The King's Man - How to Build Success from Failure | Film Perfection
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 03. 2022
- Go to www.blinkist.com/filmento to start your free 7 day trial of Blinkist and get 25% off a Premium membership.
The King's Man is a prequel continuation of the Kingsman franchise, which sadly didn't do as well as the earlier movies. There seemed to be little to no excitement leading up to the release, and it ultimately flopped at the box office and lost a bunch of money for the first time in the franchise's history. But since we've done so many Anatomy of a Failures recently, let's instead do the same thing we did with The Tomorrow War and try to find positive things anyway. Here are some useful aspects about The King's Man that you can use in your own work or to try to convince your friend that this is in fact a good movie.
Support: / filmento
Follow: / filmento
Like this: boxd.it/1PSEbt
Music:
/ whitebataudio
• Halo Soundtrack Neve...
#TheKingsMan #FilmPerfection #Kingsman
-
The King's Man (2021)
At the dawn of the 20th century, world peace is threatened by a ring of the most powerful and merciless tyrants and criminal masterminds planning on starting a war that will kill millions of people. In order to stop this, the Duke of Oxford (Ralph Fiennes) decides to form Kingsman, an agency committed to preserving The King's Man full movie online free 4k clip hd the king's man review the king's man fight scene plane rasputin dance everything wrong with the king's man honest trailer mistakes kings man ending explained kings man bad movie good movie box office flop failure great movie king's man sword fight scene plane scene action The King's Man | Official Trailer | 20th Century Studios The King's Man - A Surprisingly Fun Prequel peace without any government oversight. Unfortunately, with World War 1 brewing in the background, the mission will not be easy to accomplish. Directed by Matthew Vaughn. - Krátké a kreslené filmy
Like my Dead Man's Chest review to make it #1 in the world: boxd.it/1PSEbt
e: we did it thanks!
the goat really did the final villain in at the end XD
Conrad's death sucks
I've created an account just to vote for u, love u brah S2
Part satire, part adventure, this prequel fails at both...
I feel sorry for anyone who found the assassination of Duke Ferdinand (or the other subsequent events of the start of WWI you laid out) as moving too quickly. These are some of the most famous moments in the 20th century. They should require no further detail or explanation. The assassination attempt failing, the Duke then making a wrong turn driving passed the same assassin as he had coffee. These events have as many conspiracies surrounding them as the moon landing. And the villains henchmen... you mean some of the most famous real life spies and personalities of the first world war? They also shouldn't require any explanation. It would be as tedious and unnecessary to do so. This film wove threads of real history together with mastery. My only complaint, is that it shifted from a satire, so a gritty war drama, to a tragedy, and back to a satire.
I like how Filmento talks about the assassination of Franz Ferdinand as if it’s something wrong with this move lol “a failed assassination attempt and then an assassination right after”.
Man that’s exactly how it happened tho lol this is real life.
Yeah, but there could've been a better set-up. I get that in the real world, this is what we are told happened verbatim.
I'm saying that this portion of the movie reads like a intro-to-film college student's rendition of what happened, and they could've made this set of scenes more bearable/useful to the overall pacing of the movie by just showing the actual assassination and skipping the stupid shit.
Also, not everyone who disagrees with you is an American, this movie is not Art and is not slapping anyone in the face, and everyone needs to move the fuck on.
I enjoyed that scene, laughed, because I knew it was gonna happen and I didnt feel the need for a setup. It was absurd in real life and the movie conveyed exactly it feels when learning about it. But the folks I watched together with felt the opposite, they're not familiar with WWI history and felt the scene as unecessary and unenjoyable.
@@u.s.s.chucklefucker1657 yeah but the thing that is what exactly happend. It truly was a mere coincidence when the assasin met ferdinand again so he went for his gun
@@u.s.s.chucklefucker1657 that’s literally how it exactly went down
It was fun watching that scene cause if you’d know your history it’s such a coincidence that right after a first murder attempt, a wrong turn lead to another successful murder
I honestly liked the more serious and grounded tone of this film. It was still weird and wonderful (the villains especially) but that war scene was honestly amazing in how serious it was. The fact they even decided to kill off a character that was seemingly set out as the main character actually surprised me in a good way that didn't feel cheap
true and the trailer only showed things from the first part which adds to the twist
It "subverted expectations" in a good way
In hindsight, we probably should have seen it coming. After in the first film Harry said kingsmen were made by grieving fathers.
@@dblevins343 it subverted expectation is the worst way possible. For some reason Conrad had his big character momen and he woulda gone back and fought alongside his dad after seeing the horrors of war. Then all of a sudden they kill him and In the stupidest way fucking possible. Shit was awful and was the worst written part of the story. Why setup 1 hour and a half for him to be a main character just to kill hin and in the shittiest way
@@thesnipingspider3852 the way they killed him was odd but it also had significance. It was the lie that killed him, not the enemy.
I mainly like that they killed the main character. It made sense for pulling his father back in.
Personally i found the Rasputin fight scene to be one of the best scenes ive seen in a long time. The setting was good, the choreography was amazing, funny, witty but also full of character and the music choice was spectacular.
I totally agree. I will even say that this actor stole the film for him ☺️
@Ben States those stories about his death aren’t credible at all given their source, there’s really no basis for treating them as real history despite how popular it is to do so. You don’t really have a leg to stand on with regards to historical accuracy there specifically.
@Ben States ah my apologies, I misunderstood you
Rasputin was the only good part of the movie
@@fraelikkriil830
I mean considering the account was from Yusipov himself and he was a well known critic of Rasputin, I’m not surprised that he embellished the facts to make it seem like Rasputin was a superhuman monster. There is some validity to parts of the tale, he was indeed fed a poisoned cake though he didn’t necessarily eat it. One of the co conspirators was having second thoughts and without informing his fellow nobles he switched out the poison cake. That’s why everyone thought Rasputin was immune to poison. But he was eventually shot, stabbed, and drowned and then mutilated following his death.
I think another reason that the henchmen work without much backstory is that they're all actual historical figures who really existed, so you just need to know some basic history to know that Princip is going to kill Ferdinand, or that Rasputin is going to try and get Russia out of the war. And then when Lenin randomly shows up, it doesn't feel random, because that's just how history happened (more or less)
Agree, especially in after credit scene. We see the new villain, character with less screentime will back in sequel (Lenin and the new Sheperd). And when the new villain introduce himself. BOOM! we don't anticipated that but still make sense
Knowing basic European history is not something that is very common in some countries. Especially those that have a huge impact on box office results.
I have a feeling that not knowing history would leave a viewer lost a couple of times. That may be a reason people disliked the movie. They probably expected events to be explained to them like they're used to in any fictional setting.
To be completely honest with you, of all the henchmen, i just knew Rasputin, Lenin and Hitler.
And i didnt even know Rasputin tried to get Russia to pull out of the war
But youre right, it pays to know.
@@Joaking91 BTW (and a bit OT): Did you know that the famous drawing showing the assassination of archduke Ferdinand is mirrored? The movie actually got this right, both the duke and the shooter are on the correct side of the car.
Yes, it's easy to find out just by reading the Wikipedia article, but I've seen too many movies that depict historic events with zero accuracy that I found this remarkable.
They made princip a villain so not realy
I think The King's Man was Episodic in feeling. Split into 4 clean parts like it was a mini-series turned into a movie.
