The King's Man

I'm somewhat puzzled about my rating for this movie because there are a few potential reasons behind it. It could be that I wasn't in the right mood, or perhaps Matthew Vaughn isn't what he used to be (though I'm reluctant to believe that), or maybe the spy genre is just becoming a bit worn out. Whatever the case, this third glimpse into the world of the most secretive of secret services didn't quite captivate me as its predecessors did, and the third star was mainly earned by the stellar cast. I did find it amusing how the plot included numerous historical figures, but the story itself felt afflicted with acute clichés and excessive melodrama. The main plotline was painfully predictable, and the film's runtime seemed overly long for what it offered. I found myself getting quite bored during some stretched-out parts; even the highly anticipated sword-fighting at the end felt like it could have been trimmed down. Overall, I was left wanting more from this movie. / Lesson learned: There's always a Scot behind everything. 3*- (03/01/2022)

If you don't want to proceed sequentially, a prequel (almost) always seems like a fresh idea, and the third Kingsman bets on that. Setting the story in the First World War was good option, given the nature of the film, and Matthew Vaughn took it on with vigour. The King’s Man is definitely not for fans of accurate history – which I am thankfully not. It features a number of historical figures, but they take on a whole new dimension (I could go on at length about Rasputin) and Vaughn mostly manages to make humorous use of even their unconventional concepts. The identity of the main villain is clear almost from the start, but this is offset by the rather unexpected death of one of the main characters. The film does have a few spots that push the envelope too much, but I still had fun in the cinema and watched the beginnings of the modern-day "Knights of the Round Table" with excitement. PS: Some of Ralph Fiennes screams reminded me of Voldemort destroying the defensive shield of Hogwarts. (01/07/2022)

It's far from the genius of the first one and it's not as megalomaniacal or over-the-top as the second one, yet still is overwhelmingly a disappointment. It's crazy fun at individual points (the bit with Rasputin and the trench sequences are pure delight), but the whole comes across as rather wild and disorganized (not in a good way, unfortunately). It is, of course, absolutely flawlessly and confidently filmed, but what does it matter when it still turns out to be the weakest installment in the series. Gemma Arterton was great and woefully underused. I expected a lot more and even IMAX didn't save it. [65%] (01/17/2022)

If the script of the third Kingsman was a bit better than horrible, it could have been a solid ride, because Vaughn is able to reflect the contemporary political situation through his specific craft, he wittily alternates recent history and is not afraid to use subtle and daring humour and a distinctive directorial style to appeal to a wide range of audiences. In this respect, it’s perfect, but we want more from a film like this than ironed-out visuals with a plethora of familiar faces in the breakneck action scenes, which are good and some even fantastic. (05/03/2022)

The King's Man is nothing more than a series of random scenes in a very vague parallel to historical events. Some scenes give the viewer enough visual enticements and WTF moments. Plus, I would rather not think about how pointless the storyline is and how it does not really make any sense. Plus, the big revelation of the bad guy, delivered as a huge twist (which the viewer had already figured out after five minutes of watching this movie), could not possibly have been something Matthew Vaughn was serious about. (02/04/2022)