I personally appreciated how the way Rasputin was killed reflected his real life lore of being poisoned, stabbed, shot and drowned. It was a shame how quickly he went out of the story because Ra-Ra-Rasputin was easily the best character in the third movie.
The second one wasn't as good because of the cliche & uninspired villain. That & actions didn't seem to have consequences on several aspects. Clearly killing Colin Firth, then bringing him back felt forced.
@@emdotrod He should still have stayed dead though. It diminishes the original film having him survive. Find other and new characters and let themshine instead. That's one if the hallmarks of good storytelling.
Plus, in my opinion, the Roger Moore Bond movies are already kinda comical and "cartoonish" (e.g. the slide whistle in The Man with the Golden Gun when he jumps the river is straight out of Looney Toons), so trying to make an homage to source material that is :already: somewhat farcical without going full Austin Powers parody is a really difficult line to walk... and I don't think they really pulled it off.
@@KennethLyVideography The issue with the first is the fact they didn't realsie Colin Firth was what amde it work and the whole "posh female character only good for anal in the view of working class kid" which udnermiens the whole "class stereotypes are not what you think" for bluint laddist fantasy/misogyny. Both of which they had to reverse in the sequel anyway. The other issue is the whole cliche wiping out the whole Kingsman organisation after barely getting to know it.
I really liked the King's Man actually. I am not a big fan of huge scale, epic war films, so I enjoyed more the fact that it was mostly kept in a small scale, centered around Conrad and his father while in WWI instead of WWI as a whole. I think the front line scenes were probably the best thing I've seen in a cinema in a long time.
Same here, went in with low expectations but was pleasantly surprised. It was an entertaining movie. Would have been boring if it was like the first two.
yeah I really liked the war part of it, and the killing of Conrad was definitely one of the best parts of the movie, not because it fit the franchise, but because it shows the true horror of war, and that no one is safe from it no matter how hard they, or those around them try.
The kings man wasn’t that bad. It was quite a good movie but I didn’t have a high expectation. When I heard that it would be a prequel I thought it wouldn’t be able to achieve what the original two movies have accomplished. Of course the first one is undoubtedly the best but the prequel isn’t that bad in my opinion
Completely agree. This is one of those movies that people go expecting something and don't judge it by what it is. I hate that type of review: "It isn't what we are expecting of this franchise" is such BS.
The kings man to me felt like a good standalone movie, not a masterpiece that you talk for years to come, but a fun, enjoyable and easily forgettable movie. Thing is, as part of a franchise that took a whole new spin on the spy action genre, it felt preety lacklustre.
I feel like what hurt the film for me was that Kingsman itself felt extremely shoehorned into the story. As part of the franchise, it couldn’t feel anymore disconnected. The movie mostly took itself very seriously, so the more wacky parts felt out of nowhere and forced. It was a letdown for me because Kingsman wasn’t much of a factor in the story.
@@romanramirez7847 yeah i didnt really understand the ending, like why was King George part of the organisation? also the person in this video said the action lacks style, even though Rasputin's entire fight was him doing this cool dancing
Golden Circle was such a fall from grace for me that I was surprised to learn it was directed by the same filmmaker. It felt like another person with an entirely different creative vision came in to butcher Vaughn’s franchise.
That accurately sums up my feelings for that film. When it was over I double checked to see that Vaughn had in fact directed it. What a disappointment, and a real loss for cinema if that is going to be the quality of his output. So many strange choices, and I dare say it shows evidence of what I call cocaine syndrome. A hot director gains some success, starts doing drugs, and their ideas get wild to the point of being ludicrous.
There's a great line in the first movie that they could have used in this one. Egsy asks what's special about a piece of technology he's familiar with. (A tablet, I believe). The response was something like, "Nothing, the world is catching up with us." A movie where they're using regular modern technology 30 years ahead of the rest of the world would be awesome.
I liked the 3rd movie. It has a certain charm and it stands on its own without the other 2 movies. Ralph Fiennes was awesome as usual and the dude playing Rasputin blew me away with his performance.
To me, one of the most infuriating things about the Golden Circle was the explanation for how Harry was brought back from the dead. Introducing the ability to bring someone back from the dead removes the stakes for much of the story. That's just my opinion. There were lots of things that annoyed me about The Golden Circle. Probably because The Secret Service was so brilliant!! It's hard to top the first movie -- as this video explains well :)
@@byronsenior6499 they establish that it only really works when administered quickly to gunshot wounds later in the film. They use the same tech to bring Jack Daniels back when he gets shot, but when he gets chucked into a mincing machine in the climax, he doesn't come back.
@@byronsenior6499 If they can pull that out of their ass anything can be pulled. "Oh yeah, we literally turned him into a pile of meat but we had this deus ex machina laying around and now he's fine"
@@night1952 Okay, but until they do that I don't see the big deal. Like sure if they resurrect him from a pile of meat then that'll be a reach. A gel that stops bullet related deaths isn't necessarily that bad.
I actually love all 3 movies and understand that there is a tonal shift in each one. 1 is one of my favorite movies of all time, there are great comedy moments in 2, and the prequel has some really cool tie ins with real world history. I love action, I love comedy, and history was hands down my favorite subject in school. So it's no surprise I enjoy them all.
I remember watching the trailer thinking it looked quite good didn’t know until the end when title came up that it was part of the franchise. Still thought it was pretty good when I eventually saw it, just didn’t think about it as having anything to do with the other two
@Bzake he's saying the movie was good, and the script and all was good, but because it was apart of the kingsman franchise it didn't fit in, and wasn't good. if it had a different title and was marketed differently, it overall could've done very well.
I’ll tell you specifically what’s off about the second Kingsman movie - In the first one, the world that the spies inhabit was contained and never spilled out to the outer world. We felt like we were in on a secret. But in the second one, all of the ridiculous action and events were playing out for the whole world to see, on everyone’s TV screen. That threw the whole balance off.
It's surreal how Matthew Vaughn went from being one of the coolest slick action filmmakers around to just making Kingsman sequels to diminishing returns. Stardust, Kick-Ass, First Class, the first Kingsman... he was on top of the world! One of the best action directors out there, then BANG ACTUALLY HITLER AND STALIN WERE WORKING TOGETHER AND MATAI HARI SEX TAPE WITH WOODROW WILSON like what happened?
I actually liked the fight scenes in the King’s Man, with my favorite scene being the brutal brawl in the dark and silent No Man’s Land. Great sound design, camera work choreography, and overall a heart pumping brutal set piece.
I think this film actually did capture a lot the kingsman magic it just did it in 1 a much different setting WW1 as opposed to modern day. 2 it was a much more solemn and less satirical film although did have some comedy and 3 the moments were much more fleeting it definitely was worse then the first but still had its moments
Kingsman 1 felt like Deadpool meets a James Bond video game with cheat codes on. 2 felt like Deadpool meets James Bond video game. 3 just feels like a James Bond video game. The style, the swag, and absurdity that the first one had is nearly completely gone in the 3rd.
About 3 mins in made a great point too - Kingsman 1 was a great movie representation of the comic that was its own thing, with some light parody of spy films, and 2 was completely it’s own thing therefore forcing it to lean on that Spy Parody. Then, once again, 3 dumps that all and just feels like pretty good adventurey, sort of Spy movie with the twist of it being in an older era.
@@coleG112 That’s how I feel as well, When the first movie came out it felt way more like it had a backstory and something it was based on but with the newest one especially I couldn’t help but have a feeling that what i just watched didn’t help move the story along at all by the end. It was an interesting idea for a prequel but it left me with more questions than answers.
@@coleG112 The only problem that I have about the 3rd movie is it doesn't understand what the movie was want to be, half "WW1/1910's era spy movie" and half "gritty WW1 movie" it doesn't mix well... don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the movie itself, the movie just doesn't understand what it want to be... Such a shame that the spy movies that represent the 2010's of spy genre (same way how Jason Bourne movies was represented as the 2000's of spy genre) have ended this way, I would only hope that the next movie would be better because Kingsman movies are getting weaker and weaker in each installment...