1: Prologue
2: Rasputin
3: In the Trenches
4: The Finale
definitely would've been better as a series, these episodes felt completely different in tone
Yeah it felt like a videogame. I liked it.
@@WhirlingMusic Same
I’m pretty sure it was supposed to be a series before getting turned into a movie
The movie initially is like political thriller, documentary, war type film and at the end it suddenly turns into Avengers:Endgame.
The sudden switch between the genres is so clear, apperent and so unexpected that it threw me off a little bit. But i still thoroughly enjoyed watching it.
Are you trying to compare the final battle of Endgame to the end of this movie?
WTF are you talking about!?!
Same.
I think at it’s core The King’s Man is actually an action thriller like Avengers. I might be spewing complete nonsense but, Oxford’s pacifism through out the first half was what led to the “Avengers” ending. He lost his wife and son due to him simply not realizing that there are times killing is warranted. It was a political thriller in beginning because Oxford’s actions made it that way, it became “Avengers” like because of his major character shift from “Pacifism” to “ killing is ok sometimes”.
I thought the movie was all over the place but for some reason it kept me interested enough.
Yes it is called first and second acts
I'll defend this film to the nail. Given the expectations I think most had for it I was surprised it had more meaning than others. Conrad's death was sincerely shocking. They took a risk and it paid off there. By no means is this a perfect film but it's certainly one I enjoyed a lot.
Tonally and thematically The King's Man is all over the place, in a way that lays bare the cynicism of Vaughn's own mission: to appear transgressive yet reassuringly conventional
@@Flinch-lv2du it certainly doesn’t hold up to specific criticism under a microscope, but when evaluated personally, I found it to be anything but conventional
My only reaction when Conrad died was rolling my eyes. He got what he kept asking for, dying on the front. I found his character uninteresting and annoying so having him gone was a relief.
me too.
the trench scene is one of the best in all cinema
I actually felt The King's Man was a return to form for Matthew Vaughn after the misstep that was The Golden Circle. The characters had real motivation, and it actually made you quite invested in Conrad so feel Orlando's loss when they take the bold decision to kill Conrad off. Worse still, Conrad dies not in battle as a hero, but in a freak and entirely preventable incident had he been allowed to enlist using his real name. Ralph Fiennes was magnificent, as was Rhys Ifans and Djimon Honsou. I didn't think the King's Man was groundbreaking or fantastic, but it was solid, so its box office failure surprised me.
Really it was a bloated confusing scarambled mess that had mixed messages no proper kings man esc moments and overall very mixed tone not to mention a way over exaggerated score
@@chriscampion7545 LOL HELL no. It WAS NOT a "bLOaTed ConFuSInG sCarAMbLEd mEsS" AT ALL!! You've just failed to understand the plot of the movie as it WASN'T "bLOaTed" NOR a "mEsS" at all, it was coherent, understandable, and to the point which you badly missed out on in or to be saying all these negative nonsense about it in Anyway! Just stop talking, seriously. You make NO sense at all.
The hell is this "mixed messages" are you whining about? What? The messages were straight forward to the plot of the movie for a movie that was about a secret organization that was able protecting the world on doing what was necessary for the greater good!
There WAS a proper king's man moments, the WHOLE MOVIE felt like kingman's movie ALL the way with it's stylized action, humor, and massively quirky fun that is a stable of the movie and this movie had ALL of it there like the first 2 films as the set pieces incredibly and beautifully represented that which you BADLY missed understood and didn’t see at all!
You saying it didn't, says you weren't paying attention to the movie at all.
NOT a "mIXeD tOnE" AT ALL, it was an overall good movie despite some issues with the main villain being a but underwhelming compared to his henchman and Rasputin mainly.
Your comment makes NO sense at all, just nonsense whining on your part.
@@Gadget-Walkmenare you a shill for the film? Thr movie eas boring, tried to be overly complicated while massively dumbing down actual historical evebts, and feltlike a Kingman movie twice, and that was just the fifgt scenes.
@@kylemulkey9659 LMAO What? Just shut the hell up as nothing you’ve said here is true. I’m NOT a “sHiLl” for this movie at all, I’m giving credit where credit is due and this movie succeeds in. That MOST people who are watching this video are doing here. Your all alone here.
The movie wasn’t “bOriNG” at all, it was fast and as well evenly paced for a kingman’s movie entirely. The movie is NOT “ovErLy ComPlIcAtEd” at all, how? In WHAT way? It’s easy to understand if you actually pay attention. And the movie does NOT “mAsSiVlElY dUmBiNg dOwn” historical events AT ALL here, the movie has all the historical events intact while having its own spin on things if you actually paid attention. NOTHING was “mAsSivELy duMbiNg dOwn” you just fail to understand what your even saying at all.
Your not making any sense when you make these horrible board claims that make no sense.
It didn’t like a “kingsman’ movie twice” it was JUST a kingman’s movie that was a prequel and a great one at that.
And the movie’s STORY and the fight scenes were all amazing to behold on screen, you’re not making ANY sense here at all with your nonsense claims.
In general i never understand points about "real motivation". In Golden Circle they were trying to save a bunch of people. That might be cheap motivation - any movie can set up such a stake - but it's still real in the sense that it's the only motivation a real person would need. Why would it have to tie in to some sort of personal family drama or whatever?
While I enjoyed it well enough, I've never seen a movie more confused about the message it wants to tell. The fact that the Dolce Et Decorum Est poem (a very famous poem about how war is horrific and not at all glorious) is written by the kid out for honour *before* he sees frontline combat and somehow that ends up being part of why his pacifist father chooses violence as the noble option at the end is so strange
ALL OF THIS!!! The King’s Man felt confused, not just about its message but it’s tone too. Did it want to make a serious film about the horrors of the Great War and the conditions that led to that war being as tragic as it was, or does it want to be the silly over-the-top Bond spoof like the other Kingsmen movies were? It’s like they tried to do both, but would’ve been better off if they had focused on one over the other. Honestly, how are the Dolce Et Decorum Est poem & Rasputin is really Russian Gandalf The Red in the same movie?
I interpreted the message as "some time sacrifice and violence against a few aggressors might be needed to save the masses from more suffering. So you might need to be strong, careful, and a little ruthless if you want to protect people. In the end, a team of "protectors" was created.
Super derpy and oddly hilarious Rasputin-scenes followed by super sad and tragic WW1-scenes. This movie changes pacing and tone so fast that you'll get whiplash if you're not careful.
@@UnknownDino I think if you asked them, the makers would say that's what the film meant but it definitely didn't land that for me. The first half being all goofy and then tragedy transitioning to the second half would've made more sense but it's a bit too tonally dark in the first half and a little too light in the second for that to work
I disagree. The movie shows the concequences of human stupidity,it shows the terrifying truth of war.
And it shows that the kingsmen were made to prevent another tragedy.
And it shows that if the kingsmen fail, another tragedy can and will happen again.
Though if Ww2 still happens guess the kingsmen failed pretty quick lol.
Man, I love the Kingsman franchise so much. I really like all of them, and I don't know why this got panned so bad by critics. It's 100% better than Golden Circle. And the action scenes in here have spoiled me so bad it's hard to appreciate other action movies now.
Agree on everything!
@@wrightkaneradio4918
WW1 is pretty complex
And this movie's portrayal of WW1 just serves a thematic/motivation purpose
Not a character representaion of each motives of every country
Ie
Killing of archduke/wife is very akin to Conrad's mom's death.
