Kingsman

Haven't watched the movie, too risky w/ omicron even w/ a booster, but I have read the spoilers. Can't believe they went w/ either the commie nazi or horseshoe effect tropes.

Whaaa? I watched it and saw no connection like that. If anything, the movie was poking fun extensively at how ludicrous conspiracies and conspiracy theories are.

Edited by googlebot on Jan 30th 2022 at 10:50:39 AM

So I finally decided to give the movie a watch.

I did not like it. I actually disliked it *more* than I disliked the second Kingsman movie. At least with The Golden Circle, it was still very over the top and had some great fight scenes right out of the gate. This, on the other hand, felt too dour, with boring characters and a poorly-done anti-war message. The Kingsman movies were never exactly good about their politics in the first place, but with the first movie, it wasn't really the focus. The Golden Circle had an issue of shoving an anti-war on drugs message, but it really didn't do it well (it felt kind of hamfisted and unfocused from the rest of the plot). But this one...so, we get Ralph Fiennes giving a whole spiel about how war is bad and monstrous and it's just killing innocent people, with a whole flashback to him butchering Afghan civilians...and yet part of the plot hinges on *keeping* Russia in the war by killing Rasputin, and then bringing the United States into the war to save Britain. There's an entire scene where Fienes's character's son (gonna admit, the characters were so dull that I didn't remember their names) is dying on the battlefield and he's realizing all his dad said about how bad war is, and yet it's *immediately* followed by a triumphant scene of running across the battlefield with a dying soldier on his back, returning to the trench, THEN a funeral where Fiennes dismisses dying for one's country and calls it a lie, AND THEN a whole thing about bringing the United States into the war to stop the bad guys. That's kind of a mixed message, to put it lightly? Like, what is it, is war bad and just plundering innocent people, or is it right to make a stand fighting for country against tyranny?

But of course, the Kingsman movies are often about the action and the over the top villains...and in this case, the action is a heavy step down from the first two movies. It's a very slow build until we get some proper fight scenes, and it still feels like a disappointment. The fight scene with Rasputin starts off pretty fun. I guess to keep with this being a period piece, they decided to use classical music instead of rock, and blaring the 1812 overture while Rasputin dances his way through a swordfight was fun. But the fight kind of drags after that. As far as the characters go, they're much less interesting than Eggsy and Harry. I don't know how. Ralph Fiennes is a great actor, he *should* have been great here, but he just feels so uninteresting. Djimon Hounsou also feels wasted, and I'm kind of annoyed his character is just a boring servant. Outside of the main villain, Rasputin is the only one who feels like he fits in a Kingsman movie, because he's *VERY* over the top and enjoyably crazy. Unfortunately, he's barely in the movie.

And then there's the main villain, the Shepherd...an evil Scotsman who wants revenge on the monarchy of Britain for trampling on his beloved homeland, yadayadayada. I'm gonna be honest, I kind of liked his vibe a bit, but it plays into the movie's obnoxious politics once again. We have a guy whose motivation is against the monarchies of Europe (a goal I empathize with, monarchies suck), and yet they just *have* to make him the guy who instigates WWI. Suffice to say, while Kingsman has been very silly, I hate stories where they take real-life historical events and then try to play it as being caused by a vast conspiracy. I fully admit it might just be a *me* thing, but it's still annoying...and then, of course, trying to tie Lenin and the October Revolution into it (which relies on the blatant inaccuracy of the revolution supposedly being a foreign conspiracy, which MANY people continue to believe in), and then bringing *Hitler* into it (thus trying to imply communists and Nazis are working for the same side, and having some VERY uncomfortable implications about the beginning of World War II)...I don't see this as being a parody of anything. The movie is silly, but it's also expecting us to take the story seriously anyways, and it's just...bluh. For real, they have a whole bit of saying Hitler would be Lenin's equal and that if Lenin was the "left hand", that Hitler would be "strengthening the right hand"...which is a blatant "communism = fascism" lie and disgusting.

I initially expected this movie to be just plain bad, but y'know...it's more *boring* than anything. The Golden Circle's issue was that it kind of went too far in being over the top and just turned into a mess where it's pretty clear Vaughn had to cut a lot of stuff out, but this is the opposite. It's *dull*. The bad politics are just a rotten cherry on top of it, and it's especially egregious when the movie can't even make up its mind over whether it's anti-war or pro-war. I'm disappointed because I *loved* the first movie, it was dumb but in an enjoyable manner, yet Vaughn just cannot figure out how to catch lightning in a bottle again. With this movie, he bit off far more than he could chew, and it pretty much feels like the franchise might as well be dying.

