The King's Man sure is a movie, huh?

Notes on English royalist propaganda, war movies, and weird politics

I really do like the first Kingsman movie. It came out of nowhere and swept me up. I like the second one less and I like this one... hmm... not at all. 

Disclaimer: I want to make very sure that you understand that I'm not making any sort of objective judgement on the quality of the movie. These are my personal opinions which you are, of course, very free to disagree with.

Also: spoilers from here on out!

 

My first and maybe most significant problem with this movie is the lasting impression that this movie was actually two - if not three - movies in a trenchcoat. The part of the movie seen in the trailer I saw in the movie theater and suggested by the poster is only about a third of the movie. And while, yes, it is customary that the trailers only show parts of a film or the beginning, this trailer suggested a tone and style and atmosphere that the rest of the movie lacked. Rasputin (Rhys Ifans) dies about a third of the way through and with him almost all the fun the movie had. The ominous shepherd (Matthew Goode) is instead the main villain (more on him later). Afterwards the movie turns into a war movie for a bit, which I did not expect and did not enjoy in the least. If I had wanted to watch a war movie, which I never do, I would have watched a war movie. Mind you, I don't generally hate having WWI be an integral part of the movie, however, there is a difference between having war as a setting and a war movie, where we see desperate fighting in the trenches and across no-man's-land. After the war movie interlude, it tries to pick up the funky spy action part again but - at least to me - fails in getting back on track. The last scene (before the credits) where they sit together and toast to the newformed kingsman agency was almost one of the most enjoyable scenes in the movie.

Look. I don't think that this movie's structure was neccessarily terrible. If it had not been a Kingsman movie, I might have been more forgiving. But it is a Kingsman movie. I go and watch a Kingsman movie because it has good and interesting-to-look-at action, because it is a fun spy movie that affectionately ribs on tropes of the genre, because the villain is funky and has a plan that is wildly out there. This movie has almost none of that. Apart from maybe one or two fun fight scenes and the odd reference here and there, it could've been any other movie.

Apart from my misgivings about tone and plot, I was perturbed by the socio-political implications in this movie. First of all, I feel uncomfortable with the movie's stance that both Hitler and Lenin among other historical figures were working with and for the same shadow organisation completely divorced from their actual ideologies and reasonings. Maybe you could argue that I am being too sensitive but to me these are unacceptable implications.

Secondly, I found the insistence on the goodness of the British monarchy to be a bit odd, neutrally speaking. I mean, sure, the movie is called The KING's Man, so some royalist notions shouldn't really surprise me, but the length to which this movie goes to show that King George - and only King George - is a friendly and good and reasonable leader, was kind of baffling to me. In the end, the movie makes a point to stress how glad we all are that he did not suffer the fate of his counterparts and is still here to lead England without a hint of irony. Furthermore, the villain's stated motivation plays into this as well. He is a Scotsman with extremely valid grievances; the criticisms he has of England and its treatment of Scotland ring true but his methods are so wildly overblown (starting a devastating multi-nation war just to bring England to its knees) that they seem manic instead. Because he is tyrannical and cruel and unquestionably a bad guy, his motivations become entwined with him and thus lose credibility while the good guys, friendly to the English monarchy, become righteous and ultimately victorious.

This tactic of discrediting valid social grievances in movies is one the MCU especially - and rightfully - is criticized for and it is found here as well.

Now, over to my list of petty complaints:
- I like Djimon Hounsou and would've liked to see him more.
- I always dislike the 'woman dies to give men motivation'-trope and this movie starts out like that.
- Close to the end Polly (Gemma Arterton), the one significant female character, kisses Duke Orlando Oxford (Ralph Fiennes). To me that was so out of the blue, as if the creators had realized that they were almost through with the movie and had completely forgotten the customary heterosexual romance.
- Conrad (Harris Dickinson) dies so unneccessarily, shot in the head by friendly troops due to a misunderstanding. If they had wanted him to die, why not have him die in no-man's-land? Maybe the fact that he died unneccessarily was the point but I didn't like it.

I rarely feel like I wasted my money watching a movie, but I really could have let this one go.

Satori over and out

P.S. If you want to read a more structured and less rambling review of this movie, why not check out Siran Hans' one in The Guardian or Brian Tallerico's.