Ambush gone wrong
(In real life it's more similar, the archduke didn't have to go out that time. They just wanted to visit the people who were injured by the grenades earlier that day)
A thematic way showing how too much kindness can kill (how her mother would've still be alive if she just decided to stay in Britain instead of doing stuff for the red cross)
They literally simplified how the archduke's death caused WW1
Or how Germany/Russia are being manipulated by a secret organization.
@@NicitoStaAna or Hitler working with Lenin lol
Ikr? The Golden circle was so campy. This movie instilled my invigoration in this franchise. I want more of the prequels now.
@@blurryperson2685 Anyone getting their history from Hollywood action films gets what they deserve.
The way they integrated real historic events and characters with their story was, to me, fantastic. A lot of plot points in the film kept happening without any sorts of explanation but with my minor knowledge of WW1, I could easily figure out the ongoings and plans of the main villain which was quite simple.
the best bit was that George V, Wilhelm II and Nicholas II were all played by the same actor and always wearing uniform. This was the reality in WWI, the monarchs all looked alike and even wore what looked like the same medals
@SantomPh holyshit really? Hell I didn't notice that tho. Haha. I couldn't find a lot of resemblances so it didn't catch my eye. Gotta rewatch
@@SantomPh well, it became weird when Daniel Brühl was talking with a great German accent and Wilhelm/he with a bad one
they really bastardized history in the movie, so many parts they just rewrote history to fit the story
@@MuhammedChand Nah I'd say bastardising is the right word - yes it's historical fiction, but there is a point where misrepresentation or misattribution just becomes insulting to your intelligence as an audience. Like if I told you I'd written a story inspired by your life and the lead - who happened to look like you; and sound like you; and basically did the same things as you, also - ate babies and manically said shit like "Bwuhahaha I represent how awful and fundamentally evil people on the internet are!" you might think that was a bit insulting; or if you where feeling charitable you might just think that it was lazy. So here is a short list of deeply weird and fucked things this movie does.
1. Starts with some oedipal shit where some little lording says to his otherwise personality-less black manservant, in the middle of a concentration camp with an overall tone that I can only describe as "Ah concentration camps - bad - but look the duke has brought medical supplies, so it's fine now."
(His dad is Arthur, his mum is Guinevere; and he wants to be Lancelot . . . little lordling wants to cuck the oldman)
2. Literally peddles a slightly re-dressed pre-war Nazi conspiracy theory as a plot. That being that the monarchies of Europe as well as the Bolsheviks and Rasputin were all being puppeteer-ed by a shadowy organisation who wanted to see all the great powers crumble so that they could take over and do . . . something (Both the film and the Nazi conspiracy theory never really get to any kind of point other than . . . for evil). It's just now it's Scottish nationalism??? instead of "international Zionism".
3. The whole Rasputin thing has got so ingrained in our consciousness now that I cant really blame the movie for buying the "It was all his idea" narrative of Czarist Russian history, but even then - Morphine? Psycho-sexual morphine? We just gunna drop the whole "Rampant Nationalism and being told to die for your country is a deep and pervasive evil" to go with, he made them do it by dripping morphia into their mouths in a fucking porno-shot. Not to mention the idea that either Rasputin or the Czar pulled Russia out of the war. Mass protest tried to pull Russia out of the war, and they did this by having a revolution and installing a liberal democratic government . . . that then categorically refused to pull out of the war, thereby prompting a second relatively bloodless revolution and a deeply bloody and chaotic civil war.
4. That whole Conrad in the trenches bit - which manages to give him credit for writing one of the greatest anti-war poems of all time, Dulce et Decorum est by Wilfred Owen - a poem about the futility of 'bravery' and nationalistic war in the face of slowly and painfully suffocating to death during a Gas attack - and reframe it to the futility of being betrayed by an angry Scottish man after showing the value and heroism of fighting in a pointless nationalistic war of grinding attrition.
5. Goes so deep into the horseshoe meme that Young Adolf Hitler kills the Czar of Russia, thereby implying that the fucking Holocaust was caused by some convoluted Scottish Nationalist plot?
I get the argument in defence of historical fiction, but this is the laziest and most potentially offensive kind of historical fiction "It all happened - but nobody had any agency - and thereby no responsibility; because it was all just some bad guy I spent 5 mins - tops - writing up on the back of a napkin." I mean fuck me but Vampire the Masquerade has a better overall take on a parallel fictional history; because at least the ultimate evil in the world has intelligible plans (if ridiculously evil) and are not a monolithic force that control all things. (If you are unfamiliar, everything happens in part because Vampires - but not everything bad is because Vampires, humans can also be pretty fucked up and most of the things that are fucked up about the Vampires are also things that are fucked up about humans).
By flatting and deflating the narrative, all while paying lip service to people who died and sacrificed to do the best they could in the middle of a grinding and horrific war would be bad enough, but then to also subvert any usable lesson that their sacrifice might have gifted us is adding insult to injury. The thing is, this film was so close to being interesting for a history buff, but it's so unfathomably lazy and poorly put together as a plot that even a moment of nuance or complexity would crush it in a moment. It needs to hang on caricatures and set pieces because it has no coherent historical narrative (and because it's so badly paced that it has to rush through everything, with no time for consideration or double-takes) no actually story arch, you could cut most of the a-plot (thereby getting rid of most of the historical inaccuracies) and still have a very effective story about loss and sacrifice in the face of grinding pointless war.
P.S. None of this is to say that the direction, acting, set/prop design, photography, or score were bad - in fact some of those where (IMO) fantastic, it's the script that stank to high heaven. A good historical fiction (IMO) should reference history, give the audience a little nudge and reward them in some way for spotting it. This helps parts of the audience who are aware of these events get engaged and invested in the fiction, and encourages those who are not to find out about the real story. So many times bad historiography left a bad taste in my mouth. Not to mention the cringe-y, clunky dialogue.
P.P.S All the weird negative Scottish characterization and unswervingly anglo-centric perspective did make it feel a bit like Matthew Vaughn might have had a few issues with regards to Scottish Nationalism.
P.P.P.S I'm not Scottish
P.P.P.P.S. Did you know that in the 1980's Mathew Vaughn found out that his dad was George Albert Harley de Vere Drummond, an aristocrat and banker, and privately goes by Matthew Allard de Vere Drummond. This has nothing to do with the movie, but I think it might be suggestive of his perspective on life.
P.P.P.P.P.S Fuck that's long.
P.P.P.P.P.P.S That's what she said.
The silent fight scene with the soldiers in no man’s land was amazing. It was really pretty good.
Agreed. Never seen anything like that.
I...I thought this movie was fun and intriguing. Shocked to realize a lot of people didn't like it.
You're not alone. I really enjoyed it
Primary people didn’t like this because they moved away from the original kingsman series
The first one has become one of my favourites in the genre, the second wasn't as good, but not that far from it. I really wanted to like this one, but I just couldn't, not that I hate it. It was almost doing what Sherlock Holmes 2 did (probably no coincidence, the directors are mates), but tried too hard to stay with real history which SH2 didn't.
@@Studeb can i ask why you didn’t enjoy the 2nd kingsman movie as much? i watched it last night for a rewatch before watching the new one and i believe it’s as good as the 1st one
@@defenderofminorities3056 The underdog story in the first one, the brilliant church fight has still to be bested, Jackson's villain, there are many things, but I would rather see another sequel to those movies than a sequel that is limited to WW1 reality.
