"The King's Man," directed by Matthew Vaughn, is the third film in the "Kingsman" series, which began way back in 2014. The first in the franchise, "Kingsman: The Secret Service," was a remarkably entertaining film; packed with Vaughn's signature directorial flair and high-octane, frantic editing style, the light parody of the spy genre made for a movie that took itself seriously enough to be engaging while simultaneously keeping its tone light enough to avoid being a complete retread of things we've seen before. Enter its sequel: "Kingsman: The Golden Circle." Taking the idea of a spy parody and dialing the notch as far as it would go, and then breaking it, "The Golden Circle" jumped in the pool of complete farce. While containing some genuinely emotional moments, the consensus was that the film was too goofy to be enjoyed, complete with absolutely ridiculous and unbelievable plot points such as a man inserting a GPS tracker inside of a woman (and I'll just let you imagine how he does that).
A few years and a global pandemic later and we finally have the third entry, which stands as a prequel, effectively telling why the Kingsman secret agency came to fruition. Foregoing the odd and overtly sexual humor of the previous two films, "The King's Man" is a much more serious endeavor - for better or for worse. It's very obvious that director Matthew Vaughn wanted to change his style somewhat drastically when compared to the first two movies. A slower, more dialogue focused picture, you would almost be forgiven if you thought that "The King's Man" was directed by someone else entirely. Vaughn decides to tell what is, basically, a World War 1 film, which may surprise those who expected a lighter affair more akin to his other works. Tonal inconsistency isn't something I notice very much during my movie-going escapades, but due to the drastic change in subject matter, in "The King's Man," the tonal shifts were jarring.
"Fun" is not a word I'd use to describe this movie, unfortunately. And yes, while a few action scenes were certainly exciting, as a whole "The King's Man" weaves a tale that is more about the horrors of war and violence then about the titular secret service agency that we've all come to know and love. A large majority of this movie involves political conversations that lack the character personality needed to make such conversations entertaining to watch. Instead, characters take the dialogue very seriously which, frankly, is boring to watch. In between these conversations lie multiple and varied story beats, including: An attempt to defeat the crazed monk Rasputin, a plot to steal a tape that contains recordings of the U. S. president engaged in illicit activities, and the tale of Conrad, Ralph Fiennes' characters son, who enlists in the war against his father's wishes. As you may have deduced, it is the last beat mentioned that contains some of the more emotional story moments. Now I'm not against emotion in my movies, obviously, and there were some genuinely shocking, saddening, parts in this story. That said, I don't think the right balance was there to make these moments as effective as they could be.
Vaughn seems to have trouble deciding what kind of story he wants to tell - is it a dramatic tale of the tragedies that arise with war, or is it a wacky action-adventure, complete with ballet battles, bisexual villains, and over-the-top set pieces? He tries to do both, and misses the mark, creating a confusing, convoluted, and overly lengthy story - albeit one that can be entertaining. No stranger to great action, Vaughn once again directs some fantastically kinetic fight sequences. The battle with Rasputin alone is worth the price of admission, and combined with a great score and masterful editing, I couldn't help but have a smile on my face during that scene, and throughout all of the action sequences. So if you're looking for good action, you'll certainly find it here (with a trench battle being another standout) - you'll just have to sit through a stunning amount of slog to get to it first.
Ralph Fiennes gives a totally committed performance - him, along with the action, makes "The King's Man" a perfectly serviceable one-time watch. "The King's Man" isn't necessarily a bad movie, but it's one that gets held back by its own loftiness and high expectations of itself. Fans of the first two movies will most likely be disappointed by the change in tone and story, and those who are looking for something new will no doubt be taken aback by the tonal inconsistencies - which brings me to the question: Who, exactly, did Vaughn make this movie for?
A few years and a global pandemic later and we finally have the third entry, which stands as a prequel, effectively telling why the Kingsman secret agency came to fruition. Foregoing the odd and overtly sexual humor of the previous two films, "The King's Man" is a much more serious endeavor - for better or for worse. It's very obvious that director Matthew Vaughn wanted to change his style somewhat drastically when compared to the first two movies. A slower, more dialogue focused picture, you would almost be forgiven if you thought that "The King's Man" was directed by someone else entirely. Vaughn decides to tell what is, basically, a World War 1 film, which may surprise those who expected a lighter affair more akin to his other works. Tonal inconsistency isn't something I notice very much during my movie-going escapades, but due to the drastic change in subject matter, in "The King's Man," the tonal shifts were jarring.
"Fun" is not a word I'd use to describe this movie, unfortunately. And yes, while a few action scenes were certainly exciting, as a whole "The King's Man" weaves a tale that is more about the horrors of war and violence then about the titular secret service agency that we've all come to know and love. A large majority of this movie involves political conversations that lack the character personality needed to make such conversations entertaining to watch. Instead, characters take the dialogue very seriously which, frankly, is boring to watch. In between these conversations lie multiple and varied story beats, including: An attempt to defeat the crazed monk Rasputin, a plot to steal a tape that contains recordings of the U. S. president engaged in illicit activities, and the tale of Conrad, Ralph Fiennes' characters son, who enlists in the war against his father's wishes. As you may have deduced, it is the last beat mentioned that contains some of the more emotional story moments. Now I'm not against emotion in my movies, obviously, and there were some genuinely shocking, saddening, parts in this story. That said, I don't think the right balance was there to make these moments as effective as they could be.
Vaughn seems to have trouble deciding what kind of story he wants to tell - is it a dramatic tale of the tragedies that arise with war, or is it a wacky action-adventure, complete with ballet battles, bisexual villains, and over-the-top set pieces? He tries to do both, and misses the mark, creating a confusing, convoluted, and overly lengthy story - albeit one that can be entertaining. No stranger to great action, Vaughn once again directs some fantastically kinetic fight sequences. The battle with Rasputin alone is worth the price of admission, and combined with a great score and masterful editing, I couldn't help but have a smile on my face during that scene, and throughout all of the action sequences. So if you're looking for good action, you'll certainly find it here (with a trench battle being another standout) - you'll just have to sit through a stunning amount of slog to get to it first.
Ralph Fiennes gives a totally committed performance - him, along with the action, makes "The King's Man" a perfectly serviceable one-time watch. "The King's Man" isn't necessarily a bad movie, but it's one that gets held back by its own loftiness and high expectations of itself. Fans of the first two movies will most likely be disappointed by the change in tone and story, and those who are looking for something new will no doubt be taken aback by the tonal inconsistencies - which brings me to the question: Who, exactly, did Vaughn make this movie for?
