The King's Man

I really liked Kingsman: The Secret Service thanks in part to its great action, charismatic characters and clever humor. Kingsman: The Golden Circle was not as good as the original, but I still found it enjoyable and thought it shared a lot of the same qualities as the first. I thought The King's Man was decent enough, but it is definitely my least favorite of the series and is a disappointing origin story.

It really differs in style from the other two: Where the first two were unrestrained and fun, this one takes itself more seriously than I would have liked. There is a huge drop off in humor compared to the other two, and when the movie does attempt to be funny it falls flat. The lead protagonists are very admirable and responsible people, so much so that they are also a little boring and their dialogue is at times corny. With the exception of Rasputin, the cast as a whole is fairly bland. There are a couple of memorable fight scenes, while others are more cliche. The movie also tries to do a lot and is rushed to get everything done in a film that feels a little long.

Perhaps I am being unfairly harsh on The King's Man- it is not a bad movie and has some things to like. I guess my disappointment comes from feeling that this movie is stiff and lacks the unapologetic edginess that made its predecessors so entertaining.

As I started watching this movie, as it opens with a visit to a concentration camp in South Africa in 1902, I figured it was a serious treatment of the times. However as the movie unfolded it became clear that there was a heavy mixture of fact and fantasy. It moves forward to 1914 and most of the story involves the unfolding of the war.

In this fictional treatment an English Duke, Orlando, has formed a private spy network consisting of domestic servants employed by the world's most powerful dignitaries. They gather intelligence and target certain people, all with the intent to protect Great Britain from an invasion and defeat.

As the movie advances it includes a number of scenes of absurdities, I actually enjoyed them as comedy. Like the extended fight with Rasputin. Or the Duke trying to parachute onto the high plateau farm, eventually having to battle goats on a cliff to gain access. Fantastical stuff that has no basis in reality.

Did I enjoy it? Yes, I did, in some respects it reminded me of Wes Anderson's "Grand Budapest Hotel" in the chases and absurdities. I might watch it again now that I know what the tone is supposed to be.

My wife skipped, she was tired from a day at golf, I watched it at home streaming on Amazon during their "watchathon" week.

All the Kingsman movies have had very impressive action sequences and this one didn't disappoint. The way they film the choreography seems as thought out as the choreography itself. This one was certainly more serious than the previous films of the franchise, which I actually liked, but it still had lots of over the top scenarios and funny moments, true to form. I also appreciate how they don't always pull the punches for their characters, things go wrong, plans fall apart, and the characters have to adapt. It's much more engaging that way!

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.

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,