The King's Man (2021) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
868 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Tonal inconsistencies makes for a convoluted, confusing experience
darkreignn22 December 2021
"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?
257 out of 333 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A completely different feeling Kingsman movie
eddie_baggins17 January 2022
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.
182 out of 256 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
120 minutes of mental torture
kuarinofu9 February 2022
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.
181 out of 259 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Decent prequel
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,
139 out of 222 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Didn't Kill Me
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.
101 out of 159 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Bloody Awful Rubbish
Instant_Palmer4 February 2022
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.
118 out of 173 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Was this written by a 5th grade drama class?
Top_Dawg_Critic12 February 2022
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.
63 out of 96 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A truly unnecessary prequel
Sir_AmirSyarif25 December 2021
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.
130 out of 206 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Well I enjoyed this prequel
UniqueParticle26 December 2021
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!
175 out of 302 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
don't give up halfway through
christiancarden18 February 2022
I almost did... but i stuck it out and was pleasantly surprised. Though this movie struggles to be historical and fantastical simultaneously here and there, over all it was highly entertaining, well written and acted and most definitely well shot and edited. On the edge of my seat hoping for a hitler prequel sequel!
14 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Laughs and history make a satisfying experience.
jdesando31 December 2021
"Real power is not found running off to war. Real power lies in understanding who it is you're truly fighting, and how they can be defeated." Duke of Oxford (Ralph Fiennes)

The tongue is not too far in the cheek with the semi-serious King's Man starring Ralph Fiennes as the dapper but deadly Duke of Oxford, organizer of the sophisticated spy agency that in previous iterations was more satirical of spy stories. In this origin story, much of the film weaves history around WW I into a fiction about a few good men and women trying to stop the march to war.

The major historical figures are Kaiser Wilhelm, King George, and Tsar Nicholas-all played entertainingly by Tom Hollander. Not to be missed is Rhys Ifans as Rasputin, a diabolical force in getting the Soviet Union to withdraw from the war, to the delight of Germany and the dismay of England.

When Rasputin battles with Oxford, the screen is alive with Russian-style dancing-swordplay, Rasputin's lusts, and plain old good dialogue. Director Matthew Vaughn allows his actors to express themselves wildly but with a modicum of Brit-like decorum fitting of the balance between dark history and playful replay.

Besides the memorable Rasputin swordplay, in the final act, when Oxford uses a new-fangled parachute to storm the supreme villain's high mountain hide out, the stunt work is just short of breathless, coupled with CGI to give a Bondian feel to the spy shenanigans.

I was pleasantly surprised by the imaginative re-creation of history and the low-key humor, so evocative of the Brit stereotype. More than one commentator has suggested how apt Fiennes would be as the new Bond. I don't know about that, but Fiennes sure does know his way around the screen.

"We are the first independent intelligence agency. Refined but brutal, civilized but merciless." Duke of Oxford.
52 out of 92 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Historical butchery mixed with lack of identity
arabnikita31 December 2021
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.
51 out of 84 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Pretty entertaining and made history fun!
parksiet25 December 2021
The King's Man is completely different from the first two movies; its a major pivot for the franchise and I really enjoyed it! I'm not going to pretend its the best movie ever made, or the best in the franchise, because it isn't and does have its flaws... but I still thought it was really good! It has all the stylistic elements you've come to expect from a Kingsman movie but with a few twists to that formula, it was honestly a really nice surprise! Going in, I didn't have many expectations, and thought I knew what the film would be based on the trailers but I was so happy to see that Matthew Vaughn had so much more in store for us! It's more serious than the other Kingsman films, and feels tonally different than the others. Its more of a Kingsman version of a war film; still has the classic hyper-real and energetic style and action but includes a lot of real historical elements. Personally I would compare it more to Vaughn's "X-Men: First Class", which I also really liked!

