‘The King’s Man’ Review: Dramatic adaptation doesn’t mean recklessly con-coat, plot is too off or below the standard

In a mysterious organization, a man introduces a young man to Vladimir Lenin.

Who? Adolf Hitler.

According to them, with Vladimir Lenin as a strong left, the power of the right will also be strengthened, and with Hitler against Vladimir Lenin, the world will be balanced.

That is to say, both Vladimir Lenin and Hitler are members of a mysterious organization, they are close comrades in arms, and they work together to control the world…

Related Post: “The King’s Man”: What English couldn’t get on the battlefield, they wanted to get it through movies.

Such an outrageous plot appeared in “stiners”, the third installment of the “Kingsman” series that many people have been waiting for for more than four years.

After watching it patiently for more than two hours, I literally vomited blood with anger.

So today, let’s talk about the movie “The King’s Man”, you never imagined that it could rot like this.

In 2015, “Kingsman: The Secret Service”, which was adapted from the comic of the same name, has attracted countless people’s love as soon as it was released.

The film has developed a gentleman’s secret service style within the framework of traditional secret service films.

It contains wonderful brain holes, postmodernist deconstruction, cool action scenes and creative violent aesthetics, which makes people addicted to it.

The second film, “Kingsman: The Golden Circle,” released in 2017, was full of entertainment despite its poor script.

Its action scenes are still full of imagination, and there are also surprising and colorful passages, and it is still a cool film.

However, who would have thought that when it came to this “The King’s Man”, it turned out to be nowhere else, and began to pull the hips in all directions.

In addition, because I am not a history student, I hope my friends can understand if I am inaccurate.

The name of the movie also knows that this “The King’s Man” is about the origin of Kingsman”.

The whole story begins in 1902.

That year, Duke of Oxford took his wife Emily and son Conrad to South Africa to meet Lord Kitchener.

This Lord Kitchener, considered a hero of the British Empire, was commanding the Second Boer War in South Africa at the time.

He imprisoned many Afrikaners in concentration camps. Statistics show that more than 26,000 women and children died of disease and malnutrition in these camps.

In fact, the concentration camp was the first thing he came up with.

However, on this point, the film chose to replace it with a single stroke, after all, it is not a glorious history.

Unexpectedly, during the meeting with Lord Kitchener, Duke of Oxford’s wife was tragically killed by the local war.

Heartbroken, Duke of Oxford became an anti-war activist and decided to follow his wife’s advice to protect his son Conrad and never let him get involved in the war.

Fast-forward 12 years, and the time comes to 1914, the eve of the outbreak of the First World War.

On the cliff, a mysterious organization is meeting in secret. The boss of the organization is called Shepherd, who has arranged spies in various countries.

The attendees included Princip, Russian priest Rasputin, Erik beside German Emperor Wilhelm II and others. They wanted to change the world together.

First of all, let’s talk about this Principle.

Anyone who has studied history knows that he is a Serbian nationalist and is affiliated with Serbian “the black hand” (a national salvation organization in Serbia).

It was he who shot and killed the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria and his wife, which led to the Austro-Hungarian Empire’s declaration of war on Serbia, which became the trigger for World War I.

As a result, in this film, Princip was instructed by Shepherd to shoot Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria!

Not only that, but Germany’s participation in the war was also because Wilhelm II was instigated by Erik, and the Russian Tsar Nicholas II decided to participate in the war, which was also seen by Rasputin.

After that, Britain, as an ally of Russia, also decided to enter the war.

So after a long time, the entire World War was actually caused by Shepherd leading the believers! This is simply outrageous!

Coincidentally, Duke of Oxford and son Conrad were with Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria at the time of Princip’s action, and witnessed the couple’s death.

At this time, Conrad had grown up. Although the Duke of Oxford protected him well and did not expose him to the war, in his heart, he had always longed to become a soldier.

But under the obstruction of Duke of Oxford, he has not been able to do so.

Two years later, with millions of innocent lives lost, Shepherd ordered Rasputin to get Russia out of the war and then Germany to destroy England.

The method used by Rasputin was to poison Nicholas II’s son, claiming that he could survive only by withdrawing from the war.

In the end, under the control of Rasputin, Nicholas II decided to withdraw from the war.

According to data records, this Rasputin is indeed very good, with a pair of hypnotic eyes, and often cures the crown prince’s illness. Nicholas II, who believes in mysticism, basically succumbs to him completely.

However, if you think that the film’s portrayal of Rasputin is still reliable, you are very wrong.

Seeing that Russia is about to withdraw, the British side is naturally very anxious. So the British decided to form an elite team to go to Russia to understand the situation. Conrad knew that his father would not allow him to enlist, so he thought of participating in it in the name of accompanying.

Seeing that his son insisted so much, Duke of Oxford finally told Conrad what he had done over the years, that is, secretly gathering intelligence with the servants and others.