Edited by Diana1969 on Feb 19th 2022 at 1:54:16 AM

I heard the mid-credits scene was bad but watching it has left me absolutely stunned. It's even worse than expected.

I've seen people compare it to a cut scene from the Red Alert video games (of which I'm only familiar with the one Tim Curry meme).

Which cut scene from Red Alert?

I also just recently watched the movie, and I agree it kind of just fails across the board.

There's a lot wrong with the villain's plan, starting with: if all he cares about is making England lose a war and Germany supposedly has the power to crush England (I guess the Battle of Jutland didn't happen in this 'verse?) and they were able to decide the circumstances of the war, why get Russia involved in the war in the first place?

While Rasputin is the only villain with any presence, I'm kind of tired of the guy being portrayed in media as fanatical anti-Romanov schemer, since it's completely inaccurate to history (he told Alexander to stay out of the war and focus on keeping people fed) and makes no sense for a peasant to kill the people who are helping him live the high life. Also, he was never a monk or a member of the clergy.

It doesn't make much sense for Lenin to be part of the same group as Rasputin, given that Lenin was an atheist who hated anything to do with the monarchy. Adding a certain Mr. Mustache, who was fanatically anti-communist into the mix just makes it even more bonkers. Maybe it would have worked better if they were all portrayed as schemers trying to use the group to their advantage rather than all being subservient to the shepherd.

I feel like the Shepherd would have worked better if his rant about his family losing their mill had led to a Disappointed by the Motive moment. I would have loved to see Feinnes given a Stunned Silence moment before getting pissed off that his son died over such a petty grudge. Or maybe just go all in on him being an evil Scottish stereotype and have him try to kill Feinnes with poisoned haggis, a set of machine-gun bagpipes, throwing a caber at him, try to throw Feinnes into his thistle patch, attack him with a claymore...

Not a specific cut scene, I mean I saw people comparing it just to the cut scenes from Red Alert in general.

I'll admit, I was never particularly interested in Rasputin enough to study him, but I do agree with this, it's a rather annoying portrayal. Still, I'll give Rhys Ifans credit for being the most interesting part of the movie and giving the only good fight scene.

Yeah and this made me furious especially because it plays out as the most obnoxious case of enlightened centrism I've seen in anything yet. Straight up depicting Vladimir Lenin as wanting a figure to "strengthen the right" while he strengthens the left, and having that figure to "strengthen the right" being Adolf fucking Hitler is downright insulting. People can say "Oh well it's *supposed* to be dumb, it's supposed to be silly", but this isn't the level of silly of the first movie where you had exploding heads and shit. It's using *actual historical figures*, for crying out loud.

Christ, I would've loved this.

Tbf Rasputin the evil sorcerer /Diabolical mastermind is about ingrained into media and pop culture as Vlad Dracula the Vampire or oda nobunga the demon king.

It's not accurate at all but has just kinda become the norm. So I'm not sure faulting the film for a portrayal that like most media does?

I think the complaint here was more the fact he's always anti-Romanov when in truth he was pretty fiercely in their corner. The "machiavellian evil sorcerer" thing is more Acceptable Breaks from Reality.

I just realized the guy who played Lenin also played Karl Marx in another movie I've watched.

x8 I'm not clicking play on that, but oh boy is that a caption in the tweet, holy shit. o__o

Edited by BlackRevolver on Feb 21st 2022 at 5:36:32 AM

The first movie had its share of screwy politics (Those eeeeeeeevil environmentalists want to make all the poor people kill each other) and an anglo-centric plot about how the heroic Englishmen need to save the world from evil Americans. The King's Man made the anglo-centrism even worse. It treats the possibility of England losing WWI as some kind of existential threat to the country, and implicitly treats American and Russian lives as disposable in the name of saving England.

Another screwy political moment of the franchise is Kingsman - The Big Exit, a six-page one shot comic from 2017 basically done in support of Brexit in which the Kingsman agency engineers a plot to steal gold that was supposed to go to the EU during Brexit negotiations to give it back to britain. It's just nobody remembers that comic existed.

