I saw this movie recently and I was struck by the massive tonal shift midway through the movie. The first part was filled with cartoonish villainy and fight scenes but then there Was the part where Conrad went to the front lines and it got very real and gritty before oscillating back to cartoonish action. It was almost like they added a scene from a different movie.
It tried to shift tone but had been so stupidly cartoonish in the first half I couldn't go with the grief and serious side. It just didn't ring true at all.
I sort of expected the shift/twist given the history of the The Kingsman organisation told in the first movie. But yeah, overall the tone of the movie is very uneven.
The second film was abysmal. The whole point of the first one was that 'it wasn't that kind of spy movie'. and then they just bring back everyone to life with magical gadgets in the second.
@@GA-1st no, I meant abysmal. I wasn’t getting a grammar error on my phone and thought about it myself. Maybe it is a word and that’s why an error message didn’t come up.
Vaughn not being able to know when to stop something, or not when to do something is ironic, considering the main reason the Kick-Ass film was so good was precisely because Vaughn managed to tone down/shave away most of Millar's most unsavoury over-the-top terrible writing.
I think the reaction to this film by critics comes down to one thing. Colonialism. It's seen as un-PC to have the hero of the story be a white aristocrat who was born into a family that benefitted from the British Empire and then tried to atone by becoming a white saviour. Even though if you think about it, at that time you'd have to be a rich nobleman to afford to start a spy agency. Ralph Fiennes is pretty much Batman. No one has a problem with Bruce Wayne being a white privilege revenge filled vigilante...
I don't know too much about Mark Millard's other comic book work, but the graphic novel version of Kick-Ass was really good and full of heart. Excessive and mean spirited? Yes, but that comes with the territory, and in that case imo it worked.
@@matthewporter3048 there’s a way to go about it and there’s a way that borders on insensitive, though. To me it feels like it was pissing on soldier’s graves a bit with the kid being allowed to stay out of the war when many non-aristocratic conscientious objectors got imprisoned or forcefully conscripted, and then when he was running around LARPing as a regular Scotsman? He was literally a rich person pretending to be a poor person who had no other choice but fight in that war. Left a bad taste in my mouth. Not to mention how it makes the entirety of WW1 and WW2 (and seemingly the cold war etc too) all the fault of this one boring villain who’s also Scottish for some reason, idk what the film had against Scotland…
@@lapislazuli5035 Yes and also, as added context, much of Mark Millar's creator owned work has been a kind of gleeful backlash to all the rules and guidelines comic writers have to follow when writing for Marvel or DC.
I understand that Kermode cannot expand on a lot of the things he's talking about, because it'll spoil the film, but I have no desire to see this film and am curious as to the 'misjudged moral equivalence regarding historical figures' that he gestures at in this review, but does not expand upon further.
Based on how he described it I assume it's probably sequel bait which has something to do with a young Hitler, since Matthew Vaughan is not that creative and it's an obvious point where there might be a 'moral equivalence' issue in introducing such a character to a 'fun' action/adventure series.
@@bravovince3070 Which is a fair comparison because whatever sort of revolutionary socialism, be it National or International, both commit to a revolutionary transitional stage where any sort of atrocity is permissible because only through ruthlessly purging any opposition can their desired "utopia" be reached.
Usually I like Mark's reviews, but this one I came away confused what the actual issue with the film was. 'moral equivalence between historical characters' really could do with an example from the film, same with the 'leery humour' that he keeps mentioning about. Considering how Mark actually liked the excess of one of Vaughns previous films (Kick Ass) I'm struggling to really understand how Vaughn has gone too far in this case. I understand there's often a need to avoid spoliers - but for a film Mark felt strongly about it was surprisingly vague in its criticism.
If MK is going to view a comedy action flick through a documentarian lens ... Then I hope he also does the reverse and discusses the lack of emojis in 1917. If he can't understand the genre he is watching then don't review it.
Portraying Lenin and Hitler as equivalently evil and them as having respect for each other is actually quite bizarre in how utterly stupid it is. You have to question the point of someone doing a 'historical' movie when they clearly have no interest in, knowledge of or care for history whatsoever.
The film is a riot. If I wanted to watch a doco on WW1 I'd go back and rewatch Peter Jackson's They Shall Not Grow Old. A bit of quirky alternate WW1 history never hurt anyone.
I don't think anyone is going to see a Kingsman movie expecting moral or political instruction! And even if they were to, their reaction to that would be dictated by the politics and values they came into the theatre with.
@@stuartowens5865 Because it uses real historical events with wide-reaching consequences for entertainment whilst ignoring any of the context or nuances. If you don't want people to "view it as anything else" then maybe don't use real events? They could have easily made a version of this film where it was very clearly fictional but they didn't. It was a poor choice and one that definitely took away from the film as a whole.
@@Canadish There are certain shows (like Blackadder) and films (like The Death of Stalin) which use historical events for comedic purposes and it works, but they both deal with and respect the events and the consequences of them. This film trivialises the first world war and makes it about "good guys" and "bad guys" when in reality it was anything but that. Without wanting to spoil too much it disregards genuine tensions and conflicts in order to set this up. The character of "The Bear" in this particularly was uncomfortable to watch given the actual circumstances around his actions in reality which are completely ignored in the film. This is probably the moral equivalence that Mark is talking about, putting him on the same team as Rasputin (among others - I'm doing my best to avoid spoilers outside what is revealed in trailers). I think the politics of this film are pretty left-wing which seems to align with what my view of Mark's politics are so I'm not so sure his objection to this film are based in its intention, I just think the film doesn't really think through what it's actually saying just to provide some cheap entertainment if that makes sense.
Finally someone has verbalized exactly my feelings in regard to the Kingsman movies. There is just something "off" about them. "Bum notes"...that's a good one!
I enjoyed the first one a bit, it had problems that did make it seem “off” to me but I could still have fun. The second film I found awful, gross and crass and overly self indulgent in its own style that it got in its own way.
@@mrx2964 If you haven't seen this yet and you like Ralph Fiennes it's definitely worth a watch, he's very good and there are some surprising moments. The issue critics seem to have is the use of historically contentious moments, and in my view don't want to be supporting a main character who benefitted from colonialism as the hero, even though the film literally gives him a believable motivation from the off.
@@matthewporter3048 i’m probably going to see this in the new year as only film I can fit in before NYE is Titane. Not holding any judgements against the film though until I’ve seen it myself.