I love how Vaughn handled the historical elements; it was easily one of my favourite parts! He treats it sort of the same way Tarantino did with "Inglorious Basterds". It really made history fun, and I even learned a few things! (I didn't know that at the beginning of WWI the Russian Czar, German Emperor and King of England were all first cousins... and I loved how cleverly Vaughn used Tom Hollander for these roles!) We got to see such an interesting take on history, many of the events and figures Vaughn uses are true to life but he twists them in a way that makes it more entertaining! I was surprised with how many historical elements did show up, and had a lot of fun with this alternate "Kingsman-esque" version of history! Now there was also a downside to this: it felt like Vaughn just had a bunch of unused ideas that he just tried to work into this movie. The story goes everywhere and it wasn't really clear why until halfway through. Stuff just kept happening, and while I loved each individual scene it didn't feel like it fit together till the first hour mark. But overall I had tons of fun with the story and loved the characters it focused on, even if they aren't Harry and Eggsy.

I loved Oxford and Ralph Fiennes' portrayal is excellent, he just has everything that made him the perfect star of a Kingsman film plus the addition of so much emotion. He is such a gifted actor and while the script doesn't always give him the best material he constantly elevates it. He is just a god at what he does, truly one of the best working actors. I also thought Djimon Hounsou and Gemma Arterton also made huge impressions despite minor amounts of screen time. Harris Dickinson was good as Conrad, and I loved the twists they had with his character. I was a huge fan of the twist that happened regarding Oxford and Conrad and their relationship (father/son). I thought it was a clever reverse on the relationship between Harry and Eggsy or a mentor and student in general, and Oxford's emotional arc was quite profound. This twist also lent itself well to the film's overall anti-war messaging.

What's a Kingsman film without some intense and flashy action? This one of course has it all, and I especially loved the fight with Rasputin! It was thrilling and had so many exciting moments to it! The choreography was awesome and aI even liked how they worked in a nod to the dance for the song "Rasputin" through his fighting style. It was fun yet brutal and matched with the beats of the "1812 Overture" so well. That sequence alone just blew me away, but all the action set pieces looked so good and were shot in such vibrant, creative and extravagant ways! They just popped right off the screen and used such unique angles that I've never seen before... such as what I refer to as "Sword-vision". Visually they just looked fantastic, and had some perfect action choreography with gory and brutal moments. I also loved the production design and how it made the film feel so authentic and richly established.

Ultimately I just loved this look back into how the Kingsman organization was formed! Its fun to see all the classic locations and I loved how certain failures here led to the creation of tools we see used in the later Kingsman stories. Its a unique prequel that stands on its own and is pretty fun! I loved the historical elements and all the surprises the film had in store. It felt like Turner Classic Movies mixed with the History Channel and I really loved the style and tone it went for! It may not be for everyone, and I'm not sure that all fans of Kingsman will love it, but it really worked for me! As much as I can't wait to see Kingsman 3 and the continuation of Harry and Eggsy's stories, I would also really love to see a sequel to this (especially after that crazy end credit scene...)!
34 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A perfect example of how not to make a movie.
ahmxii11 February 2022
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.
39 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
If you're expecting a Kingsman film, prepare for disappointment
andrew-hill51528 December 2021
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.
45 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Messy Prequel That Has No Idea What It Wants To Be
cdjh-8112526 December 2021
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)
44 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
easily one of the 10 worst movies ever made
A_Different_Drummer9 February 2022
Another franchise implodes under the weight of executives and producers so taken with their own cleverness that they can no longer distinguish entertainment from pedantry. Incredible waste of talent and resources. ((Designated "IMDb Top Reviewer." Please check out my list "167+ Nearly-Perfect Movies (with the occasional Anime or TV miniseries) you can/should see again and again (1932 to the present))
257 out of 534 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Decent one
Movi3DO22 December 2021
Let's bring it all the way back to the first Manners Maketh Men.

The major issues with this movie were the elongated plot and boring villains. There was a lot of moving around and characters talking that frankly only made the story confusing. Also, this plot probably served to divert the audiences away from the main villain, who was in the dark most of the time. However, most of the villains were bland with nothing special, except for the guy in the trailer Rasputin. Although he's very cool in the action scenes, his character was obnoxiously weird. It's like I'm watching a different genre with this guy.

For the plus, I enjoyed the action a lot. I wished there's more, as there's good creativity here. The best was early on between the British and the Rasputin. There was a shocking moment midway that changed our main character, which caught me by surprise too.

Overall, a decent Kingsman movie. Better than the second, but definitely no where close to the first. 6.5-7/10.
48 out of 87 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Lacking the fun the previous films had but entertaining action.
cruise019 January 2022
3 out of 5 stars.