I remember having an absolute blast when I saw the first film ( I didn't see it when it released ,I live in india and no theatres near me had it ) I saw it online with bunch of my friends on big tv and we had a ball watching it , so yeah I was kinda disappointed with how it turned out , I still am
Gonna have to hard disagree on this one. The third film was definitely a Kingsman film and really enjoyable. It provided a humble beginning and a mission to the over the top and badass spy agency we came to love in the first two films. It had a good bit of comedy, had period accurate action sequences that still felt inventive and also had a good bit of emotional drama about war and how it tears apart families. Ralph Fiennes did a phenomenal job and I, personally was hooked onto my seat in the first half of the movie itself. My only problem with it was the lacklustre antagonist. Had they fleshed out the character of the antagonist a little bit more, it would’ve been 10x times more engaging. However, I still think the movie only suffered because of the pandemic and competing releases & it would’ve done quite well otherwise.
Completely agree, the prequel was definitely different from the first 2 films, but that is not a bad thing. It still had some of the Kingsman flair, with interesting and fun fight sequences.
I agree with you too. It had an interesting story and a decent plot-line, that kept me engaged. The action was not as flat as this review would make us believe. Matthew Vaughn knows how to shoot action and delivers again in this movie. I'll agree that this isn't a third Kingsman movie, as it deviates from the "norm" (if you can call two movies a norm), but I actually kind of liked that. Eventhough I loved the cinematography and story of the first one, the high amount of immaturity in both the first and certainly in the second movie, always bothered me. It felt a bit off. There is none of it in Kings' man, and I applaud it for it. I hope they will keep the content for the 12 year olds out of any future installments. Though honestly, I much rather prefer Mr Vaughn would spread his wings once more to a new theme all together.
It may not have had the same flair as the first, but I really enjoyed the prequel. Watched it on a flight and wasn't expecting much, but was pleasantly surprised. Also, I felt like the war scenes were all incredible. Even if slightly out of place.
Kingsman Golden Circle negatively subverted expectations...It killed off EVERYONE, it lacked development and it focused too much on the gadgets. Hopefully, they've learned from those mistakes. Unfortunately, I have doubts. Surprised that a third film is in development in spite of the results of the previous two.
I had so much fun watching this movie! Although I agree that it doesn’t fit well with the rest of the series, it works pretty well as a stand alone movie. The Rasputin dance scene was hilarious and it had some really interesting war scenes - that also reminded me of 1917 lol. I didn’t take this movie seriously in the slightest and just decided to enjoy it for what it was.
For nostalgia, I'll always have a soft spot for the series. Especially the first two. The church fight scene and Poppy's playland set to Elton John is magnificent And Matthew Vaughan knows action
I see your point - but I completely disagree. This is my absolute favorite in the franchise - I loved (almost) every decision the filmmakers made - also the ones you criticise. Mostly because it doesnt rehash what worked before, but because it tries to push the franchise in directions it never did before. I guess it just clicked for me and I'm thankful this movie exists. But there are different opinions and tastes - and thats beautiful too. I'm looking forward to what they'll do next.
the third film was the best overall. it had the most realistic plot. the characters had story. Its the first Kingsman movie with a plausible family/friendship dynamic. A grieving father, an actual mentor and a loyal assistant.
I loved The King's Man because it was completely different than I expected. I prepared myself for another enjoyable-but-not-ground-breaking film like The Golden Circle and instead I was punched in the face with a historically-adjacent war film. I especially loved that the Kingsman connection wasn't forced in too early for the sake of grounding this prequel into the franchise; the last second tie in was perfect. I agree that the choreography and camera work lacked the energy of The Secret Service, but I appreciate that it embraced the new genre and wasn't a carbon copy of the first two.
the y called the action flat and lacking style, but it was honestly really cool and i enjoyed seeing the fighting and cinematography from the other 2 films integrated with weaponry and setting from that era
It’s not a bad movie, it’s just not a Kingsmen movie, if you enjoyed it good for you but if you came for more of what was good about the first 2 (which is what most people do when they go to see a sequel) you won’t get it.
I actually enjoyed the last film, the fact that it was a prequel and how The Kingsmen started, I wasn't expecting it to be as flashy as the first two. I expected the more dark tonally story.
Great video! I personally disagree with some points raised here: mostly those pertaining to The King's Man not feeling like a Kingsman movie. And, to me, it's the fact that it's a prequel: in the first film, Galahad mentions that the Kingsman organization was created after WWI and that led to some people (myself included) to imagine what would've happened to create such an agency. So, the story of how the Kingsman came to be was bound to be different from the story of how Eggsy came to be a member. Also, this feels like a more personal film than the previous 2: because beneath the WWI setting and the international spy organization, it's a story about a grieving father that wants to protect his son, and a son that wants to live his own life apart from his father. To me, the action scenes and the exploration of its underlying themes make Kingsman the franchise that it is today, and that is partially why I love these films. However, we all have a right to hold different opinions, and I can definitely see where most of these arguments are coming from. I'm subscribing now, looking forward to more Nerdstalgic content!
kingsman is meant to be action-comedy, so as long as the fight scenes are fun to watch and the comedy is enjoyable, the plot doesn't really have to be watertight
I really liked the King's Man, it's fantastical history that sets up the agency really well, I would really like to see a sequel set in the days leading up to WW2 when the agency is a bit further along and we can see new agents, I like that it's a different style within the franchise And they should definitely continue the modern day story too
Actually I thought The Kingsman was better than The Golden Circle. It engaged my attention and in this case I thought the restraint worked.And it's definitely a nod to The Man who would be King which is undoubtedly a classic. It would've been cool if they stuck to the original title regarding this.
I was actually surprised at how good The King’s Man was as after Golden Circle I gave up on the franchise. I only watched it now because it’s free and I felt bad not giving it a shot earlier.
I actually enjoyed The King's Man more than the first two entries.The final villain might be a let down but i just loved the father son dynamic so much.I thought this film had the most emotional weight in the whole series.
The kings Man was a very good movie. I dont get the complaints about the action sequences. The golden cirle had a ridiculous plot and a terrible main villian. The Golden circle killed all further interest for most people in this franchise.
Roxy getting killed in The Golden Circle was one of their biggest mistake. Built her up from the first movie just to be killed in the first 15 minutes in the sequel?? WTF was that for?? The majority of the Kingsmen dying made it worse. The sequel was uninspired and cliche, honestly it was quite boring despite having some major stars like Channing Tatum and Halle Berry
Honestly, I don't think I could disagree more. I've watched twice now and though the movies opening is a tad slow, it has the iconic Kingsman feeling to me. The only thing it's missing is gadgets, however obviously it can't have a lighter bomb or watch darts in 1917. I think it was just as good as the other two and was a fun change of pace for the franchise.
I actually liked the 3rd film. It was the 2nd longest film I ever had to wait for (from production to release), and I was not disappointed. In fact, I’d argue that Kingsman is holding up better than most other film franchises. I keep returning to this series for its fun, crazy-creative action scenes, interesting stories and characters, and it keeps delivering on that. The first film was amazing, the 2nd had a few issues but overall was still a fun movie. The prequel was definitely a bit of a shift in tone, but it’s still a solid film. A lot of other series fail to keep the momentum going that it’s first film established, but I don’t feel like that has happened yet here. It’s like with Fate/Stay Night compared to it’s prequel Fate/Zero. Where you have a narrative that has alot of tropes you would see in a typical shonen anime narrative, but it’s prequel doesn’t do that, and follows a story that feels more mature. Or for a more well known example Harry Potter/Fantastic Beasts….only that example isn’t as executed as well. In both examples, the main series/it’s prequel feel tonally different, but it still succeeds in feeling like it’s part of the same, just in different time periods of the overall narrative. Plus, as a history nerd, I absolutely loved all of the historical references in The King’s Man. So there’s that too. Overall, I’m still looking forward to the next film. I do hope they can keep the momentum going.
Here's a crazy idea: not every movie needs to be turned into a franchise just because it was successful. Sometimes we can let good movies be just that, good movies.
there have been 3 kingsman movies, seems a little excessive to label it as a franchise. If the director and writers feel that they can add more to the story and they want to explore the world theyve made, why shouldn't they?
I watched the first one because I had heard good things about it. I thought that it was trying too hard to live up to its rating, but I was curious enough to find out about its sequel. I ended up not watching the sequel because SPOILERS HERE: I found out that Merlin dies in it and he was my favorite character. I didn't even know that there was a third one.
