Not very good compared to all the others. Don't recommend
What was with Conrads death? Why?
Stopped watching after at about a 1/3rd of the movie. Simply don't intend to spend any more of my limited spare time on movie studios who hire infantile movie director and producers to make a movie. Plot and humor suitable for a 6 year old with a bad taste in movies.
Boring waste of my time
An "Alternative universe" masterpiece. I got so bored until Rasputin fight scene but eventually the movie turned out to be really good. I liked the details, the camera angles, the energy of the cast. I recommend this movie to action movie fans.
I only got about 15 minutes in... meh...
The first two were pretty good. This prequel kinda ruined the series.
I enjoyed the movie, nothing much to say.
It really showed itself as a worthy long-standing origin.
I was always curious as to how they originated and now my curiosity has been undone.
The plot twist near the end really surprised me, I imagined anyone but her.
The action and suspense caught up with me, although it's not one of the best films in the genre; my rating is 7 stars. Waiting for a 4th movie in the saga.
After watching this film, the phrase that comes to mind is "less than the sum of its parts". There were plenty of fun ideas and sequences, but as a whole the movie was a bit disjointed. After a cliché, but effective opening, the film moves at a quick pace, with several time jumps to progress through its historically based narrative beats and make the most of its WWI backdrop. While these time jumps may have been necessary, and some were even well executed (the time lapse of a European landscape turning into trench warfare was certainly effective), ultimately it felt like the movie was checking boxes without meaningfully progressing the central conflict. I think these structural problems may be driven by the attempted reversal of one of the key moments from the original Kingsman, i.e. instead of having a father/son (mentor/mentee) relationship that is disrupted midway through the film by the surprise death of the mentor, this film has it be disrupted by the surprise death of the mentee. The moment still works alright, providing a much needed jolt of surprise to reenergize the plot, but ultimately I think the original film's setup creates a more compelling narrative thread.
Beyond the structure, I think this film's role as an origin story for "The Kingsman" agency was also somewhat limiting. The elements related to the "network of spies" were almost purely expository and/or montage driven, and were generally the weakest parts of the film. In particular, the initial reveal scene of the secret door and conspiracy wall covered command center strained my suspension of disbelief, as we are supposed to believe that three people are somehow operating any sort of meaningful operation. It also felt out of the blue and very much at odds with what was seen previously of Ralph Fiennes' character. In addition, the film tries to replicate the odd tonal balance of the original Kingsman film, which is a tough sell. Mixing extreme violence with elements of whimsy is a dangerous game, and the original Kingsman's success has proven tough to reproduce. My recollection is that the sequel, Kingsman: The Golden Circle, suffered similarly.
However, as noted above, the film has plenty of successful elements. The action is generally fun and well executed, with plenty of impressive choreography and direction (e.g. even though the premise of the no man's land encounter is ridiculous, it's still a clever idea and nice set piece). The acting was solid all around. Ralph Fiennes is dependable and Djimon Hounsou, though underutilized, is always a treat. Having Tom Hollander play King George, Kaiser Wilhelm, and Tsar Nicholas is a fun idea, although it wasn't used very effectively in my opinion. Despite 1917 and They Shall Not Grow Old bringing it some recent attention, WWI remains an underrepresented historical setting in recent film, so to see another film take a stab at it is always appreciated. At the same time, this also naturally results in comparisons to 1917, which, as one might expect, are not exactly favorable for this film (Sam Mendes and Roger Deakins are on another level).
As some final notes, Charles Dance is really going to struggle to overcome his days as Tywin Lannister, as I waited patiently throughout this film for his inevitable betrayal (I won't spoil you by saying whether it came or not). And finally, the central villain, who I was quite certain was going to be David Tennant based on his voice, was in fact, not David Tennant, which was a nice twist (note that this is not a spoiler, as David Tennant is not in the film at all).
