The King's Man

I'm somewhat puzzled about my rating for this movie because there are a few potential reasons behind it. It could be that I wasn't in the right mood, or perhaps Matthew Vaughn isn't what he used to be (though I'm reluctant to believe that), or maybe the spy genre is just becoming a bit worn out. Whatever the case, this third glimpse into the world of the most secretive of secret services didn't quite captivate me as its predecessors did, and the third star was mainly earned by the stellar cast. I did find it amusing how the plot included numerous historical figures, but the story itself felt afflicted with acute clichés and excessive melodrama. The main plotline was painfully predictable, and the film's runtime seemed overly long for what it offered. I found myself getting quite bored during some stretched-out parts; even the highly anticipated sword-fighting at the end felt like it could have been trimmed down. Overall, I was left wanting more from this movie. / Lesson learned: There's always a Scot behind everything. 3*- (01/03/2022)

I like Matthew Vaughn and I will continue to like him, but I can't really enjoy this prequel to Kingsman. On one hand, I have to praise the action, which, however, cannot surprise anyone, including myself – Vaughn has a talent for it. And at least the dance fight with Rasputin is truly applause-worthy. He also manages to sell a century-old past full of gentlemen, lunatics, funny cars, and the end of an era. But about the rest? That's exactly what I don't really know. It still looks nice, it has a fast pace and I wasn't bored, but that's not enough for me when it comes to Vaughn. The story surprises at most with its absurd twists, but due to the use of real historical events, it fails to build tension because – unsurprisingly – Austria-Hungary doesn't end up winning World War I. So, it's not very thrilling and, unfortunately, not even funny or bold like the first installment. The King’s Man the weakest of Vaughn's films. And above all, it’s quite unnecessary. (05/01/2022)

It's far from the genius of the first one and it's not as megalomaniacal or over-the-top as the second one, yet still is overwhelmingly a disappointment. It's crazy fun at individual points (the bit with Rasputin and the trench sequences are pure delight), but the whole comes across as rather wild and disorganized (not in a good way, unfortunately). It is, of course, absolutely flawlessly and confidently filmed, but what does it matter when it still turns out to be the weakest installment in the series. Gemma Arterton was great and woefully underused. I expected a lot more and even IMAX didn't save it. [65%] (17/01/2022)

The King's Man is nothing more than a series of random scenes in a very vague parallel to historical events. Some scenes give the viewer enough visual enticements and WTF moments. Plus, I would rather not think about how pointless the storyline is and how it does not really make any sense. Plus, the big revelation of the bad guy, delivered as a huge twist (which the viewer had already figured out after five minutes of watching this movie), could not possibly have been something Matthew Vaughn was serious about. (04/02/2022)

Somehow it just isn’t what it used to be. Setting it in the World War I gave it a more earthy feel, but Vaughn just isn’t trying as hard anymore. While the first part was overflowing with visual finesse and sly jabs, this movie is mostly serious. But the story has a couple of interesting twists and hats off to the respect for historical events, but if it weren’t for Rasputin, there would be nothing to praise. And of course we know how the Great War ended up and it’s unreasonable to expect the opposite from Tarantino here. (15/02/2022)