Kingsman’s viewing experience for the first movie was quite pleasant, and it was mixed with various personal ideas from the second movie. “The King’s Man” is even more uncomfortable. Its obsession with smearing Russia is deeper than that of 007.
What English couldn’t get on the battlefield, English wanted to get through movies.
To be honest, this kind of BBC-level rotten work no longer makes me emotionally fluctuated, and revising collective memory is what they are best at.
HAistory is a girl that everyone can dressed her up, and it’s evident in the movie “The King’s Man”.
Vladimir Lenin becomes the villain? Is Adolf Hitler Vladimir Lenin’s secret comrade-in-arms?
I am also convinced that a good British agent drama has been changed into a spy war drama.
The main theme of the first two books is to maintain world peace, and the main theme of the present is to guide the world process to develop in the direction of one’s own will.
The film says that “Kingsman” is independent of the government, but it turns out that the British are actually revered.
At first I thought the protagonist of the story was the son, but I never thought that the protagonist of the story was the father.
At first I thought “The King’s Man” was a conscription film, but I didn’t expect the story to be a conscription film.
Was the film’s depiction of war too flippant, or was the era too sensitive?
Rasputin is too bells and whistles, he heals the duke’s leg, I like to call it Metaphysics.
The fight in the film is too exaggerated, and Conrad’s death is not worth it. He was shot and killed by his own people. This plot makes people don’t know what to say.
Vladimir Lenin’s character is evil and ugly. Does the screenwriter really think that history is left to him to make up?
“The King’s Man” is not bad about the description of the battlefield, and the plundering of the heights.
I have to say, I still like the first two. Now that I think about it, it’s getting worse and worse to describe the “Kingsman” series.
The plot is split, with Ralph Fiennes’ Duke of Oxford describing himself as a pacifist on the one hand and thinking about serving his country, the United Kingdom, on the other.
This is simply Stultify oneself.
The biggest problem with “The King’s Man” is that the content is too fragmented, and it feels a bit out of line.
Maybe the director’s original intention was to make a deep historical action film, but he didn’t have a good grasp of the depth.
The only thing similar to history in the film may only be wars between countries.
Not to mention that everyone knows the real history, making this movie is entertainment, not everyone knows it, and some people really think this is real history.
Related Post: ‘The King’s Man’ Review: Dramatic adaptation doesn’t mean recklessly con-coat, plot is too off or below the standard.
