Opiniones de usuarios

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.

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.

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,

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.

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)

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 suppose the advantage I have is the perspective of one who has not seen either sequel. Not quite knowing what to expect I was rewarded for my ticket price with well over two hours of a fun, inventive, and somewhat historical romp through the first quarter of the 20th century, and the whole WW1 thing. And such great action scenes throughout the show. Loads of fantastic stunt work, witty dialogue, and intriguing characters really add to the adventure. The soundtrack is spot-on, and the camera work exceptional. Caught the late afternoon bargain matinee on a cold and snowy day so was able to afford comes and popcorn to inhale during the film. I will insist that my history loving teen son grab a friend and go see while still on the big screen. My kind of movie!

Surprise smash hit in 2014, Matthew Vaughn's first Kingsman film The Secret Service was a fun, exciting and inventive new take on the spy/action film hybrid with its more forgettable sequel The Golden Circle still an enjoyable romp despite a noticeable drop off in quality but not even the keenest of Kingsman fans will be able to steel themselves for the mostly charmless and surprisingly serious origin story Vaughn has taken the series too with The King's Man.

Set in the early 20th century where Europe is at war and England's freedom is threatened by a group of mad man hellbent on world domination, King's Man follows the pre-Kingsman exploits of Ralph Fiennes widower Orlando Oxford and his teenage son Conrad (an unfortunately bland character played lifelessly by Harris Dickinson) who along with the help of their housekeepers and associates take it upon themselves to turn the tide of the great war in the favor of their beloved country.

In this set up there's no time for the banter we got between Colin Firth's Harry Hart or Taron Egerton's streetwise wise-talker Eggsy, there's no truly over the top flourishes outside of a few odd scenes mostly involving Rhys Ifan's crazy take on Russian villain Grigori Rasputin (who could've done with a lot more screen time than he was granted by Vaughn) and overall it feels as though for some reason Vaughn has decided the unique and playful nature that made his series stand out from the crowd is no longer needed.

Never more prevalent is this aspect of the film than in an oddly bizarre detour to the World War 1 trenches as Conrad ventures to the front lines, this 20 or so minute mid-movie aspect might involve one of the films stand out action scenes but overall it feels like it's from a completely different movie than what has come before it or what follows it and it's an example of the film trying to do too many things at once, with too many characters like the didn't need to show up Matthew Goode, Aaron Taylor-Johnson or Daniel Brühl, making King's Man a film without a true identity or purpose.

Based of this very differently toned and delivered series entry, it's hard to know exactly where Vaughn wishes to take his property from here on out but if there is to be more Kingsman adventures it would be wise to head back to the working book of the first film that provided a fresh take on a well-worn genre, only to find itself battling for its relevance less than a decade on.

Final Say -

Sadly this much delayed origin story is a mostly dull affair of a property that at one stage looked set to provide a fantastically fun cinematic journey, forgoing the fun that made people fall in love with it in the first case, The King's Man has snippets of greatness but is an overall forgettable and dull adventure.

2 strong cups of tea out of 5

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!

That cocaine diet really does help to produce some fine scripts. The King's Man is amazing.

The story is a mess of random things and encounters, some of which are loosely connected, but most aren't. Most of the time it sticks to repeating the same 'overprotective father' cliched scenes over and over again, occasionally inserting random "what?" moments and bizarre fight scenes. It's absolutely incoherent, and although the characters act like something important is going on, and sometimes act as they have achieved something, the viewer is fully disconnected from the travesty that is happening when it's not boring you down with the same scene over and over.

They took the most 'hot' and 'debatable' facts about historical figures and incorporated them into WWI historical period, mutilating the history in the process. I'm not going to talk about historical accuracy, since this was never meant to be a historical action film or a war film. In fact, all the WWI battle scenes in the film (and the whole son's story) feel like they belong to a different film altogether, it surely never fits into the overall cocaine Hangover-style nightmare that is happening on screen.

All the supposedly 'funny' things felt like torture, and only made me ask "what?" and "why?" all the time. The best joke in the film was Tom Holland playing all the three monarchs, which made me laugh.

Besides this, there were two good things in the film - nice music and a cool and creative trench fight scene. If you forget about history and drop the setting, this is quality trash cinema. Gritty, dirty, bloody, and violent night brawl - excellent.

Other than that - this film was atrocious. There are two possibilities, either this is a literal re-telling of a comic book (which I'm not familiar with), then it's sort of fine, but still doesn't work. Or this is just a 'whatever' approach to screenwriting, which automatically downgrades this film to "garbage fire" status.

In any case, this mess cannot be enjoyed.

P. S. Nice post-credit scene, guys. Joseph Stalin introduced himself to Lenin as Adolf Hitler, a quality high-IQ joke. Now I rate this 9/555555555555555555555.

"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.

