is biased, per se, but may have been tasked with crafting positive coverage of the film. That is a thing that happens at big sites/publications.

  • Junio Estevez

    I’m not sure what you’re saying? I mean if the writer was tasked with crafting positive coverage or whether the bias is her own, it still discredits the site and it’s content doesn’t it? I mean she is the one who created psoitive coverage with an incredibly personal tone to it. that’s a choice. I mean headings like “Awesome First Pictures From the Kingsman Sequel Are My Heart’s Desire” and “The Kingsman Sequel Has a New Poster and a Cast Beyond My Wildest Dreams: Mind. Blown” are personal choices. It is possible to create positive coverage without personalizing it.

    Whatever the cause of her bias, my only point is that she is biased and it came through in her review with her reference to the cast, and was consistent with her comments before she ever saw the film. The fact her bias might have been editorially directed almost seems worse given the way The MarySue presents itself. However, I am not going to claim to know whether that is the case.

  • Junio Estevez

    He didn’t want to do the scene because he dislikes romance scenes he finds them embarrassing. He has defended the content of the scene and defended Vaughn, both on the record. He just had the actresses husband put his hand in her underwear because he was self-conscious about the logistics of the scene not the material itself or the concept.

  • Bluejay

    Aaand it appears THIS guest has deleted all his comments too. Weird, as he seemed to agree with the review and wasn’t a defender of the film. What’s going on?

  • Margaret Olson

    hi guys,
    MOVIE-STREAM4K.XYZ

  • Pro Ishaan Puri

    How the hell was that rape? He planted a transmitter inside her private part. Of course, she was gonna refuse if he would have asked her first. She was gonna think he is some kind of weird nasty pervert who is into disgusting foreplay or it is just simply gonna blow his whole operation, but i still don’t get it how was that rape, they had sex or licking, but because he planted something inside her private parts, suddenly her whole body feels violated? Yes, i am not implying it is still not a crime, she can still sue his arse to jail, but it is the end a movie. If it happens in a real life scenario to any average normal woman, her first reaction she would be jaw-dropped and shocked that someone actually planted a modern piece futuristic tech inside her vagina, it is not like she is gonna take lightly and brush it off as everyday occurance like in the movie and, You talked about if a man came inside woman without her consent and i am not saying (he tricked her). He was an amature in sex and couldn’t control it, so according to you, it is completely fine to ruin his whole life for calling him rapist because he came inside her, and what about when she says “yes” before sex and then she changed her mind after sex and calledhim rapist? or how about simply don’t have sex right away with a suspicious strange person whom you have known for just few hours. Oh no, but it is completely the fault of man here and do you know that the real actor Egerton was uncomfortable with the scene, so they had to call the real husband to do the scene.

    -From what i have gathered on this site is that If you are particularly argumentative, you are a potential rapist. It used to be that opinions presented to an individual with a differing point of view could be argued against by said individual without being flagged as a sexual predator for no reason like you are doing right now, and don’t put me together with that harry potter guy shit.

  • Pro Ishaan Puri

    Oh, god. So apparently i am the one who is snowflake when the article itself starts with “Toxic masculinity” like you guys are on some kind of vendetta against men who are muscular or you getting offended simply by a movie who pays homage to old james bond movies. Yea sure, you keep telling yourself, no wonder feminist stands for nothing these days except for women who only knows how to play the victim card. It sure as hell meant something before, but now, it has become laughing joking numbnuts of the internet.

    -Thanking for calling me a coward too. Things have come full circle now, yea men can be cowards too. You don’t expect every white knight to nobly sacrifice himself for you!

    :MaryAnn Johanson “You are a guest in my house, and if you do not behave properly”. HAH, look at your toxic fanbase, people with different views and opinions gets harrased right away, and its the regular commentators of this site who use foul language and you who is doing the shitty moderator job by shutting different people off by posting their comments on your terrible twitter page.

    :Evan Yea sure buddy. It is hard to believe when the article starts with “Save us from male artists who think they are dangerously, uniquely innovative. This stew of toxic masculinity”. Such hate for men! Its less of an review and more of a personal propaganda. It is just a freaking movie that pays homage to old James Bond, agent and spy type movies, is it that hard to understand? or you guys want to censor everything in this world. Anyway, keep on enjoying her reviews as it is only attract more feminiazis minorities like you who despite the fact that they live in west, one of the most free countries in the world still feel that they are being oppressed, and that sums up my last comment. It was a huge mistake to come here!

  • Pro Ishaan Puri

    “Yours was complete bullshit, because such a movie doesn’t exist.” You live in an information era, you are just few clicks away from google and find that answer. Yes, there might be not any movie where the female protagonist plants a transmitter inside a man’s anus because at that point would you be rather feel more gross for a woman who is licking a man’s butt and offended by that or feel offended for a man who is without getting his consent is having a transmitter inside his butt. I think comedy for men (since we are not whiny losers like you who thinks everything should go their way, despite the fact that rape jokes on men are still a mainstream in media, cartoons and movies because it is funny and men are not suppose to feel anything) Double standard much!? gtfo here.