The most shocking part of this movie is what happens to the son. I was very surprised, seeing how much the father cares for him. But then I remembered one of the reason why kingsman was created in the first place.
Yeah it was outlined in the first movie and after half way through I completely forgot until we got that classic Kingsman headshot scene.
It irritates me that people complain about Connor dying halfway through the movie when it was literally confirmed in the first movie that he dies in the war. The moment he stated he was going out to the front lines, I realized what was coming. Sorry some of y'all didn't pay attention in the first movie.
Very suprising when almost the same thing happened in both movies before
Damn, didn't even remember that at all.
@@RjGoombes yeah I forgot that was said in the first movie it makes sense now.
I liked this movie. It was refreshing because it was purely an “old fashioned” entertainment movie. Just pure fun.
Yes- it feels more conventional than the previous two, and even the cinematography is more conservative than those films, but at the same tis beautifully shot and keeps your attention throughout. If anything it was also refreshing because, while the original movie was very creative, Golden Circle suffered from trying too hard to out-shock the first one to the point where the quality dropped.
The King’s Man largely works, even creating some memorable villains, a great hero and allies, and setting up an interesting premise for a sequel if there is one. The biggest failure really is that the main villain cannot outshine his henchmen, so the reveal is a but flat.
Agreed! The final boss reveal was underwhelming. Your review is spot on
Yeah, the main villain was kinda disappointing. His motivations seemed off, like wanting payback against England makes sense, but at the cost of millions of people from other countries, and even all the Scottish soldiers that fought for the UK? Also totally saw him being at least a spy for the enemy from his first or second scene, so not a surprising reveal.
Absolutely agree and after watching way too many MCU films it felt refreshing to have a film that was a little old fashioned
I overall enjoyed this movie, I loved the historical aspects they added into it, especially the little subtle nods to historical events.
For example, it was a pain in the ass to kill Rasputin in the movie, he was poisoned, he was shot, stabbed, drowned, beaten, etc, which is actually true in real life, as he was shot 3 times, poisoned, stabbed, beaten half to death, drowned, and only died after a whole lot of effort from his killers
@donaldtrumpselbow8142 Yeah for a history nerds this one was definitely a treat. Sure, irl did not involve kingsmen, but they definitely could have
I loved this movie, and was quite shocked when I found out people didn't like it and it didn't do well. As a history buff I loved how they connected the story to real world event, such as the heroes being the ones who tried to kill Rasputin with poisoned cake, shooting him, stabbing him, drowning him and more stuff like that.
The original Kingsmen movie was a refreshing addition to the spy genre, it’s essentially James Bond-meets-Men in Black whilst the Golden Circle although thoroughly enjoyable as the first, failed to recreate the same magic but the Kingsman takes the casino-royale-approach, delivering an origin story that pays off rather well.
This film had everything, story, character depth, emotional weight, theatrical comedy (Rasputin) exquisite action sequences with some compelling fight scenes to boot (No man’s land). For me, the dynamic between father & son carried the movie, at its core the film provides a personal message about the horror and desolation of war.
Great fun, I’d love to see more of this alternate history within the kingsmen timeline. Matthew Vaughn never disappoints.
Same here. You know, I noticed that history buffs that I knew (myself included) enjoyed this movie a lot for the very same reason, but those who aren't familar didn't such as the folks I watched the movie with. For them, those details felt unecessary and they felt it was too absurd to happen if it was a reference to real life.
If you really are a history buff, then you would realise how historically inaccurate this movie is. It really doesn't get much right. I know it's fiction but for example the idea that germany can defeat Britain when Russia is knocked out of the war is just absurd. And why do the characters talk about how Germany is blockading Britain when the exact opposite was the case. Another big point that bothered me was how the movie makes the monarchs seem way more influential than they really were. Out of Russia, Germany and Britain, Russia was the only absolute monarchy where the Czar called the shots. The other monarchs were just figureheads. In fact if I remember correctly Kaiser Wilhelm was desperately trying to find a peaceful solution with Czar Nicholas in the last few days before the outbreak of the war.
the second movie was already terrible, this one was almost inconsumable although the humor made me laugh sometimes
I like the film as well, but I didn't like how they depicted the Kaiser as completely warmongering and King George as a paragon of virtue when in reality both had good and characteristics about them. I also don't get why they forgot France was in the war either. My last minor criticism is that i don't see why any of the members of the "Flock" would join and be so loyal to Morton.
My only issue with the movie was that Rasputin was heavily adveritsed and they just quickly kill him in the middle of the movie. I wanted more of his character. He was kind of the reason I saw this movie.
He was hilarious and intimidating, hard to achieve nowadays
I do agree I wish he lasted a bit longer even maybe playing up his unkillableness
@@thecrtf4953
Yup lol
rasputin low key made me uncomfortable which just shows how great of an actor Rhys Ifans is because that performance was incredible!
he had more dialogue than any of the villains.
Love KM 1&3. Despised 2.
My friend who usually like the same stuff really didn’t like it. He said it felt like a history lesson. So I guess knowing history helps this film. I loved the tie ins with real history.
Watched it yesterday. I never knew it existed and I dont see how it failed. I thought it was quite a good movie. To kill a character we thought and hoped to perserve was actually quite brave of the movie. The feeling for the tragedy is real. I feel like it just isnt heavily marketed like the other franchises.
The killing of a major character is definitely what I feel set people off. At least according to both these comments and some reviews, it apparently wasn't ok to shock us with the brutality of WW1 and the subtly set-up but still sudden demise. The best part about it by far though, was that everything had a reason.
-
(you don't have to read this part)
Why did he die? Because he pretended to be someone else.
Why did he pretend to be someone else? Because his name couldn't have gotten into the army.
Why couldn't his name have gotten him into the army? Why did he want to go to the army? His father was overprotective (is the answer to both)
Why was his father overprotective? Because he had made a vow to his wife (the son's father) to protect him from the world of war.
(This is still a very dumbed down showing of the motivation behind the choices in the movie, but it gets the point across well enough)
-
Every action in the movie is well backed up by a reason that is developed throughout the movie until payoff. Right from the beginning when they travel through the desert we see the seed of the rest of the movie's consequences being set up as the family is bringing supplies to the camp via the Red Cross.
So while I can to some degree understand why it made people upset that such a frame-breaking and bold choice could be made for the movie, I don't believe that it was cheap or bad in any way. An additional fun fact to add is that this moment was hinted at in the very first Kingsmen movie, so making his death so mortifyingly sudden from an in-universe perspective is an excellent motivation for our main protagonist later establishing the Kingsmen which ties this movie in very well with the rest of the universe.
It failed because people don’t see movies anymore, and it wasn’t something people needed to see like Endgame
It failed because compared to the other Kingsmans, its awful
@@kxloux8466 I mean it's way better than the Golden circle, so I don't know what you're talking about dude.
@@ZETH_27 and holy shit I just now realized this based on what you said because in every single one of the Kingsman movies one of the main important characters dies (or is supposed to) and that's a common theme with all of them. I'm actually really surprised I didn't notice this before. Thank you for pointing that out.
This film was a legit adventure. Laugh, cried, and cheered. Also when has Aaron Taylor Johnson NOT been a pleasure to see on screen. Guy Ritchie should have cast him years ago in something.
