Read Negative User Reviews for The King's Man

2

RichJFeb 20, 2022

This is a bad movie. Coming from the first which is a fun popcorn movie to a second the upped the ridiculousness to a point that should have killed off this "franchise". This third installment is abysmal to say the least. It's a well shotThis is a bad movie. Coming from the first which is a fun popcorn movie to a second the upped the ridiculousness to a point that should have killed off this "franchise". This third installment is abysmal to say the least. It's a well shot movie and the backdrops are all top notch. But the acting,direction,and plot/lines to say are hysterically bad. Almost flirts with "it's so bad it's good". At a certain point the only thing I can convey is "Avoid the time sink" do anything else. It will end up as better time spent.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

0

Chrisdxb87Jan 23, 2022

I feel violated by this movie. Went to see it with a russian and a british friend. I am German. All of us jointly felt offended by the blatant historical inaccuracies, the absolute inability to capture and reflect the times it plays in.I feel violated by this movie. Went to see it with a russian and a british friend. I am German. All of us jointly felt offended by the blatant historical inaccuracies, the absolute inability to capture and reflect the times it plays in. Virtue signaling mess on top of that. A fantastic cast and ruined by cringeworthy dialogues and awkward forced humor. I am flabbergasted as to how this was actually released?! Who makes movies these days?… Expand

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

3

GamingCouchSpudJan 22, 2022

Although it has been out about a month now, I finally got round to seeing The King's Man, a prequel of sorts to the Kingsman film series.

The film has some big-name actors in it, Ralph Fiennes, Gemma Arterton, Rhys Ifans, Matthew Goode, TomAlthough it has been out about a month now, I finally got round to seeing The King's Man, a prequel of sorts to the Kingsman film series.

The film has some big-name actors in it, Ralph Fiennes, Gemma Arterton, Rhys Ifans, Matthew Goode, Tom Hollander, Harris Dickinson, Daniel Brühl, Djimon Hounsou, and Charles Dance, and is set during World War I and covers the emergence of the Kingsman organization.

A collection of some of the worst "bad guys" from history have come together to plot a war to wipe out millions, and Orlando Oxford (Ralph Fiennes) is in a race against time to stop them.

Now I was a big fan of the Kingsmen films, I thought they were well made, had some great funny moments in them, captivating characters and a good plot. However, this prequel is awful.
It is advertised as a "spy action-comedy film" yet they seemingly forgot to add in any comedy.

The majority of the film tries to be a war film (Think 1917 by Sam Mendes), and then the last 30 minutes it wakes up into something a bit closer to what you were expecting. If you were hoping this would be a modern spy film, you will also be disappointed, instead of gadgets and clever set pieces, you have way too much old-fashioned espionage, which is ok if you thought you were going to a serious war film.

By the time did kick into gear, I had already lost interest, and just wanted it to end. The film's makers, clearly did not have a solid vision here, and instead of giving us more of what The Kingsmen gave us, they tried something different, and for me it failed.

With the exception of one scene with Rasputin licking Ralph Fiennes leg, the film bored me. There were some nice action scenes, but I just didn't have any emotional investment into the characters to care.

The film is poor, and is the worst in the franchise so far.

The Good
The last half hour is decent, a great scene on the side of a cliff, Ralph Fiennes is a great actor, just a shame he was given a pile of crap to act from.

The Bad
The first 90 minutes, I just found myself constantly looking at the time, and wishing something that was advertised would happen.

Overall
For a franchise I am a big fan of, this really let me down, and for any fan of the franchise this is one film that needs to quickly be memory holed.

I score The King's Man a poor 3/10… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

0

neeeeeeiinJan 11, 2022

Typical post-Brexit Angloid propaganda where the heroic noble Englishman has to save the world from those cartoonishly evil continental Europeans. The fact that the ultimate villain of this film is Scotsman who simply wants independence forTypical post-Brexit Angloid propaganda where the heroic noble Englishman has to save the world from those cartoonishly evil continental Europeans. The fact that the ultimate villain of this film is Scotsman who simply wants independence for his country should really hammer home what kind of a nonce Mathew Vaughn is.… Expand

9 of 14 users found this helpful95

All this user's reviews

0

PoundShopOrwellFeb 20, 2022

Not sure what it is, laughably weak historic epic or action film which believes sword fights are still what the audience wants to see. I’ll never watch another film by this director. He doesn’t deserve any franchise. Awful.