Personally I enjoyed all three movies. But it probably helps that I like the WW1 aesthetic and seeing how things began as an idea first leading to the modern concepts. Like the shotgun pistol being initially a flare.
I enjoyed this movie quite a bit. The sequel was the movie that I found disappointing. And does a franchise with only two previous entries really have a substantial enough track record to say "this does not feel like a Kingsman movie"? Considering the bad 2nd movie, I don't think there is a Kingsman standard from a franchise standpoint.
The problem is they built a movie around a practically throwaway line of the organization's founding and realized that no one wants a period piece in the middle of a spy flick, or vice versa.
I liked all 3 movies but I found The Golden Circle to be most forgettable. There were too many new characters that didn't add to story and what was even worse was they killed off existing characters. It had stakes but also didn't have stakes. The King's Man may not be as flashy but the action sequences still felt new; whereas The Golden Circle fight scenes felt like copies of the original.
I absolutely adored the first film. I thought it was fantastic seeing a working class kid ( and relatively unknown actors) thrive as a spy. Then to see the third recently as someone who is working class and Scottish seeing them be like “ isn’t aristocracy great?” And the villian be a Scottish nationalist- what a let down
The villian had to be Scottish to represent Scottish-rite freemasonry and their influence on world affairs... Although I guess it would be hard to believe someone with that kind of money and power actually thinking of something besides themselves and risking their life to save the world.
I loved this movie, and my boyfriend did as well. We saw it in theaters and I loved it so much I bought the first and second movie in DVD. After watching them all I really like the Kingsman the most
Honestly, I have enjoyed each of the Kingsmen films on their own terms, but I definitely understand that I'm not the average moviegoer that feels slighted when expectations aren't met. And those filmgoers matter more in the long run but I do hope that with some time these films will get a re-evaluation.
It's an origins story and actually fits very well as such. It's totally acceptable and understandable why there's no high-tech gadgetry YET. You just need to watch this with the right expectation. If you expect the same as the first two movies, you'd be disappointed as you were.
Wait. “The fight scenes lack… panache.” Wow. Just…what? The Rasputin battle was one of the most stinking fight scenes I’ve watched literally in years. I made my roommate stop a phone call to his mom just he could watch it. I should say something here about how it’s all just subjective entertainment, so opinions will vary. But, nope…you’re just totally wrong. (Or I am) On another point, how in the HELL can you review this film without commenting - at all - on by far the most important scene in the whole film. A pivotal moment for the creation of the organization, and an absolutely gut-wrenching, heart-breaking moment that changed the trajectory of the main character. It was shocking, powerful, unexpected, and is totally absent from this video. Plus, your love of gore-based violence is disturbing. I do think this review is worthwhile, and very well produced. So good job.
I agree with the fact that it was not the movie we expected. However, I think it was an awesome movie. I was glued to the screen the whole time. That Rasputin scene is one of my favorites.
Either way, the fight scene at No Man’s Land gave some chills. The risk of artillery and being gunned down by both sides, boy, it certainly lives up to it. That said, don’t have any insight if its choreography is unique, but it certainly presented stakes
I enjoyed The Kings Man. It requires an understanding of 20th century history to get the plot which may be why it gets so much hate. It seems have been written to watch before Kingsmen and would make more sense that way. Usually I check out reviews beforehand so went in blind only to discover a beautifully shot period piece filled to the brim with historical characters and set pieces. The middle twist genuinely shocked me due to the sheer realism of sudden, pointless, unexpected death. Then I listened to reviews which seemed to be discussing a different movie than the one I just watched with my own two eyes. Usually with comments thrown in like “well I’m not too familiar with WW1” and “it was fun until the shift in tone”
I've not seen it so I can't comment on the historical accuracy or the cinematography But the issue with making a prequel with the intention that it's seen first immediately alienates almost everyone who has seen the original works who are also the people most likely to want to watch a prequel
I'm one for having licensed music be no more modern than the time a work is set in, but I'm a little saddened that Rasputin's final fight wasn't set to "Rasputin" by Boney M. Like, I imagined Rasputin keeping two Kingsman at bay while dancing and taunting them as both parties throw whatever they can at each other, only for Rasputin to finally be gunned down right when he was about to win. And maybe even have him say "Oh, those Russians" right before collapsing.
Imagine if The King's Man story arc is basically reversing what is happening in real life instead of them facing consequences of real life incidents, that could've been better
I liked the 3rd one more than the first 2 but that's probably because I'm a big history buff. It actually made me go back and rewatch the first 2. I love how they intertwine it with real historical events
I think The King’s Man did its job quite well. One of the things I do think it tried to do too much is set up the history for US audiences (in Europe, everyone knows how WW1 got going). Another thing is that, you could argue, the reason the fights etc. feel a little off is that the Kingsman organisation is still finding its feet and isn’t finely tuned like it is in the first two films, but that’s just my two pennies worth.
My opinion on why Golden Circle shift just a little to the left is because how less serious Harry is. I'm assuming that even though Eggsy was the main character we follow throughout Secret Service, it was the Mentor and Protégé bond that made it a wonderful building plot. We learn with Eggsy, we understand and proud of him being the next Galahad. (Well the death of Harry isn't that fun and I'm still sour about it even though they brought him back, begrudgingly in fact, because Colin was the star of Secret Service). Golden Circle. They went back on their set plot about Harry..... at the expense of others (Roxy, you still lives, I refuse canon). I love the villain despite loosely understanding what are her motivations and set goals. Good antagonist, I felt that lil betrayal. I wish we get more Tequila, he was comfort character throughout all the frustrations I had with the movie, what with Harry being a silly goose seeing butterflies and supporting a dorky frown. The best thing we got was ELTON FUCKING JOHN. And also all the lovely Elton and Taron moments at the premier.
The Big problem is how they introduce like 12 characters without explaining nothing about them Why Poppy is like THAT ? WHACKY Why she destroy Kingsman like she has a beef Why The ex-kingsman is important at all I dont know i think the movie could be better if they : Focus in the family of the GF into the plot Cutting the president scenes Focus in the ex-kingsman has main villain and revealing Poppy has the real main or something like that And maybe revealing Whiskey has a 3rd villain for a Next movie i dont know The first movie Focus in like 3 characters and was more fun !!!
Are you kidding me? The Kingsman was my favorite in the series. Honestly, it's probably in the top 20 of my favorite movies. It was no longer just a spoof of old James Bond movies.
I absolutely loved The Kings Man. Usually I check out reviews beforehand so went in blind only to discover a beautifully shot period piece filled to the brim with historical characters and set pieces. The middle twist genuinely shocked me due to the sheer realism of sudden, pointless, unexpected death. Then I listened to reviews which seemed to be discussing a different movie than the one I just watched with my own two eyes. Usually with comments thrown in like “well I’m not too familiar with WW1” and “it was fun until the shift in tone”.
@@JoJoJoker I know right. I honestly didn't realize it had bad reviews. I also thought the morals that it was trying to convey were great. I'm tempted to watch it again tonight.
I disagree about the King's Man. Maybe it was because of the order in which I watched the films. I had never heard of the franchise before, and King's Man was the first one I saw. I thought it was fantastic. Maybe it is better as a standalone film when not viewed in context of the whole series. Could that have been an intentional way to expand the audience? Either way I enjoyed that movie, especially the No Man's Land fight scene which I thought was unique and really well executed!
I very much loved the King's Man. It wasn't the same as the other two, but like, I expected that from the trailer. I was expecting a fun period piece with some good action, and I got a little more than that. So I'm happy.
i love the kingsman films so much, but one of my faveourite things about the first one was the cool friendship and dynamic between eggsy and roxie. So whilst i did very much enjoy golden circle (moreso on the second time as the first was kinda tainted by my bitterness) i will always harbor resentment to the golden circle for killing off roxie especially so early and amongst so many other deaths that she didnt even get the dignity of a grand stand out death like merlin did
I enjoyed King’s Man. It was a good period take on what the Kingsmen would become. Comparing Golden Circle to the Moore 007 is apt; they were both lesser iterations.