Decent watch. Was fun up to a point. Could have been a bit crisper but otherwise a good fun watch. The cast does a pretty good job overall.
A bit different than the predecessors, but also more of the same. The movie drags a bit with chains of fetch quests, but this has some of the best fight scenes in the entire series. I only wish the focus was a bit more reined in. A movie solely focused on Rasputin could have accomplished a lot of the same overarching themes without sacrificing flow and pacing. None-the-less, I enjoyed my time and the movie leaves me wanting more. Matthew Vaughn continues to demonstrate his talents and I look forward to his next project.
I enjoyed the movie - if you haven't watched the movie STAY FOR THE CREDITS - no spoilers here but there is a scene half way through the credits that you should stay for!! The film was what I was expecting and there are a few unexpected moments and one that caught the theatre by surprise!! I would definitely watch this again.
This is clearly Matthew Vaughn’s attempt to shake things up and expand the Kingsman films into new territory.
It's a very respectable choice (it’s easier to play it safe, because ultimately that’s what most people want), but we end up with a film that doesn’t quite get the appeal of the franchise.
They used to be keep it simple, character driven and fun, and instead they went with something that’s too plot driven and overly serious here.
A big part of what makes the first film great are its characters. Now, Ralph Fiennes is quite good in this, but Harris Dickinson’s character is very one dimensional (and his performance doensn’t have the charisma that Taron Edgerton gave to Eggsy), and the villains all feel like they’re ripped out of a saturday morning cartoon.
It also struggles with its tone because of that. Like I said before, this is at parts oddly serious for a Kingsman film, and then every time it cuts to the villains it feels like a completely different film and it goes completely bonkers, fully embracing the camp. It kinda reminded me of the first Wonder Woman movie in that regard.
The production makes up for a lot, though. It’s very stylish, you can instantly tell that this isn’t a generic Hollywood production. There’s a lot of personality in the visuals, and the action is well staged (not nearly as tacky as in The Golden Circle), I just wish there was a little more of it.
I’d say it’s about as good as the second film. Not really memorable or something worth recommending, but it has its moments.
4.5/10
I liked it!! Different from the previous two but that’s a good thing
This flick is unbelievably terrible.
The Russian sword dance was pretty decent. The rest was pretty boring. I mean, it's predecessors were not fine art either but they were kind of fun. This movie is 60 minutes too long. Second part is better. Best scene: the mountain goat. The predecessors were about a kid from the streets become a natural born spy, this is in part about a cartooni-ish upper class boy full of jingoism. What could be less relatable and likable than this character from the stiff British upper class? Overall a strange mix of serious backdrops (WWI, Russian revolution, Mata Hari, personal loss and suffering) and an oddly mix of cartoonish characters.
Not as expected but it does not mean it is bad. It is a long movie with decent story which is telling the origins. Tbh, I was ready for the action fun package. It was a little disappointment for me. Nevertheless, it was ok.
Boring, and in general a franchise with quite terrible theme.
I don't know why many people disliked it, but it was a good movie. Especially the fight sequences and creative shots like the one with jumping out of airplane and crossing swords were top notch. It's way better than the second installment.
The origin story itself is interesting. But for a very long beginning, the pacing is weird. Just a succession of short scenes with varying time lapse in between. Until the Rasputin fight that just feels endless as it is such a radical change of pace. After that it's more or less normal.
More serious than the previous ones, which is ok. Golden circle was really wtf. Only the villain association is a parody, that almost looks out of place. Is it because of Brexit that England hates Scotland so much that they'd make a scottish caricature villain the way US used to do with Russia ? And even make him responsible for World War. A bit sad that you can guess who the villain is as he is basically the only other named character in the movie.
Plot is a bit long to start, until they really get into the action. Afterwards it's classic spy half comedy stuff.
The villains are interesting, with a huge part being Rasputin. The Rasputin fight is really good. Ralph Fiennes does a good job but the character is not the most interesting. Thankfully the supporting characters makes up for it. Mostly Shola and Polly but even Conrad has an interesting arc at war (otherwise meh, mostly stupid).