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

1

Grum84Jan 9, 2022

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. It just garbej. It trash movie, you just try rewrite the history. Bad scene, bad acting. Good music. But the story it self it just garbedj… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

3

DiscussionaqueoFeb 12, 2022

Boooooooo

Did not enjoy this film. It fluctuated between being boring, stupid and depressing.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

3

imthenoobMar 30, 2022

The biggest issue that the King's Man deals with is the lack of identity. Due to the seriousness of the plot and the fact that it revolves around the start of WW1, They couldn't tap into the comedic tone that the first two films had. Instead,The biggest issue that the King's Man deals with is the lack of identity. Due to the seriousness of the plot and the fact that it revolves around the start of WW1, They couldn't tap into the comedic tone that the first two films had. Instead, We had this kind of awkward movie that we couldn't take seriously because it didn't feel serious with action scenes that felt straightforward and uninspired. And it certainly doesn't help that the final 1/3 of the film absolutely drags.

Overall, It's the kind of movie I wanted to like more than I did. It tried too hard to be something that it wasn't and ran longer than it should have.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

2

EludiumQ36Feb 23, 2022

"The King's Man" with a cast of mostly unknowns was release-delayed for almost 2-years as if it were worthy of such a wait, but no, it wasn't. This qualifies as nominee for worst origin-story ever. It's a very British, high-tea and all, tale"The King's Man" with a cast of mostly unknowns was release-delayed for almost 2-years as if it were worthy of such a wait, but no, it wasn't. This qualifies as nominee for worst origin-story ever. It's a very British, high-tea and all, tale of World War I with only the final three hurried minutes showing the establishment of the Kingsman Agency, like it was an afterthought, an oops, "we forgot to link our boring war story to Kingsman." Look, there were some interesting moments but taken as a whole it was a really poor effort, even the stupid post-credits scene, very disappointed.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

2

Gamed2longFeb 17, 2022

Its like a Kingman movie, but worse in every conceivable way! In an effort to keep the story simple and relatable a lot of European history is condensed down to coincidences and someone being someone's nephew etc. Its literally like someoneIts like a Kingman movie, but worse in every conceivable way! In an effort to keep the story simple and relatable a lot of European history is condensed down to coincidences and someone being someone's nephew etc. Its literally like someone who failed highschool history wrote it, with the only notes being "OK to botch historical figures. Minimum characters."… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

0

remyzerofanFeb 22, 2022

This movie was made for no one. Every creative decision was a misstep. There is no enjoyment to be had here.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

0

Idiota150Feb 20, 2022

Pathetic british self-glorification in a nutshell - please isolate the "island" so that this type of drivel doesn't get out.

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

2

UncleWillardFeb 19, 2022

Couldn't finish it as it just got too silly. I'll give it this though, it looked fantastic. If they could have woven the story through actual and historically accurate events, they would have had a modest success. They chose, however, to bendCouldn't finish it as it just got too silly. I'll give it this though, it looked fantastic. If they could have woven the story through actual and historically accurate events, they would have had a modest success. They chose, however, to bend history to their will way too much. Then it just got stupid and boring. The knife fight between the trenches did me in. It had a League of Extraordinary Gentlemen vibe, and it shouldn't have.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

3

MetacriticOnurFeb 9, 2022

bad
[ bad ]

adjective, worse, worst;(Slang) bad·der, bad·dest for 36.
not good in any manner or degree.

0 of 5 users found this helpful05

All this user's reviews

2

migdalorguyFeb 20, 2022

Wow, did that ever suck. The whole series of films were midly entertaining if somewhat muddled, but this origin story was an absolute disaster that should have never been made. Yes, it's story and fantasy, but to screw around that much withWow, did that ever suck. The whole series of films were midly entertaining if somewhat muddled, but this origin story was an absolute disaster that should have never been made. Yes, it's story and fantasy, but to screw around that much with real history is just going a bit too far. If it had simply tried to be an alternate history, and then cast the previoous film s as simply being part of that alternate history, then maybe, just maybe, there's a semi-plausible story here. But to set it amidst well-documented world events just didn't work. There were enough bad forces at work that no pissed off Scotsman to be the arch villain architect was necessary. War's futility is obvious to anyonme who has ever participated in it, been affectred by it, or even read about it. This attempt to write a backstory of an organization dedicated to keeping the world safe and at peace through utlimately overly violent means is an insult to the intelligence of any thinking, educated person. Maybe the ultimate goal of armed forces is peace (though I'm not fully convinced of that) but the arms manufacturers and other who profit from war arte the real arch villains, and this movies serves only to distract a modern audience from the reality. While it may claim to be as gritty as it is, with lots of blood and gray matter splatter precisely to show how awful war it, it is still, utlimately, a film glorifying the efforts of a small few using extreme violence to defeat some ultimate eveil force. The film is riddled with plot holes, inconsistencies, historical inaccuracies and anachronisms, and the actors, even the distinguished Mr. Fiennes turnmed in caricature performaces at best. Don't waste your time with this piece of tripe. Unless you'd really like to imagine what the WWI era would be as a video game. Actually, a video game might have better acting and plot.… Expand