I sort of like that all three have a different tones to them. They definitely feel pretty disjointed but at least they all tried different things and them feeling so different from each other helps watch them in a vacuum without thinking about the others. The exact opposite is true for me with the MCU right now. I can't see one without being constantly reminded in both tone and in-universe of the rest. Its cool at first but it also makes the movies feel a little stale after a while. I'm not saying the Kingsman trilogy is great just that they're weakness in tone I think will make the trilogy overall age better.
i've said this before but if you told me that vince vaughan didn't direct this movie i would have believed you. the tone and style of direction in this movie is *really* different and I can't put my finger onto why that is so there's a line in the first kingsman movie when they are first going down the elevator. where it was explained that a buncha kids died in WW1 and that left rich men wtihout heirs. this is an entire movie made from the premise of one sentence from the first film. Sort of like in One Piece when Oda will use a throwaway line in a past chapter to introduce a new story thread, leading to more plot holes and annoyed fans. okay time to watch the video
I loved Kingsman so much, and then Golden Circle just felt wrong and underdeveloped. It also didn’t feel like a proper sequel, more like a third movie finale
I watched 'The King's Man' without watching any of the other parts, and I really liked it. It was a good blend of history and fiction, just probably not good as a part of a franchise.
Yeaaaaah. Going to have to stop you there, Chief. This movie was phenomenal. Honestly, from a purely objective standpoint it might be the best MADE film of the three and I enjoyed it as much as the first. certainly thought the performances from the leads, especially Ralph Fiennes and whoever played Rasputin (my god Rasputin) were better than the leads in the Golden Circle (which felt a bit like everyone was phoning it in except for Pedro Pascal and Juliann Moore). Liked the alt history story too.
Right? How about that amazing time lapse shot of a quaint French countryside village turning into a barren wasteland. When we see photos from WW1 it’s usually just a bunch of mud. That’s because centuries of history were literally blown away by years of almost non-stop artillery fire. Then there is the simple breakdown of the real fact that 3 grandkids destroyed the lives of millions of people due to a petty family squabble. It’s the story of knights rising to stop the kings from slaughtering the pawns. The sets and costumes were perfect, the recreation of two pivotal moments in history were somehow turned into tense yet comedic actions scenes. Bloody fantastic stuff.
The Greatest sequels are those that build off what worked in the previous movie and and improve what didn't work. Golden Circle and Kings Man felt like Kingman spinoffs, movies with the Kingsman name and universe to tell its own unique story.
This video came out 23 minutes ago and it was IMMEDIATELY recommended to me. still watching through, gonna see if you mention the obscene amounts of Scottish slander in the third movie. Edit: Watched the video and i agree with everything you said. you didnt mention how the third film seems to really highlight negative Scottish stereotypes, but I'll give that a pass. You just earned a subscriber.
I enjoyed both Kingsmen: Secret Service & Golden Circle. And back when all that was known bout the Kingsman was that it was centered on Rasputin, I was intrigued (especially after that musical trailer). However, the final product was too much of a slow burn as a lot of it had characters outta action because overly protective parent sheltering their hero complex having son had to be shoved & slowly smeared at the rate of molasses in our face. *SPOILER ALERT* Furthermore, Rasputin wasnt the main antagonist; having been killed off at the end of the first on screen Kingsmen mission; a hidden character called the Shepherd was. I was even then hopeful bout what could be done with this new world order controlling, hidden in the shadows mastermind. What I had in mind bout handling was hed be handled like Moriarty in Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes. Hidden in the shadows in his first appearance, developed in a sequel in which he was the main antagonist. As well as having his identity revealed then. Couldve been fun. But then the plans for finishing off the modern day trilogy got into the way & we learn who he is round halfway through the final act & his identity is only as it is to be the antithesis of the protagonist. And hes not given much of any development. And the alluded to motivation is a red herring in terms of development. And hes killed off, leaving only a couple of sheep in his pasture to hire a newbie in a post credits sequel bait.
I completely disagree with you. I loved golden circle and thought it was just as good if not better the original. And even tho it wasn’t was good as the other two the Kings Man was still quite decent.
I do believe the original was amazing but the King's Man is my favorite of the three as it is more of a classic spy/adventure film mixed with history and plenty of original Kingsman flair. The villain isn't the best and did need to be fleshed out, but I feel much that the villain group itself was a great group of historical figures.
Hollywood franchises today to me feel the same as meeting most people today. At 1st, their 1st impressions are THE BEST. By time the 3rd month comes around, you're like "uhhh...what happened"? That 2nd and 3rd movie these days are "meh". I was just thinking about how it makes sense today to STOP after the 1st movie if it was GREAT! The matrix was a movie I was thinking about yesterday regarding this. They could have and SHOULD have STOPPED after the 1st matrix. That resurrection movie SUCKED and went further away from the original. Maybe it's time to COOL IT with the franchise trend for a few years at least.
The problem is that if a movie does well, they must make a sequel. You can`t just have ONE great movie. Thats what happened to Kingsman, John Wick, Matrix, and many others.
- This movie did great $$$. Lets do another. - But sir, we only had that story to tell and it is nicely done and finished, no holes in the plot or loose ends. - We don't care, we need another.
You're very kind to both Golden Circle and The King's Man in this essay. Both of those movies were incredibly disappointing--the narrative choices were just disappointing every step of the way. They kill off just about every interesting character and replace them all with worse characters in Golden Circle. And The King's Man is just illogical and boring. Such a shame. The first one is very entertaining.
I personally appreciated how the way Rasputin was killed reflected his real life lore of being poisoned, stabbed, shot and drowned. It was a shame how quickly he went out of the story because Ra-Ra-Rasputin was easily the best character in the third movie.
I get that reference😂
agree!!!
Rhys Ifans absolutely killed it as Rasputin, loved him since he was in Elementary
I understood that reference
Ra-Ra-Rasputin Russia's greatest love machine 😩😩😩
The second one wasn't as good because of the cliche & uninspired villain. That & actions didn't seem to have consequences on several aspects. Clearly killing Colin Firth, then bringing him back felt forced.
No disrespect to Taron Egerton, but Colin Firth is carrying the first film
@@emdotrod I agree. I like Eggsy, but Colin Firth’s character really carried the first movie.
@@emdotrod He should still have stayed dead though. It diminishes the original film having him survive. Find other and new characters and let themshine instead. That's one if the hallmarks of good storytelling.
Plus, in my opinion, the Roger Moore Bond movies are already kinda comical and "cartoonish" (e.g. the slide whistle in The Man with the Golden Gun when he jumps the river is straight out of Looney Toons), so trying to make an homage to source material that is :already: somewhat farcical without going full Austin Powers parody is a really difficult line to walk... and I don't think they really pulled it off.
@@KennethLyVideography The issue with the first is the fact they didn't realsie Colin Firth was what amde it work and the whole "posh female character only good for anal in the view of working class kid" which udnermiens the whole "class stereotypes are not what you think" for bluint laddist fantasy/misogyny. Both of which they had to reverse in the sequel anyway. The other issue is the whole cliche wiping out the whole Kingsman organisation after barely getting to know it.
I really liked the King's Man actually. I am not a big fan of huge scale, epic war films, so I enjoyed more the fact that it was mostly kept in a small scale, centered around Conrad and his father while in WWI instead of WWI as a whole. I think the front line scenes were probably the best thing I've seen in a cinema in a long time.
i absolutely agree with you. The hand to hand combat scene in no mans land gave me shivers.
Same here, went in with low expectations but was pleasantly surprised. It was an entertaining movie. Would have been boring if it was like the first two.
I agree it was way better than I expected
yeah I really liked the war part of it, and the killing of Conrad was definitely one of the best parts of the movie, not because it fit the franchise, but because it shows the true horror of war, and that no one is safe from it no matter how hard they, or those around them try.
@@Jishy2415 absolutely, it really shocked me into recognising that almost no one had plot amour
The kings man wasn’t that bad. It was quite a good movie but I didn’t have a high expectation. When I heard that it would be a prequel I thought it wouldn’t be able to achieve what the original two movies have accomplished. Of course the first one is undoubtedly the best but the prequel isn’t that bad in my opinion
Honestly, I like the Prequel better than The Golden Circle.
The prequel had some badass fight scenes.
And that twist at the beginning was insane.