A rather surprising end for Conrad. Didn't see that coming and that's always a huge plus in a movie.
The final attack on the rock is a bit long and less interesting, but still ok.
It does a good job as entertainment, and at setting up potential sequels. Could have been a tad bit shorter.
A bit weird that the Kingsman founding team, an agency supposed to be avoiding politicians, includes the king himself. And also a random soldier that only ended up there because he was the same clothes size as Conrad...
Been looking forward to this one since before the pandemic hit which is insane.
Brilliant action and camera shots especially with the final duel. There were a few twists that almost shocked me, but I quickly remembered the director, Vaughn's choices in his previous kingsman films. Therefore, it made sense as to why the film concluded the way it did in the end.
Overall, it was a decent origin film with its thrilling moments.
It got considerably better after poor Conrad's death.
I really enjoyed this one, brilliant acting and an intriguing storyline, great action with a touch of comedy thrown in, well worth watching ;-)
:heart:x7
This 3rd movie in the series does not really follow in the footsteps of the previous 2 movies. I would classify this movie more as a War movie and the final 25% is the only part that really falls into the same vein as the previous 2 movies.
Don't get me wrong, it was still good but it could have been better.
How I rate:
1-3 :heart: = seriously! don't waste your time
4-6 :heart: = you may or may not enjoy this
7-8 :heart: = I expect you will like this too
9-10 :heart: = movies and TV shows I really love!
All right, this third installment of the Kingsman series indeed did not feature Eggsy. I was correctly informed back in 2018, when I reviewed the second. (https://trakt.tv/comments/200749)
I was pleasantly surprised, then, that this prequel format worked as well as it did. My concerns then about dumping the whole core cast were unfounded. In fact, the whole Oxford family (and staff) were quite good together.
Four-letter words are again on prominent display throughout this script—though not nearly to the same degree as in The Golden Circle—which bothered me again. But this time, it was down to believability for various combinations of time period and character, rather than a sense of lazy writing. (I'm still not sure what they were going for with Rasputin, the sex-obsessed priest, because the obvious gag seems too obvious.)
Perhaps most impressively, the writers actually noticed that the final battle created a slight problem, and included dialogue about it. I was wondering, "How will they get down?" from the moment Shola grabbed the lift rope. Said problem was, of course, hand-waved away by a scene cut, but fine. Whatever. The characters at least mentioned it.
This film certainly does not belong in the "disappointment" bin alongside its predecessor. It's reasonably fun, if a bit slow at times, and gives us a nice backdrop to explain why things work the way they do way back in the first film. As a bonus, many of the events are based on true history—which is a very nice touch.*
* — Except for Hitler meeting Stalin in the mid-credits scene. That didn't really add anything.
The whole flip on modern history (esp. portrayals of historical figures e.g. Rasputin) was one big over the top goof.
Good movie I guess but not what expected. The other kings man are so much better than this
i loved it. the fight scenes in particular were incredible
Great set up for the kingsman series. Sure it was more somber than the original two, but it was war time, this is to be expected. Lays the groundwork well for the series.
Loved the choreography of the fight scenes per usual, audibly said "holy sh*t" during the no mans land scene.
Make sure to watch the end credits as there is a scene halfway through!
it's ok but it loses the spirit of the original, except in the end, I hate stupid deaths. It is impossible that this is the bad one
Easily the best of the franchise, even if at times it seems unsure what exactly it wants to be.
His son is the biggest moron I've ever seen in a film
More serious than the other Kingsman movies. Ralph Fiennes is incredible as always. I just wish they had stuck to the excellent action/adventure/drama elements and taken it easy on the caricature.
A decent enough prequal to the much beloved series. The cast were excellent (as expected) but unfortunately the film was let down by it's pacing. At times the movie felt bloated and sluggish, which is a shame because when it does have it's ups it really does reach great heights.