Really? I took it to be a (very hamfisted) commentary on shitty tech moguls and stuff, not environmentalists. Mind, like I said before, the franchise's politics were never particularly good, but The King's Man tries adding an extra seriousness and emphasis on its politics that is just...grotesque.

It's going to be cliche to compare it to James Bond (not that the films themselves don't already have frequent allusions to Bond anyways), but the campier elements of both series often make it easy to forget that, at their heart, it is a power fantasy of British chauvinism and nostalgia for the pre-WWII empire. Kingsman just amps the campiness to ludicrous levels (and I don't necessarily mean that in a bad way, I *like* some of that camp) but simultaneously makes the politics over the top too...in all the worst ways.

Okay, I can see Valentine being a parody of techbros.

I found the bit about that on Wikipedia and just like everything else to do with Brexit, it makes England look terrible.

Edited by MisterTambourineMan on Feb 26th 2022 at 7:49:20 AM

I do think that the enviromentalism in the first movie is dicey because no one except the villains even acknowledges the concept of man-made climate change. Usually in this kind of pitch the story includes at least some token "yeah they're mass-murdering lunatics but climate change is a problem, yo". Kingsman just skeedadles past it.

Of course, the core of the first movie (and franchise in a sense, as the comic is also shading towards it) is a bit of a anti-classism message done in a clumsy manner, lest we forget. Eggsy is a chav who's nonetheless a good guy and who becomes a clean-cut, James Bond type because aristocrats are usually idiots, but he can only do so by "cleaning up his act" and adopting high-class manners (like those absurdly expensive suits). The Arc Words of the franchise are, afterall, "Manners Maketh Man". It's your typical wish fulfillment fantasy of a working class person proving they can be just as classy as the high class by essentially mutilating their own personality to affect high class mannersisms but without fundamentally challenging any of the economic structures of domination. It's a "anyone could be a princess" story.

By which I mean that the first movie is quite literally My Fair Lady for heteronormative male audiences (complete with the high-class intellectual mentor). With all the questionable optics that comparison entails.

Edited by Gaon on Feb 26th 2022 at 7:50:34 AM

Well, at least Colin Firth is infinitely more charismatic, tolerable, and cool compared to Rex Harrison

listening to this film in the background and heard them recite Dulce et Decorum est, didn't think Kingsman had many tearjerkers were that was generally one of them,espically after Archy is mistaken for a germen spy and killed

Edited by Ultimatum on Apr 8th 2023 at 4:45:48 PM

I feel Kingsmen is the first example I can think of, "At what point can a movie not have a message because it assumes its audience is smart enough to not get one"? In this case, the movie's opinion on climate change is...absolutely nothing. Because the movie is of the mind the whole concept is utterly and completely ridiculous and the audience will be aware this is just an Excuse Plot.

Which is why it's better than the War on Drugs message of two because it has a message when the movie is aware the whole concept of the Kingsmen is STUPID. FUN Stupid.

And the Anglo Centrism of the First Movie was deliberately sent up given the protagonist is a working class Brit joining a bunch of Gentlemen Spies who are completely useless because they are outmoded relics.

Which helps obscure the fact that he's as much fallen into the trap the rest of the Kinsgmen have.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Apr 8th 2023 at 12:48:26 PM

Looking back, I think we were too harsh on The King's Man. Yeah, it's not historically realistic at all, but it's not trying to be, either.

They totally should have had Eamon de Valera be the guy secretly in charge of the Flock, though.

I just found The King's Man to be deeply unpleasant film to watch. I don't get the appeal of Rasputin at all and the bits where it was trying to be po-faced and realistic about the horrors of world world one conflicted horribly to the bits that were trying to be a fun Kingsman style romp.

There's "not trying to be historically realistic" and there's "Hitler and Lenin on the same side and Hitler is introduced like it's a damn MCU postcredits stinger".

It's not fun, it's stupid and insulting. If the film weren't so dour and carried an incomprehensible theme where it can't even make up its fucking mind about what it wants to say, maybe it'd be better...but as it stands, it's garbage.

> and the bits where it was trying to be po-faced and realistic about the horrors of world world one conflicted horribly to the bits that were trying to be a fun Kingsman style romp.

when I heard that part I was convinced it was another movie altogether but nope,Kingsman

I think they purposefully went for a whiplash for..really stupid reasons.

I think the movie depends on how you can accept Crosses the Line Twice in premise.

"This is not in any way realistic, true, accurate and we want you to understand this. Lincoln is hunting vampires level of understandability."