Completely agree. This is one of those movies that people go expecting something and don't judge it by what it is. I hate that type of review: "It isn't what we are expecting of this franchise" is such BS.
well said
The kings man to me felt like a good standalone movie, not a masterpiece that you talk for years to come, but a fun, enjoyable and easily forgettable movie. Thing is, as part of a franchise that took a whole new spin on the spy action genre, it felt preety lacklustre.
I feel like what hurt the film for me was that Kingsman itself felt extremely shoehorned into the story. As part of the franchise, it couldn’t feel anymore disconnected. The movie mostly took itself very seriously, so the more wacky parts felt out of nowhere and forced. It was a letdown for me because Kingsman wasn’t much of a factor in the story.
@@romanramirez7847 yeah i didnt really understand the ending, like why was King George part of the organisation? also the person in this video said the action lacks style, even though Rasputin's entire fight was him doing this cool dancing
@@romanramirez7847 it was a spinoff
Golden Circle was such a fall from grace for me that I was surprised to learn it was directed by the same filmmaker. It felt like another person with an entirely different creative vision came in to butcher Vaughn’s franchise.
That accurately sums up my feelings for that film. When it was over I double checked to see that Vaughn had in fact directed it. What a disappointment, and a real loss for cinema if that is going to be the quality of his output. So many strange choices, and I dare say it shows evidence of what I call cocaine syndrome. A hot director gains some success, starts doing drugs, and their ideas get wild to the point of being ludicrous.
got exactly the same feeling
I mostly blame the bad script and obvious studio meddling for The Golden Circle being total crap.
I mean, that’s what happened to Kick-Ass, so you’re not entirely off.
@@Gemnist98 Kick-Ass 2 had a pretty bad/rushed script as well.
There's a great line in the first movie that they could have used in this one.
Egsy asks what's special about a piece of technology he's familiar with. (A tablet, I believe). The response was something like, "Nothing, the world is catching up with us."
A movie where they're using regular modern technology 30 years ahead of the rest of the world would be awesome.
I liked the 3rd movie. It has a certain charm and it stands on its own without the other 2 movies. Ralph Fiennes was awesome as usual and the dude playing Rasputin blew me away with his performance.
this is also why I like the 3rd. unpopular opinion but the 3rd is my fave.
I only make a decision when I am full and my balls are empty!
To me, one of the most infuriating things about the Golden Circle was the explanation for how Harry was brought back from the dead. Introducing the ability to bring someone back from the dead removes the stakes for much of the story.
That's just my opinion. There were lots of things that annoyed me about The Golden Circle. Probably because The Secret Service was so brilliant!! It's hard to top the first movie -- as this video explains well :)
I mean the gel seems to only be able to heal bullet wounds and only because they got there ASAP.
@@byronsenior6499 they establish that it only really works when administered quickly to gunshot wounds later in the film. They use the same tech to bring Jack Daniels back when he gets shot, but when he gets chucked into a mincing machine in the climax, he doesn't come back.
@@stevenbobbybills That's kind of what I'm saying. I don't understand why everyone acts like this voids ALL death going forward.
@@byronsenior6499 If they can pull that out of their ass anything can be pulled. "Oh yeah, we literally turned him into a pile of meat but we had this deus ex machina laying around and now he's fine"
@@night1952 Okay, but until they do that I don't see the big deal. Like sure if they resurrect him from a pile of meat then that'll be a reach. A gel that stops bullet related deaths isn't necessarily that bad.
We’re 3/4 of the way through 2024 and still have no news on Kingsman: Blue Blood
they released the Argylle which kinda ties to this universe but was ultimately garbage
@@Sipu79 oh yeah I remember hearing about that I didn’t know it had any ties to the kingsman movies
@@Silver_Spectre it's obvious at the end (and it's the same director) and the style is the same
I actually love all 3 movies and understand that there is a tonal shift in each one. 1 is one of my favorite movies of all time, there are great comedy moments in 2, and the prequel has some really cool tie ins with real world history. I love action, I love comedy, and history was hands down my favorite subject in school. So it's no surprise I enjoy them all.
Same
If "The King's Man" was named something else, it would've been accepted as an amazing movie.
I remember watching the trailer thinking it looked quite good didn’t know until the end when title came up that it was part of the franchise. Still thought it was pretty good when I eventually saw it, just didn’t think about it as having anything to do with the other two
That movie was horseshit
@Bzake he's saying the movie was good, and the script and all was good, but because it was apart of the kingsman franchise it didn't fit in, and wasn't good. if it had a different title and was marketed differently, it overall could've done very well.
Tiles of a movie don't justify the qualify of an entire movie pal. That's a fact.
@@seanstarchannel8881being part of a franchise does
I’ll tell you specifically what’s off about the second Kingsman movie - In the first one, the world that the spies inhabit was contained and never spilled out to the outer world. We felt like we were in on a secret. But in the second one, all of the ridiculous action and events were playing out for the whole world to see, on everyone’s TV screen. That threw the whole balance off.
It's surreal how Matthew Vaughn went from being one of the coolest slick action filmmakers around to just making Kingsman sequels to diminishing returns. Stardust, Kick-Ass, First Class, the first Kingsman... he was on top of the world! One of the best action directors out there, then BANG ACTUALLY HITLER AND STALIN WERE WORKING TOGETHER AND MATAI HARI SEX TAPE WITH WOODROW WILSON like what happened?
What?
@@algorithmicalychallenged.291 have you watchdd kings man?
What you mean what happened? The kings man is a gtreat action movie!
Kingsman was good
The Illuminati…
I actually liked the fight scenes in the King’s Man, with my favorite scene being the brutal brawl in the dark and silent No Man’s Land. Great sound design, camera work choreography, and overall a heart pumping brutal set piece.
That was an amazing scene
I think this film actually did capture a lot the kingsman magic it just did it in 1 a much different setting WW1 as opposed to modern day. 2 it was a much more solemn and less satirical film although did have some comedy and 3 the moments were much more fleeting it definitely was worse then the first but still had its moments
Kingsman 1 felt like Deadpool meets a James Bond video game with cheat codes on. 2 felt like Deadpool meets James Bond video game. 3 just feels like a James Bond video game. The style, the swag, and absurdity that the first one had is nearly completely gone in the 3rd.
About 3 mins in made a great point too - Kingsman 1 was a great movie representation of the comic that was its own thing, with some light parody of spy films, and 2 was completely it’s own thing therefore forcing it to lean on that Spy Parody. Then, once again, 3 dumps that all and just feels like pretty good adventurey, sort of Spy movie with the twist of it being in an older era.
@@coleG112 That’s how I feel as well, When the first movie came out it felt way more like it had a backstory and something it was based on but with the newest one especially I couldn’t help but have a feeling that what i just watched didn’t help move the story along at all by the end. It was an interesting idea for a prequel but it left me with more questions than answers.
@@coleG112 The only problem that I have about the 3rd movie is it doesn't understand what the movie was want to be, half "WW1/1910's era spy movie" and half "gritty WW1 movie" it doesn't mix well...
don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the movie itself, the movie just doesn't understand what it want to be...
Such a shame that the spy movies that represent the 2010's of spy genre (same way how Jason Bourne movies was represented as the 2000's of spy genre) have ended this way, I would only hope that the next movie would be better because Kingsman movies are getting weaker and weaker in each installment...
Golden circle felt like if a James Bond video game went absolutely batshit
The 2 looks like a parody 😂
I remember having an absolute blast when I saw the first film ( I didn't see it when it released ,I live in india and no theatres near me had it ) I saw it online with bunch of my friends on big tv and we had a ball watching it , so yeah I was kinda disappointed with how it turned out , I still am
Gonna have to hard disagree on this one. The third film was definitely a Kingsman film and really enjoyable. It provided a humble beginning and a mission to the over the top and badass spy agency we came to love in the first two films. It had a good bit of comedy, had period accurate action sequences that still felt inventive and also had a good bit of emotional drama about war and how it tears apart families.
Ralph Fiennes did a phenomenal job and I, personally was hooked onto my seat in the first half of the movie itself.
My only problem with it was the lacklustre antagonist. Had they fleshed out the character of the antagonist a little bit more, it would’ve been 10x times more engaging. However, I still think the movie only suffered because of the pandemic and competing releases & it would’ve done quite well otherwise.
