That cocaine diet really does help to produce some fine scripts. The King's Man is amazing.

The story is a mess of random things and encounters, some of which are loosely connected, but most aren't. Most of the time it sticks to repeating the same 'overprotective father' cliched scenes over and over again, occasionally inserting random "what?" moments and bizarre fight scenes. It's absolutely incoherent, and although the characters act like something important is going on, and sometimes act as they have achieved something, the viewer is fully disconnected from the travesty that is happening when it's not boring you down with the same scene over and over.

They took the most 'hot' and 'debatable' facts about historical figures and incorporated them into WWI historical period, mutilating the history in the process. I'm not going to talk about historical accuracy, since this was never meant to be a historical action film or a war film. In fact, all the WWI battle scenes in the film (and the whole son's story) feel like they belong to a different film altogether, it surely never fits into the overall cocaine Hangover-style nightmare that is happening on screen.

All the supposedly 'funny' things felt like torture, and only made me ask "what?" and "why?" all the time. The best joke in the film was Tom Holland playing all the three monarchs, which made me laugh.

Besides this, there were two good things in the film - nice music and a cool and creative trench fight scene. If you forget about history and drop the setting, this is quality trash cinema. Gritty, dirty, bloody, and violent night brawl - excellent.

Other than that - this film was atrocious. There are two possibilities, either this is a literal re-telling of a comic book (which I'm not familiar with),then it's sort of fine, but still doesn't work. Or this is just a 'whatever' approach to screenwriting, which automatically downgrades this film to "garbage fire" status.

In any case, this mess cannot be enjoyed.

P. S. Nice post-credit scene, guys. Joseph Stalin introduced himself to Lenin as Adolf Hitler, a quality high-IQ joke. Now I rate this 9/555555555555555555555.

Surprise smash hit in 2014, Matthew Vaughn's first Kingsman film The Secret Service was a fun, exciting and inventive new take on the spy/action film hybrid with its more forgettable sequel The Golden Circle still an enjoyable romp despite a noticeable drop off in quality but not even the keenest of Kingsman fans will be able to steel themselves for the mostly charmless and surprisingly serious origin story Vaughn has taken the series too with The King's Man.

Set in the early 20th century where Europe is at war and England's freedom is threatened by a group of mad man hellbent on world domination, King's Man follows the pre-Kingsman exploits of Ralph Fiennes widower Orlando Oxford and his teenage son Conrad (an unfortunately bland character played lifelessly by Harris Dickinson) who along with the help of their housekeepers and associates take it upon themselves to turn the tide of the great war in the favor of their beloved country.

In this set up there's no time for the banter we got between Colin Firth's Harry Hart or Taron Egerton's streetwise wise-talker Eggsy, there's no truly over the top flourishes outside of a few odd scenes mostly involving Rhys Ifan's crazy take on Russian villain Grigori Rasputin (who could've done with a lot more screen time than he was granted by Vaughn) and overall it feels as though for some reason Vaughn has decided the unique and playful nature that made his series stand out from the crowd is no longer needed.

Never more prevalent is this aspect of the film than in an oddly bizarre detour to the World War 1 trenches as Conrad ventures to the front lines, this 20 or so minute mid-movie aspect might involve one of the films stand out action scenes but overall it feels like it's from a completely different movie than what has come before it or what follows it and it's an example of the film trying to do too many things at once, with too many characters like the didn't need to show up Matthew Goode, Aaron Taylor-Johnson or Daniel Brühl, making King's Man a film without a true identity or purpose.

Based of this very differently toned and delivered series entry, it's hard to know exactly where Vaughn wishes to take his property from here on out but if there is to be more Kingsman adventures it would be wise to head back to the working book of the first film that provided a fresh take on a well-worn genre, only to find itself battling for its relevance less than a decade on.

Final Say -

Sadly this much delayed origin story is a mostly dull affair of a property that at one stage looked set to provide a fantastically fun cinematic journey, forgoing the fun that made people fall in love with it in the first case, The King's Man has snippets of greatness but is an overall forgettable and dull adventure.

2 strong cups of tea out of 5

For more reviews check out Jordan and Eddie.

"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?