User Reviews (1,014)

Add a Review

  • "The King's Man," directed by Matthew Vaughn, is the third film in the "Kingsman" series, which began way back in 2014. The first in the franchise, "Kingsman: The Secret Service," was a remarkably entertaining film; packed with Vaughn's signature directorial flair and high-octane, frantic editing style, the light parody of the spy genre made for a movie that took itself seriously enough to be engaging while simultaneously keeping its tone light enough to avoid being a complete retread of things we've seen before. Enter its sequel: "Kingsman: The Golden Circle." Taking the idea of a spy parody and dialing the notch as far as it would go, and then breaking it, "The Golden Circle" jumped in the pool of complete farce. While containing some genuinely emotional moments, the consensus was that the film was too goofy to be enjoyed, complete with absolutely ridiculous and unbelievable plot points such as a man inserting a GPS tracker inside of a woman (and I'll just let you imagine how he does that).

    A few years and a global pandemic later and we finally have the third entry, which stands as a prequel, effectively telling why the Kingsman secret agency came to fruition. Foregoing the odd and overtly sexual humor of the previous two films, "The King's Man" is a much more serious endeavor - for better or for worse. It's very obvious that director Matthew Vaughn wanted to change his style somewhat drastically when compared to the first two movies. A slower, more dialogue focused picture, you would almost be forgiven if you thought that "The King's Man" was directed by someone else entirely. Vaughn decides to tell what is, basically, a World War 1 film, which may surprise those who expected a lighter affair more akin to his other works. Tonal inconsistency isn't something I notice very much during my movie-going escapades, but due to the drastic change in subject matter, in "The King's Man," the tonal shifts were jarring.

    "Fun" is not a word I'd use to describe this movie, unfortunately. And yes, while a few action scenes were certainly exciting, as a whole "The King's Man" weaves a tale that is more about the horrors of war and violence then about the titular secret service agency that we've all come to know and love. A large majority of this movie involves political conversations that lack the character personality needed to make such conversations entertaining to watch. Instead, characters take the dialogue very seriously which, frankly, is boring to watch. In between these conversations lie multiple and varied story beats, including: An attempt to defeat the crazed monk Rasputin, a plot to steal a tape that contains recordings of the U. S. president engaged in illicit activities, and the tale of Conrad, Ralph Fiennes' characters son, who enlists in the war against his father's wishes. As you may have deduced, it is the last beat mentioned that contains some of the more emotional story moments. Now I'm not against emotion in my movies, obviously, and there were some genuinely shocking, saddening, parts in this story. That said, I don't think the right balance was there to make these moments as effective as they could be.

    Vaughn seems to have trouble deciding what kind of story he wants to tell - is it a dramatic tale of the tragedies that arise with war, or is it a wacky action-adventure, complete with ballet battles, bisexual villains, and over-the-top set pieces? He tries to do both, and misses the mark, creating a confusing, convoluted, and overly lengthy story - albeit one that can be entertaining. No stranger to great action, Vaughn once again directs some fantastically kinetic fight sequences. The battle with Rasputin alone is worth the price of admission, and combined with a great score and masterful editing, I couldn't help but have a smile on my face during that scene, and throughout all of the action sequences. So if you're looking for good action, you'll certainly find it here (with a trench battle being another standout) - you'll just have to sit through a stunning amount of slog to get to it first.

    Ralph Fiennes gives a totally committed performance - him, along with the action, makes "The King's Man" a perfectly serviceable one-time watch. "The King's Man" isn't necessarily a bad movie, but it's one that gets held back by its own loftiness and high expectations of itself. Fans of the first two movies will most likely be disappointed by the change in tone and story, and those who are looking for something new will no doubt be taken aback by the tonal inconsistencies - which brings me to the question: Who, exactly, did Vaughn make this movie for?
  • Surprise smash hit in 2014, Matthew Vaughn's first Kingsman film The Secret Service was a fun, exciting and inventive new take on the spy/action film hybrid with its more forgettable sequel The Golden Circle still an enjoyable romp despite a noticeable drop off in quality but not even the keenest of Kingsman fans will be able to steel themselves for the mostly charmless and surprisingly serious origin story Vaughn has taken the series too with The King's Man.

