We've always been fond of the "Kingsman" franchise. May it be "The Secret Service" or "The Golden Circle", these films have entertained us with its great mix of action and comedy. This time, "The King's Man" serves as a prequel to how the underground agency was formed and with it comes a more serious approach. While "The King's Man" was still enjoyable, there's no denying that it lost some of its charm with its more formal approach.
A pacifist, Orlando Oxford (Ralph Fiennes) has always chosen to help those in need especially in times of war and conflict. But unfortunately, this would bite back as his wife is shot and killed in front of their son Conrad when they were out doing affairs for the Red Cross. His wife, before her death, wants her son to never partake or witness any wars on which Orlando vows to never break. But years, the world is at the brink of global war as three cousins, King George V of England, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, and German Emperor Wilhelm II fight each other for power. Unknown to many, a cabal of evil men are pushing these three monarchs to hate and attack each other. As Orlando uncovers the real perpetrators of the ongoing World War, he vows to stop them at their heels to keep his vows intact.
One of the fondest memories of we have with the previous "Kingsman" films were the craziness and chaos that ensues within it. You never know what you're getting and these surprises (may it be its larger-than-life characters, scenarios, or fight choreography) were just jaw-dropping fun. Unfortunately, with "The King's Man" going into a more formal age in the early 20th Century, this craziness has been toned down a lot. Like its lead character Orlando Oxford who is a gentleman, a pacifist, and a protective father to his son Conrad, the film likewise takes this weird protective approach. Really, what's weird for us was the constant need for the film to be taken seriously. Like do we really need a solid and dramatic background story to the Kingsman Agency when its a series known for its quirky action and humor? We won't deny that the film was still entertaining though. It still had some alternative history broouhaha that was actually interesting and believable. The action was still solid even without the typical choreographic flair. But our biggest grievance from the film were the villains. With more than a handful of antagonists, the film struggled to make each one sound interesting. In particular, the climactic reveal was a complete dud in our opinion. While "The King's Man" fell short compared to its predecessors, we still wouldn't consider it a complete waste. It's acceptable but nothing spectacular.
Rating: 3 reels
Why you should watch it:
- has an interesting take on alternative World War 1 history
Why you shouldn't watch it:
- lost a lot of the franchise's charm with its more serious and formal approach
Comments
Post a Comment