Didn't even realize that was him or that he was in this film haha so thanks!
He wasn't a pleasure to see on screen when he was quicksilver
@Blah Blah Then I guess you haven't seen The 355 try it then come back and dare to say the same :D
guy ritchie??? tf are you talking about?
Aaron Taylor Johnson take blossomed into a very enigmatic and entertaining actor. He's like another Tom Hardy especially when he plays European guys. Loved him in Tenet.
I quite enjoyed The King's Man. It's less action-driven than the other two movies in its franchise, so I think that is why they hurried the pacing a bit. IMO, it was a very good film!
@Isaac Compared to the other 2 movies, yeah, definitely. I chose to watch it as its own thing, and on that level, I really enjoyed it. Taken as a trilogy, tho, it is kind of like having one of the Austin Powers movies be a drama. 🙂
@@ajvonline It’s not a trilogy though. Kingsman 3 is still being made, this is just a spinoff.
@@domphilbrick It's been marketed as a "prequel" and is by the same filmmakers, so I'd say that makes it canon, but I would like to see a Kingsman 3. Since this one is called "The King's Man", "Kingsman 3" does make sense, titlewise, for a 4th entry in the series. I'm glad they're making it!
@Isaac Oh, so you're talking about shifts in tone and style within that one movie? Okay, I can understand that criticism. It didn't bother me, but I get it.
I wasn’t feeling it, it looks like kids would like it. I like the first kingsman, this is just childish and unfunny.
For me the best movie in the franchise. I appreciate how they incorporated real world history into the movie. Conrads arc was just wonderfully crafted.
The fight scene at night was haunting and excellently crafted.
positive lesson from this movie: subverting expectations can work if you care about the characters. my mom and i almost cried for Conrad, he was the dashing young lead, he wasn't suppose to die
I think the way they used our preconceived notion that "because he is well developed he can't die" and then using it to hit us in the face with a brick was brilliant. The scene with "Dulce et decorum est" especially hit me right in the feels. It was excruciatingly tragic.
@@ZETH_27 Then when you remember that the Kingsmen agency was made because of rich people losing their sons it all makes sense rather than being an out of nowhere twist
this film suffered from the ill fated timing of world events. such a shame because this is an awesome film and cant wait to see more that Vaughn brings us.
Awesome film? Wow.
@@jayjya yes.
@@littleredruri He said that because he can't believe the bullshit
@@jayjya yes (x2)
@@jayjya yes
I really liked it, especially the no man's land knife fight with the Germans.
*chefs kiss
Mine was when Conrad carried the injured soldier to the base. That scene looked very similar to Wonder Woman 2017's No Man's Land scene. The way Conrad rose up and the slow mo shot of the soldiers looking at them are some of those examples. They looked so similar and so good.
That was perfectly done. Totally have to agree and I just loved that it appeared to be a mutual agreement of silent, 1 to 1 fighting in no-mansland.
I liked the first and not the second, this one was a surprise, actually a fun action movie, really well made and acted (for the proposal). Also surprisingly avoid some clichés and do unexpected things. And the CGI is well used. Beautiful shots and angles.
- the Rasputin cure was bizarre
+ the fights was amazing, especially Rasputin dance.
I think the Rasputine cure is one of those weird shock factor moments Vaughn likes to have in the Kingsman movies. The first one had that anal scene at the end, the second had that inter-vaginal tracker and this movie has the Rasputin cure scene
I think knowing the events of WWI actually makes you enjoy it more.
Also the movie seems to be 3 different ones. But I like that. The First third was the slowest but important setup, the middle act is like Saving Private Ryan and the finale is a Kingsman movie.
I'm disappointed to hear this film didn't do better financially. I liked it. It's my favourite of the series. I liked the historical setting, and -- while slower than the other movies, yes -- I feel it made up for that by having more heart.
released at wrong time. Spiderman is much popular than King's Man
Enjoyed it really much aswell. But I just saw it was on Disney+ and watched it there, had no idea there was a new Kingsman movie.
Recently done watching it, I enjoyed it very much especially that hilarious scene with Rasputin.
its the delays!!! this was supposed to come April 2019, then got pushed to December 2019 and then pushed again and again ... ask me how I know... I was in them blog sites for 2 years for updates.
I hated the historical setting. It felt like I was watching a dumbed down historical documentary about a piece of history I already know about. Like the duke's assassination is easily one of the famous and pivotal points in European history. Shoehorning in Ralph Fiennes so the audience can be connected or whatever seemed absolutely inane. It didn't add to the historical context, it's just a weird thing happening. I gave up somewhere after that because I just when I thought the movie was hitting its stride it would get worse.
The King’s Man was a GREAT film. The recreation of historical events turned out to an unexpected treat. That mid-film death was so unexpected and out of nowhere.
I completely agree
agree, also mustache match cut was funny af
I'm envious of your ignorance of what makes a movie great
@@jayjya who shitted in your cereal mate?💀
@@jayjya someone else who thought the movie was pretty bad. Thought I was going crazy lol. The action is cool and all but the actual story was one of the worst I’ve seen in a while.
The first Kingsman is one of my favorite movies of all time. The second, I have no intention of ever watching again and wouldn't recommend to anyone, especially if they liked the first. But, I would recommend this as some more kingsman if you're into the first and are interested/familiar with some WWI history.
Filmento,
Thank You as per usual for the time and effort you put into each of these for us to study and learn. Always looking forward to every notification from this channel.
Because of You, I'm currently watching this movie that I've been avoiding for months.
Thanks again 🙏🏾
Anyone else love the scene where they have to recover the lost information in the middle of the battle field at night and have to fight without making a sound. Shit was great 👍
The film really only has 3 major action set pieces - Rasputin, No Man's Land, and the finale. The first two are among the best action scenes of the last year.
My favourite scene, honestly.
@@Rihcterwilker which got ruined since conrad died
@@misterdarwin which was ruined cause conrad dued
@@thesnipingspider3852 That's an opinion call. Senseless death in war is part of the film's theme. That he died because of his father's pacifism is important to the story and Oxford's arc.
This Movie was AMAZING, the (spoiler warning) Knife fight in the dark on the trenches was great, and conrads death actually shocked me!
I mighta laughed a bit at that.
I wasn't supposed to but I did
@@MurasakiTsukimaru you aren't alone, I laughed too
Yeah it was amazing and the best part of the movie. Then he just died in the stupidest way possible and it was fucking stupid. Like all of it sucked. His death was shocking yeah but it made no sense of anything
@@thesnipingspider3852 i dont think it was that dumb
@@thesnipingspider3852 The story is a conglomerate of real life historical tales and myths of WWI. There may have been parts you felt made no sense, but 90% of it was inspired by real life events. People sometimes die in real life in stupid ways.
The King's Man is actually a good movie that suffered because of its delayed release. I have a feeling that it will eventually make up its losses in streaming downloads, and basically word of mouth.
It won’t
@@wallyjackson9543 it will
@@joelellis7035 I'm keeping the faith that it'll eventually turn a profit. I love this series so much and I'm really hoping King's Man isn't the end of it.
It'll be hte cult classic type. I saw it a while ago, and enjoyed it.
This is an amazing movie. It does all the narrative things right, as Filmento lays out - And it's actually about important things. The war is taken seriously. Family tragedy is taken seriously.
