King's Man: A Origem

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,

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!

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.