I assume the main gripe is the end, which implies a sort of early 20th century league of supervillains akin to the one we see at the beginning of The Naked Gun (with Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Ayatollah Khomenei etc) - except in that film it's obviously a parody of 80s Hollywood jingoism whereas here any sense of self-effacing irony is absent.
I love Kick Ass and the first Kingsman. But they both were tainted by their sequels. Don't even get me started on them bringing back Colin Firth. I hope this doesn't further taint the original
If they make sequels that go to ww2, the definitely need a cameo from Mad Jack Churchill, the crazy dude who went into battle with nothing but a sword and a bow/arrows
I didn’t mind this film. It loses its steam when they kill off Rasputin! Rhys Ifans steals show with his eccentric performance as the mysterious and sinister Grigori Rasputin! It’s a decent time waster as best. I actually prefer this one over the second one.
I don't understand Vaughn. He said he wanted to dial things up to 11 and push boundaries with Kingsman. Then he acted shocked and offended that some people thought he went to far at times. Considering his reaction to the criticism people had of the first one, I'd say his choices since have been less missteps and more purposeful provocation. And I loved the first Kingsman.
I'm all for people pushing the boundaries of good taste in comedy. Especially as many are becoming more puritanical. But yeah, if you're going to do that, you have to own it.
I don't really get the negative reviews. This was a really fun watch for me which is the only thing I expect from this series of films. The stuff on the front line with the son was the highlight for me
A film review nothing to do with the film in question.... i and my 2 friends went to see this on Friday (after watching this video) and loved the film so much... cracking bit of fun, and for me waiting for Dune and Ghostbusters to excite me I needed up enjoying this old world romp most of all.... Maybe its the gentleman in me, a little old fashioned... a world of letters and not emails, or travel and punch ups...!! refreshing to see and enjoy before sitting back into the horrors of 2022....
Went to see this knowing nothing much about it and after seeing it I just had to know what Mark thought of it. I think he went easy on it to be honest. It wasn't boring but it was such an awkward and exhausting watch - it felt like the worst film I've seen in the Cinema for years. I said oh for f***s' sake a few times throughout and none more so than the ham-fisted post credit sequence.
The end sequence wasn't as ham-fisted as you might think. Interestingly, Daniel Bruhl's character (Hanussen) really was somewhat of a mentor to young Adolf Hitler. The movie has a lots of problems (uneven tone and pacing among others) but I really liked how they played with historical events and characters, and how they matched the plot to real events. I enjoyed the movie overall - it seemed a bit too long but still better than the golden circle.
@A.P. I'm glad that I'm not the only one who cringed at the mastermind acting like Tracy Ullman-as-Nicola Sturgeon... half-expecting 'wee Mhairi' to pop out of the shadows bellowing her maiden speech to Parliament. Scottish characters can be great villains, but this film failed to get one.
The Rasputin fight on itself was better than Matrix 4 in it’s entirety. Pure craftsmanship. I was in awe. Plus I never expected historical accuracy from Mark Millar. This is coming from someone who didn’t like the first two, I agree with the leery stuff but this one was a hoot.
In fairness to Mark Millar, I believe that the original movie and this were developed in parallel. Millar and Vaughan developed the concept and did their own thing. The follow on comic skews back to the movie.
All the historical events told through an ironic tongue in cheek lens were great. But they were more like delightful appetisers in between tediously long fight scenes that took all the oxygen out of the movie.
I saw the movie on Saturday (and hadn't seen this review beforehand) and I have to agree with Mark. When I left the film, my first thought was I found the whole idea of the events around WW1, and the way WW1 itself was being used, actually really disrespectful & distasteful. It could have still been done well, but with a bit more taste, but they didn't. And it's a shame, as whilst the action was good (geez, this film really does give you vertigo!) as was the acting, it had no pathos and as such it was a bit vacuous.
Matthew Vaughn had an interest in making a bright family friendly Superman movie. I'm sorry, I don't think he has what it takes to do that with his everything but the kitchen sink directly style. I do enjoy most of his movies though, so I'm happy to be proved wrong.
Can someone please explain the word Simon was saying brought the films down for him. I'm Dyslexic and am clueless as to it's meaning or how to spell it.
Just binged all three Kingsman films. I enjoyed rewatching the first one, felt the second one shifted the focus too much towards the less good elements of the first (leery humour and silliness), but I felt this one was much much better than both. I actually had to check it was made by the same director. The tone was a lot more serious, Fiennes lent it some real gravitas despite an inherently ridiculous premise. I enjoyed a less reverent interpretation on a period in history that is usually only tackled with grave seriousness, and that they had the sense to shift the tone appropriately for the act set in the trenches. A couple of really well made action set pieces in the battle with Rasputin and the fight in No-Man's Land.
When people talk like “do not take it serious and watch it as an entertainment. There is nothing wrong with twisting some people’s role in history”, will they say the same when a movie talking positively about Hitler and making up a story that he led the massacre for saving the world? Of course there should be some lines we do not cross. I wish people would understand or respect other peoples feelings better.
While I understand your view, I don't see how it relates to this specific film. I don't see any of the characters in the film are depicted as 100% good, everyone has flaws. I don't get why this film gets hate for using real historical figures when many films have done so in the past. Countless war films, Inglorious Basterds and recently JoJo Rabbit have been lauded for doing so
I personally think there should be a difference between a satire and a movie “trying to make an inappropriate joke and manipulating vague implications”. Inglorious Bastards, from my point of view, belongs to the former. But I appreciate your opinion and question.
@@matthewporter3048 I think the difference between this film and others like inglorious basterds, jojo rabbit, or the death of stalin is this film didn't do it well. It was u sure of what it wanted to say and how to say it, in the end it was just a big mess. The fight scenes were good tho.
Not a historical documentary, to be sure, but what's conceived as a fun ride in the tradition of Kick-Ass and Kingsman: The Secret Service got bogged down by director Matthew Vaughn attempting to make this movie into a lot of things. And, just like a cheap Swiss Army knife knockoff, not all the bits work.
