This prequel to the popular Kingsman films show us the birth of the organisation that acts above Government’s in an effort to keep the world safe. 

Beginning in South Africa in 1902 the young Conrad Oxford (Harris Dickinson) witnesses the death of his mother in the arms of his pacifist father Orlando (Ralph Fiennes). As an adult Conrad is keen to do his duty for his country as it descends into the First World War but his father is keen to make him realise the evils of war whilst investigating into the secret organisation pulling the strings behind the scenes. 

The King’s Man is a big, dull mess and as with 2017’s Kingsman: The Golden Circle which I also disliked the films seem to be moving further and further away from the fun that the original movie encapsulated so well. The majority of The King’s Man spends its time retelling historic world events such as the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, World War One and the Russian Revolution through the lens of the Oxford’s involvement. Throughout this part of the film we learn that Oxford senior is a pacifist because of his realisation that the slaughters he took part in as part of Britain’s colonialism were unjust. Which of course puts him at odds with his young son who is full of teenage idealism about fighting for one’s country. All of this plays out as a rather dull history lesson (or sacrilege depending on how you view it) set to a whiny teenager arguing with his dad. 

Thank heavens then for Rhys Ifans as Rasputin. As one of our mysterious villain’s sheep he elevates the first half of the film with his madcap performance. And for once, rather than the somber approach to history the rest of the film takes this is a comical view on the legendary aspects of his character. Able to hypnotise and control people whilst dancing like a Cossack who is invulnerable certainly makes him much more on a level with Samuel L. Jackson’s fun villain from the original. 

Although just when you think things might get fun we head back into serious territory and a key character having a whiplash change of heart on how to approach things before we launch towards a finale.

I guess all of my issues for this film mirror my concerns for the sequel. How can they waste so much talent in a film that takes itself far too seriously given its subject matter? The first film was a hugely fun tongue in cheek take on a Bond super spy and the organisation he worked for. This is a dour trudge through history whilst watching a teen whine at his dad that wastes some fantastic talent in smaller roles that perhaps could become bigger if this triggers a sequel. And if you really want to try and talk about pacifism and the futility of war should you be doing that in a story that talks about creating a super spy network that is completely above the law? 

As far as the cast go Rhys Ifans is head and shoulders above the rest. Whilst Tom Hollander probably has a lot of fun in the stunt casting of being King George, Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Nicholas in the same film. Ralph Fiennes is trying hard but not making the impact he normally would. Gemma Arterton and Djimon Hounsou play sidekicks reasonably well whilst not featuring too much. Whilst the list of talent the film attracts for minor roles is quite flabbergasting. Keep your eyes peeled for Charles Dance, Matthew Goode, Daniel Bruhl, Stanley Tucci and Aaron Taylor-Johnson. 

And given the many delays thanks to Covid it is still odd to see some frankly terrible CGI in amongst the rather dull action sequences. 

Hang on for a mid credits scene that sets up the possibility of more sequels to this prequel. I just really hope one the next sequel or prequel sequel can recapture the magic of the original.