One of them is about Rasputin – one of his rings is the same as Princip, so it can be seen from the same organization.

In the opinion of Duke of Oxford and others, the only way to make NicholasII change his mind is to kill Rasputin, which is what he decided to do next with Conrad.

Just like that, the group of them came to a party in Rasputin.

They saw Rasputin’s mouth full of foul language, and the three sentences were not separated from his lower body. After offending Conrad, he offended Duke of Oxford.

He said that he wanted to treat Duke of Oxford’s leg injury, but he licked Duke of Oxford’s leg, and Duke of Oxford also cooperated, making bursts of reverie singing.

Anyone who has seen the first two “Kingsman” films knows that director Matthew Vaughn likes to arrange a little male-male ambiguous complex in order to hype and cater to the audience.

However, the feeling of this plot is no longer the vulgar joke of “hyping the ambiguity of men and men”, it is completely disgusting that makes people physically uncomfortable.

I don’t understand, do you really think this is funny and humorous?

I checked the data, and there is indeed a statement that Rasputin is “uniquely gifted” and lewd, but it doesn’t seem to say that he is so horny for a man, right?

In the end, after some fighting after this, Rasputin was killed by Duke of Oxford and his party.

So, in order to allow Russia to continue to opt out of the war, Shepherd took the next step.

That is, the director’s speechless “recklessly con-coat” – recruiting Vladimir Lenin to let him make a revolution in Russia!

That’s right, according to the meaning of the movie, Vladimir Lenin is also a Shepherd believer. After listening to Shepherd’s order, he also asked Shepherd to find himself a right wing that is evenly matched.

Well, this is a bridge that can only be made up without a historical basis?

Meanwhile, on Duke of Oxford’s side, tackling Rasputin didn’t stop Conrad from wanting to join the army.

Instead, he was more determined, and Duke of Oxford couldn’t persuade him any longer.

So, in the days that followed, Conrad successfully enlisted and went to the front.

The war was raging, but Conrad was exceptionally brave. He got a confidential document and carried his companions under the hail of bullets. The entire enemy team was a rookie, allowing him to escape the danger, basically unscathed.

Okay, just the protagonist’s halo + personal heroism! I got it!

Unexpectedly, then the plot suddenly took a sharp turn. Some people suspected that Conrad was a spy, and he was destroyed with a single shot!

I don’t understand, what does this mean

Since the confidential documents obtained by Conrad were telegrams that could persuade the United States to enter the war, the Duke of Oxford was somewhat comforted, although faced with Conrad’s death.

After all, in his view, as long as the United States intervenes, the war can end sooner.

Unfortunately, he underestimated Shepherd’s abilities.

In order to prevent the United States from participating in the war and disrupting its own plans, Shepherd directly sent a female believer to seduce the US president, and even made a “sex video” as a threat, which directly scared the United States to do nothing at all.

Fortunately, in the end, Duke of Oxford and the others found the cliff where Shepherd was located, killed Shepherd, and obtained the negatives of the “sex video”, so that they successfully reassured the United States to participate in the war.

It was after this that Duke of Oxford founded the “Kingsman” spy organization.

The whole film can be said to be a typical example of “recklessly con-coat”.

From the perspective of the play, its style is fragmented and the rhythm is chaotic.

You think it’s a nonsense film that is pure nonsense, but it has an epic image quality there.

You think it’s a war movie, but the anti-war only stays in Duke of Oxford’s “talk and don’t do” character design, everyone is making war continue in different ways.

You think it’s a cool movie, but the laughs are awkward and ineffective, and the action scenes and big scenes have almost no creativity and pleasure of the previous work.

Aside from the “ballet” during Rasputin’s fight, there was no scene or fight that really stood out to me.

The effect of the war scene is good, but it gives people the feeling that it is bluntly cosplaying “1917”. Apart from showing off that the crew is rich, I really don’t know what it means.

Of course, none of this is anything compared to the excessive banter of history.

It is generally believed that Postmodernism is best at subverting authority and dissolving the sublime.

This usually has a different kind of dramatic tension and excitement in general anti-authority, anti-traditional and anti-mainstream dramas.

The reason why the first “Kingsman” is so successful is inseparable from its Postmodernism creative ideas.

However, once this kind of thinking is applied to a serious historical level, it is easy to slip into the superficiality of “historical nihilism”.

World War I, as one of the most tragic wars in human history, in this “The King’s Man”, it can be treated like a family play.

Through the low-level conspiracy theory treatment, the film treats history as a text that provides entertainment and consumption, and runs through “entertainment to death”, completely abandoning the sense of responsibility for history.

In my opinion, it is no longer a smear of any country or a slander of any person. What it “humiliates” is the whole world and every person with a conscience.

Related Post: “The King’s Man” Releases Character Posters for Streaming Online.