This is a different sort of film to the first two kingsmen films, it's not all shooting and fast action with a hint of cheeky comedy. This is more a factual based history film with some action but not so much of the humour.

It's still a good watch though and the story is told well.

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.

I enjoyed this prequel far more than the Kingsman sequel - which wasn't bad, it just wasn't particularly good either.

Ralph Fiennes is, as ever, just brilliant while Rhys Ifans steals the show as Rasputin. Some brilliant action scenes in it and a sprinkle of comedy. Perfect for a night in where you can switch your brain off and just enjoy the show.

Let's bring it all the way back to the first Manners Maketh Men.

The major issues with this movie were the elongated plot and boring villains. There was a lot of moving around and characters talking that frankly only made the story confusing. Also, this plot probably served to divert the audiences away from the main villain, who was in the dark most of the time. However, most of the villains were bland with nothing special, except for the guy in the trailer Rasputin. Although he's very cool in the action scenes, his character was obnoxiously weird. It's like I'm watching a different genre with this guy.

For the plus, I enjoyed the action a lot. I wished there's more, as there's good creativity here. The best was early on between the British and the Rasputin. There was a shocking moment midway that changed our main character, which caught me by surprise too.

Overall, a decent Kingsman movie. Better than the second, but definitely no where close to the first. 6.5-7/10.

For those who always felt that history was boring ... well they can relive and rewrite it here. Or see it rewritten - though I reckon you have to at least have some understanding of history and who lived when or was assassinated by what and how that was managed ... or gone wrong.

Of course this takes many liberties to say the least in the retelling - as I think I made obvious in my above statement. So some might think of it as fun - an entertaining "history lesson" of sorts .. others may not like the take on it. Of course if you already have an issue with the movie ... well it won't bode well going forward.

I thought many jokes historically speaking worked. Still as my opening line or review summary already indicates, it is smaller bits and pieces ... and some do not seem to be fitting with others. Same goes with the tone - a romance, that isn't one. A saved by the bell moment, another moment that does almost tell us one of our main characters is invincible, just to completely turn this on its .. head! No pun intended.

And an end fight that is quite nice, but a telegraphed twist punch (kick?) ... the midway fight, which feels more like a dance, is the way better choreographed one. Even if the end fight has a nice pov touch ... that should have only been used once ... maybe twice. But not as much as it ended up being on screen, because it got annoying. And again we are back to the walking a thin line, mixing things up, not being able to get the correct amount of whatever would be best for the story.

We do have great actors and therefor most of the jokes work and even an omission of any story whatsoever does not really matter. The end twist should also be quite obvious - from the beginning almost. Shame - I really do like Matthew Vaughn and I especially liked the ... I'll call it approach to the first Kings Man movie ... this reboot/prequel kind of thing ... well it does not really do much for the franchise. But you may feel differently. Because you may be smitten by certain parts of the movie and can suspend your disbelief to feel this is a coherent amalgation of all things combined ... not minding that there is almost an absence of a cool uber villain (Rasputin aside who does a great job by the way) ... the wait was too long, the end result not entirely worth it. Some great jokes and great visuals aside.

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.

Taking an unusual direction from the previous two Kingsman movies, The King's Man ends up being far more serious and heavily influenced by historical events that happened a hundred years ago. Because of how much the film tries to tie these events into the story, it can feel confusing and messy with what is going on. Depending on expectations, people may end up being disappointed with this prequel.

Matthew Vaughn's stylistic direction still flourishes in the action sequences and panning shots. The new set of characters in this prequel/origin story include standouts such as Rhys Ifans playing the crazy Russian Rasputin chewing the scenery and acting crazy, and Ralph Fiennes' Oxford playing a dad who ends up bringing some genuine strength and emotion to the spy role with great stability.

Other characters also play their parts well, and the film looks pretty good in terms of production values and historical accuracy. If one thing is missing, it's the sense of charm and silliness of the first two films. That being said, the last third of the film did get me invested again. However, it wasn't quite enough to make up for the first hour or so of the film. The little glimpses of humour is present, but much rarer as the film focuses more on Drama.

My overall thoughts on The King's Man is I appreciate them trying something different here, despite not staying as consistently entertaining as the first two films. The twists and turns are a little hit and miss, but the way it ties into Kingsman at the very end works really well. In the end, I'd say The King's Man is worth at least a single watch, despite being much different and more different in perspective.

6/10.

I really liked the first Kingsman movie but already the second one was in my opinion just milking the cow - story- and momentum-wise inferior to the first movie in every aspect. The newest addition to the franchise tries something new but - while there are for sure some good aspects - tastes like a bad mixed cocktail: the ingredients (or parts) just don't work too well together. The King's Man: no fail but compared to Kingsman: The Secret Service this one is just another rather weak entry.

The story is all over the place! The script is shockingly written, the acting is subpar. I expected a lot more given the 2 previous films, it was a let down. It is a terrible film!