All that being said don't write this one off. I watched it over a couple of sittings when I found myself with some free time and ended up enjoying the back half more than the front
Like most sequels/prequels, this was pretty bad. Boring, nonexistent acting and none of the charm of the first one. The second one was also pretty bad, but this takes the cake. There was a charm to the first one, then the action scene instantly became way over the top and so far beyond the realm of any shred of reality that is so distracting that it detracts from the film. This has that and it's boring and trite and just a Hollywood cash grab.
Superb movie. Very enjoyable. I really enjoyed the first Kingsman movie and the second disappointed. The King's Man addressed this and produced a really great movie.
i haven't seen the other movies but tbh i find action sequences pretty easy to check out of and this movie kept me focused. there were a lot of beautifully shot scenes! now it's time for me to go watch the predecessor films
I feel this movie was one where it served some really good action but the plot just felt really lackluster to me. It didn't do loads to keep me engaged and some of the camera techniques just felt off but this was an alright way to take up some time of the afternoon.
Stunning action and fighting. Great visuals. Garbage plot.
Well was not too impressed with installment of the franchise and I don’t recommend it.
It's a mistake to consider this Kingsman prequel as a film with the same characteristics as the previous ones, and it's not necessarily bad for that. In fact, if it weren't for the title and the context, it could have passed for a regular action-adventure film. That is to say, it is a different film, without being as macabre and brainless as its predecessors, more serious and, at times, tremendously tense for the spectator (arc from the trenches, I'm looking at you).
Ralph Fiennes is a great actor, but it's hard to be disappointed by an actor of his stature. The rest of the characters shine more or less, although I'd highlight Rhys Ifans' and Tom Hollander's interlocking performance.
Is it perfect? Not at all. It lacks a memorable soundtrack and is "tricky" in terms of the viewer's perception to confuse them in certain situations, but overall it is very entertaining and exciting.
For a film that wants to be a brisk crisp action movie with a sprinkle of historical spice, The King's Man is awfully tedious. Rasputin's balletic fight choreography is full of the intense invention I wanted to see throughout - but, alas, it was only there, and nearly buried under a hedgerow of prosthetic hair and black outfitting as well. Too much baggage, too much moralizing. The cast tries hard, but there's only so much they can do. When push comes to shove and every other button has been pressed at least once, the day is saved at last by a goat.
I mean, it had its reasons, that goat. But. A goat.
no man's land nighttime fight scene was good, and the grenade shield through the door one too
Brilliant first film and never been able to manage it since.
What a shambles of a movie! The first was a pretty good spy spoof with all the expected ingredients (and way better than The Man from Uncle), the second was terrible with a lead character who jumped about from being an intelligent super cool spy to a thick chav, the third movie I thought surely must be better. Wrong!
Best actions scenes of all three but aside from that it's an overly long boring movie that isn't really sure what it wants to be. It switches between 4 main story lines: anti-war / political, family drama, spy and action. The big problem is none of it melds together well. The anti-war / political thread is overly long and drawn out, the family drama is much of the same and both feel completely out of place in a Kingsman movie merely creating a feeling of 'Oh just get on with it'. The spy part is very superficial and again not particularly interesting, leaving the action part to try and hold the movie together. Trouble is the other three threads have dragged the movie out for so long that it's hard to generate any interest when the action sequences do arrive, or even care! Worst of the 3 movies by far and a very generous 5.
Considering the star power this should have been much better.
No humor, cardboard characters, boring movie...
Disposable action flick but entertaining nevertheless. The individual moments are good, but the story is so all over the place that it felt like watching a condensed TV show. Even though there is too much happening in too little time, characters still manage to go around in circles for too long. The involvement of historical figures also felt pretty distasteful. I don’t mind personally, but I expect a mess coming out of the sequel if it ever gets made.