I disagree with this review, though I can understand his reasoning. I actually felt they did a touching subtle service to the bravery of those who served in WW1
I have had fundemental issues with the idea of what this movie represents, to the point of being irreconcilable differences, that I suspect are what Mark is referring to here, and I am glad he brings them up as a point of contention. I may not be the only one who is rightly sick to the back teeth of the anti-postmodern/deconstructionist take on the World Wars seen in recent years, especially from British films about WWI, but I particularly find the idea of Matthew Vaughn of all people using it as his historical domain sandbox infuriating. There are ways to do a pulpy boys own action adventure set during wartime that doesn't trivialise the scope and the horrors of those wars - Indiana Jones walks that tightrope (albeit with variable success and grace), and even Mark's esteemed colleague Mr Kim Newman did so in his novel The Bloody Red Baron, despite that being a book that features ACTUAL VAMPIRES as flying aces - Vampire Biggles, for God's sakes. Then you have movies like Overlord, Wonder Woman and if we want to get historical, Howard Hughes' Hell's Angels. I cannot imagine a scenario where Matthew Vaughn, for whom subtlety is apparently something other filmmakers do, is capable of that level of creative circumspection.
Its a fictional film using real events, its certainly not a post modern deconstruction as that would infer it was trying to put a different factual hypothesis onto a piece of entertainment.
@@stuartowens5865 - that's my point - NONE of the modern crop of war films deconstruct their subject, because the last widely seen example of deconstructing WWI was Blackadder Goes Forth, and that's the last thing of note anyone has said on the subject in nearly forty years, to the point that the deconstructionist take is now the accepted reality. I wanna see Spike Milligan's war memoirs get turned into prestige TV, a sort of Band of Brothers meets Catch-22 by way of Slaughterhouse-Five and Oh What a Lovely War, but that is not the predominant take right now.
@@radicaladz and that's our point. why would you expect a Mathew Vaughn film to do any of that? Fiction using real events is still fiction for entertainment purposes. There are plenty of true life style tales of war etc but they are not marketed as entertainment.
@@stuartowens5865 - as arguments go, that's not really very convincing. That's like arguing for the existence of junk food on the basis that there's plenty of fillet mignon out there waiting to be eaten instead. -_-
This is one of the worst reviews I have ever seen by the duo. They are now so scared of saying anything out of tone that the review comes across as meaningless. Simultaneously trying to attack the film but without the teeth to do so. It would have been nice to know what the film was actually about, rather than this utterly confusing review, desperately squirming around, trying to judge the people making the film. It’s almost publicity, I want to see this now just to work out what the hell they are waffling on about.
I'm intrigued to see what he means with poor taste with historical figures as that is how I felt with the ending of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, which I know was a scene that Mark enjoyed very much.
I thought it was fun. Certain depictions of historical events and figures are obviously outlandishly portrayed. It's not a film you should take particularly seriously. The action and set pieces are all well done. Ralph Fiennes' central performance is very good. The section of the film that showed the combat of the First World War was the highlight.
I quite enjoyed the film too, but I don't think it is a complete non-starter to criticise the way historical events and figures were treated in the film. I think they tried to have their cake and eat it too as far as light-heartedly romping through the power games that caused the Great War, then turning around and depicting the bloodshed that resulted in a visceral and haunting manner. I also think they failed to pick a lane when it came to handling violence - it can either be a highly choreographed dance, like the preceding films, or it can be brutal and off-putting to make a point - it can't really be both. Also, I can see why some would think it inappropriate to paint the concentration camps in South Africa, and (by implication) the Nazi death camps, as a mad cap Bond-villian style scheme to rule the world.
It was pushed back because of covid and the Disney Fox deal. I'm not sure the delays have been because they thought it was going to be bad. But of course it could well be
@@Mike-gd4zd as if the first 2 didn't have serious moments as well. by now ppl should understand what type of franchise this is. it's hilarious when ppl take it way too seriously.
I sense the anti-PC elements of the previous films aren't to Kermode's and Mayo's tastes but these elements are exactly why those films stood out IMHO. Films play with sensitive historical events all the time and in the context of a stylised fictional comicesque movie I see no issue with it. Also tonal shifts can be good, even great as From Dusk Till Dawn proved.
This film is like being repeatedly punched in the face with the class system, patriarchy and why the British aristocracy is noble and superior to all other nationalities and classes. The arch villain is obviously a reference to current threats to the 'United' Kingdom, really scraping the barrel. Vaughn appears to have skim read a wikipedia page of early 20th century history whist watching Benny Hill. The fight sequences, however, are superbly choreographed and I enjoyed those but the rest of the film is forgettable at best and puerile at worst.
Meh, I really enjoyed it. It basically took Tarantino's killing of Hitler and says, "let's do that with WWI". So yes, by definition it trivialises history, but should history only be portrayed in sombre tones? Having studied history at uni, I've more respect for movies that know they're having fun with history, rather than so-called historical movies that are loaded with historical inaccuracies.
Like the scene in the first one where Eggsy has buttsex with a princess as a reward for saving the world, despite the fact that millions of people have just died.
The joke in the first movie is at least a kind of subversion/play on the end of classic Bond movies (which the first movie is generally a pastiche of), and quite short. The scene in the second one is just gross and uncomfortable for the sake of it and feels like it goes on for hours.
@@videogamenostalgia Feel the same. I understand what they were going for in the first film so I don't give it too much crap, mileage may vary, after-all. The second film, it was just needless and a really stupid and forced way to give Eggsy conflict with his soon-to-be.
I too could not finish the second film- abysmal indeed. This one is yes very violent ( and the scenes of WW1 are not dissimilar to the Sam Mendes 1917, so real ) and the fight scenes - beautifully choreographed, an amazing amount of work has gone into those - go on and on and on - but Ralph Fiennes is brilliant. Worth seeing.
That’s not what I was hoping to hear, I was a big enthusiast of the first movie and all but hated the second one. If you think about Matthew Vaughn does have “a thing” for crude sex jokes - and it goes as far back as Lawyer Cake, when during a phone “flirtation” female character rubs her phone against an armchair and pretends that it was something else. I was a high school girl back then, I didn’t even fully realise what that meant, but the thing is unlike Kingsman where crude stuff has at least some “purpose” plot-wise, in LK it was just for the sake of it. The point is - one per movie is tolerable, might even go over your head, but in Kingsman 2 it was everywhere and the rest of the jokes were all various degrees of “off”. P.S. I’m sorry, but if I look at the screen from afar my mind keeps replacing Harris Dickinson with George McKay)
This "review" felt pointless. I'll agree the second KM film was poor, but the first was very good and Vaughn is usually a good director if you take his work in the clearly irreverent spirit it's intended to be viewed in.
Seen it last night enjoyed it so much Ryhs Ifans as rasputin was amazing, great sets, great action, CGI was abit off every now and then but easily better than the other 2 kingsman IMO..I want more Rasputin 😂
A couple of good fight scenes especially Rasputin, but otherwise a total mess and travesty of historical facts. More WTF moments than fast and furious movies. The wholesale use of Wilfred Owen without attribution. It was like a League of Extraordinary Gentleman but even worse.
