A friend made me watch this because they thought I would hate it so much that it would be funny. It was a bad film that I’ll grant MIGHT have worked if it was funny but it wasn’t even funny. A waste of a good cast.
Sometimes I see the “big” films that were delayed by the pandemic and I see that the delay was indeed entirely the fault of said pandemic. Sometimes I see one and I imagine studio executives happy that they could try to hide a stinker for a little while longer without it becoming a social media firestorm wondering what’s wrong with the film. See also: The New Mutants.
As a person who spent the “humorous” end of Kingsman with their hands over their eyes, loudly announcing, “This isn’t funny!”, that’s all I need to hear to skip the King’s Man, despite its great cast.
OK, I will concede that the film picks up a bit there and the sex-comedy aspect of the we’ll-tempt-Rasputin-with-this-young-man but actually Rasputin is sensibly far more interested in Ralph Fiennes + Rhys Ifans playing Tom Baker playing Rasputin is another bonus. Sadly there is all the rest of the film before and after that bit.
I felt kind of lonely when all my friends adored the first Kingsman movie and I was horrified at the whole kill-your-dog-to-prove-your-loyalty thing (which I had been told in the past was a test that SS recruits had to go through, which did not incline me to consider the Kingsmen good guys, no matter how cool their hidden helicopter pad was). It just went downhill from there, to me.
The whole concept was a mess. The original comic was MI5 (or so I’ve read); the movie (as obviously you know) made them a post-WW I NGO trying to succeed in keeping the world together where governments had failed.
Well, since then we’ve had WW II, the Holocaust, Rwanda, the Cuban Missile Crisis — so they aren’t doing a very good job apparently. Coupled with the dog thing (I had problems with it too) I half-wondered if the point was that they were a complete failure as heroes, but I don’t think that was meant.
Also Taron Egerton (if I have the name right) has the charisma of a stick. A poor substitute for Colin Firth.
I enjoyed many parts of the first two as a fan of action set pieces in films, but the tonal whiplash was really something. About as jarring as watching a film directed by a dyed-in-the-wool Objectivist (Zack Snyder) adapted from a source written by a card carrying Anarchist (Alan Moore).
13 comments (including this one) for a paragraph and only 3 (incl. one by yourself) for a considerable longer review of all of us are dead.
I hope you don’t draw the obvious conclusion;-)
The first one was a mess, though Colin gave it his best. Killing him off was obviously a mistake, so then they came up with a weird way to bring him back. The second one, which we didn’t go to a theater to see but I watched mainly to see what they did with Tatum (whom they wasted) just was nonsensical camp. So they dumped it to make this prequel and I thought that they might thus be able to make something stronger. But according to everyone so far, there’s one good action scene in it and otherwise it’s also a mess.
I do think their stunt/choreography team for the franchise is a good one, but their scriptwriters were a disaster.
Ive read that this was originally not tied to the fanchise and the decision toput it in came relativly late.
I did enjoy the first one, but mainly because of Colin Firth.
It really shows the difference between a coherent development plan, for when you have the opportunity, and a sort of make it up as you go franchise. But even with a plan, franchises can implode, I guess. Anyway, I never warmed to this one. But I may have to watch a clip of this fight scene everyone likes.
We finally watched it this week; my husband Andy noted, since the horrors of war were the supposed motivation for the establishment of the Kingsman, they went all in on the stupidity and horror — which gave them no way to essay the level of satirical comic book violence they used in the earlier films.
Jeet Heer, a writer I respect, called this movie out due to not very well hidden antisemitism (closing credits) and general anti-Other tropes. The plot kind of sounds like a re-furb of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, mixed with the 39 Steps, by antisemitic politician/writer John Buchan.
If I remember the first film correctly, Samuel Jackson, the Evil Genius, kills the protagonist’s father figure Colin Firth. I’m not quite sure what we are meant to learn from this series. Seems like wish fulfillment for people who feel threatened by anyone not ‘white’ enough for them.
Camestros Felapton 
20 responses to “Review: The Kings Man”
This is exactly how I ended up reading the execrable How to Be Perfect.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sometimes I see the “big” films that were delayed by the pandemic and I see that the delay was indeed entirely the fault of said pandemic. Sometimes I see one and I imagine studio executives happy that they could try to hide a stinker for a little while longer without it becoming a social media firestorm wondering what’s wrong with the film. See also: The New Mutants.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I thought Kingsman was a failure for all kinds of reasons so I wasn’t going to catch this one anyway.