I appreciate that they took the risk, but I guess that simpler is better for this kind of movie.
The story is just nonsense, all the characters are actor with no reason, no logic at all. The actors are great, but the whole story is stupid.
Conrad killed by an England solider, even the solider think he is a spy, but directly kill him should not be an option.
Well I enjoyed that, lots of fun action and did hit the heart at moments and all cast did well.
A fun adventure movie, better than the childish second movie. Almost an (also fun) Avengers 2, Fiennes rocks.
The same formula in the other Kingman films. Of course, at this point you’re here for the action scenes which still are brilliant to watch. Very impactful fights and nice choreography. Unforunately, in this film there is a long sequence that features WWI. It is relevant to the story but not so relevant to what Kingman has been about. This is supposed to be a fun spy movie with fun action scenes but a good deal of the middle of the film goes away from this entirely. But, this is still a really fun movie to watch and I don’t think you should avoid it because of that. This film is targetted at the same audience and should be watched after watching at least Kingsman 1 to understand the way the organization works because this film doesn’t highlight those “rules” and only shows the covert tactics and so on. So go on, have a blast. 7/10.
I feel in another time this film would have done very well it's a good kingsman spin off with a great cast. loved the story despite being dubious about a spin off but absolutely loved it.
This movie would've scored better in my opinion if not for the movies that came before it, still enjoyable enough to be called a good movie at the very least.
There are nuggets of a good film scattered here and there but at over two hours this bloated prequel is as long-winded as Rasputin infamously was.
I could watch Rhys Ifans stache-eating some cake and tongue-banging Ralph Fiennes' war injury all day - every day. The rest of the movie? Meh.
stupid computer crash.. The long adn the short of it is that this is the most confused movie I've ever seen. It has no idea what it wants to be.
I've never seen this kind of shit anywhere else. The West has already gone completely crazy, comes up with nonsense, and even the actors agree to play in this shit. Completely out of your mind!
I'm not sure why so many bad reviews when most people gave it a 7. Some people like to bitch?
Anyway, it's the beginning, origin story basically for the franchise. I liked the first two so this was fun. Ralph Fiennes rarely disappoints. The strew in with history was interesting and probably necessary to keep the franchise relevant. Like James Bond movies are based in part on an actual intelligence agency.
If you're looking for good fun, well choreographed action scenes and a decent script with a talented group of actors, you'll probably enjoy it. I gave it an 8 (most seem to have settled at 7) because the screenwriter did an excellent job of portraying the actual history we know into the storyline without having to change the overall historical record itself. That tap dance alone gets an extra point.
This movie is quite a slog and a chore to get through, outside of a few fun action scenes and a late surprise in the plot. The mid credit scene is fucking hilarious.
Total forgettable film.
Tonal issues and irregular pacing make this the least fun of the trilogy so far. It does not know weather to take itself serious or not, which results in extended boring parts interchanged with laughable scenes that break any suspension of disbelieve. They should have stopped after one movie.
When I watched this, I was expecting something along the lines of snatch, but what I got was 2 hours of my life wasted.
Plenty of fine actors to help this mess along, but I missed something..
Oh and the digital goats are so not life-like.
Anyway wont be going back to watch the other 2 movies.
why did conrad die? isnt this a prequel?? he's alive in the sequels..
usual cash in. watch if your stuck for something else.
This entire movie feels like an exciting trailer for an uninteresting movie. Superb cast acting to a bad script. It's just missing the excitement and wackyness of the first two films. Which were surprisingly entertaining. Like a period drama without the historic accuracy. I hope the next film, should there be one, is set in current or near future times.
Well, this was way better than I expected it to be. Which isn't that much of a surprise because many don't like it and I'm usually swimming against the stream. And since I have forgotten most of the previous movies, I could see this without comparing it. That's where a lousy memory comes in handy.
