The King's Man: The Beginning

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.

Kingsman: The Secret Service was one of the biggest surprises in a cinema I've had in the last decade. I remember being excited for it but I never expected to fall in love with it as much as I did and the film still holds up every time I rewatch it. I even enjoyed The Golden Circle, it's not perfect and nowhere near as good as the original but I still get a lot of enjoyment out of it. But from the moment The King's Man was announced I just couldn't understand why it was being made. I don't dislike the idea of doing a prequel film but I thought the franchise would be better suited to finishing up the Harry/Eggsy story first before going into spin off and prequel territory. I was hoping this film would surprise me by being a different kind of entry for the franchise but unfortunately it was every bit as pointless as I feared it would be.

I think the thing that stops this film from being bad overall is it's central characters. Ralph Fiennes is great in this film, he is as perfectly cast in this role as Colin Firth was in the 2015 original. He brings all the charm and etiquette you'd expect from this type of character while being completely capable in all the action scenes. I also really liked newcomer Harris Dickinson, he gives a really good performance and has great chemistry with Fiennes. I liked that Vaughn didn't just make him an Eggsy clone, he's a very different character and much more stern and serious and it works surprisingly well. Djimon Hounsou and Gemma Arterton made for really likeable and entertaining side kicks and they actually ended up stealing the movie for large portions. Most of the villains I found to be underwhelming but with the exception of Rhys Ifan who may have ultimately been the best part of the entire experience for me. He was delightfully over the top, capable and threatening in all the fight scenes and hilariously funny, it's only a shame that he wasn't in the film more.

I think The King's Man best finds it's footing in it's 3rd act. It's when all of the masses exposition start to pay off in some way and it's in this part of the film that it truly starts to feel like a proper Kingsman prequel. I started to recognise the tropes I love in those other two films and I have to praise that this did make the film end on a reasonably solid note for me. However a fairly good ending doesn't make up for the nearly 2 hour slog that The King's Man is leading up to that 3rd act. Vaughn spends most of the film trying to compress years of history into a 2 hour runtime and it feels unbelievably messy as a result. While I liked most of the action sequences they are few and far between and I have to say that I found the film boring for the most part. I think Vaughn was a little bit too devoted to real life events and I think he may have benefitted from taking some more creative liberties that better suited the Kingsman universe.

In addition to how poorly paced the film was I also have no idea what Vaughn's ultimate vision for it was. The tone shifts between being a serious war drama and a more over the top spy film constantly, sometimes in the same scene, and these two styles do not mix well. The film spends large portions devoted to the trenches of World War One just to abruptly switch to the goofy, moustache twirling villains plotting their evil plans to take over the world and it just makes those more serious moments feel cheap by comparison. It's hard to feel like I'm watching a Kingsman film when I'm watching the battle sequences and it's hard to feel like I'm watching a war movie in those more Kingsman oriented scenes.

I think there is a potentially good prequel somewhere inside this movie but it's buried underneath messy storytelling and two polar opposite tones that make me confused as too what kind of film I'm supposed to be watching. Thankfully it's central characters lift the film up somewhat and it's not without its entertaining and effective scenes but I just don't think Vaughn had a clear idea for what he wanted to do with this prequel. I think the best thing the franchise could do now is finish up the Harry/Eggsy trilogy and end things on as strong a note as possible.

6.2/10 - C+ (Middling)

Of the three movies, this one was a bit boring, but still quite good.

I really appreciate the story Vaughn was telling and he did a great job with directing. Acting was stupendous all around. My only negative critique was that it seemed to drag on at times and some of the plot points were fairly convenient.

Overall, a great show and worth seeing. Especially if you loved the first two.

"Real power is not found running off to war. Real power lies in understanding who it is you're truly fighting, and how they can be defeated." Duke of Oxford (Ralph Fiennes)

The tongue is not too far in the cheek with the semi-serious King's Man starring Ralph Fiennes as the dapper but deadly Duke of Oxford, organizer of the sophisticated spy agency that in previous iterations was more satirical of spy stories. In this origin story, much of the film weaves history around WW I into a fiction about a few good men and women trying to stop the march to war.

The major historical figures are Kaiser Wilhelm, King George, and Tsar Nicholas-all played entertainingly by Tom Hollander. Not to be missed is Rhys Ifans as Rasputin, a diabolical force in getting the Soviet Union to withdraw from the war, to the delight of Germany and the dismay of England.

When Rasputin battles with Oxford, the screen is alive with Russian-style dancing-swordplay, Rasputin's lusts, and plain old good dialogue. Director Matthew Vaughn allows his actors to express themselves wildly but with a modicum of Brit-like decorum fitting of the balance between dark history and playful replay.

Besides the memorable Rasputin swordplay, in the final act, when Oxford uses a new-fangled parachute to storm the supreme villain's high mountain hide out, the stunt work is just short of breathless, coupled with CGI to give a Bondian feel to the spy shenanigans.

I was pleasantly surprised by the imaginative re-creation of history and the low-key humor, so evocative of the Brit stereotype. More than one commentator has suggested how apt Fiennes would be as the new Bond. I don't know about that, but Fiennes sure does know his way around the screen.

"We are the first independent intelligence agency. Refined but brutal, civilized but merciless." Duke of Oxford.

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.