Completely agree, the prequel was definitely different from the first 2 films, but that is not a bad thing. It still had some of the Kingsman flair, with interesting and fun fight sequences.
I agree with you. I don't think this video was good analysis of the movie.
I agree with you too. It had an interesting story and a decent plot-line, that kept me engaged. The action was not as flat as this review would make us believe. Matthew Vaughn knows how to shoot action and delivers again in this movie.
I'll agree that this isn't a third Kingsman movie, as it deviates from the "norm" (if you can call two movies a norm), but I actually kind of liked that. Eventhough I loved the cinematography and story of the first one, the high amount of immaturity in both the first and certainly in the second movie, always bothered me. It felt a bit off.
There is none of it in Kings' man, and I applaud it for it. I hope they will keep the content for the 12 year olds out of any future installments.
Though honestly, I much rather prefer Mr Vaughn would spread his wings once more to a new theme all together.
It may not have had the same flair as the first, but I really enjoyed the prequel. Watched it on a flight and wasn't expecting much, but was pleasantly surprised.
Also, I felt like the war scenes were all incredible. Even if slightly out of place.
There ya go! If it works for you, it works!
Kingsman Golden Circle negatively subverted expectations...It killed off EVERYONE, it lacked development and it focused too much on the gadgets.
Hopefully, they've learned from those mistakes. Unfortunately, I have doubts. Surprised that a third film is in development in spite of the results of the previous two.
I had so much fun watching this movie! Although I agree that it doesn’t fit well with the rest of the series, it works pretty well as a stand alone movie. The Rasputin dance scene was hilarious and it had some really interesting war scenes - that also reminded me of 1917 lol. I didn’t take this movie seriously in the slightest and just decided to enjoy it for what it was.
Church fight is one of the most iconic scene
For nostalgia, I'll always have a soft spot for the series. Especially the first two. The church fight scene and Poppy's playland set to Elton John is magnificent
And Matthew Vaughan knows action
The church fight in the first movie is still hands down my favorite movie fight.
I see your point - but I completely disagree.
This is my absolute favorite in the franchise - I loved (almost) every decision the filmmakers made - also the ones you criticise.
Mostly because it doesnt rehash what worked before, but because it tries to push the franchise in directions it never did before.
I guess it just clicked for me and I'm thankful this movie exists.
But there are different opinions and tastes - and thats beautiful too.
I'm looking forward to what they'll do next.
the third film was the best overall. it had the most realistic plot. the characters had story. Its the first Kingsman movie with a plausible family/friendship dynamic.
A grieving father, an actual mentor and a loyal assistant.
agree!
I loved The King's Man because it was completely different than I expected. I prepared myself for another enjoyable-but-not-ground-breaking film like The Golden Circle and instead I was punched in the face with a historically-adjacent war film. I especially loved that the Kingsman connection wasn't forced in too early for the sake of grounding this prequel into the franchise; the last second tie in was perfect.
I agree that the choreography and camera work lacked the energy of The Secret Service, but I appreciate that it embraced the new genre and wasn't a carbon copy of the first two.
the y called the action flat and lacking style, but it was honestly really cool and i enjoyed seeing the fighting and cinematography from the other 2 films integrated with weaponry and setting from that era
It’s not a bad movie, it’s just not a Kingsmen movie, if you enjoyed it good for you but if you came for more of what was good about the first 2 (which is what most people do when they go to see a sequel) you won’t get it.
I actually enjoyed the last film, the fact that it was a prequel and how The Kingsmen started, I wasn't expecting it to be as flashy as the first two. I expected the more dark tonally story.
Great video!
I personally disagree with some points raised here: mostly those pertaining to The King's Man not feeling like a Kingsman movie. And, to me, it's the fact that it's a prequel: in the first film, Galahad mentions that the Kingsman organization was created after WWI and that led to some people (myself included) to imagine what would've happened to create such an agency. So, the story of how the Kingsman came to be was bound to be different from the story of how Eggsy came to be a member.
Also, this feels like a more personal film than the previous 2: because beneath the WWI setting and the international spy organization, it's a story about a grieving father that wants to protect his son, and a son that wants to live his own life apart from his father.
To me, the action scenes and the exploration of its underlying themes make Kingsman the franchise that it is today, and that is partially why I love these films.
However, we all have a right to hold different opinions, and I can definitely see where most of these arguments are coming from. I'm subscribing now, looking forward to more Nerdstalgic content!
kingsman is meant to be action-comedy, so as long as the fight scenes are fun to watch and the comedy is enjoyable, the plot doesn't really have to be watertight
@@AT32556 Fair enough. I personally enjoyed both in The King's Man!
I like how the fights were not ridiculous in terms of damage/danger.
I really liked the King's Man, it's fantastical history that sets up the agency really well, I would really like to see a sequel set in the days leading up to WW2 when the agency is a bit further along and we can see new agents, I like that it's a different style within the franchise
And they should definitely continue the modern day story too
I really liked the movie, and I think that it is a good historical-adventure film, and the fights were really good.
Actually I thought The Kingsman was better than The Golden Circle. It engaged my attention and in this case I thought the restraint worked.And it's definitely a nod to The Man who would be King which is undoubtedly a classic. It would've been cool if they stuck to the original title regarding this.
I was actually surprised at how good The King’s Man was as after Golden Circle I gave up on the franchise.
I only watched it now because it’s free and I felt bad not giving it a shot earlier.
I actually enjoyed The King's Man more than the first two entries.The final villain might be a let down but i just loved the father son dynamic so much.I thought this film had the most emotional weight in the whole series.
That fight scene in the trenches at night is a masterpiece in filmmaking
The kings Man was a very good movie. I dont get the complaints about the action sequences. The golden cirle had a ridiculous plot and a terrible main villian. The Golden circle killed all further interest for most people in this franchise.
I was like oh damn i missed the 3rd movie it must have come out recently... wow
I actually really enjoyed this one, loved the first one, second one was way too over the top. 3 kind of balanced the franchise out.
Roxy getting killed in The Golden Circle was one of their biggest mistake. Built her up from the first movie just to be killed in the first 15 minutes in the sequel?? WTF was that for?? The majority of the Kingsmen dying made it worse. The sequel was uninspired and cliche, honestly it was quite boring despite having some major stars like Channing Tatum and Halle Berry
Honestly, I don't think I could disagree more. I've watched twice now and though the movies opening is a tad slow, it has the iconic Kingsman feeling to me. The only thing it's missing is gadgets, however obviously it can't have a lighter bomb or watch darts in 1917. I think it was just as good as the other two and was a fun change of pace for the franchise.
I actually liked the 3rd film. It was the 2nd longest film I ever had to wait for (from production to release), and I was not disappointed. In fact, I’d argue that Kingsman is holding up better than most other film franchises.
I keep returning to this series for its fun, crazy-creative action scenes, interesting stories and characters, and it keeps delivering on that.
The first film was amazing, the 2nd had a few issues but overall was still a fun movie. The prequel was definitely a bit of a shift in tone, but it’s still a solid film. A lot of other series fail to keep the momentum going that it’s first film established, but I don’t feel like that has happened yet here.
It’s like with Fate/Stay Night compared to it’s prequel Fate/Zero. Where you have a narrative that has alot of tropes you would see in a typical shonen anime narrative, but it’s prequel doesn’t do that, and follows a story that feels more mature. Or for a more well known example Harry Potter/Fantastic Beasts….only that example isn’t as executed as well. In both examples, the main series/it’s prequel feel tonally different, but it still succeeds in feeling like it’s part of the same, just in different time periods of the overall narrative.
Plus, as a history nerd, I absolutely loved all of the historical references in The King’s Man. So there’s that too.
Overall, I’m still looking forward to the next film. I do hope they can keep the momentum going.
finally someone who gets it
Here's a crazy idea: not every movie needs to be turned into a franchise just because it was successful. Sometimes we can let good movies be just that, good movies.
there have been 3 kingsman movies, seems a little excessive to label it as a franchise. If the director and writers feel that they can add more to the story and they want to explore the world theyve made, why shouldn't they?
@@AT32556because it’s not about that at all. It’s only about making money
I think The Golden Circle is so underrated, love that film a lot :)
I watched the first one because I had heard good things about it. I thought that it was trying too hard to live up to its rating, but I was curious enough to find out about its sequel. I ended up not watching the sequel because SPOILERS HERE: I found out that Merlin dies in it and he was my favorite character. I didn't even know that there was a third one.
Personally I enjoyed all three movies. But it probably helps that I like the WW1 aesthetic and seeing how things began as an idea first leading to the modern concepts. Like the shotgun pistol being initially a flare.
I enjoyed this movie quite a bit. The sequel was the movie that I found disappointing. And does a franchise with only two previous entries really have a substantial enough track record to say "this does not feel like a Kingsman movie"? Considering the bad 2nd movie, I don't think there is a Kingsman standard from a franchise standpoint.
The problem is they built a movie around a practically throwaway line of the organization's founding and realized that no one wants a period piece in the middle of a spy flick, or vice versa.
I liked all 3 movies but I found The Golden Circle to be most forgettable.
There were too many new characters that didn't add to story and what was even worse was they killed off existing characters. It had stakes but also didn't have stakes. The King's Man may not be as flashy but the action sequences still felt new; whereas The Golden Circle fight scenes felt like copies of the original.
The brawl that happened at night with everyone trying to be silent in no mans land was so fucking cool
The King'sman was amazing! I loved the darker tone and more serious story. Honestly, I thought this movie was amazing.
I absolutely adored the first film. I thought it was fantastic seeing a working class kid ( and relatively unknown actors) thrive as a spy. Then to see the third recently as someone who is working class and Scottish seeing them be like “ isn’t aristocracy great?” And the villian be a Scottish nationalist- what a let down
The villian had to be Scottish to represent Scottish-rite freemasonry and their influence on world affairs... Although I guess it would be hard to believe someone with that kind of money and power actually thinking of something besides themselves and risking their life to save the world.
I loved this movie, and my boyfriend did as well. We saw it in theaters and I loved it so much I bought the first and second movie in DVD. After watching them all I really like the Kingsman the most
Honestly, I have enjoyed each of the Kingsmen films on their own terms, but I definitely understand that I'm not the average moviegoer that feels slighted when expectations aren't met. And those filmgoers matter more in the long run but I do hope that with some time these films will get a re-evaluation.
That must be a marketable form of expectations.
Guess which month & year am I watching this and still waiting for Blue Blood??
Nov 1, 2024.... LOL
Dude you can't compare that fight scene to the first one's church scene. That was one of the greatest fight scenes in modern action history!
It's an origins story and actually fits very well as such. It's totally acceptable and understandable why there's no high-tech gadgetry YET. You just need to watch this with the right expectation. If you expect the same as the first two movies, you'd be disappointed as you were.
nah, even with no expectations the film still suffers from a weak script and some utterly dumb plot points and character actions/motivations
@@antilo_3x true .
Wait. “The fight scenes lack… panache.” Wow. Just…what? The Rasputin battle was one of the most stinking fight scenes I’ve watched literally in years. I made my roommate stop a phone call to his mom just he could watch it. I should say something here about how it’s all just subjective entertainment, so opinions will vary. But, nope…you’re just totally wrong. (Or I am) On another point, how in the HELL can you review this film without commenting - at all - on by far the most important scene in the whole film. A pivotal moment for the creation of the organization, and an absolutely gut-wrenching, heart-breaking moment that changed the trajectory of the main character. It was shocking, powerful, unexpected, and is totally absent from this video. Plus, your love of gore-based violence is disturbing.
I do think this review is worthwhile, and very well produced. So good job.
I agree with the fact that it was not the movie we expected. However, I think it was an awesome movie. I was glued to the screen the whole time. That Rasputin scene is one of my favorites.
Either way, the fight scene at No Man’s Land gave some chills. The risk of artillery and being gunned down by both sides, boy, it certainly lives up to it.
That said, don’t have any insight if its choreography is unique, but it certainly presented stakes
“Early 2023” that aged poorly
I watched The Kings man 3 times in theatres, easily one of my favorite movies I’ve seen come out in the last couple years. Favorite in the series too
I enjoyed The Kings Man. It requires an understanding of 20th century history to get the plot which may be why it gets so much hate. It seems have been written to watch before Kingsmen and would make more sense that way.
Usually I check out reviews beforehand so went in blind only to discover a beautifully shot period piece filled to the brim with historical characters and set pieces. The middle twist genuinely shocked me due to the sheer realism of sudden, pointless, unexpected death. Then I listened to reviews which seemed to be discussing a different movie than the one I just watched with my own two eyes. Usually with comments thrown in like “well I’m not too familiar with WW1” and “it was fun until the shift in tone”
This film was in no way historically accurate lmfao
I've not seen it so I can't comment on the historical accuracy or the cinematography
But the issue with making a prequel with the intention that it's seen first immediately alienates almost everyone who has seen the original works who are also the people most likely to want to watch a prequel
@@Hathsh yeah I get it…however it’s not useless (like Solo) or overly reliant (Rogue One) like some prequels.
@@Ardyrezv it's a historical fiction type film not a historical documentory. so it has to be historically inaccurate in many places to be enjoyable.
I'm one for having licensed music be no more modern than the time a work is set in, but I'm a little saddened that Rasputin's final fight wasn't set to "Rasputin" by Boney M. Like, I imagined Rasputin keeping two Kingsman at bay while dancing and taunting them as both parties throw whatever they can at each other, only for Rasputin to finally be gunned down right when he was about to win. And maybe even have him say "Oh, those Russians" right before collapsing.
Imagine if The King's Man story arc is basically reversing what is happening in real life instead of them facing consequences of real life incidents, that could've been better
I liked the 3rd one more than the first 2 but that's probably because I'm a big history buff. It actually made me go back and rewatch the first 2. I love how they intertwine it with real historical events
I think The King’s Man did its job quite well. One of the things I do think it tried to do too much is set up the history for US audiences (in Europe, everyone knows how WW1 got going). Another thing is that, you could argue, the reason the fights etc. feel a little off is that the Kingsman organisation is still finding its feet and isn’t finely tuned like it is in the first two films, but that’s just my two pennies worth.
My opinion on why Golden Circle shift just a little to the left is because how less serious Harry is. I'm assuming that even though Eggsy was the main character we follow throughout Secret Service, it was the Mentor and Protégé bond that made it a wonderful building plot.
We learn with Eggsy, we understand and proud of him being the next Galahad. (Well the death of Harry isn't that fun and I'm still sour about it even though they brought him back, begrudgingly in fact, because Colin was the star of Secret Service).
Golden Circle. They went back on their set plot about Harry..... at the expense of others (Roxy, you still lives, I refuse canon). I love the villain despite loosely understanding what are her motivations and set goals. Good antagonist, I felt that lil betrayal. I wish we get more Tequila, he was comfort character throughout all the frustrations I had with the movie, what with Harry being a silly goose seeing butterflies and supporting a dorky frown. The best thing we got was ELTON FUCKING JOHN. And also all the lovely Elton and Taron moments at the premier.
The Big problem is how they introduce like 12 characters without explaining nothing about them
Why Poppy is like THAT ? WHACKY
Why she destroy Kingsman like she has a beef
Why The ex-kingsman is important at all
I dont know i think the movie could be better if they :
Focus in the family of the GF into the plot
Cutting the president scenes
Focus in the ex-kingsman has main villain and revealing Poppy has the real main or something like that
And maybe revealing Whiskey has a 3rd villain for a Next movie i dont know
The first movie Focus in like 3 characters and was more fun !!!
hey man don't call it dead just yet. one bad film doesn't always mean a dead franchise.
It wasn't bad
It is not a bad film, just not as good as the original
He also contradicts himself by mentioning that there's another one in development
I was laughing so hard in the theater. Especially when it got to the third act. It was suppose to be a comedy right?
Don't think he ever called it dead, unless he changed the title of the video after reading this comment.
I am learning a lot about movies just from this channel. I hope to use the content from this channel,to learn how to write my own screenplay
Are you kidding me? The Kingsman was my favorite in the series. Honestly, it's probably in the top 20 of my favorite movies. It was no longer just a spoof of old James Bond movies.