I like when they integrate real historic events around a fictional story. It's a "what if it is was like that ?" scenario you shouldn't take too serious. I also did like the undertone about war. How people where eager to get into it (which is actually true at the time) but how they all learn it's utter crap what you're being told. There is nothing glorious about it. It's people dying, period ! I did not expect that from a movie like this.
Some things were a little streched out. As much as I liked Ifans Rasputin I think the fight with him was a bit too long. You could probably shave another couple of minutes here and there. But overall It never felt boring.
So in an overall underwhleming movie year 2021, from my point of view, I consider this one of the better movies. Be it just for it's entertainment value.
It takes you long to make this movie a good one.Actors ok,images ok plot boring long for real action.
Having watched the other movies, I am going to say that this was such a disappointment, I'm glad I didn't pay for a ticket to watch it at the cinema or a blueray. In fact I'm so disappointed that I will not watch any more movies from this franchise.
Aside from the ballet dancing Rasputin, this is less cartoonish than the previous movies. Its enjoyable to watch although some of the plot turns didn’t quite work for me. Good to see Fiennes in action man mode, however, and a sequel to this origin story would not be unwelcome.
The first movie was great but each following movie has got progressively worse. Please go back to basics!
Why are they trying to make it so long, boring and serious, just give us cool action sequences…
Probably the worst of the series but still enjoyable
The story was good. The action was good. But I was missing the humor of the other Kingsman movies.
Pretty good origin story with lots of action. They threw in a couple of twisted scenes that would’ve been better left out.
Not quite what I was expecting. The backdrop of World War I to do some The Matrix/Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon stunts was some serious juxtaposition. There was history but this was a lot of fluffed up action, which wasn't always done really well. Some of the scenes involving the goat laden mountain top area just didn't work, specifically the parachute jump. Absolutely ridiculous. The special effects used a little bit after that where characters were being suspended off the side of the mountain looked terrible on the big screen of the movie theatre. We are talking Darth Maul falling to his cut in half death in The Phantom Menace.
Last big problem was making Woodrow Wilson into a Great War era Bill Clinton getting caught in sexual misadventures in the White House. COME ON!
The easter egg in the closing credits with a smirking Adolph Hitler makes you think there is more of these to come. I hope they improve on them a little bit.
This movie doesn't have the action as its predecessors ; however, don't let that detour you from seeing it. I enjoyed the story and the connection between father and son
As they surprisingly couldn't cast Olivia Colman even though she's in absolutely everything else even remotely British they seem to have cast Gemma Arterton to play Olivia Colman playing Polly Wilkins.
The movie had potential. It just never really took off, despite the presence of Fiennes and some other fine actors. It was kind of fun, and then I forgot about it before the credits rolled. We've seen this movie done much better in other places.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHATEBadMovies
A distinct lack of the comedy we have become used to from the Kingsmen films, but still quite enjoyable in both story and craft. Recommended!!! Especially if you like the Kingsmen films, of course, but also if you just enjoy a rather well cast and shot action flick.
Going through watching and rewatching everything Vaughn has done, the way I have done the past month or so, has made him a favourite I didn't know I had...
can't believe they shot his son in the head, didn't want to watch the rest of the movie after this happened
I want my kingsman signature fight scene. where is my kingsman signature fight scene?
Granted, this one is not playing in the same genre (the secret service comedy) as the others Kingsman movies - and I understand that whoever's here for something like the Colin Firth-movies might be disappointed. I, however, actually liked this one as I'm not such a fan of comedies and often find them quite repetitive and tiresome after 30 minutes.. Ralph Fiennes' character is credible, liked Shola and Polly (who add the little touch of exaggerated secret agent fantasy), and it plays nicely off of historic events. Conrad's exit could have been stronger, I suppose.
It escalated every minute from bad to really bad. The first movie was awesome, the rest and specifically this one was laughable.
I want to point out that the Lord gave a big speech about king arthur and all they are equal and rich people should give back, but on his huge castle he has the staff bow on him and one person didn't bow and he called her to discipline her. How nobble of them!