@@danieljamieson5012 I don't understand. Just because I think one fight scene was reasonably well done, that means that I'm not allowed to dispute anything else about the movie?
The whole series is a bizarre content marketing project for Huntsman of Savile Row with a deeply weird, jingoistic stance - a huge amount of money has been poured into this but for what?
@@mrawesome669 Ah, OK. In that case, a) no he isn't, he's totally wrong, and b) even if he was right, his adolescent tone would still deserve to be mocked.
I quite liked the first Kingsmen film until it got right to very end and it completely ruined the entire film for me. I'll just say I would have escorted the queen out and home before I did what the main character did. I don't care if she seemed to be into it, it's not on.
I thought the tone was all over the place from some of the horrific historical events to the very silly stuff, I'd have been happier if it stuck to the former. Those CGI goats... not the best.
I think Mark missed the most important thing about this film. Such a boring film it was almost remarkable, whole sections of this film could be cut and wouldnt change a thing. I hated it so much and my Dad mimed hanging himself when we left the cinema.. so not great
Having no interest in watching this film, would someone mind telling me what the “moral equivalence between historical characters” that bothered Mark are?
@@NeRo84 I didn't see any Hitler reference? What was there? He rightly says the Treaty of Versailles is too harsh but most historians agree on that, when did they actually mention Hitler?
Not having seen any of the kings man movies, my brother called me asking did I want & see it boxing day so we went & I loved it it was an escape from everything going on at the moment for 2 hrs.. Just dont take it seriously..
I'm amazed this series made it to a trilogy. The first one was OK, but man the writing in that movie was so DUMB. The whole church shooting also was in incredibly bad taste. Sequel I didn't even bother to watch after seeing that they brought back to life a character who was domed in the first one. This also looked like ass, even if Ralph Fiennes is in it. Matthew Vaughn doesn't know when to quit or when to leave something to suggestion.
I agree, this movie almost makes WWI a joke, and it's all in poor taste, and I hope the sequel doesn't get made, cause the way Matthew Vaugh morally handles the gravity of some of the scenes in this, makes me reel back as to how he'll tackle the Holocaust and just why? it's pathetic, he's not that good, tonally this is boring.
I saw this movie recently and I was struck by the massive tonal shift midway through the movie. The first part was filled with cartoonish villainy and fight scenes but then there Was the part where Conrad went to the front lines and it got very real and gritty before oscillating back to cartoonish action. It was almost like they added a scene from a different movie.
Think they wanted a 1917 style scene
Tbf trying to make that part of the film in the same style as the Rasputin part would have felt more wrong tonally in general
I liked that aspect of the film
It tried to shift tone but had been so stupidly cartoonish in the first half I couldn't go with the grief and serious side. It just didn't ring true at all.
I sort of expected the shift/twist given the history of the The Kingsman organisation told in the first movie. But yeah, overall the tone of the movie is very uneven.
The second film was abysmal. The whole point of the first one was that 'it wasn't that kind of spy movie'. and then they just bring back everyone to life with magical gadgets in the second.
Did you mean "abysmal," or did you use a word I've never heard of?
@@GA-1st I believe I took Abimsol for a nasty cough once
abimsol is a great word and I'm sad it's not real.
@@GA-1st no, I meant abysmal. I wasn’t getting a grammar error on my phone and thought about it myself. Maybe it is a word and that’s why an error message didn’t come up.
the scene with the girl with the music festival in the second one was digusting
Vaughn not being able to know when to stop something, or not when to do something is ironic, considering the main reason the Kick-Ass film was so good was precisely because Vaughn managed to tone down/shave away most of Millar's most unsavoury over-the-top terrible writing.
I think the reaction to this film by critics comes down to one thing. Colonialism.
It's seen as un-PC to have the hero of the story be a white aristocrat who was born into a family that benefitted from the British Empire and then tried to atone by becoming a white saviour. Even though if you think about it, at that time you'd have to be a rich nobleman to afford to start a spy agency. Ralph Fiennes is pretty much Batman. No one has a problem with Bruce Wayne being a white privilege revenge filled vigilante...
I don't know too much about Mark Millard's other comic book work, but the graphic novel version of Kick-Ass was really good and full of heart. Excessive and mean spirited? Yes, but that comes with the territory, and in that case imo it worked.
@@matthewporter3048 makes sense
@@matthewporter3048 there’s a way to go about it and there’s a way that borders on insensitive, though. To me it feels like it was pissing on soldier’s graves a bit with the kid being allowed to stay out of the war when many non-aristocratic conscientious objectors got imprisoned or forcefully conscripted, and then when he was running around LARPing as a regular Scotsman? He was literally a rich person pretending to be a poor person who had no other choice but fight in that war. Left a bad taste in my mouth. Not to mention how it makes the entirety of WW1 and WW2 (and seemingly the cold war etc too) all the fault of this one boring villain who’s also Scottish for some reason, idk what the film had against Scotland…
@@lapislazuli5035 Yes and also, as added context, much of Mark Millar's creator owned work has been a kind of gleeful backlash to all the rules and guidelines comic writers have to follow when writing for Marvel or DC.
The first Kingsman was fantastic. I don't understand anyone not loving it.
Kingsmen
@@citizentuck Kingsman: The Secret Service
@@citizentuck no
Well he explained why he be had some problems with it. That normally helps with understanding
@@MrKangorillaHe explained absolutely nothing.
Harris Dickinson is a great actor. Hope he gets the recognition he deserves now this is (finally) coming out.
I'm going to see this movie just for Rhys Ifans playing Russia's Greatest Love Machine.
Same here
Ralph Fiennes needs to play the lead in a Leonard Rossiter biopic.
😂 😂 😂 Hahaha, he does look like him! Oohh, Miss Jones!
Smackymalllyponce Miss Jones!
I couldn’t believe it when I saw Leonard playing a Russian Scientist in Space Odyssey 2001 screening that I watched recently. .
I had totally forgot
inspired comment!
My thoughts exactly when i watched this
The trailer reminded me of Will Ferrell's Holmes & Watson. Which is an appalling thing.
I understand that Kermode cannot expand on a lot of the things he's talking about, because it'll spoil the film, but I have no desire to see this film and am curious as to the 'misjudged moral equivalence regarding historical figures' that he gestures at in this review, but does not expand upon further.