    Set in the early 20th century where Europe is at war and England's freedom is threatened by a group of mad man hellbent on world domination, King's Man follows the pre-Kingsman exploits of Ralph Fiennes widower Orlando Oxford and his teenage son Conrad (an unfortunately bland character played lifelessly by Harris Dickinson) who along with the help of their housekeepers and associates take it upon themselves to turn the tide of the great war in the favor of their beloved country.

    In this set up there's no time for the banter we got between Colin Firth's Harry Hart or Taron Egerton's streetwise wise-talker Eggsy, there's no truly over the top flourishes outside of a few odd scenes mostly involving Rhys Ifan's crazy take on Russian villain Grigori Rasputin (who could've done with a lot more screen time than he was granted by Vaughn) and overall it feels as though for some reason Vaughn has decided the unique and playful nature that made his series stand out from the crowd is no longer needed.

    Never more prevalent is this aspect of the film than in an oddly bizarre detour to the World War 1 trenches as Conrad ventures to the front lines, this 20 or so minute mid-movie aspect might involve one of the films stand out action scenes but overall it feels like it's from a completely different movie than what has come before it or what follows it and it's an example of the film trying to do too many things at once, with too many characters like the didn't need to show up Matthew Goode, Aaron Taylor-Johnson or Daniel Brühl, making King's Man a film without a true identity or purpose.

    Based of this very differently toned and delivered series entry, it's hard to know exactly where Vaughn wishes to take his property from here on out but if there is to be more Kingsman adventures it would be wise to head back to the working book of the first film that provided a fresh take on a well-worn genre, only to find itself battling for its relevance less than a decade on.

    Final Say -

    Sadly this much delayed origin story is a mostly dull affair of a property that at one stage looked set to provide a fantastically fun cinematic journey, forgoing the fun that made people fall in love with it in the first case, The King's Man has snippets of greatness but is an overall forgettable and dull adventure.

    2 strong cups of tea out of 5

    For more reviews check out Jordan and Eddie.
  • That cocaine diet really does help to produce some fine scripts. The King's Man is amazing.

    The story is a mess of random things and encounters, some of which are loosely connected, but most aren't. Most of the time it sticks to repeating the same 'overprotective father' cliched scenes over and over again, occasionally inserting random "what?" moments and bizarre fight scenes. It's absolutely incoherent, and although the characters act like something important is going on, and sometimes act as they have achieved something, the viewer is fully disconnected from the travesty that is happening when it's not boring you down with the same scene over and over.

    They took the most 'hot' and 'debatable' facts about historical figures and incorporated them into WWI historical period, mutilating the history in the process. I'm not going to talk about historical accuracy, since this was never meant to be a historical action film or a war film. In fact, all the WWI battle scenes in the film (and the whole son's story) feel like they belong to a different film altogether, it surely never fits into the overall cocaine Hangover-style nightmare that is happening on screen.

    All the supposedly 'funny' things felt like torture, and only made me ask "what?" and "why?" all the time. The best joke in the film was Tom Holland playing all the three monarchs, which made me laugh.

    Besides this, there were two good things in the film - nice music and a cool and creative trench fight scene. If you forget about history and drop the setting, this is quality trash cinema. Gritty, dirty, bloody, and violent night brawl - excellent.

    Other than that - this film was atrocious. There are two possibilities, either this is a literal re-telling of a comic book (which I'm not familiar with), then it's sort of fine, but still doesn't work. Or this is just a 'whatever' approach to screenwriting, which automatically downgrades this film to "garbage fire" status.

    In any case, this mess cannot be enjoyed.

    P. S. Nice post-credit scene, guys. Joseph Stalin introduced himself to Lenin as Adolf Hitler, a quality high-IQ joke. Now I rate this 9/555555555555555555555.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Pros: 1. The fight/ action scenes pulsate with energy, are entertaining, and greatly choreographed.

    2. The scene wherein Conrad Oxford has to take on German soldiers with a knife in no-mans land is suitably tense and gritty.