Anyway, Conrad was by far the worst character on the film and so stupid. The whole Russia scene was an abomination.
Matthew Vaughn continues his spy series with the prequel The King’s Man, exploring the origin of the Kingsman. When a mysterious cabal pushes the world powers into a World War, Orlando Oxford forms a secret spy network to uncover the cabal and subvert their efforts to keep the United States out of the war. Starring Ralph Fiennes, Gemma Arterton, Rhys Ifans, and Djimon Hounsou, the film has a pretty good cast that delivers solid performances. The script however, is incredibly bloated with a lot of tangents and side-missions that aren’t needed. And the comedy doesn’t really work. Still, the fight scenes are exciting and well-choreographed, and the sets and costumes are quite good. The King’s Man has some problems, but overall it’s an entertaining action film.
There are many things to like here. The setting, the styling, the fight choreography, and the adherence to real historical events. But the writing is so bad in some moments, that it was painful to watch. Just stupid. And the predictability did not help it at all. The first guy you think is the bad guy is the bad guy. And what's with the nanny? Whose nanny is she? There are no kids. Did they just need an extra Marry Sue in the story?
It's a more serious take on the franchise. Doesn't mean it's bad - just unusual
Just pathetic, the series is getting worse with every movie.
Action yeah Story yuck.
Unfortunately, there are not enough action scenes.
This film sure goes for something else...and while I'm all for that, the tone does not fit the rest of the franchise at all. If you are showing up to watch another Kingsmen movie, then this is not it at all. First off, the pacing was just so incredibly off for the entire film. The first 40 minutes is a slow, droning period piece without a lick of fun or interest. Just Ralph Fiennes acting his ass off, while Dickenson just whines and complains about the fact that they stole this plot from Finding Nemo, but made it...boring. Then the next 20 minutes is great. Completely on-par with the tone of the previous films, fun, out of control and over the top (but in a good way). Then we randomly get a half hour of a straight war film out of the blue. And then everything after that actually seems in tone again with the previous films. So 70 minutes of this movie really doesn't work. I love the idea of the plot focusing around actual events of World War I. The cinematography is excellent at times... but it's almost as if they didn't know what to do with the main characters at all, so they just sentenced them to a confusing hour an change, with elements of what we love about the other Kingsmen movies.
Now I didn't want the prequel to just be more of the same. But if you go into Indiana Jones, you don't want to get Pride and Prejudice. And that's exactly what we did for more than half the movie here. Granted some of the war scenes are great...but nothing quite fit the way it should. I didn't hate this film, but it sure isn't great. 4/10
As someone that LOVES the first two movies, this one doesn’t even belong in the same category. It’s got action, but is largely bare of all humor that defines the series. That’s not to say there isn’t a bunch to like here, but it’s worth knowing going in that this feels like a different franchise. Really hoping the next entry adds in the humor, but I’m curious if they build of this one for future entries as well!
Rating: 2.5/5 - 7/10 - Worth Watching
I can imagine Ralph Fiennes being handed the script for the first time. I can see it now. I can see the script mailed to him in a letter package, and he takes it to his study, sitting down comfortably in his chair that creaks loudly every time you move a muscle, placing the script neatly on his Shakespearean-like writing desk, lit only by candles to give it an atmosphere, with a lovely red-hot green tea by his side, as he puts on his reading glasses. He reads the script carefully until he gets to the part where his character has his leg sucked off by Rasputin and his character moans loudly. At this point, Ralph Fiennes takes off his glasses dramatically, sighs, and tries to look on the bright side, "Well, I need the money, and there are action scenes, so at least my grandchildren will think I'm cool."
Thank you for reading my fan fiction of the backstory with Ralph Fiennes's reasoning for being in this movie.
Awesome fun for fans of this series.
I really liked the previous movies, but this one is so long and boring.