You have to know about Kermodes politics to be able to guess what he’s on about. It will take a long time to actually tell you what that means.
Based on how he described it I assume it's probably sequel bait which has something to do with a young Hitler, since Matthew Vaughan is not that creative and it's an obvious point where there might be a 'moral equivalence' issue in introducing such a character to a 'fun' action/adventure series.
Matthew Vaughn equates Hitler and Lenin
@@bravovince3070 Which is a fair comparison because whatever sort of revolutionary socialism, be it National or International, both commit to a revolutionary transitional stage where any sort of atrocity is permissible because only through ruthlessly purging any opposition can their desired "utopia" be reached.
@@inxe8 the purges were not in the Communist Manifesto.
Usually I like Mark's reviews, but this one I came away confused what the actual issue with the film was. 'moral equivalence between historical characters' really could do with an example from the film, same with the 'leery humour' that he keeps mentioning about. Considering how Mark actually liked the excess of one of Vaughns previous films (Kick Ass) I'm struggling to really understand how Vaughn has gone too far in this case. I understand there's often a need to avoid spoliers - but for a film Mark felt strongly about it was surprisingly vague in its criticism.
It's happening with Matrix 4 reviews as well.
Mark is a commie and the film is nasty about Lenin
If MK is going to view a comedy action flick through a documentarian lens ... Then I hope he also does the reverse and discusses the lack of emojis in 1917.
If he can't understand the genre he is watching then don't review it.
Haven't seen this one, but Egsy having to finger a girl as a major plot point in the 2nd film definitely qualifies as leery by my standards.
@@EdIrwin Yeah, thats not great - if thats the kind of thing that pops up in this film I'll probably give it a pass.
Portraying Lenin and Hitler as equivalently evil and them as having respect for each other is actually quite bizarre in how utterly stupid it is. You have to question the point of someone doing a 'historical' movie when they clearly have no interest in, knowledge of or care for history whatsoever.
The film is a riot. If I wanted to watch a doco on WW1 I'd go back and rewatch Peter Jackson's They Shall Not Grow Old. A bit of quirky alternate WW1 history never hurt anyone.
I don't think anyone is going to see a Kingsman movie expecting moral or political instruction! And even if they were to, their reaction to that would be dictated by the politics and values they came into the theatre with.
yeah, you get it!
Its entertainment, i dont understand why people wish to view it as anything else.
@@stuartowens5865 Because it uses real historical events with wide-reaching consequences for entertainment whilst ignoring any of the context or nuances. If you don't want people to "view it as anything else" then maybe don't use real events? They could have easily made a version of this film where it was very clearly fictional but they didn't. It was a poor choice and one that definitely took away from the film as a whole.
@@Canadish There are certain shows (like Blackadder) and films (like The Death of Stalin) which use historical events for comedic purposes and it works, but they both deal with and respect the events and the consequences of them. This film trivialises the first world war and makes it about "good guys" and "bad guys" when in reality it was anything but that. Without wanting to spoil too much it disregards genuine tensions and conflicts in order to set this up. The character of "The Bear" in this particularly was uncomfortable to watch given the actual circumstances around his actions in reality which are completely ignored in the film. This is probably the moral equivalence that Mark is talking about, putting him on the same team as Rasputin (among others - I'm doing my best to avoid spoilers outside what is revealed in trailers). I think the politics of this film are pretty left-wing which seems to align with what my view of Mark's politics are so I'm not so sure his objection to this film are based in its intention, I just think the film doesn't really think through what it's actually saying just to provide some cheap entertainment if that makes sense.
Finally someone has verbalized exactly my feelings in regard to the Kingsman movies. There is just something "off" about them.
"Bum notes"...that's a good one!
I enjoyed the first one a bit, it had problems that did make it seem “off” to me but I could still have fun. The second film I found awful, gross and crass and overly self indulgent in its own style that it got in its own way.
Like Marvel, but ruder.
Bum notes! That was good
@@mrx2964 If you haven't seen this yet and you like Ralph Fiennes it's definitely worth a watch, he's very good and there are some surprising moments. The issue critics seem to have is the use of historically contentious moments, and in my view don't want to be supporting a main character who benefitted from colonialism as the hero, even though the film literally gives him a believable motivation from the off.
@@matthewporter3048 i’m probably going to see this in the new year as only film I can fit in before NYE is Titane. Not holding any judgements against the film though until I’ve seen it myself.
My dad went to school with Ralph. He confirms that was always how he Pronounced his name
I assume the main gripe is the end, which implies a sort of early 20th century league of supervillains akin to the one we see at the beginning of The Naked Gun (with Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Ayatollah Khomenei etc) - except in that film it's obviously a parody of 80s Hollywood jingoism whereas here any sense of self-effacing irony is absent.
I love Kick Ass and the first Kingsman. But they both were tainted by their sequels. Don't even get me started on them bringing back Colin Firth. I hope this doesn't further taint the original
Did it?
@@danieljamieson5012 I wouldn't say it tainted it, but did feel very different to the other films and hence was an enjoyable as I was expecting
If they make sequels that go to ww2, the definitely need a cameo from Mad Jack Churchill, the crazy dude who went into battle with nothing but a sword and a bow/arrows
Never knew of Mad Jack and now I’m astounded after reading about him - defos should be involved in the sequel! Thanks!
I didn’t mind this film. It loses its steam when they kill off Rasputin! Rhys Ifans steals show with his eccentric performance as the mysterious and sinister Grigori Rasputin! It’s a decent time waster as best. I actually prefer this one over the second one.
I don't understand Vaughn.
He said he wanted to dial things up to 11 and push boundaries with Kingsman. Then he acted shocked and offended that some people thought he went to far at times.
Considering his reaction to the criticism people had of the first one, I'd say his choices since have been less missteps and more purposeful provocation.
And I loved the first Kingsman.
I'm all for people pushing the boundaries of good taste in comedy. Especially as many are becoming more puritanical. But yeah, if you're going to do that, you have to own it.
Seeing it for Ralph alone. Also the beautiful looking mise-en-scene!
I don't really get the negative reviews. This was a really fun watch for me which is the only thing I expect from this series of films. The stuff on the front line with the son was the highlight for me
I liked it, the individual parts are probably greater than the sum but I still enjoyed the 2+ hours in the theater and hope they do more
A film review nothing to do with the film in question.... i and my 2 friends went to see this on Friday (after watching this video) and loved the film so much... cracking bit of fun, and for me waiting for Dune and Ghostbusters to excite me I needed up enjoying this old world romp most of all.... Maybe its the gentleman in me, a little old fashioned... a world of letters and not emails, or travel and punch ups...!! refreshing to see and enjoy before sitting back into the horrors of 2022....