    3. Rhys Ifans (Grigori Rasputin) delivers a compelling and memorable performance.

    4. Some of the special effects are truly impressive.

    Cons: 1. There aren't enough fight/ action scenes, even though this is a Kingsman film and those are the best bits about the movie.

    2. The death of Conrad Oxford (Harris Dickinson) is so ridiculous that what should be a heart-breaking moment ends up being, at best bewildering, and at worst hilarious.

    3. The comedy is really stale, to the point where it's difficult to even locate.

    4. The entire film feels like a wishy-washy World War One movie with splices of Kingsman added in. I kept having to remind myself I was watching a Kingsman film.

    5. Tom Hollander (King George / Kaiser Wilhelm / Tsar Nicholas) being cast as all three superpower leaders was unnecessary with King George feeling like the only genuine character, and the other two coming across as caricatures.

    6. Some of the CGI is a little too sloppy.

    7. The mid-credit scene that clearly introduces Adolf Hitler (David Kross) as the franchises next antagonist is just idiotic.

    8. Morton's (Matthew Goode) anti-English motivations for igniting a world war are nonsensical and lazily written. His ultimate reveal also falls flat as the concealment of his identity harbours no other purpose than to 'shock' the audience.

    9. The first half of the movie is way too slow-paced.

    10. The film is hardly an origins movie as the Kingsman organisation already exists. It just establishes where some of the practices originated e.g. Naming their members after King Arthur and his knights. However, none of the origins information is interesting or necessary to learn.
  • With the unique wit of the original completely gone, this (hopefully) final installment is testimony to quitting while one is ahead. In the case of the Kingsman franchise, each sequel was progressively worse than its predecessor, and 'The King's Man' is simply an embarrassment for everyone involved. Put it and us out of our collective misery - enough is enough.
  • Tweetienator13 January 2022
    I really liked the first Kingsman movie but already the second one was in my opinion just milking the cow - story- and momentum-wise inferior to the first movie in every aspect. The newest addition to the franchise tries something new but - while there are for sure some good aspects - tastes like a bad mixed cocktail: the ingredients (or parts) just don't work too well together. The King's Man: no fail but compared to Kingsman: The Secret Service this one is just another rather weak entry.
  • FeastMode28 December 2021
    Warning: Spoilers
    This movie is terrible. I'm a big fan of the first two. This one is inferior in every way. Not one moment of action comes close to anything from the first two. The music, story, cast and characters are all significantly worse.

    This movie doesn't know what it wants to be. It barely has anything to do with the previous ones, on top of feeling nothing like them. It could be it's own unrelated movie if a few details were changed. Instead of fun spy flick, we get a World War 1 political drama.

    The overall quality is higher than 2 stars. Unfortunately there are some terrible scenes and horrendous moments that I seriously couldn't believe. Face palm emoji moments. There were literally times when I looked down, put my fingers on my forehead and shook my head. So many stupid moments. The "why" for certain things happening is laughable.

    Other than a few cool moments, I had an awful time with this movie and couldn't wait for it to be over. I didn't know who directed it, and when the credits rolled my jaw dropped. I thought for sure they had brought in some scrub to direct this nonsense. Matthew Vaughn has made some of my all-time favorite movies. This is hopefully just a misfire. Also, stick with Henry Jackman for the music in the future, please. (1 viewing, 12/27/2021)


    The couple cool parts I mentioned are the silent fight in between the trenches, and when Conrad is shockingly shot by a fellow soldier for lying about who he is.

    The dinner scene with Rasputin was excruciating. And it lasted for what seemed like 15 minutes. In the fight it leads to, his fighting style was creative, but the fight itself wasn't nearly good enough to salvage the scene. Not to mention so many stupid moments in that scene alone. Like Conrad hanging out with his cold dad while Shola is nearly killed by Rasputin. Or Conrad shooting the sword out of Rasputin's hand instead of shooting Rasputin himself. And not knowing he only has one bullet. It's like this was written for morons.

    There are so many other moments like this. Like hopping a goat. Or the villain reveal. Also, it was so obvious he was a bad guy 5 seconds after he came on screen.
  • Nothing about Matthew Vaughn's prequel to 2014's 'Kingsman: The Secret Service' and 2017's 'Kingsman: The Golden Circle,' 'The King's Man,' is particularly good... except that it ends. Gone are the over-the-top violence, exciting villains, and great spy gadgets that made the first two movies so entertaining. Vaughn seems to have trouble deciding what kind of story he wants to tell, creating a confusing, convoluted, and overly lengthy story that seems to break into different movies as the movie goes on. A truly unnecessary prequel.
  • digitalbeachbum22 February 2022
    This is not a movie. It's a bunch of individual scenes mishmashed together. The movie makes little sense. It lacks direction, reality, logic, a script, a director and common sense. Just about the only thing which is worthwhile is the casting. I get the idea that this is supposed to be an alternate reality or Universe, but geez, this is terrible.
  • I was very impressed with Matthew Vaughn's directing and writing in the first two films, of whom Jane Goldman also shared the writing credits, but in this one she was absent, and wow what a difference it made. In the ridiculously unnecessarily long 131 min runtime, only 10 mins total had anything to do with the Kingsmen. The rest was a convoluted scattershot of unnecessary plots that seemed to be a bunch of short films thrown in a blender to come up with this nonsense. There were too many plot and technical issues, and scenes that will make you shake your head in disbelief of what you're seeing, and why. Even the entire villain portion was too short, lame, and lazily written and executed. There were so many long dragged out and unnecessary scenes, you can literally fast-forward to the end of the scene and miss nothing of relevance. Basically 90% of this film was all filler with very little substance - and that's as a stand-alone film; as a prequel, it's all filler with maybe 2-3 minutes of any "Kingsmen" relevance. It's really too bad, because the rest of the film - cinematography, choreography, performances etc were all very good. I gave the first two films 9's, and I'm struggling to even give my very generous 6/10 for this one. Please include Goldman in any future Kingsmen films; at least her vision was coherent, cohesive, and exciting.
  • Calicodreamin23 December 2021
    A decent prequel that had a few great action scenes and dramatic moments; but that overall didn't have the charm of its predecessors. The CGI looked too computer generated and the storyline too heavy. With so much story to cover the scene jumps happened to often and disrupted the flow. Acting was good and characters were well cast,
  • The King's Man (2021)

    There lived a certain man, in Russia long ago, he was big and strong but he certainly wasn't killed by an Englishman. If you unfamiliar with the song, I am talking about Rasputin and how he was made into a caricature much like the rest of the appalling historical distortion. The saddest part of it all, is that some people will come out of this movie thinking that this is how it all happened. After two highly entertaining Kingsman movies about a secret spy agency, I was expecting to watch another entertaining installment full of silliness and crazy action. Instead, it turned into a pseudo historical parade of mediocrity that felt like anything but a Kingsman film.

    In this prequel, we follow the Duke of Oxford as he, along with his merry band of wannabe spies participate in important historical events and try to end World War 1. On paper, the film is meant to be a hit with a good setting, an experienced production team and led by the excellent Ralph Fiennes. Unfortunately, the longer the film went on, the more annoying it felt. Even if you don't think deeply about the illogical nature of the events, the film lacks the entertainment aspect because of the bland characters and the lack of formidable "Kingsman" level action scenes.

    I think the biggest problem of the film is not even the historical butchery but the fact that it doesn't have an identity. The first 2 Kingsman movies were over-the-top spy comedies with unbelievable plots, saucy characters and out of this world action sequences. Here, the film tries to be some twisted historical saga/wannabe James Bond by being too serious while at the same time trying to plug in some of the adventurous elements. As a result, it achieves neither the seriousness, nor the comedic/dynamic aspect and ends up kind of hangs in the middle making you wonder why have you wasted 2 hours of your life.

    Movies.shmovies on Instagram for honest movie and TV Show reviews.
  • "Kingsman: The Secret Service" is one of my favorite action movies. It's got some of the best action scenes ever made (R. I. P. Brad Allan.) The second movie in the series had some cool stuff, but it went a bit too over the top in a silly way.

    "The King's Man" breaks the formula a bit too much. Even tho the tale of the origin is kind of interesting, the first 90 minutes feels more like a slow paced war/agent drama that drags on way too long. I also felt like most of it was a build up to nothing, that ended up feeling unnecessary. And when the action kicks in, it's brief and lacks all the creativity we saw in the first movie.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    There is no beating around the bush: this film is bad. But what makes it a cinematic atrocity is having such a large audience on hold, such a great cast, 100 mils and still messing it up. All Kingsman movies are over the top, but this one went both too far and did too little. It felt like 50% of it was exposition and the rest was Ralph Fiennes trying to save the film, to no avail.

    Ironically, the highlight of the film was Rhys Ifans. I mean, he's a great actor, but he was in select company: Fiennes, Dance, even Hollander and Goode. And while he played a rather minor character, from the entire cast he was the only one close to memorable.

    Perhaps tongue in cheek, perhaps in bad taste, in such a British film the Scots are the villains and the Americans are the jokes. WW I was a one man masterplan and one other man made it all stop. A pointless prequel if there ever was one, and that's saying a lot.

    The fight scenes were kind of well done, but that's the only positive thing I can think of. Acting was good, too, but no material to work with.

    Bottom line: a damn shame of a film.
  • Don't be fooled by the title, this movie is a ww1 story with all the drama and politics that go with it.

    The trailers set a completely different tone, this movie didn't have a good story, it wasn't even fun.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    When I sat down to watch "The King's Man", I didn't realize it was the thrird film in the franchise. By its title and that it's a prequel to the other two, I just assumed (incorrectly) it was the first. However, there is good news...if you, too, do it this way, don't need to have seen "The Kingsman: The Golden Circle" nor "The Kingsman: The Secret Service" to enjoy this third film.

    The story begins during the latter period of the Boer War (1902) and is set in a British concentration camp. This surprised me, as films never seem to talk about this dark period in history, as the Brits locked up thousands of Afrikaner civilians and starved them...many to death. But most of the film is set over a decade later, just before and during WWI and concerns some secret cabal's being the orchestrator of the war and the manipulator of the various governments. So, it's up to a very tiny organization (led by Ralph Fiennes) to do figure out WHO these people are and WHY they're doing this.

    It's obvious whoever wrote the film really understood their history...though some viewers who DON'T might feel a bit lost. Also, understand that the film is NOT totally accurate...and it never intends to be. Instead, it takes history and tries to re-interpret if some Spectre-like organization is manipulating things. In many ways, it's an AU (alternate universe) some of the Marvel movies or the books of Harry Turtledove.

    So did I enjoy it? Absolutely....and probably more than the folks who DID see the previous two films first judging by the other reviews. It's a rare case where possibly seeing this sequel FIRST was actually a good thing! A very interesting and exciting film...and it really makes me want to see the other two movies.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The movie was a lazy mess. Was a terrible bore.. The son's character arc was completely drawn out and it ruined the emotional payoff. Also, the villain reveal should have happened halfway through the movie. Maybe earlier, when the sub went down. This movie does not deserve to be called King's Man, Kingsman, or any of these word combinations. It has zero of the elements that made Kingsman: The Secret Service and Kingsman: The Golden Circle so great. The Rasputin figure should not have died so early! Conrad's death doesn't make sense. Died due to friendly fire?!! This one Fell flat on its face for me, especially predicting his mom at the beginning I was hoping to be surprised but I felt like the movie was lacking heart.
  • The first film The Secret Service is great fun, and the second The Golden Circle was worthwhile, this third installment in the franchise is a prequel.

    If you see Matthew Vaughn and his films, he breathed life into the ailing X-Men franchise with first-class and he directed two sequels of this franchise, but on this one Vaughn seems to have trouble deciding what kind of story he wants to tell - is it a dramatic tale of the tragedies that arise with war, or is it a wacky action-adventure, complete with ballet battles, bisexual villains, and over-the-top set pieces? He tries to do both, and misses the mark, creating a confusing, convoluted, and overly lengthy story - albeit one that can be entertaining.

    A few action scenes were certainly exciting, as a whole "The King's Man" weaves a tale that is more about the horrors of war and violence than about the titular secret service agency that we've all come to know and love. A large majority of this movie involves political conversations that lack the character personality needed to make such conversations entertaining to watch. Instead, characters take the dialogue very seriously which, frankly, is boring to watch, and you can really feel the run time.

    At the end, I think this franchise is dead now.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    .......And once that line is uttered, the film finally picks up, it's just a shame that the previous two hours were so bland and mundane.

    During the Great War, a former soldier turned pacifist is forced back into action when the forces of evil threaten to keep the war from ever ending.......

    I'm very fond of Matthew Vaughn and his films. Layer cake was an outstanding film, and he breathed life into the ailing X-Men franchise with first class. But this franchise has been a very strange one from the off.

    This prequel has Ralph Fiennes as the originator of the said Kingman, and because he's renounced violence, he forbids his son to take part in the Great War.

    So for the first to acts of the film we have Fiennes sipping whiskey, having suits fitted, and seeing Rhys Ifans totally embarrassed playing Rasputin. The plot features a heavily accented Scot who lives at the top of a mountain, being very angry, and taking his rage out on goats. From what there is of a plot, he wants to carry on the Great War, and tries to get three identical cousins to start a war, after all they are leaders of their respective ountries.

    Meanwhile, we get Fiennes getting his son involved in his secret group, and finally his son begins to realise that his dad isn't as boring.

    Now this is the part that surprised me the most. I was expecting the film have Fiennes pass the crown to his son come the end of the movie, but Vaughn treated us to a very big surprise just halfway through the film.

    It's a bland affair, action set pieces are boring and unimaginative, and the final reveal of the villain just mad me think 'really?'

    It also reminded me greatly of 1998's Avengers (Which Fiennes also starred in), and the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

    It's all a little bit boring, and you can really feel the run time.

    I think the franchise is dead now.

    Small mercy I suppose.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The trash burns bright in yet another dumpsterfire from Hollywood! Boring slow and generic, this movie lacks both the humor and charm the first two movies have in abundance, even the action scenes are boring and poorly made where they can't even get the villan interesting. I gave up after Conrad get's shot in a scene that makes no sense at all that shows the writers had no interest at all in making a good movie.
  • First things first, this is not a Kingsman movie.

    As far as I can tell this film was already written, which was a fairly poor and confused film, and then they put in 3 or 4 minor callbacks to the Kingsmen movies.

    By confused, I mean that this film could not decide if it was a war film, a spy movie, an action film or a drama.

    It changes its mind abruptly, and changes its mind several times about the moral of the film.

    The moral centre of any film is not something I care about in a film, or even think about it usually, but this film really crams its morality down your throat.

    Then it changes its mind about its morality, and crams that morality down your throat. Then it changes its mind, and crams the new moral centre of the film down your throat.

    It wasn't a good film. It was poorly written and poorly edited, and seems like a first draft that needed several drafts to iron out the kinks and its repeated tonal shifts, and to make it seem like a third draft film rather than a first draft nobody could be bothered to rewrite.
  • SnoopyStyle14 February 2022
    Warning: Spoilers
    This is a prequel to Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014). Orlando (Ralph Fiennes) is the pacifist Duke of Oxford. He, his wife Emily, and their young son Conrad visit a British concentration camp in South Africa for the Red Cross. Emily is killed and he promises her to protect Conrad at all cost. With the impending First World War, Conrad is itching to join but Orlando refuses to let him go. Unbeknownst to them, there is a sinister force pushing the European empires into a devastating conflagration.