The King's Man is a fair film and a prequel to the Kingsman series. The film taking place in the early 1900 and taking its story during the first World war.

Plot is decent. Nothing creative like the first two films. The Resputin villain was entertaining and cheesy. The action sequences are ground and exciting.

The cast ensemble was good. The film did lacked the fun direction that the first two films had. The dramatic story was dull. And has a serious direction.
36 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Bits and pieces - and a fantastic dance-fight
kosmasp11 January 2022
For those who always felt that history was boring ... well they can relive and rewrite it here. Or see it rewritten - though I reckon you have to at least have some understanding of history and who lived when or was assassinated by what and how that was managed ... or gone wrong.

Of course this takes many liberties to say the least in the retelling - as I think I made obvious in my above statement. So some might think of it as fun - an entertaining "history lesson" of sorts .. others may not like the take on it. Of course if you already have an issue with the movie ... well it won't bode well going forward.

I thought many jokes historically speaking worked. Still as my opening line or review summary already indicates, it is smaller bits and pieces ... and some do not seem to be fitting with others. Same goes with the tone - a romance, that isn't one. A saved by the bell moment, another moment that does almost tell us one of our main characters is invincible, just to completely turn this on its .. head! No pun intended.

And an end fight that is quite nice, but a telegraphed twist punch (kick?) ... the midway fight, which feels more like a dance, is the way better choreographed one. Even if the end fight has a nice pov touch ... that should have only been used once ... maybe twice. But not as much as it ended up being on screen, because it got annoying. And again we are back to the walking a thin line, mixing things up, not being able to get the correct amount of whatever would be best for the story.

We do have great actors and therefor most of the jokes work and even an omission of any story whatsoever does not really matter. The end twist should also be quite obvious - from the beginning almost. Shame - I really do like Matthew Vaughn and I especially liked the ... I'll call it approach to the first Kings Man movie ... this reboot/prequel kind of thing ... well it does not really do much for the franchise. But you may feel differently. Because you may be smitten by certain parts of the movie and can suspend your disbelief to feel this is a coherent amalgation of all things combined ... not minding that there is almost an absence of a cool uber villain (Rasputin aside who does a great job by the way) ... the wait was too long, the end result not entirely worth it. Some great jokes and great visuals aside.
50 out of 96 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not a kingsman movie, not even a spy movie
Homer_Ate211 February 2022
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.
29 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Great prequel
masonsaul28 December 2021
The King's Man is a great prequel that's fun, surprisingly emotional with some genuinely unpredictable moments and is definitely better than its immediate predecessor even if it takes a while to really get going.

Ralph Fiennes is a capable action star whilst also delivering the required charm, emotion and gravitas. Harris Dickinson, Gemma Arterton and Djimon Hounsou are all great and Rhys Ifans is a superb if sadly underutilized villain.

Matthew Vaughn's direction is fantastic, his trademark style is still present as well as the satisfyingly clean and extremely enjoyable action sequences. The CG is mostly good and the music by Henry Jackman, Matthew Margeson and Dominic Lewis is really good, retaining the classic Kingsman themes but still having it's own more era appropriate style.
50 out of 94 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Weird villains
ilovefoodcoma14 January 2022
The storyline was not interesting at all. The villain guy was not scary but just weird. His look, the way he talks & the way he behaves..... strange. The main villain didn't get a lot of scenes, only at the end. Didn't enjoy this film.
34 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Decent prequel.
deloudelouvain25 March 2022
To be honest the best Kingsman thus far was the first one from 2014, The Secret Service. The Golden Circle from 2017 was a nice sequel that I would rate the same as this prequel. The good thing about this prequel is that you don't even had to watch the other two to understand anything of the story. This prequel has a good plot, entertaining for the entire duration, even though some scenes are a bit far fetched or not very plausable. The cast is great, the action is constant, and the cinematography is excellent. The King's Man is a more than decent prequel. Looking forward to another one.
10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I had hope
nimitz5419 February 2022
I had a bit of hope this movie was going to be good. I was wrong, i'm not surprised anymore at less than mediocre films being released... it's just becoming a drag is all. Time and time again a movie is hyped and time and time again we are let down. I guess it's just life now.. never learn to get your hopes up!
34 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed