The King's Man: The Beginning

Similar to other reviews, pacing does appear to be an issue, but honestly not too bad. Decent prequel with some pretty cool ties to actual history (WWI, Russian Revolution, etc). I would say it's worth a watch, decent popcorn movie for what it is and what it is trying to do.

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.

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.

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.

The movie is not perfect but entertaining and also a little underrated. After all the bad reviews I was prepared for anything and yet I was surprised and well entertained. Some scenes are a bit over the top weird and somehow don't fit into the overall picture, but on the whole I found the movie really entertaining. Some historical interpretations were hard on the border of insipidity but as an adult you should be able to classify it somehow and you should not take the movie too seriously.