We can argue all day about the objectivities of this film’s choice of character identities, brisk narrative plot, and engaging action sequences. Jokes and memes aside, I think it’s fair to say that the film still holds some crucial themes to have yet be discussed further.
I personally found Conrad’s character development to be the most important for the simple fact that his death emphasizes the film’s paradoxical heroism and anti-war themes.
Conrad’s desire to transcend death and to uphold his reputation as a hero, only to pointlessly die by the hands of a fellow soldier in a mere matter of seconds after receiving praise, is a representation of just how evil and fearful humans truly are.
In other words, the paradox of heroism argues that our limitations as a species and our vulnerabilities to nature forces us to refuse those limitations, and to boldly charge at those fears with courage and to briefly forget or ignore our own vulnerabilities.
To put in George Carlin’s terms, war is nothing but a bunch of men waving their pricks around in hopes of showing who’s got the biggest dick.
Multiple good things mentioned in the comments, but I need to mention one moment that stayed with me long after watching: Conrad's death.
For one, it's so unexpected and sudden. Filmmakers made sure they could continue the narrative with him - he had meltdown during quiet battle scene, how will he cope? He carried the wounded soldier, surely that leads somewhere, perhaps home to prove to his father he was right? Then, finally in the trenches, he sees that only he survives - another gut punch for him to get through... only to be executed point blank immediately afterwards. At the time it happens, it's jarring (as the war itself btw).
And then it's the conflict that sends Oxford on his own journey, which pays off narratively too. It fits perfectly to the rest of the story, but it still feels a massive change of course during watching. That takes something to pull off successfully!
...and before anyone pulls Infinity War or GoT at me, I know it's been done well in the past too. I just say this is another great example of doing it right.
not unexpected, it was mentioned in the first movie
I am a big proponent of your Michael Bay argument of, "exclusivity" and getting your money's worth with unique experiences. This movie, while having some things not work at all, definitely gave us some things that we have never seen before. Rasputin was worth price of entry on his own.
great one. the point about negative occurrence to mix things up so as not to give us stuff that we've seen before is an awesome observation.
I don’t know if I liked it more then the first movie in the series, but I definitely liked it more then The Golden Circle.
1st one was really good, 2nd one I couldn't stomach the grotesque like exaggerations (just very forgettable movie). While I sat down to the third installment I had zero expectations, and I was surprised how actually good it was. Good analysis as always
I guess I'm the only person ever who like The Golden Circle
@@sera_sarzad Im neutral towards it. But man, they did my girl roxy wrong.
Same!
The original Kingsmen movie was a refreshing addition to the spy genre, it’s essentially James Bond-meets-Men in Black whilst the Golden Circle although thoroughly enjoyable as the first, failed to recreate the same magic but the Kingsman takes the casino-royale-approach, delivering an origin story that pays off rather well.
This film had everything, story, character depth, emotional weight, theatrical comedy (Rasputin) exquisite action sequences with some compelling fight scenes to boot (No man’s land). For me, the dynamic between father & son carried the movie, at its core the film provides a personal message about the horror and desolation of war.
Great fun, I’d love to see more of this alternate history within the kingsmen timeline. Matthew Vaughn never disappoints.
I adore this movie. When my friend and I left the theater, I couldn’t wipe the smile off of my face.
I already loved the first two, mostly the first one, but this one really spoke to me. I genuinely love everything about it. WWI is my favorite historical time period, and I had so much fun following all of the history they included. I adore the Kingsman action scene style and stunt work, and the Rasputin and No Man’s Land silent fight are two of the best fight scenes I’ve ever seen. I love the risks they took with the Conrad character, and his entire arc. I love Ralph, he’s always been a favorite actor of mine. I love the costume design. I love how vast the scope of this movie is, just how much of the world they managed to include while also keeping the story contained enough to follow. Many people find the movie uneven, but I just love how unique each section of the movie is. It’s like getting 4 movies all in one, all held together wonderfully.
I love that they were willing to make a movie so different from the first two. A real risk, and I think the movie was treated unfairly in reviews.
I think this is one of those movies that, as more people watch it, it will be appreciated more and more. Hopefully it has enough success in the long run to justify a sequel... if not, I can somehow live with just this one... maybe.
I’ve been watching a lot of your stuff lately and I think your channel is really good dude keep up that good work!
Overall, I though this movie wasn't bad compared to some of Hollywood's latest releases like the 355 or Red Notice, that's for sure. It's got some drawbacks but also has some strengths. It's somewhere below middle of the line. Great video!!
Edit: per the responses I’ve had on this comment I decided to watch the movie again. I concur, it was pretty painful to watch. BUT, it does have some positives haha
Damn, I thought the movie had an incredibly disconnected plot that never really seems to properly start, overly dramatic tone that is also very inconsistent mixed with more light hearted moment that just makes no sense, a forgettable villain and a very weird pacing, I loved the action, the cinematography, the cast and few characters, but damn this movie is just not good
@@johnsaltfresh5946 These are fair points!! And I honestly agree with you now that you mention all this. I've been watching a lot of awful movies lately so my opinion of The King's Man is definitely skewed after all that trauma lol. It's definitely not a good movie. I just didn't hate it as much as movies like the 355 or Eternals i guess haha
@@FOURBEEZ oh yeah, definitely not a “terrible” movie per say, I didn’t had internal pain while watching it unlike other movies😅😂
Still no matter how bad the any of the films are (I personally like them all, with the first being the best); the fight scenes are almost always top notch
@@bloodbrothers6556 The fight scenes definitely are really cool, I have to agree with you on that!
What I love about Matthew Vaughn's direct approach to the kingsman movies is his subversion of the archetype tropes and how well he plays with his goals, stakes, and urgencies in each scene, and how well he transitions back and forth between good news and bad news in his action sequences.
This was a great movie.
It gave me strong League of Extraordinary Gentlemen vibes, which was always one of my favorite films as a kid.
Same ! Something about older movies just hit different has to be the actors and setting
As a history nerd I loved this movie and was pretty shocked to find people who didn't like it I actually thought it was better than the golden circle! (Dont get me wrong though Golden circle is actually my favorite movie but The writing of the characters, specifically the statesman was not it)
You know, I noticed that history buffs that I knew (myself included) enjoyed this movie a lot for the very same reason, but those who aren't familar with WWI history didn't, such as the folks I watched the movie with. Seems like the concensus for them, those details felt unecessary and they felt it was too absurd to happen if it was a reference to real life.
Also that name switch, it was masked a just a mean to continue the plot, but it was a setup all along for an unexpected payoff.
I liked the first movie way, way better than Golden Circle, but haven't seen enough of this one to make a judgement on it. Hopefully I'll enjoy it, seeing as I wrote an entire novel set in WW1.
My problem with the Golden Circle is that it took itself too seriously compared to the first movie and yet went totally over the top at the same time, to the point of just being cringe. The best part of the movie is Country Roads though, that much is true.
Immediately I can tell the movie's name might be one of the biggest cause of its failure. Lots of people could've gone to see the movie thinking it was a stand alone film and being confused.
I am one of those people, I went to see it after finding out the other movies sold out. Good movie though but no idea about the whole other movies.
having watched it i didn't feel loss cause it was a prequel
its literally angry scottish man starts ww1
Or they think it's some forbidden homosexual love story between a king and another man.