I am convinced the writers/directors of these movies are oddly perverted, and obsessed with...bum sex. And very un-British, is it possible they are the same people that used the same actor to completely destroy the beloved and most British spy John Steed?
I thoroughly enjoyed that from start to finish.
The casting was perfection for me, I wouldn't want to pick anyone out specifically since they were all wonderful in their parts.
The action scenes were excellent and any exposition did not detract from the pace of the film, it just flowed.
The King's Man is too long and not as entertaining as the first two films. It's not bad per se, but it is very forgettable.
This movie ended up being quite unique and not in a good way. The uniqueness comes from the fact that I actually agree with the critics rating at that abysmally woke, leftist and useless site Rotten Tomatoes that this movie is not very good. That I agree with that rubbish site is rare indeed.
As a standalone movie I probably would have rated it higher but as a movie in the Kingsman franchise I have to say that it was a disappointment.
The movie sets a quite different tone than the other Kingsman movies. This movie is quite gloomy. The story, which takes the history of the first world war and the Russian revolution and rewrites everything behind those events, is pretty ridiculous. The stories in the two previous Kingsman movies was no masterpieces but this historical rewrite is just wrong. Especially when playing with historical events that has caused more suffering than more or less anything else in modern history.
The coolness of the two previous movies is more or less gone. I cannot figure out if this movie tried to be serious or humorous but it fails on both accounts.
The Duke of Oxford’s overprotection of his son and his pacifism during most of the movie was just tiresome. What eventually happened to his son was rather predictable but the way they did it was like they where just trying to piss the audience off. Incredibly frustrating.
Then we have Rasputin. The entire Rasputin part was mostly alternating between silly and disgusting.
The Duke’s maid/nurse was a nice part though although the actor was not really very good in the role. Also, I am not sure that this “network of domestic servants” felt very plausible.
There were some outbursts of action that was not too bad. Especially towards the end when the Duke finally seemed to get his act together and drop this pacifist rubbish. I do however exclude most the world war scenes from the good action. They were just gloomy, sad and, at times, unrealistic and silly.
Overall this movie was just so unlike the other two movies, and not in a good way, that I really did not like it. It was not really fun to watch. As I wrote it was gloomy most of the time. As it used the events leading to world war one and the Russian revolution it was just one disastrous setback after each other. The only positive event in the movie was really at the end when the Duke of Oxford, founded the Kingsman agency.
Reading the synopsis one might get the idea about the Kingsman agency being created and I hoped more of the movie would have been about the actual creation but the movie is really two hours of long winded often gloomy, sometimes silly, drama and then there are less than two minutes where the Duke of Oxford proclaims the agency created. Not what I expected to be honest.
I feel like this movie can't decide if it wants to be a Kingsman movie or a serious war movie. In the end, it falls just short of being either. I enjoyed the references and the connecting fibers that make it part of the Kingsman universe, I enjoyed the more mature tones and the story arc surrounding Arthur's son, it is beautiful and willing to let colors show through (even in the gloomy trenches of a battlefield), but it was wrong to hype up Rasputin, a man infamous for being un-killable, only to kill him off long before the end of the film.
TKM cosplays as a ra-ra war movie for a third of the runtime and still sucked doing that (it even has a gd slo-mo dude running through hail of bullets carrying comrade on back moment :rolling_eyes::rolling_eyes::rolling_eyes:)
Ralph Fiennes is such a MASSIVE downgrade from Colin Firth
surprised to see Vaughn's name come up at the end as the director, definitely below his standard but everyone's allowed a whiff sooner or later
Nicely based on plots and historical figures. However, somehow, perhaps a little less of the "wow" factor in total. ;)
Shout by HarboeJacobVIP 5BlockedParentSpoilers2022-02-11T19:19:41Z
30 minutes in and still wondering what I'm seeing. It's fucking awful and has nothing to do with the other films, except for the name.