  • Pro Ishaan Puri

    So, where do you draw the line? What situation requires consent and what does not? A lot of movies have gore, killing, murder, kidnapping and violence and many of these are done for comedic effect and relief. Why don’t you ever complain that the doer should have asked for consent first? or suddenly, you guys raise your voice only when it is related to the women’s cause. Men get kicked in the balls by women a lot of times in films and you guys defend it as “he deserves it”. From what i see, there’s no difference between that harry guy and all of you who thinks everything is fine and dandy as long as the antagonist is pure evil and villain. In the end, what you fail to realize is just a movie it doesn’t promote rape culture and no one in right mind in real life would plant a transmitter inside someone’s private part because there would definitely be far more better alternatives and as you said, yes this movie did it for de lulz and shitz and giggles. Some found it funny because it has never done before and some got offended like you

    -You also quoted that “”Can you believe I’m playing the head of the world’s most powerful drug cartel, and I still spend most of the movie in the kitchen?””. So according to you, its men’s place to be in Kitchen? What was so offensive about that scene? You meant to say that housewives and stay at home wives can’t be as badass as your mainstream wannabe independent women? You guys never say anything when men are portrayed as “househusband” because that is adorable and cute. Women like you are only gonna spread hate and create more differences between men and women further down the line. Soon men will raise their voice too that “why this movie showed a men near or in kitchen the whole time?” No wonder, you guys are bunch of hypocrites who only wants things going their own way.

  • Yes, that user deleted their comments. Weird.

  • You’re terrifying. I suggest you stop now.

  • Then go before I ban you.

  • A lot of movies have gore, killing, murder, kidnapping and violence and many of these are done for comedic effect and relief.

    And those can be hugely problematic too.

    Men get kicked in the balls by women a lot of times in films and you guys defend it as “he deserves it”

    I sure as hell do fucking not. I complain about such shit.

    So according to you, its men’s place to be in Kitchen?

    Work on your reading comprehension, dude. And also your understanding of feminism, toxic masculinity, patriarchty, rigid gender roles/expectation, and oh fuck just all of it.

  • Pro Ishaan Puri

    Funny how you really expect people to be in constant heat debate regarding this particular scene for years to come. Oh please honey, people are not that narrowminded, i bet most of them have already forgotten about the movie by now. If its anything, i can only see butthurt feminazi like you bringing it up again and again and you replying to your own comment to cause a discussion just proves that, lmfao

    :And please, remove the picture of sir, Neil deGrasse Tyson. You bring disgrace to him!

  • Danielm80

    It’s been unusually hot the past few nights, which makes it hard to sleep; I’ve learned the hard way that almost anything posted on this thread between midnight and 6:00 AM is genuinely frightening. It’s like a weird mash-up of Gremlins and internet culture: Don’t feed the trolls after midnight.

  • Bluejay

    So apparently i am the one who is snowflake

    Oh yes, dearie! Not least because you keep harping on it. This has really struck a nerve with you, and I must admit it is so very, very delicious.

    the article itself starts with “Toxic masculinity” like you guys are on some kind of vendetta against men who are muscular

    Learn what “toxic masculinity” means.

    Thanking for calling me a coward too.

    It’s accurate. And you’re welcome.

    its the regular commentators of this site who use foul language and you who is doing the shitty moderator job

    Ironic.

    or you guys want to censor everything in this world

    Ouch, you got us there! Very well: we grant you permission to watch this movie as much as you want. If anyone tries to stop you from entering the theater or buying the DVD, tell them the feminazis said it’s okay.

  • Bluejay

    How the hell was that rape? He planted a transmitter inside her private part. Of course, she was gonna refuse if he would have asked her first. She was gonna think he is some kind of weird nasty pervert

    Yes, generally that’s how women feel about rapists if they asked permission first. That’s why rapists feel it’s better not to ask permission.

    because he planted something inside her private parts, suddenly her whole body feels violated?

    Um, yes. This is how rape works.

    From what i have gathered on this site is that If you are particularly argumentative, you are a potential rapist.

    In the context of this topic, what you ARE specifically doing is excusing rapey actions as Not Rape, which makes you, if not a potential rapist, then a willing accomplice to rape culture, as so many people still are. And you are being called out for that. You’ll disagree, of course. But you would be wrong.

  • Bluejay

    I think comedy for men (since we are not whiny losers like you who thinks everything should go their way

    Ironic, since you’re the one whining that the movie should go the way that YOU want. And you seem to be under the impression that everyone you’re arguing with here is a woman. You might want to rethink that. You don’t speak for all men.

  • Bluejay

    But this one wasn’t a troll. He was one of us, a Social Justice Warrior, stout of heart and strong and true. We shall miss him, and carry his name with us into the Great Troll War like a bright blade against the dark.

    *sniff*

    Safe voyage into the Light, whatever-your-name-was!

  • Danielm80

    Reading his comments makes me feel like a member of the pre-crime unit in Minority Report.

  • Bluejay

    Now, now. The point of Minority Report was that the pre-crime unit was a bad thing. :-)

  • Bluejay

    Funny how you really expect people to be in constant heat debate regarding this particular scene

    And here you are, right on cue, talking about that scene — not just here but in multiple comments. Your lack of self-awareness is incredible.

  • Danielm80

    We really need a Bingo square for “You know this aren’t real people, right?” I wonder how many of the men who think we’re overanalyzing Mark Millar were furious about the female Ghostbusters.

  • Bluejay

    I think a case could be made for updating the Bingo card. There are some jaw-dropping “arguments” here (and in the mother! thread) that are crying out to be included.

  • Danielm80

    We need a Bingo card with at least 75 squares, but I need some time to eat and sleep.

  • Dr. Rocketscience

    Aww, that’s cute.

  • Dr. Rocketscience

    google and find that answer

    Oh, you found one?

    Yes, there might be not any movie

    Mhmm. Well, good, now that I know you have nothing of value to offer, but to suck your own dick, I’ll leave you to it and ignore whatever else you think you have to say.

  • Jurgan

    “Where is the money coming from, and why?”

    They hold the patents on a few toys from some out-of-town visitors- liposuction, Velcro…

  • shazwagon

    Excellent review!

Pin It on Pinterest