The King's Man (2021) (1 Viewer)

[Jake Lipson]

Now there's a new trailer as well:

 

[Jake Lipson]

The King's Man is now scheduled for release on February 12, 2021. It takes the spot previously reserved for The Eternals, which has been moved to November 2021. I have updated the release date in the first post accordingly.

 

[usrunnr]

Is it "Kingsman" or "King's Man" or both?

 

[Jake Lipson]

Is it "Kingsman" or "King's Man" or both?

Good question. I do think this has the potential to be a bit confusing.

The franchise as a whole, including the two previous movies released by Fox before Disney bought them, is Kingsman.

The title of this particular title within the franchise is The King's Man. It is a prequel to the other movies which both had Kingsman in their title.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Here's a new featurette which 20th Century Not Fox just sent out for this movie. It has been reshuffled again and is now supposed to be released on December 22. I've updated the release date in the first post again.

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

Well, that actually looked interesting, to me. Loved the first, but the second was a bit meh, or rather, a bit O RLY?

 

[Jake Lipson]

Another trailer:

 

[Jake Lipson]

For anybody who has been clamoring for them, advance tickets are on sale now. The first showing is scheduled for 4:00pm local time on December 21.

This is one that I would have seen pre-Covid, but as I am being more selective about my outings now, I'm not sure if it is a must-see for me now or not. I'm still not quite as interested in this as I would be if it were a sequel bringing back Taron Egerton. I could see myself going to it but I could also see myself passing on it. I haven't decided yet and certainly don't feel the need to get tickets this far out on this one.

 

[Malcolm R]

I still have little interest without Taron Egerton.

 

[Sam Favate]

Kinda strange they’d put out a prequel in the midst of trilogy, but I’ll see this at some point.

 

[dpippel]

The first film was almost brilliant, with the second lagging far, FAR behind it. The only good thing about #2 is that Jeff Bridges was in it. I may rent this, eventually, but I have no real desire to see it.

 

[benbess]

This movie is more serious than the trailer makes it appear. For me there was one significant misstep in terms of the drama, and another one when it comes to historical accuracy. I still more or less liked the movie, but for me it was about a "B-".

 

[Jake Lipson]

My local theater opens The Matrix Resurrections on three screens tomorrow. The King's Man is only on one. And Spider-Man is on more than both of them combined. It sure seems like this film is going to be railroaded by Spider-Man.

I enjoyed both of the first two films, and I love Matthew Vaughn as a director. Stardust is one of my favorite films of all time. So, normally, his name is enough to get me to go to anything. But we are not in a normal time.

I've enjoyed going back to the theater more often in recent months but have been more selective about what I go see than I would be without Covid. The trailers have not made me feel like seeing this is particularly urgent, especially in a very crowded marketplace and with cases on the rise again. So I think I'm good waiting for this one to stream.

 

[benbess]

For our showing there were only about eight people in a theater that had well over one hundred seats. My wife and I felt pretty safe. But the movie is one I'm not sure if I can really recommend if someone is choosing carefully for various reasons. But it definitely has spectacle that works well on the big screen from my pov.

PS R-rated for violence and language.

 

[Sam Favate]

I saw this last night (on 4k disc). I thought it was pretty good. Not as good as the first film in the series, better than the second. But more than that, it was different in tone to either of them. It was more reverential to the characters and far less comedic. It's as if the film makers took interest in the historical details and wanted to stay in line - which they mostly did. However, a big flaw that I see in all of these films is the need to shock the audience. The first two tended to do so with over-the-top violence. There is less of that kind of violence here (although it is still a violent picture) and more shocks of the "here's something you didn't think would happen" variety. I almost prefer the gratuitous violence. There's a moment 2/3 of the way through the picture where all your illusions of where this is going are shattered. That kind of thing may keep audiences on edge and keep them guessing, but it almost never makes for a satisfying movie experience.

Spoiler

We're lead to believe that Oxford's son will be okay despite going to the front lines of WWI; multiple promises are made, not least of which by the King of England. Then we see the boy on a perilous mission - pretty much an impossible one - and against all odds, he survives. Within one minute of arriving back in the trenches, he is unceremoniously killed by one of his own men, over a misunderstanding. It changes the tone of the rest of the picture.

Matthew Vaughn, a talented film maker if ever there was one, has seemingly made these films the majority of his work now. (He has an unrelated spy thriller coming out called Argylle with Henry Cavill, Sam Jackson and a really good cast.) But he has said he is planning a Kingsman 3 (with Taron Egerton) and a King's Man 2 with the characters from this movie.

Ultimately, I do recommend The King's Man, even if I found it a bit unsatisfying. I dislike film makers who play games with the audience and seem to say "I'm smarter than you!" Still, the attention to detail here is very good, even if history is interpreted in a fanciful way to suit the series and its story.

 

[Keith Cobby]

Streamed this on disney+ today (just subscribed). What a terrible film considering the talents involved, too much slapstick, and reminiscent of the Blackadder television show. The poor box office and reviews should bring the curtain down on this 'franchise'!