I absolutely loved The Kings Man. Usually I check out reviews beforehand so went in blind only to discover a beautifully shot period piece filled to the brim with historical characters and set pieces. The middle twist genuinely shocked me due to the sheer realism of sudden, pointless, unexpected death. Then I listened to reviews which seemed to be discussing a different movie than the one I just watched with my own two eyes. Usually with comments thrown in like “well I’m not too familiar with WW1” and “it was fun until the shift in tone”.
@@JoJoJoker I know right. I honestly didn't realize it had bad reviews. I also thought the morals that it was trying to convey were great. I'm tempted to watch it again tonight.
I didn't know people were hating on the golden circle. It wasn't as cool as the first one but it was still badass
I definitely found this movie massively unobjectionable. Entertaining enough.
I completely adored the 3 movies and am saddened to know other fans didn't feel the same
I disagree about the King's Man. Maybe it was because of the order in which I watched the films. I had never heard of the franchise before, and King's Man was the first one I saw. I thought it was fantastic. Maybe it is better as a standalone film when not viewed in context of the whole series. Could that have been an intentional way to expand the audience? Either way I enjoyed that movie, especially the No Man's Land fight scene which I thought was unique and really well executed!
I liked how a little bit of actual history was weaved into the kingsman.
I very much loved the King's Man. It wasn't the same as the other two, but like, I expected that from the trailer. I was expecting a fun period piece with some good action, and I got a little more than that. So I'm happy.
I have 0 idea how you walk away from the Rasputin fight scene and say “That had no style or punchy moment”
i love the kingsman films so much, but one of my faveourite things about the first one was the cool friendship and dynamic between eggsy and roxie. So whilst i did very much enjoy golden circle (moreso on the second time as the first was kinda tainted by my bitterness) i will always harbor resentment to the golden circle for killing off roxie especially so early and amongst so many other deaths that she didnt even get the dignity of a grand stand out death like merlin did
8:12 … man that aged great 😅😂🤣
I enjoyed King’s Man. It was a good period take on what the Kingsmen would become. Comparing Golden Circle to the Moore 007 is apt; they were both lesser iterations.
I wonder how the franchise would have turned out has 2 just been a straight adaptation of red diamond
I sort of like that all three have a different tones to them. They definitely feel pretty disjointed but at least they all tried different things and them feeling so different from each other helps watch them in a vacuum without thinking about the others.
The exact opposite is true for me with the MCU right now. I can't see one without being constantly reminded in both tone and in-universe of the rest. Its cool at first but it also makes the movies feel a little stale after a while.
I'm not saying the Kingsman trilogy is great just that they're weakness in tone I think will make the trilogy overall age better.
Everyone, the movie isn't meant to be a masterpiece. If you're not Brittish, you probably won't like it.
I'm brittish
i've said this before but if you told me that vince vaughan didn't direct this movie i would have believed you. the tone and style of direction in this movie is *really* different and I can't put my finger onto why that is so
there's a line in the first kingsman movie when they are first going down the elevator. where it was explained that a buncha kids died in WW1 and that left rich men wtihout heirs. this is an entire movie made from the premise of one sentence from the first film. Sort of like in One Piece when Oda will use a throwaway line in a past chapter to introduce a new story thread, leading to more plot holes and annoyed fans.
okay time to watch the video
I loved Kingsman so much, and then Golden Circle just felt wrong and underdeveloped. It also didn’t feel like a proper sequel, more like a third movie finale
I watched 'The King's Man' without watching any of the other parts, and I really liked it. It was a good blend of history and fiction, just probably not good as a part of a franchise.
The third one was okay , I hope they make a proper comeback for the fourth
Yeaaaaah. Going to have to stop you there, Chief. This movie was phenomenal. Honestly, from a purely objective standpoint it might be the best MADE film of the three and I enjoyed it as much as the first. certainly thought the performances from the leads, especially Ralph Fiennes and whoever played Rasputin (my god Rasputin) were better than the leads in the Golden Circle (which felt a bit like everyone was phoning it in except for Pedro Pascal and Juliann Moore). Liked the alt history story too.
Right? How about that amazing time lapse shot of a quaint French countryside village turning into a barren wasteland. When we see photos from WW1 it’s usually just a bunch of mud. That’s because centuries of history were literally blown away by years of almost non-stop artillery fire.
Then there is the simple breakdown of the real fact that 3 grandkids destroyed the lives of millions of people due to a petty family squabble. It’s the story of knights rising to stop the kings from slaughtering the pawns.
The sets and costumes were perfect, the recreation of two pivotal moments in history were somehow turned into tense yet comedic actions scenes. Bloody fantastic stuff.
from a purely objective standpoint, you are wrong
The Greatest sequels are those that build off what worked in the previous movie and and improve what didn't work. Golden Circle and Kings Man felt like Kingman spinoffs, movies with the Kingsman name and universe to tell its own unique story.
This video came out 23 minutes ago and it was IMMEDIATELY recommended to me.
still watching through, gonna see if you mention the obscene amounts of Scottish slander in the third movie.
Edit: Watched the video and i agree with everything you said. you didnt mention how the third film seems to really highlight negative Scottish stereotypes, but I'll give that a pass. You just earned a subscriber.
To be fair: there were also British, Russian, and German stereotypes. Plus, Scottish stereotypes are funny.
Ok but let’s be honest, nothing could top the church scene
I enjoyed both Kingsmen: Secret Service & Golden Circle. And back when all that was known bout the Kingsman was that it was centered on Rasputin, I was intrigued (especially after that musical trailer).
However, the final product was too much of a slow burn as a lot of it had characters outta action because overly protective parent sheltering their hero complex having son had to be shoved & slowly smeared at the rate of molasses in our face.
*SPOILER ALERT*
Furthermore, Rasputin wasnt the main antagonist; having been killed off at the end of the first on screen Kingsmen mission; a hidden character called the Shepherd was. I was even then hopeful bout what could be done with this new world order controlling, hidden in the shadows mastermind. What I had in mind bout handling was hed be handled like Moriarty in Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes. Hidden in the shadows in his first appearance, developed in a sequel in which he was the main antagonist. As well as having his identity revealed then. Couldve been fun. But then the plans for finishing off the modern day trilogy got into the way & we learn who he is round halfway through the final act & his identity is only as it is to be the antithesis of the protagonist. And hes not given much of any development. And the alluded to motivation is a red herring in terms of development. And hes killed off, leaving only a couple of sheep in his pasture to hire a newbie in a post credits sequel bait.
I completely disagree with you. I loved golden circle and thought it was just as good if not better the original. And even tho it wasn’t was good as the other two the Kings Man was still quite decent.
I do believe the original was amazing but the King's Man is my favorite of the three as it is more of a classic spy/adventure film mixed with history and plenty of original Kingsman flair. The villain isn't the best and did need to be fleshed out, but I feel much that the villain group itself was a great group of historical figures.
FINALLY!!! A review honest and educated enough.
Hollywood franchises today to me feel the same as meeting most people today. At 1st, their 1st impressions are THE BEST. By time the 3rd month comes around, you're like "uhhh...what happened"? That 2nd and 3rd movie these days are "meh". I was just thinking about how it makes sense today to STOP after the 1st movie if it was GREAT! The matrix was a movie I was thinking about yesterday regarding this. They could have and SHOULD have STOPPED after the 1st matrix. That resurrection movie SUCKED and went further away from the original.
Maybe it's time to COOL IT with the franchise trend for a few years at least.
The problem is that if a movie does well, they must make a sequel. You can`t just have ONE great movie. Thats what happened to Kingsman, John Wick, Matrix, and many others.
- This movie did great $$$. Lets do another.
- But sir, we only had that story to tell and it is nicely done and finished, no holes in the plot or loose ends.
- We don't care, we need another.
The prequel was fun
You're very kind to both Golden Circle and The King's Man in this essay. Both of those movies were incredibly disappointing--the narrative choices were just disappointing every step of the way. They kill off just about every interesting character and replace them all with worse characters in Golden Circle. And The King's Man is just illogical and boring. Such a shame. The first one is very entertaining.
Honestly, I felt that the King’s Man was fairly great. Just saying.
The Kingsman franchise feels like if "A New Hope" was followed by "The Last Jedi" and ended with "Solo".