Looks like the type of film I enjoy, but I haven’t heard anything about it. Admittedly, my social circle and work colleagues seem to think the only films that matter are made by Marvel.
Without major spoilers, how did you like The King’s Man? I’ll probably go see it this weekend to get out of the house for a bit.
I liked it. It’s fiction, obviously, but references many events and people of the first half of the twentieth century.
This is a prequel to Kingsman, and the third movie in this series. As with most series, it has lost momentum along the way.
It’s enjoyable enough, but don’t expect it to match to combination of action and breeziness of the first film. If you’re one of those that needs plots that make sense and have no holes, none of the movies in this series are for you. Also, without spoiling anything, there are surprisingly dark turns in this movie.
Looking at what is hanging around in broad release, if a friend wanted to get out of the house this weekend and asked what they should see, I’d recommend Spiderman: No Way Home for action and Licorice Pizza for overall movie experience.
The first movie was also pretty dark; remember the villain’s plot? Pretty much an orgy of violence.
Yeah, the series has always been a balance of lightheartedness and dark violence. I added the comment on this one in case the OP hasn’t seen any of the previous movies.
You do know it’s the third movie in a franchise, right?
(eta: Oh, looks like you know by now)
My suggestion would be to watch the first one and see if you like it. I did, but the first two were way over-the-top in terms of characters, cliches, and violence. So it’d be a very subjective thing.
I definitely agree with “Go see Spidey first!”
(for Benedict Cumbersnark if nothing else…)
And it’s the third film in a film franchise that’s based on a comic book series from about ten years ago.
I just watched it, and without major spoilers, my opinion is…
…
…
…
What the hell did I just watch?!
I just…I can’t…
I guess my opinion is…
I seriously do not understand how this movie could have been written and directed by the same man who wrote and directed Kingsman: The Secret Service and Kingsman: The Golden Circle.
It had occasional flashes of the fun of the first two movies, but overall it was meandering, incoherent, and often dull.
It was maybe the most jingoistic movie I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen both versions of Red Dawn. It was also maybe the most monarchist movie I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen a lot of Disney movies.
It somehow managed to make League of Extraordinary Gentlemen seem like a good movie in comparison.
You were expecting republican sentiments out of a movie called “The King’s Man”?
No, but in the first two movies, “Kingsman” was just the name of the cover business, and it was a big deal that they were an “independent” intelligence agency, not beholden to any government or ruler. This movie leans pretty hard into just taking it for granted that monarchies are legitimate forms of government, and that the only reason anyone would rebel against one is due to the influence of a sinister conspiracy. It also appears to take place in an alternate history where in 1914-18, the King of England ruled as an absolute monarch, without Parliament, or even any ministers. Even most Disney princess movies don’t glorify monarchical rule as much.
I disagree.
I liked it. I liked how the film used real historical figures and made them believably fit in a work of fiction. This is no Inglourious Basterds. Or Once Upon a Time In Hollywood. Not being s student of The Great War, I was surprised to see how many of even the lesser characters were real people.
I did not find it dull, though I will say it took an awfully long time to get to “the King’s Man”.
Compared to The Kingsmen it was definitely slower and less over the top. I think it worked, though.
I never saw The Golden Circle, because I was afraid it would be so stupid it would tarnish The Kingsmen retroactively. Reading the plot in Wikipedia, I think I made the right choice.
You and I have very different thresholds for “believably”. Which is fine, of course, different people are going to have different thresholds for willing suspension of disbelief. And I actually would have been perfectly fine with unbelievably fitting in the historical figures, except,
If it had been as frenetic and goofy as the first two Kingsman movies, I think I would have enjoyed it more. I think a big problem for me was the mismatch of expectations - the trailers made it look like it would have the same pace and style as the first two movies, but it didn’t.
Beyond that, though, I thought the plot was a mess, the characters weren’t well-realized, and no one involved seemed to understand what the word “pacifist” means.
You absolutely made the right choice. The only thing that wasn’t terrible about the second movie was the guest star.
Just watched it on Hulu. Glad I didn’t pay for it, but it was an OK use of 2 hours.
Not the first movie (which I will rewatch on occasion). I thought it had too many call backs (and unsubtle at that) to the first two movies. Assuming we don’t need to worry about spoilers at this point, in no way would I expect the king of England to be one of the original Kingsmen.
If there are any students of history that stumble on this thread - was Kaiser Bill the buffoon/idiot/bully that was lampooned here? I did like having the same actor playing the cousins (even if I missed it until the credits), there are photos of the three of them showing the remarkable resemblance (although a lot of that probably came down to the beards they all had).
I just recorded it on DVR, so I’ll be watching it within a week or so. I’m in no rush because, much like the Matrix trilogy, I’m thinking that the first one was the best.
What was missing for me in this one was the light-heartedness of the first two. I attribute the more dour aspects partly to the story, and partly to the casting of of Fiennes for the lead. He just doesn’t do lightness or comedy. Also, his age had me worried about him in the action/stunt stuff.
The first two had a younger protagonist, along with a middle aged mentor, to root for. This one had an older guy, and his son. We didn’t really get a chance to root for the son, 'cause they 1917-yeeted him out (wrong move story-wise, in my opinion).
Yeah, but it was a plot point from the first movie - rich men who lost their heirs dedicated their fortunes to the Kingsmen agency. So he had to go (although I thought they were going to discard that point for a moment there).
I do agree that Fiennes doesn’t seem to do light banter well, but thought he managed the physical bits well.
OK, well, I did not retain that piece of information from the first film.
He was fine, but “action hero” has never been part of his brand, yah? Sure, he’s doing a version of action as Big-Bad in the Potterverse, but that’s all CGI/rubber-suit work. Otherwise, he owns the intense cerebral space.
The last time he tried, he was dire.
The big tonal problem I had was right at the end, when they formally declare the creation of the Kingsmen, with the stated purpose of “Preventing another war such as that”. Which we already know they failed at doing.
Imagine a pre/sequel set in the 1930s, where they spend a decade trying to stop Hitler, and just keep failing…