    There is a bit of awkwardness in reworking history. Apparently, a Scottish nationalist is responsible for WWI. Rasputin was a vampire... Now that's interesting. I wouldn't mind that movie. He seems to be a good boss level. That fight is fun. That should have been the story. Instead, the movie keeps going and going and going. Sometimes it's fine but mostly it meanders. Prequels are often problematic since the ending is pre-set with no surprises. This one is no different. It has various problems but Rasputin is really fun.
  • Kingsman: The Secret Service was one of the biggest surprises in a cinema I've had in the last decade. I remember being excited for it but I never expected to fall in love with it as much as I did and the film still holds up every time I rewatch it. I even enjoyed The Golden Circle, it's not perfect and nowhere near as good as the original but I still get a lot of enjoyment out of it. But from the moment The King's Man was announced I just couldn't understand why it was being made. I don't dislike the idea of doing a prequel film but I thought the franchise would be better suited to finishing up the Harry/Eggsy story first before going into spin off and prequel territory. I was hoping this film would surprise me by being a different kind of entry for the franchise but unfortunately it was every bit as pointless as I feared it would be.

    I think the thing that stops this film from being bad overall is it's central characters. Ralph Fiennes is great in this film, he is as perfectly cast in this role as Colin Firth was in the 2015 original. He brings all the charm and etiquette you'd expect from this type of character while being completely capable in all the action scenes. I also really liked newcomer Harris Dickinson, he gives a really good performance and has great chemistry with Fiennes. I liked that Vaughn didn't just make him an Eggsy clone, he's a very different character and much more stern and serious and it works surprisingly well. Djimon Hounsou and Gemma Arterton made for really likeable and entertaining side kicks and they actually ended up stealing the movie for large portions. Most of the villains I found to be underwhelming but with the exception of Rhys Ifan who may have ultimately been the best part of the entire experience for me. He was delightfully over the top, capable and threatening in all the fight scenes and hilariously funny, it's only a shame that he wasn't in the film more.

    I think The King's Man best finds it's footing in it's 3rd act. It's when all of the masses exposition start to pay off in some way and it's in this part of the film that it truly starts to feel like a proper Kingsman prequel. I started to recognise the tropes I love in those other two films and I have to praise that this did make the film end on a reasonably solid note for me. However a fairly good ending doesn't make up for the nearly 2 hour slog that The King's Man is leading up to that 3rd act. Vaughn spends most of the film trying to compress years of history into a 2 hour runtime and it feels unbelievably messy as a result. While I liked most of the action sequences they are few and far between and I have to say that I found the film boring for the most part. I think Vaughn was a little bit too devoted to real life events and I think he may have benefitted from taking some more creative liberties that better suited the Kingsman universe.

    In addition to how poorly paced the film was I also have no idea what Vaughn's ultimate vision for it was. The tone shifts between being a serious war drama and a more over the top spy film constantly, sometimes in the same scene, and these two styles do not mix well. The film spends large portions devoted to the trenches of World War One just to abruptly switch to the goofy, moustache twirling villains plotting their evil plans to take over the world and it just makes those more serious moments feel cheap by comparison. It's hard to feel like I'm watching a Kingsman film when I'm watching the battle sequences and it's hard to feel like I'm watching a war movie in those more Kingsman oriented scenes.

    I think there is a potentially good prequel somewhere inside this movie but it's buried underneath messy storytelling and two polar opposite tones that make me confused as too what kind of film I'm supposed to be watching. Thankfully it's central characters lift the film up somewhat and it's not without its entertaining and effective scenes but I just don't think Vaughn had a clear idea for what he wanted to do with this prequel. I think the best thing the franchise could do now is finish up the Harry/Eggsy trilogy and end things on as strong a note as possible.

    6.2/10 - C+ (Middling)
  • mapine11 February 2022
    If you have a heart you won't watch this movie. It's a movie that went too far. A movie that isn't the slightest bit entertaining. Have writer's forgotten how to entertain us? I am going to boycott any movie written by these writer's and directed by. These people thrive on making people sad and miserable. What a horrible horrible movie!!
  • A more grounded prequel that is stylish and has a lot more dialogue maybe that was a issue to some cause of the pacing but I loved it regardless! I love Rasputin one of the great villains there was a few awesome ones. Matthew Vaughn's action is so great the spinning, unique camera shots and crazy stunt work that is always impressive in his projects. Ralph Feines is great I really like his acting. Even if the prequel wasn't necessary or felt right times it's definitely worth it!
An error has occured. Please try again.