King's Man: A kezdetek

If all those amazing visual ideas, the surprisingly resolved situations and the sweetly over-the-top humour were wrapped in something called a meaningful plot and not a twisted alternate reality pulled out of someone’s ass like from the pen of a drunken Vondruška, I'd be happy. Give Vaughn the next Bond movie, really, the guy's got it. (2022.03.31)

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. (2022.01.05)

I freaking loved it! I finally got to see the film and after the mixed reviews, I have to say that I am absolutely satisfied and with only minor reservations. The first Kingsman is one my top 10 movies of all time, so of course I love the whole franchise, it's pretty close to my heart and setting it in WWI was a great idea. Matthew Vaughn is a director with a distinctive style and I enjoy his playful and creative direction immensely, definitely the direction I would go in if I were a director. The characters this time may not be as likable as in the original, Harris Dickinson is no Taron Egerton, and Ralph Fiennes is not as good as Colin Firth, but I could live with that. Visually, the film is again driven to technical perfection and absolute refinement, Vaughn's alternate history fascinated me (despite being obviously fiction, it felt believable and entertaining and the cameos by well-known historical figures were great). You have to wait a bit longer for the action, but once it comes, the director once again had me wrapped up around all his fingers. The action is always varied, well shot, insanely stylish to the point of being luxurious, and I'm tempted to do it all again after watching it. A crazy dance with Rasputin, a downright delicious fight with various combat weapons in the trenches (that had me screaming like a bitch), one of my new favorite action scenes, and then of course the half hour screaming finale that has everything I expect from a proper ending. It's a little disappointing that this time Vaughn tamed the gore and didn't add much humour either, but he pretty much made up for it with an uncompromising twist that no one expects. The villains also deserve praise (Rasputin was brilliant) and I found the whole spy story against the backdrop of WWI very entertaining and thoroughly developed. A few people complain about how slow it is, but I found it more brisk and action packed than The Batman, so high satisfaction for me, I could handle an extra 30 minutes. Story 4/5, Action 5/5, Humor 3/5, Violence 3/5, Fun 5/5 Music 4/5, Visuals 5/5, Atmosphere 4/5, Suspense 2/5, Emotion 3/5, Actors 4/5. 9/10. (2022.03.14)

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. (2022.02.15)

If the script of the third Kingsman was a bit better than horrible, it could have been a solid ride, because Vaughn is able to reflect the contemporary political situation through his specific craft, he wittily alternates recent history and is not afraid to use subtle and daring humour and a distinctive directorial style to appeal to a wide range of audiences. In this respect, it’s perfect, but we want more from a film like this than ironed-out visuals with a plethora of familiar faces in the breakneck action scenes, which are good and some even fantastic. (2022.05.03)

The somewhat misleading trailers, Matthew Vaughn's reputation, and especially what he did in the first two films, set the stage for another frantic action flick, just set a hundred years earlier. But there was a surprise in the cinema – a very pleasant one for me. Apparently, Vaughn decided that the story of the birth of the Kingsman Agency would be just as much the birth of his unmistakable directorial style, and that's a million dollar idea. This makes The King's Man a surprisingly subdued film for a good while, one that cares about the characters, and when it comes to action, it's good but deliberately keeps a low profile. Vaughn seems to be discovering that frantic style himself with each passing scene, while the heroes unravel a giant conspiracy in a story full of twists and turns (including a truly shocking one) and gather typical Kingsman attributes to become the King's Men in the final three-quarters of an hour. Vaughn got unleashed, started slowing down shots, put the camera on wings and swords, fiddled with shots (my favourite is the duel of silhouettes against the backdrop of the movie screen with the turmoil of war) and simply kept giving the audience what they were waiting for. For some the wait will be long, but others will be royally entertained. (2022.01.12)

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. (2022.02.04)

If you don't want to proceed sequentially, a prequel (almost) always seems like a fresh idea, and the third Kingsman bets on that. Setting the story in the First World War was good option, given the nature of the film, and Matthew Vaughn took it on with vigour. The King’s Man is definitely not for fans of accurate history – which I am thankfully not. It features a number of historical figures, but they take on a whole new dimension (I could go on at length about Rasputin) and Vaughn mostly manages to make humorous use of even their unconventional concepts. The identity of the main villain is clear almost from the start, but this is offset by the rather unexpected death of one of the main characters. The film does have a few spots that push the envelope too much, but I still had fun in the cinema and watched the beginnings of the modern-day "Knights of the Round Table" with excitement. PS: Some of Ralph Fiennes screams reminded me of Voldemort destroying the defensive shield of Hogwarts. (2022.01.07)

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*- (2022.03.01)

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%] (2022.01.17)

Apart from the famous name of the tailor's shop, this episode has little in common with the previous ones. My understanding is that it was only the box office success of the previous two films that allowed Vaughn to tell his dream version, the only thing he had to come up with is how to sell it under the “Kingsman” brand. Overall, this prequel has a more serious tone, and the humour comes more from playing with history than from the assorted shenanigans The Golden Circle was riddled with, and Ralph Fiennes fits perfectly into this more serious take, he's the one who primarily pulls the film along, even where the script starts to fray. The King's Man is by no means flawless, but it can surprise at the right moment with its plot, thrill with its action, dazzle with its visuals, and you can see that everyone involved, from the weapons designers to the famous faces in the cameos, had a blast making it. (2022.01.02)