Let’s discuss Samuel L Jackson.

I’m a big fan of his work. He’s entertaining, affable and features in movies that are generally interesting if not wholly within genres which I adore. And, really, all it takes is for one to watch Snakes on a Plane to just realize how amazing he is. However, he’s highly prolific with a resume which includes such diversity as Patriot Games, Pulp Fiction, The Star Wars Prequels, Unbreakable, Die Hard with a Vengeance, Captain America: Winter Soldier, Jurassic Park and Jackie Brown.

I mean, that’s an impressive list of a handful from the 100 films in which he’s credited. And, of course, do people even remember that he was also in Jumper or Inglorious Basterds? And yet, despite his proclivity, you never really hear him considered one of the greatest actors. Has he even achieved an Academy Award? I can’t think of him being nominated but perhaps he got some recognition for Pulp Fiction?  That movie got a lot of recognition, I think. But while he’s not considered a truly talented actor, he’s neither considered terrible either. He’s no Nicky Cage (and really, who is?). So what happened? How does this man–who delivers pretty solid performances near in and out whenever he’s cast and is clearly held in high regard both by fans and producers given how much work he gets–get so little accolades?

Well, looking over the large number of roles he does, Samuel L Jackson appears to have a tendency for being typecasted. I know I had this conversation with Derek after watching a movie–I can’t remember which but choose one of his many 100 appearances–where we felt that Samuel L Jackson was just not utilized as best he could. Looking at the Star Wars prequels and you can see perhaps his blandest performance (which isn’t a knock against the guy, no one comes out looking good from the Prequels). I remember Derek commenting that Samuel L Jackson just isn’t achieving his greatest potential if he isn’t being angry and swearing. And there really isn’t any reason for you to watch Snakes on a Plane than that reason alone.

So where is this ramble leading? Well, I recently watched Kingsman: The Secret Service.

If you haven’t seen the advertisements, then you would not be aware that Jackson is casted as the titular villain Richmond Valentine. And here we see a side of Samuel L Jackson that has never been known: a haemophobic, eccentric, lispy cellular phone billionaire with a strong gag reflex whenever faced with excessive violence. It’s so not Samuel L Jackson and perhaps that’s what makes it so damn fun when you’re watching it. It’s hard not to like the stupidity of his character, especially during perhaps the best use of product placement in the last couple of years when villainous Valentine welcomes undercover Colin Firth to his opulent mansion in order to wheel out a smörgåsbord of McDonald’s happy meals resplendent in their fine silver accoutrements. His character is flippant and irrelevant which, perhaps, is the best way to describe the film over all.

Kingsman is fun but it is not without its flaws. What you may think is a spoof on the spy genre flirts too much with taking itself too seriously to be simple parody. It also dwells far too long on the personal development of young Eggsy Unwin as he’s recruited to the fantastically silly tailors turned independent spy agency. As much as young Taron Egerton tries to sell the part, no one is watching the film for him or his clichéd character arc. We are warming seats with our bums to see Colin Firth, Samuel L Jackson and Michael Caine chew the scenery as they play atypical roles that we’re used to the old timers adopt like a comfy pair of clothes. The fun of Kingsman is in the tongue-in-cheek use of these highly acclaimed performers living up the ludicrousness of the comic book world and clearly having a party while doing it.

And it’s this tonal inconsistency that really pulls people from it. There’s one word of warning I have for the film and that it is excessively violent. Part of the interest in the film is its Guy Ritchie-esque fight scenes that, while filmed in an interesting manner, are incredibly violent. Unfortunately, this hyper-violence isn’t used to any powerful end. It’s much like it’s headlining actors and there for simple amusement and nothing else. Which isn’t to say that movies can’t be stupid fun but then why detract from that with the overdrawn training plot for Egerton?

Ultimately, I think the greatest issues of the movie derive from its comic book origins. I haven’t read the comic but there’s no argument that the medium struggles with its high fantasy elements trying desperately to be grounded in a bizarre pseudo-reality that always comes across as disingenuous and jarring when adopted to anything that isn’t inked and coloured panels. We also have fairly flimsy characters espousing silly nonsense about knights of the round table all the while discussing the merits of free cellphone coverage that invariably leads to mustachio-twirling attempts to take over the world. You can’t take the story seriously, ever, even when its try its darnedest for you to feel concern over bug-eyed pugs.

Furthermore, instead of ending the show on a happy note, I couldn’t help but worry that this was just the beginning in yet the unrelenting deluge of vapid comic book culture which has gripped our society. Kingsman is best as a one off–a sugary side dish that was silly and fun but not something you pull out every Friday when you’re desperate for a meal. However, it is almost a looming inevitability that there will be a sequel and, given the development of the movie’s plot, I can see no reason why I would want a Kingsman II or III. There’s very little direction I can see it going and all its best parts will be absent. For all the enjoyment I had for it, the movie is still shallow and fleeting. It’s a good pun which you grin at when your friend first makes it but as you do so you just know it’s going to be driven into the ground as your friend repeats it constantly for the next few weeks until he gets distracted by some other new meme.