The original Kingsmen movie was a refreshing addition to the spy genre, it’s essentially James Bond-meets-Men in Black whilst the Golden Circle although thoroughly enjoyable as the first, failed to recreate the same magic but the Kingsman takes the casino-royale-approach, delivering an origin story that pays off rather well.
This film had everything, story, character depth, emotional weight, theatrical comedy (Rasputin) exquisite action sequences with some compelling fight scenes to boot (No man’s land). For me, the dynamic between father & son carried the movie, at its core the film provides a personal message about the horror and desolation of war.
Great fun, I’d love to see more of this alternate history within the kingsmen timeline. Matthew Vaughn never disappoints.
The name was it's undoing in exactly the opposite way. Most people knew it was Kingsman 3 and so were confused why it was so disparate from the other 2. It would've worked far better as a standalone
Gotta admit , I liked Rasputin and The Shepherd as Villains.
Rasputin was awesome
They were good on paper, but OMG were they mishandled at the time of execution. I was looking to the Rasputin fight scene because the trailers made it seem like it would be a cool sequence, but instead it turned into a farce.
Rasputin was hilarious
As much as I would have loved for Rasputin to be the main villain of this movie because he displayed every trait and characteristics of a memorable antagonist, it wouldn't have made narrative sense for a spiritual guru trying to start a war so it was fitting for him to be at least a high-ranking henchman.
@@androssteague To be honest I thought the Main villian would be a real historical figure.
Filmento, what I like the most are your jokes with your editing style, my god ! I'm waiting for your own movie bro
Honestly, I found the film to be pretty fun and interesting. It was good to know how the Kingsman started even if the movie wasn't super great.
I really loved the movie and actually encouraged my friends to watch it. It's a ton of fun, and I feel it was unfairly treated by reviewers who could not process the concept of historical fiction. Like for example, archduke Ferdinand actually experienced both assassination attempts immediately after each other, and it was a treat to watch how the film incorporated real history into the plot.
Yep reviewer needs to learn some history
That's exactly what I said while watching it! After the bombing attempt, I mentioned to the person I was watching it with about how the bomber saw that archduke at a cafe shortly after by pure luck... and then it actually happened in the film! I considered the movie to be like historical fanfiction.
But the history wasn’t accurate lmao
@@thesnipingspider3852 Not sure who you're replying to, but Divine called it "historical fiction" and I called it "historical fanfiction". Are you saying you would prefer if the history was accurate?
@@DeeevTV accurate yeah my b
I was a huge fan of the 1st movie, thought the second was good, had no hope for this one.
It had alot of cringe, but it surprised me in some good ways. I'm a huge history buff and was very familiar with all the historical elements they tried to tie into, just seeing a movie using history's greatest plot points for an alternate history movie, in any way, was appealing lol.
I liked Rasputin's portrayal because it was beyond over the top, it was "insanely WTF".
I also thought the knife fight in No-Man's-Land was very unique, an interesting concept.
I also applaud them for what happened to the son, just because no filmmakers are willing to do that to a main character these days.
The original Kingsmen movie was a refreshing addition to the spy genre, it’s essentially James Bond-meets-Men in Black whilst the Golden Circle although thoroughly enjoyable as the first, failed to recreate the same magic but the Kingsman takes the casino-royale-approach, delivering an origin story that pays off rather well.
This film had everything, story, character depth, emotional weight, theatrical comedy (Rasputin) exquisite action sequences with some compelling fight scenes to boot (No man’s land). For me, the dynamic between father & son carried the movie, at its core the film provides a personal message about the horror and desolation of war.
Great fun, I’d love to see more of this alternate history within the kingsmen timeline. Matthew Vaughn never disappoints.
The final post credit scene adds so many layers to the story, with a possibility of having a 2nd prequel as well
I absolutely love ur work bro!!
I started watching this review and stopped 2 minutes in and watched the movie and came back. The movie was probably the best I've seen in the last two years. The story was relatable, with fiction and history fused together with a great under plot. The action was well done and blended well with drama. It's so much fun.
The King’s Man has the biggest emotional punch of the series. What happens is stunning, totally unexpected and genuinely emotionally powerful. Also, the Rasputin fight scene is incredible looking, and the way the movie parallels real history is very clever. And I really like your point about how the villain agents vary in character, skills, and styles. It was a refreshing approach. I confess, I loved this movie. And what happens mid-way through it really broke my heart.
1:31 *PERFECT* I can’t tell you how perfect this edit is.
It was the first film I’ve seen in a while that genuinely shocked me with with its twists
It's so freaking rare that when movie make random animal do deus ex machina thingy and I feel satisfaction from it. That goat is the GOAT. This is a genuinely awesome movie that suffer from the unspecified virus of unknown origin.
its Markhor. its the national animal of Pakistan, its lives in northern part of Gilgit Baltistan which is province in Pakistan. N in gilgit baltistan r the Karakoram and the Himalayas mountains. n those mountains look nothing the shit king's men showed.
Hey nice to see you talk about my movie
This movie was awesome. My favorite part was telling my brother “if the movie stays accurate, Rasputin will only die to a gun shot.” To which he did. Which I loved. It showed that they wanted to stay historical, even though it is alternate history.
The line "It's not fighting... it's dying!" Is probably one of the hardest hitting lines of the film!
You have to do anatomy of a success of The Batman, holy shit what a movie
Rasputin was the best part of the film, should have been the main villain
I like your positivity! This movie was a mixed bag but when it's good, it's really good!
just finished it after a while and i rlly enjoyed it, i liked how it felt like multiple storylines fitted neatly into one. also, the rasputin fightscene utilizing dance made it one of the more creative sequences i've seen in a movie in a while
I LITERALLY finished watching the movie 5 minutes before this video was released. Get out of my head!
The post-credit scene was a masterpiece.
Masterfully awful
@@pont1695 I know it’s awful. I thought it was just so funny Hitler appeared on screen.
@@puppylover4865 with no accent, no less
@@pont1695 yeah, I wish Taika Waititi played him, just like in Jojo Rabbit.
That sword fight scene with Rasputin was the most beautiful and bad-ass fight scene I've ever seen in any movie.
Excellent video! I'm a visual guy who doesn't care that much about story, and I think this film is visually stunning and amazingly executed. But your review of how the story keeps you connected was awesome.
You explained in a really compound way my complex feelings on this movie. I loved the first film, liked the second, but after this one, I'm not sure I wanna see Matthew Vaughan getting that Man of Steel sequel anymore :(
Wait, he was tied to superman?
@@dooplon5083 Sorta. He harped for a couple years (2016 & '17, I believe) how he wanted to do MOS2, & he eventually revealed that WB/DC did entertain him on the idea (I think it was 2018) & a couple months later Cavill & Chris McQuarrie revealed they talked about Superman & doing a movie on the set of Mission Impossible: Fallout. Sometime in 2019 (I think), Mr. McQuarrie revealed he pitched a MOS2 to WB/DC (probs not long after the release of MI:F) & they said, "Too expensive; nope," even though they had fairly recently, at that time, greenlit an expensive Aquaman sequel & were knee deep in an even-more-expensive WW sequel that ended up becoming an obscenely-embarrassing box-office disaster, but I digress.