LikeLike
Yeah and it’s odd because it intentionally pulls back on some of the worst aspects but then somehow makes them worse.
LikeLike
As a person who spent the “humorous” end of Kingsman with their hands over their eyes, loudly announcing, “This isn’t funny!”, that’s all I need to hear to skip the King’s Man, despite its great cast.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Is it the “If you save me, I’ll give you anal!” line or the violence?
LikeLike
Both. And I was in a cinema, too. Luckily the violence was so loud that probably only my friends heard me.
LikeLike
All films should have Rasputin ballet-fights in them.
LikeLike
OK, I will concede that the film picks up a bit there and the sex-comedy aspect of the we’ll-tempt-Rasputin-with-this-young-man but actually Rasputin is sensibly far more interested in Ralph Fiennes + Rhys Ifans playing Tom Baker playing Rasputin is another bonus. Sadly there is all the rest of the film before and after that bit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I felt kind of lonely when all my friends adored the first Kingsman movie and I was horrified at the whole kill-your-dog-to-prove-your-loyalty thing (which I had been told in the past was a test that SS recruits had to go through, which did not incline me to consider the Kingsmen good guys, no matter how cool their hidden helicopter pad was). It just went downhill from there, to me.
LikeLike
The whole concept was a mess. The original comic was MI5 (or so I’ve read); the movie (as obviously you know) made them a post-WW I NGO trying to succeed in keeping the world together where governments had failed.
Well, since then we’ve had WW II, the Holocaust, Rwanda, the Cuban Missile Crisis — so they aren’t doing a very good job apparently. Coupled with the dog thing (I had problems with it too) I half-wondered if the point was that they were a complete failure as heroes, but I don’t think that was meant.
Also Taron Egerton (if I have the name right) has the charisma of a stick. A poor substitute for Colin Firth.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I enjoyed many parts of the first two as a fan of action set pieces in films, but the tonal whiplash was really something. About as jarring as watching a film directed by a dyed-in-the-wool Objectivist (Zack Snyder) adapted from a source written by a card carrying Anarchist (Alan Moore).
LikeLike
13 comments (including this one) for a paragraph and only 3 (incl. one by yourself) for a considerable longer review of all of us are dead.
I hope you don’t draw the obvious conclusion;-)
LikeLike
Next review will be two words long
LikeLike
“It stinks!”
(cf. The Critic cartoon)
LikeLiked by 2 people
The first one was a mess, though Colin gave it his best. Killing him off was obviously a mistake, so then they came up with a weird way to bring him back. The second one, which we didn’t go to a theater to see but I watched mainly to see what they did with Tatum (whom they wasted) just was nonsensical camp. So they dumped it to make this prequel and I thought that they might thus be able to make something stronger. But according to everyone so far, there’s one good action scene in it and otherwise it’s also a mess.
I do think their stunt/choreography team for the franchise is a good one, but their scriptwriters were a disaster.
LikeLike
Ive read that this was originally not tied to the fanchise and the decision toput it in came relativly late.
I did enjoy the first one, but mainly because of Colin Firth.
LikeLike
It really shows the difference between a coherent development plan, for when you have the opportunity, and a sort of make it up as you go franchise. But even with a plan, franchises can implode, I guess. Anyway, I never warmed to this one. But I may have to watch a clip of this fight scene everyone likes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We finally watched it this week; my husband Andy noted, since the horrors of war were the supposed motivation for the establishment of the Kingsman, they went all in on the stupidity and horror — which gave them no way to essay the level of satirical comic book violence they used in the earlier films.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jeet Heer, a writer I respect, called this movie out due to not very well hidden antisemitism (closing credits) and general anti-Other tropes. The plot kind of sounds like a re-furb of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, mixed with the 39 Steps, by antisemitic politician/writer John Buchan.
If I remember the first film correctly, Samuel Jackson, the Evil Genius, kills the protagonist’s father figure Colin Firth. I’m not quite sure what we are meant to learn from this series. Seems like wish fulfillment for people who feel threatened by anyone not ‘white’ enough for them.
LikeLike