I find it surprising that Matthew Vaughn's Kingsman prequel, The King's Man, is so much more grounded, which is to say less irreverent, than the first two films. In fact, we're hardly plunged into that absurdist world at all for the first half of the movie, and some audiences will resent that. Me? I bade my time through the slow first act, and simply enjoyed the cast at work creating the elements that would lead to the "secret service". I quite like this alternative take on history and how a SPECTRE-like group manipulated the world into World War I, which would have gone even more catastrophically without the proto-Kingsmen. Ralph Fiennes is a perfect actor to be make the footsteps people like Colin Firth will walk in "later", and his helpers are cool too (especially Djimon Hounsou). David Tennant isn't in it, but the actor playing the villain had me thinking he was because of the voice. The absurd historical touches, the dancing Rasputin fight, strong mountain goat action... that's all very fun, and I may be alone in this, but I like the less Millarish tone, which I often found distracting in the previous films even if they led to a more exciting experience.
Can't say I loved it, but I enjoyed the different take on the franchise as well as the main plot points, and came out of it mostly satisfied. Three main things I disliked:
-The villain and his motivations are weak as hell.
-It claims it wants to explore the birth of Kingsman, but
the proto-Kingsman organisation was basically already created behind the scenes and the agency that would follow is completely different in its composition and modus operandi
-
Lenin being a member of the pseudo-SPECTRE operating the October Revolution just to pull Russia out of the war as an anti-British move was insulting and infuriating. Lenin basically saying that the organisation would have to "work hard to find his equivalent on the right" is the kind of lazy anti-communist bullshit that borders on fascist propaganda.
In general, the whole alternative history angle was too simplistic, too angloamerican-centric, and too disrespectful to the complexities at play to feel anything but infuriating and insulting. Still, I cannot expect films to abide by my ideology, and if one can think of this as a fictional universe just vaguely inspired by real places, events, and historical figures, then the plot by itself is still intriguing enough.
A dull, mind numbingly stupid movie that gleefully takes a steaming dump on the historical line it goes out of its way to explore. A film that is completely devoid of practically everything that made the original movie the success it was - the main absent ingredient being fun.
The trouble with The King's Man is that it pretends to be a Kingsman film. Linking it to that franchise seems to have been a mere afterthought, to connect it to an existing fanbase. As a Kingsman film, it is extraordinarily dull, but as a film in its own right - without the expectations that come with the Kingsmen films - it is actually very good. The bit about the shots in Sarajevo is surprisingly well grounded in history, but as the film progresses, the historical bits become increasingly fictional, yet still entertaining. Mata Hari sadly looks nothing like her historical self, which is a shame. There are some fun camera angles and some that are a bit contrived (shot from the hilt of a sword), but the dance/fight with Rasputin pretty much makes up for it. Some plot developments are unexpected, but sadly the film commits the common mistake of making sure the biggest names have the biggest parts, so you can guess who The Shepherd will turn out to be - though I must admit, I did not recognise his voice! Ralph Fiennes is great in it, Gemma Arterton could've had a bigger part - with the exception of Mata Hari, she's the only woman in it - and Rhys Ifans is brilliantly cast as Rasputin (the accent is a bit overdone, but I never recognised him and had to look up who the actor was). Definitely worth seeing, but you might enjoy it more if you don't think of it as a Kingsman film.
Not in line with the first to Kingsman movies. I really disliked those first 2, as a third one enjoyed it the most BUT for a Kingsman movie it's all too serious and a bit dull.
As a stand alone movie I liked it more. Great cast
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 8 of 8
Siskoid
I find it surprising that Matthew Vaughn's Kingsman prequel, The King's Man, is so much more grounded, which is to say less irreverent, than the first two films. In fact, we're hardly plunged into that absurdist world at all for the first half of the movie, and some audiences will resent that. Me? I bade my time through the slow first act, and simply enjoyed the cast at work creating the elements that would lead to the "secret service". I quite like this alternative take on history and how a SPECTRE-like group manipulated the world into World War I, which would have gone even more catastrophically without the proto-Kingsmen. Ralph Fiennes is a perfect actor to be make the footsteps people like Colin Firth will walk in "later", and his helpers are cool too (especially Djimon Hounsou). David Tennant isn't in it, but the actor playing the villain had me thinking he was because of the voice. The absurd historical touches, the dancing Rasputin fight, strong mountain goat action... that's all very fun, and I may be alone in this, but I like the less Millarish tone, which I often found distracting in the previous films even if they led to a more exciting experience.MordredMS
Can't say I loved it, but I enjoyed the different take on the franchise as well as the main plot points, and came out of it mostly satisfied. Three main things I disliked:-The villain and his motivations are weak as hell.
-It claims it wants to explore the birth of Kingsman, but
-
Linkmaster89
Not as good as the other parts. The first half was boring and I missed the humor and style. But Ralph Fiennes was great.boulderman
Great development, settings..now sure about the no man's land bit.. Effective, dramatic, action. Vaughn makes these very well.Baddie generally worked. Enjoyed it. Great meshing of history
MrDoog
Awful, awful, awful.A dull, mind numbingly stupid movie that gleefully takes a steaming dump on the historical line it goes out of its way to explore. A film that is completely devoid of practically everything that made the original movie the success it was - the main absent ingredient being fun.
Garbage.
Neens
The trouble with The King's Man is that it pretends to be a Kingsman film. Linking it to that franchise seems to have been a mere afterthought, to connect it to an existing fanbase. As a Kingsman film, it is extraordinarily dull, but as a film in its own right - without the expectations that come with the Kingsmen films - it is actually very good. The bit about the shots in Sarajevo is surprisingly well grounded in history, but as the film progresses, the historical bits become increasingly fictional, yet still entertaining. Mata Hari sadly looks nothing like her historical self, which is a shame. There are some fun camera angles and some that are a bit contrived (shot from the hilt of a sword), but the dance/fight with Rasputin pretty much makes up for it. Some plot developments are unexpected, but sadly the film commits the common mistake of making sure the biggest names have the biggest parts, so you can guess who The Shepherd will turn out to be - though I must admit, I did not recognise his voice! Ralph Fiennes is great in it, Gemma Arterton could've had a bigger part - with the exception of Mata Hari, she's the only woman in it - and Rhys Ifans is brilliantly cast as Rasputin (the accent is a bit overdone, but I never recognised him and had to look up who the actor was). Definitely worth seeing, but you might enjoy it more if you don't think of it as a Kingsman film.Earring72
Not in line with the first to Kingsman movies. I really disliked those first 2, as a third one enjoyed it the most BUT for a Kingsman movie it's all too serious and a bit dull.As a stand alone movie I liked it more. Great cast
Lilu Milcalova
boring, SUPER BORING