Mr. McQuarrie said with that reveal that he is no longer interested in doing a Superman movie (please change your mind good sir lmao). James Gunn was fielded to do MOS2 at least once before his Marvel split & return, but declined, despite the public statements from 2013 lauding MOS. After being dumped from GotG3, & going to DC, he was given carte blanche to do anything he wanted (but the DC folks explicitly tried getting him to do MOS2) & we all know he chose to do The Suicide Squad (awesome movie; damn shame it bombed at the BO). Last year Mr. Vaughan revealed he still wanted to do MOS2, & said everything except, "His movies suck because Zack Snyder bad," so I thought we'd maybe be hearing more about that. *Nope* :(
I have all that burned in my brain hoping we'll get a proper MOS sequel someday & I'm also marginally interested in making an obtuse video about this obtuse back & forth on top of Cavill being cheeky pretending to quick because he thinks WB will actually pay him Robert Downey Jr. money to appear in another movie lmao
Its time someone talked about this great movie.. I am so sad this movie became a flop because this movie is more awesome than many of them coming recently .. I dropped my Jaw on Conrad's death scene.. This is a great movie..
Personally, I feel like the movie is more enjoyable IF you know the actual history of the characters at the time (Rasputin, Princip etc). In fact, that scene in Austria is probably the most realistic depiction of Ferdinand's assassination in film yet because the second attempt really was just a random encounter a short time after the first attempt.
That is a good choice to make the lesson for Film Perfection...it had been a long time..
I actually really liked this movie. I'd rank the movies of the series in this order: 1, 3, 2. I enjoyed the more serious tone of the 3rd, but it was still quirky and fun, especially the part with Rasputin.
I mean even if the story wasn‘t the greatest in this Film at least the action scenes were like in all the kingsman films extremely well made. The choreography, the setpieces, the opponents to overcome. All this should be the norm in modern action cinema.
Filmento, i hecking love your reviews.
I just noticed that Filmento uses a little bit from the H3 soundtrack when portraying something sad.. and that makes me happy for some reason
In my opinion, the first Kingsman movie is still the best one in this franchise
Easily. This film is in last place by a long way.
@@eddy4688 I find it better than the golden circle.
But that's my opinion.
The first Kingsman movie is the ONLY good one in this franchise.
The original Kingsmen movie was a refreshing addition to the spy genre, it’s essentially James Bond-meets-Men in Black whilst the Golden Circle although thoroughly enjoyable as the first, failed to recreate the same magic but the Kingsman takes the casino-royale-approach, delivering an origin story that pays off rather well.
This film had everything, story, character depth, emotional weight, theatrical comedy (Rasputin) exquisite action sequences with some compelling fight scenes to boot (No man’s land). For me, the dynamic between father & son carried the movie, at its core the film provides a personal message about the horror and desolation of war.
Great fun, I’d love to see more of this alternate history within the kingsmen timeline. Matthew Vaughn never disappoints.
Main bad guy was underwhelming but still great movie. Looking forward to a sequel
Main bad guy was still cool in his own way buy got MASSIVELY outshined by Rasputin entirely and sideshowed by his own henchman so yeah it was a BIT underwhelming but doesn't take away from the movie at all.
Another GREAT video.
I liked this film a lot. More than the 2nd one actually. From the beginning, we knew Conrad HAD to die, because of Kingsman's origins told in the 1st one. But it was made in such a very organic and emotional way....
I loved this movie so much, I don't get how there were much complaints...
As you said, the story beats for into each other fairly well and I felt satisfied with what we were given... If I'm honest I preferred this movie to the original 2 movies, and I really hope they move forward with the sequel that was set up in the post credits scene... Man, even that set up alone was worth the movie
Honestly I come here for film education, you have furtherd my career 👌🏿 much love bro bro
Rasputin in this movie was amazing
I absolutely enjoyed this one. Def my favorite of the franchise. I saw it with my partner and I told her: man this is my kind of a movie, I didn't think they made these types of movies before. It's a pulp story about a British lord and his black sidekick in a swordfight duel to the death on a mountaintop with 60s like Bond villain for the fate of the world. Needles to say I had a huge grin on my face coming out of the cinema
This was so good.
I got to watch a British Spy swash-buckle a Scottish Gunbreaker from Final Fantasy who ran a global assassin organization which has A LITERAL WIZARD on his employ
Watching this was deff a win for me lmao
Such a good film. The twist, the portrayal of historical events, the style and action.
@@wrightkaneradio4918 go study some history before talk sh*t
@@wrightkaneradio4918 well, what really can you do with historical events except tell them how they happened with your own little spin in there.
the war was portrayed accurately for the most part and the story taking place within it worked well in synergy with the historical events. that was actually the part i enjoyed most about the film.
The original Kingsmen movie was a refreshing addition to the spy genre, it’s essentially James Bond-meets-Men in Black whilst the Golden Circle although thoroughly enjoyable as the first, failed to recreate the same magic but the Kingsman takes the casino-royale-approach, delivering an origin story that pays off rather well.
This film had everything, story, character depth, emotional weight, theatrical comedy (Rasputin) exquisite action sequences with some compelling fight scenes to boot (No man’s land). For me, the dynamic between father & son carried the movie, at its core the film provides a personal message about the horror and desolation of war.
Great fun, I’d love to see more of this alternate history within the kingsmen timeline. Matthew Vaughn never disappoints.
One of the fight scenes where they removed background music was strange, but it also added to the intensity.
small scene but the trench timelapse was a really cool and the sort of stealthy trench fight was also a real standout for me
I would like to see both a succes and a failure video for the same movie. Maybe you could do that for this one?
I saw 4 movies in a 3-day span and I rank them as follows:
1. Spider-man
2. Kingsman
3. Nightmare Alley
4. Matrix Regurgitations
The new Kingsman left an impression and I hope they continue it! Especially the end credit scene!
I haven't seen Nightmare Alley but I agree with the rest of your rankings. God was Matrix a steaming pile.
@@HobokenSquatCobbler Nightmare Alley wasn’t bad! It didn’t seem like it was trying to be anything other than a compelling story that came full circle. MUCH better than the Matrix 😮💨
"Regurgitations" - That gave me a silent chuckle, even though I did enjoy the film.
Most recent films lack for me because of wokeness. Also the whisperer looks like baron zemo.
just watched it on 2022-09-16 and from the first villain reunion I knew it was not going to be about the war, but the machination behind it and the secret heros putting a stop to it.
So sad to see it did so bad, I went to watch it with my friend who introduced me to the franchise and we both loved it.
I was honestly surprised at just how much I was in love with this movie. Heck, I didn't even like the previous movies that much to be honest.
Me and my whole group of friends found it on a whim and fell head over heels.
This movie, to me, felt like it wanted to be 2 movies at once. A fun, over-the-top spy action film and a girtty, deppressing war film and it couldn't decide which. The problem is, those two aren't very compatible and the tonal whiplash kept taking me out of the movie. Not to mention that if you're telling two movies a tonce, you'll have a hard time telling either properly. The third act was fun as hell though and Rasputin was fantastic!
I can see where you're coming from but it didn't take me out of the movie at all as I thought the tone was overall done well enough for it to be seamless as it didn't completely break story immersion NOR a "tonal whiplash" as the movie ultimately WAS gonna be about the horrors of war and violence from a pacifism perspective during WW1 so seeing the "depressing war" angle seemed like it was inevitable gonna happen and the film pulled it off enough for it because of what it was mainly gonna be about while having the iconic quirky fun kingman's style of filmmaking!
I prepared for it to be a failure. But my god, am I glad I listened to my friend and gave it a chance. Best movie I've seen in 2021