3:47 i think the shift to megakill in the 1st one can be explained as he had a phone, he had a phone at the end
Didn't like that they said that Lenin and Hitler were equivalent, eh?
Went to see this knowing nothing much about it and after seeing it I just had to know what Mark thought of it.
I think he went easy on it to be honest.
It wasn't boring but it was such an awkward and exhausting watch - it felt like the worst film I've seen in the Cinema for years.
I said oh for f***s' sake a few times throughout and none more so than the ham-fisted post credit sequence.
The end sequence wasn't as ham-fisted as you might think. Interestingly, Daniel Bruhl's character (Hanussen) really was somewhat of a mentor to young Adolf Hitler. The movie has a lots of problems (uneven tone and pacing among others) but I really liked how they played with historical events and characters, and how they matched the plot to real events. I enjoyed the movie overall - it seemed a bit too long but still better than the golden circle.
Glad that someone else thinks the same...I came here expecting Mark to tear into it and ripe up a few holes.
WWI caused by a Scottish separatist Dr Evil would fit (probably) in a Tracy Ullman comedy sketch show but here? Ruined the whole enterprise.
@A.P. I'm glad that I'm not the only one who cringed at the mastermind acting like Tracy Ullman-as-Nicola Sturgeon... half-expecting 'wee Mhairi' to pop out of the shadows bellowing her maiden speech to Parliament.
Scottish characters can be great villains, but this film failed to get one.
The Rasputin fight on itself was better than Matrix 4 in it’s entirety. Pure craftsmanship. I was in awe. Plus I never expected historical accuracy from Mark Millar. This is coming from someone who didn’t like the first two, I agree with the leery stuff but this one was a hoot.
Shame, I like the first Kingsman quite a bit. But the second was awful. And I agree with Simon’s view on them.
In the 2nd movie where they place the tracker inside the woman was ghastly taste.
Films based in Mark Millar comics being problematic? Quelle surprise.
In fairness to Mark Millar, I believe that the original movie and this were developed in parallel. Millar and Vaughan developed the concept and did their own thing. The follow on comic skews back to the movie.
Were does Kermode get those jumpers.
This was extremely well said, I love Kermode for his ability to always engage with what he’s reviewing and really dig into it in an eloquent manner
All the historical events told through an ironic tongue in cheek lens were great. But they were more like delightful appetisers in between tediously long fight scenes that took all the oxygen out of the movie.
I saw the movie on Saturday (and hadn't seen this review beforehand) and I have to agree with Mark. When I left the film, my first thought was I found the whole idea of the events around WW1, and the way WW1 itself was being used, actually really disrespectful & distasteful. It could have still been done well, but with a bit more taste, but they didn't. And it's a shame, as whilst the action was good (geez, this film really does give you vertigo!) as was the acting, it had no pathos and as such it was a bit vacuous.
Don't watch Wonder Woman then.
Matthew Vaughn had an interest in making a bright family friendly Superman movie. I'm sorry, I don't think he has what it takes to do that with his everything but the kitchen sink directly style. I do enjoy most of his movies though, so I'm happy to be proved wrong.
Watch Stardust, he can do it.
It's not a historical documentary! Some films should just be fun, escapism! Kermode seems to think every film should be a grim experience!
agreed, but the problem is that I had absolutely no fun watching this movie ...
"Young James Bond on jelly beans" lol great description of the Kingsman films 😅
Can someone please explain the word Simon was saying brought the films down for him. I'm Dyslexic and am clueless as to it's meaning or how to spell it.
I think you guys nailed why I never really cared for this franchise. These movies are well made from a technical standpoint but were not well written.
Just binged all three Kingsman films. I enjoyed rewatching the first one, felt the second one shifted the focus too much towards the less good elements of the first (leery humour and silliness), but I felt this one was much much better than both. I actually had to check it was made by the same director. The tone was a lot more serious, Fiennes lent it some real gravitas despite an inherently ridiculous premise. I enjoyed a less reverent interpretation on a period in history that is usually only tackled with grave seriousness, and that they had the sense to shift the tone appropriately for the act set in the trenches. A couple of really well made action set pieces in the battle with Rasputin and the fight in No-Man's Land.
When people talk like “do not take it serious and watch it as an entertainment. There is nothing wrong with twisting some people’s role in history”, will they say the same when a movie talking positively about Hitler and making up a story that he led the massacre for saving the world? Of course there should be some lines we do not cross. I wish people would understand or respect other peoples feelings better.
While I understand your view, I don't see how it relates to this specific film. I don't see any of the characters in the film are depicted as 100% good, everyone has flaws. I don't get why this film gets hate for using real historical figures when many films have done so in the past. Countless war films, Inglorious Basterds and recently JoJo Rabbit have been lauded for doing so
I personally think there should be a difference between a satire and a movie “trying to make an inappropriate joke and manipulating vague implications”. Inglorious Bastards, from my point of view, belongs to the former. But I appreciate your opinion and question.
@@matthewporter3048 I think the difference between this film and others like inglorious basterds, jojo rabbit, or the death of stalin is this film didn't do it well. It was u sure of what it wanted to say and how to say it, in the end it was just a big mess. The fight scenes were good tho.
@@nanxusu3994 what's the inappropriate joke?
@@Canadish that sounds like a better sequel of anything these producers could make actually
Ralph Fiennes’ involvement brings an ideal connection to the Bond movies
Can someone explain "leery quality?" Not sure I get that?
Kingsman 1 is pretty good but god the second one sucksssssss also I still think Vaughns best film is xmen first class and kick ass is enjoyable
Not a historical documentary, to be sure, but what's conceived as a fun ride in the tradition of Kick-Ass and Kingsman: The Secret Service got bogged down by director Matthew Vaughn attempting to make this movie into a lot of things. And, just like a cheap Swiss Army knife knockoff, not all the bits work.
I disagree with this review, though I can understand his reasoning. I actually felt they did a touching subtle service to the bravery of those who served in WW1
Really enjoyed it. Outlandish, fun, serious at times. The twist really shocked me as well!
Everything you want from a film.
Bad review, I couldn't understand what Mark's points were exactly?
