The King’s Man

The tone of this prequel to the Kingsman films is much more reserved than its predecessors, which is hardly surprising given that it deals with the real-life horrors of World War One. However, this does mean that it has less comedy moments, and very little of the over-the-top elements that made the original two films so much fun.

Premise: Traumatised from his experiences during the Boer War, the Duke of Oxford (Ralph Fiennes) vows to do all he can to spare his son Conrad (Harris Dickinson) from the horrors of war. But when a group of conspirators led by the mysterious ‘Shepard’, including real-life historical figures Rasputin (Rhys Ifans), Erik Jan Hanussen (Daniel Brühl) and Mata Hari (Valerie Pachner), plot to start WWI, Conrad is determined to enlist to serve his country.

Review:

I loved both 2015’s Kingsman: The Secret Service and 2017’s Kingsman: The Golden Circle because they managed to be funny but without becoming parodies, they were violent but with a playful sense of fun, and they were ridiculous but without losing their sense of real jeopardy. Not only that, but both of their megalomaniac villains had interestingly creative plans, as well as OTT classic-Bond-era sidekicks.

The King’s Man, on the other hand, has very little of any of the above. When a film is depicting the horrors of trench warfare, it’s impossible to add a sense of playfulness to the violence, and similarly, it’s difficult to be funny when the plot involves the deaths of literally millions of people. In fact, with the exception of one fun, kinetic action sequence at around the film’s midway point, the rest of the movie doesn’t feel especially like a Kingsman film at all.

“…feels more like a period version of a Bond or a Mission: Impossible film than it does a period version of a Kingsman film…”

That’s not to suggest that this is an entirely straight-faced, serious film – of course it isn’t, and The King’s Man still deals with international conspiracies, larger-than-life villains, and secret spy networks. It’s just that this feels a lot more like a period version of a Bond or a Mission: Impossible than it does a period version of a Kingsman film – it’s still an unrealistic spy adventure, but it’s definitely a more restrained one. There’s nothing, for example, as fun as Colin Firth’s pub scene in the first film, or as inventive as the opening car chase from the second film.

None of this is meant as a criticism exactly – in fact, it would have felt very wrong to be dealing with the horrors of WW1 while cracking jokes and deploying over-the-top gadgets. But you should know going into The King’s Man that it’s a very different film from the first two, and while it has many good things going for it, it doesn’t have the “fun factor” that the other films had in spades.

“…focuses on its central anti-war message…”

Instead (and perhaps surprisingly), The King’s Man is steadfast in its decision to focus on its central anti-war message. The Duke of Oxford (Ralph Fiennes) has experienced the horrors of war, both as a soldier and while working for the Red Cross, and so it’s clear to the audience that his decision to become a pacifist has nothing to do with cowardice. His son Conrad’s inability to understand that there is nothing “noble” about going to war may feel contrived to modern audiences, but it was sadly representative of the attitudes of the time. Equally, the film does not shy away from pointing out that no side is ever entirely blameless in war, with its depictions of the British Army’s use of concentration camps during the Boer War in South Africa in the opening sequence.

Despite being a spy-fantasy (there was, of course, no single group of conspirators responsible for WW1), The King’s Man is also surprisingly accurate in terms of the historical events that it depicts (albeit in a fictionalised reality). This is no doubt another reason why the film has to have a more restrained tone, as it would be insensitive at best, and disrespectful at worse, to make light of the real events involving the deaths of real people. In the first Kingsman film, Harry Hart said “Give me a far-fetched theatrical plot any day”, but The King’s Man can’t really do that to the same degree because of its subject matter.

“…the absence of Jane Goldman from the writing team is felt…”

Despite all that, there is still plenty to enjoy in The King’s Man. There are still a couple of enjoyable action sequences, and the cast are universally good, whether they’re in the lead roles like Ralph Fiennes, Harris Dickinson, Gemma Arterton, Djimon Hounsou and Rhys Ifans, or smaller supporting roles like Charles Dance, Tom Hollander, Matthew Goode, Daniel Brühl and Valerie Pachner.

Yet this prequel does feel like it’s missing some of the magic of the previous films, and I can’t help but think that might be due to the absence of Jane Goldman from the writing team. Having co-written the first two Kingsman films with director Matthew Vaughn (who she also worked with on the excellent Stardust and Kick-Ass), Jane Goldman was replaced by Karl Gajdusek for this prequel, which may explain the lack of humour and lightness of touch?

“…still an enjoyable film, even if it lacks the humour & inventiveness of the earlier films…”

No one can accuse The King’s Man of simply being a lazy, period-set, repackaged version of either of the first two Kingsman films, as it clearly has its own tone and deals with different concepts and themes. But those same changes mean that it’s lost a lot of the originality and individuality that set the other Kingsman films apart from their peers, meaning that the tone of The King’s Man feels more like a traditional action thriller.

Ultimately, The King’s Man is still an enjoyable film, even if it doesn’t reach the same heights as the first two Kingsman films – and it may even appeal to those who didn’t like the humour and more controversial elements from the first two films. But for fans of the series, this prequel lacks the humour and inventiveness of the earlier films, and it doesn’t even tell us much more about the founding of the Kingsman spy organisation than we already learned in the first film.

Oh, and stay for a mid-credits scene, which presumably is meant as a tongue-in-cheek coda, rather than a hint at a further prequel to the “main” series.