The King's Man

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. (06/01/2022)

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. (08/01/2022)

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%] (18/01/2022)

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)

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. (01/04/2022)