I have had fundemental issues with the idea of what this movie represents, to the point of being irreconcilable differences, that I suspect are what Mark is referring to here, and I am glad he brings them up as a point of contention. I may not be the only one who is rightly sick to the back teeth of the anti-postmodern/deconstructionist take on the World Wars seen in recent years, especially from British films about WWI, but I particularly find the idea of Matthew Vaughn of all people using it as his historical domain sandbox infuriating. There are ways to do a pulpy boys own action adventure set during wartime that doesn't trivialise the scope and the horrors of those wars - Indiana Jones walks that tightrope (albeit with variable success and grace), and even Mark's esteemed colleague Mr Kim Newman did so in his novel The Bloody Red Baron, despite that being a book that features ACTUAL VAMPIRES as flying aces - Vampire Biggles, for God's sakes. Then you have movies like Overlord, Wonder Woman and if we want to get historical, Howard Hughes' Hell's Angels. I cannot imagine a scenario where Matthew Vaughn, for whom subtlety is apparently something other filmmakers do, is capable of that level of creative circumspection.
could you elaborate on what you mean by "the anti-postmodern/deconstructionist take on the World Wars"?
Its a fictional film using real events, its certainly not a post modern deconstruction as that would infer it was trying to put a different factual hypothesis onto a piece of entertainment.
@@stuartowens5865 - that's my point - NONE of the modern crop of war films deconstruct their subject, because the last widely seen example of deconstructing WWI was Blackadder Goes Forth, and that's the last thing of note anyone has said on the subject in nearly forty years, to the point that the deconstructionist take is now the accepted reality.
I wanna see Spike Milligan's war memoirs get turned into prestige TV, a sort of Band of Brothers meets Catch-22 by way of Slaughterhouse-Five and Oh What a Lovely War, but that is not the predominant take right now.
@@radicaladz and that's our point. why would you expect a Mathew Vaughn film to do any of that? Fiction using real events is still fiction for entertainment purposes. There are plenty of true life style tales of war etc but they are not marketed as entertainment.
@@stuartowens5865 - as arguments go, that's not really very convincing. That's like arguing for the existence of junk food on the basis that there's plenty of fillet mignon out there waiting to be eaten instead. -_-
I took it for what it was...no dissecting or reading into it too much.....sit down, disengage brain and watch a fun, enjoyable romp.
This is one of the worst reviews I have ever seen by the duo. They are now so scared of saying anything out of tone that the review comes across as meaningless. Simultaneously trying to attack the film but without the teeth to do so.
It would have been nice to know what the film was actually about, rather than this utterly confusing review, desperately squirming around, trying to judge the people making the film. It’s almost publicity, I want to see this now just to work out what the hell they are waffling on about.
I'm intrigued to see what he means with poor taste with historical figures as that is how I felt with the ending of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, which I know was a scene that Mark enjoyed very much.
I thought it was fun. Certain depictions of historical events and figures are obviously outlandishly portrayed. It's not a film you should take particularly seriously. The action and set pieces are all well done. Ralph Fiennes' central performance is very good. The section of the film that showed the combat of the First World War was the highlight.
I quite enjoyed the film too, but I don't think it is a complete non-starter to criticise the way historical events and figures were treated in the film. I think they tried to have their cake and eat it too as far as light-heartedly romping through the power games that caused the Great War, then turning around and depicting the bloodshed that resulted in a visceral and haunting manner. I also think they failed to pick a lane when it came to handling violence - it can either be a highly choreographed dance, like the preceding films, or it can be brutal and off-putting to make a point - it can't really be both. Also, I can see why some would think it inappropriate to paint the concentration camps in South Africa, and (by implication) the Nazi death camps, as a mad cap Bond-villian style scheme to rule the world.
Halfway through, I leaned over to my wife and said, "There's gonna be a post-credits sequence with Hitler," and, well, you can see for yourself.
The 'honk, quack gag at the end ' ??????
What the hell is that referring to ?
The amount that this was pushed back does not bode well for it
It was pushed back because of covid and the Disney Fox deal. I'm not sure the delays have been because they thought it was going to be bad. But of course it could well be
I was surprised but I really enjoyed it.
Imagine thinking the kingsman franchise is meant to be taken super seriously
The jarring thing is that this current instalment attempts to make itself serious, after the self aware circus of the first two.
@@Mike-gd4zd as if the first 2 didn't have serious moments as well. by now ppl should understand what type of franchise this is. it's hilarious when ppl take it way too seriously.
@@Killerqueen2000 oh I see! We’re not meant to take it seriously therefore the film is absolved of all its flaws and is actually not totally shit 👍
I was left wondering if this film was the final installment of this series
Because of all the sequel hooks?
massively flawed movie but man i loved it. i had so much fun watching the fight scenes
I sense the anti-PC elements of the previous films aren't to Kermode's and Mayo's tastes but these elements are exactly why those films stood out IMHO. Films play with sensitive historical events all the time and in the context of a stylised fictional comicesque movie I see no issue with it. Also tonal shifts can be good, even great as From Dusk Till Dawn proved.
I really enjoyed this. Easily the best Kingsman film. I agree with what Simon says about the humour in the first two.
This film is like being repeatedly punched in the face with the class system, patriarchy and why the British aristocracy is noble and superior to all other nationalities and classes. The arch villain is obviously a reference to current threats to the 'United' Kingdom, really scraping the barrel. Vaughn appears to have skim read a wikipedia page of early 20th century history whist watching Benny Hill. The fight sequences, however, are superbly choreographed and I enjoyed those but the rest of the film is forgettable at best and puerile at worst.
you should write reviews for a living...that way you can be paid to put in effort nobody reads.
Hmm...do I smell 10 to 13 more sequels?
Meh, I really enjoyed it. It basically took Tarantino's killing of Hitler and says, "let's do that with WWI". So yes, by definition it trivialises history, but should history only be portrayed in sombre tones? Having studied history at uni, I've more respect for movies that know they're having fun with history, rather than so-called historical movies that are loaded with historical inaccuracies.
Can someone more articulate than me please explain what they mean by "leery" in this instance?!
Unnecessarily and uncomfortably seedy.
Like the scene in the first one where Eggsy has buttsex with a princess as a reward for saving the world, despite the fact that millions of people have just died.
The joke in the first movie is at least a kind of subversion/play on the end of classic Bond movies (which the first movie is generally a pastiche of), and quite short. The scene in the second one is just gross and uncomfortable for the sake of it and feels like it goes on for hours.
@@videogamenostalgia Feel the same. I understand what they were going for in the first film so I don't give it too much crap, mileage may vary, after-all. The second film, it was just needless and a really stupid and forced way to give Eggsy conflict with his soon-to-be.
@@burchie1224 the scene in the second one with the girl at the music festival
I managed about twenty minutes of it and went back to rewatching The Expanse instead.
Really enjoyed this movie.
I too could not finish the second film- abysmal indeed. This one is yes very violent ( and the scenes of WW1 are not dissimilar to the Sam Mendes 1917, so real ) and the fight scenes - beautifully choreographed, an amazing amount of work has gone into those - go on and on and on - but Ralph Fiennes is brilliant. Worth seeing.
Why do they refer to the film as leery?
I dont know what Mark is blabbering on about, it was a good fictional film not a documentary
That’s not what I was hoping to hear, I was a big enthusiast of the first movie and all but hated the second one.
If you think about Matthew Vaughn does have “a thing” for crude sex jokes - and it goes as far back as Lawyer Cake, when during a phone “flirtation” female character rubs her phone against an armchair and pretends that it was something else. I was a high school girl back then, I didn’t even fully realise what that meant, but the thing is unlike Kingsman where crude stuff has at least some “purpose” plot-wise, in LK it was just for the sake of it.
The point is - one per movie is tolerable, might even go over your head, but in Kingsman 2 it was everywhere and the rest of the jokes were all various degrees of “off”.
P.S. I’m sorry, but if I look at the screen from afar my mind keeps replacing Harris Dickinson with George McKay)
This "review" felt pointless. I'll agree the second KM film was poor, but the first was very good and Vaughn is usually a good director if you take his work in the clearly irreverent spirit it's intended to be viewed in.
If we never needed one movie, this was it, how’s it even get greenlit???
2:01 :D))))))))) No one could have describe Ralph Fiennes's voice better!
Seen it last night enjoyed it so much Ryhs Ifans as rasputin was amazing, great sets, great action, CGI was abit off every now and then but easily better than the other 2 kingsman IMO..I want more Rasputin 😂
SPOILER ...
Rasputin dies
Matt Vaughn went to a posh public school in the 80's . . . not the best start in life for anyone ;)
This movie was great. If you think something was in bad taste, at least elaborate and don't leave us hanging.
Nihilism with style is still nihilism. It's a simplistic view, that fears nuance. Take it for what it's worth.
Didn't Wonder Woman use WW1 as a plot point, with the Greek God of war causing it? That's okay but a cabal of historical villains isn't?
A couple of good fight scenes especially Rasputin, but otherwise a total mess and travesty of historical facts. More WTF moments than fast and furious movies. The wholesale use of Wilfred Owen without attribution. It was like a League of Extraordinary Gentleman but even worse.
You are watching a movie where Raaputin 'dance fights' two secret agents (which u enjoyed) but u complain it pisses over historical facts????
@@danieljamieson5012 I don't understand. Just because I think one fight scene was reasonably well done, that means that I'm not allowed to dispute anything else about the movie?
Vaughn should have gotten Richard Curtis and Ben Elton to help him with the history.
In that, a British prime minister falls in love with a squaddie, to the sounds of 'pipes of peace'?
@@danieljamieson5012 Sorry. Didn't see the film, only the review.
Well I didn't understand any off that can't wait to see it.
This is part film review and part Mary Whitehouse polemic. Bizarre
Isn’t the point of black comedy is that it is in bad taste?
It was a bit too self-serious like how they said in the first movie. "Nowadays, they're all a little serious for my taste"
The whole series is a bizarre content marketing project for Huntsman of Savile Row with a deeply weird, jingoistic stance - a huge amount of money has been poured into this but for what?
It’s very good.
Has a WWI story. Starts waxing lyrical about sacrafices and what the point of war is. Doesn't even mention France.
Beautifully articulated. And it's all the more annoying because there's so much good stuff there.
@@walkingriver6104 "Lmao"? You'll need to see someone about that.
@@nevem5010 The guy is totally correct.
@@mrawesome669 I don't know which guy you're talking about.
@@nevem5010 Walking River
@@mrawesome669 Ah, OK. In that case, a) no he isn't, he's totally wrong, and b) even if he was right, his adolescent tone would still deserve to be mocked.
It sounds better than the last sequel. Which was terrible.
I quite liked the first Kingsmen film until it got right to very end and it completely ruined the entire film for me. I'll just say I would have escorted the queen out and home before I did what the main character did. I don't care if she seemed to be into it, it's not on.
The queen is a nonce.
Well in most of the versions of the first film, the line about anal is cut out, and they edited around the final shot too.
What did he do?
You all complain way to much this movie was Epic
I thought the tone was all over the place from some of the horrific historical events to the very silly stuff, I'd have been happier if it stuck to the former. Those CGI goats... not the best.
I think Mark missed the most important thing about this film. Such a boring film it was almost remarkable, whole sections of this film could be cut and wouldnt change a thing. I hated it so much and my Dad mimed hanging himself when we left the cinema.. so not great
Having no interest in watching this film, would someone mind telling me what the “moral equivalence between historical characters” that bothered Mark are?
Hitler and Lenin
@@NeRo84 I didn't see any Hitler reference? What was there?
He rightly says the Treaty of Versailles is too harsh but most historians agree on that, when did they actually mention Hitler?
@@mrawesome669 Hitler appears in the mid credit scene
Not having seen any of the kings man movies, my brother called me asking did I want & see it boxing day so we went & I loved it it was an escape from everything going on at the moment for 2 hrs.. Just dont take it seriously..
heh nice call back to the oxfords not brogues
I'm amazed this series made it to a trilogy. The first one was OK, but man the writing in that movie was so DUMB. The whole church shooting also was in incredibly bad taste. Sequel I didn't even bother to watch after seeing that they brought back to life a character who was domed in the first one. This also looked like ass, even if Ralph Fiennes is in it. Matthew Vaughn doesn't know when to quit or when to leave something to suggestion.
I know what you mean. A 'domed' character is very annoying.
I agree, this movie almost makes WWI a joke, and it's all in poor taste, and I hope the sequel doesn't get made, cause the way Matthew Vaugh morally handles the gravity of some of the scenes in this, makes me reel back as to how he'll tackle the Holocaust and just why? it's pathetic, he's not that good, tonally this is boring.
The Rasputin bit was so so strange and cringey. Also Gemma’s accent was so bad it made me laugh in the cinema when I heard it