- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The King's Man - Disjunctive and a Bad History Lesson, but.....
Posted on 12/25/21 at 10:58 am
Posted on 12/25/21 at 10:58 am
Caught the King's Man yesterday and found it to be a mixed bag. The movie had good production values and good acting by the lead, Fiennes, but overall I thought it was too loosely screwed together to be very watchable. I hope no children try to learn the history of pre-WWI and the early days from this movie.
What was up with the homosexual horror scene created by the director Matthew Vaughn. He clearly set the homosexual attraction up for a punch line effect, as the movie suddenly veered toward presenting both parties eagerly leaning into it.....then the ending with Rasputin (comically?) licking the suture wounds on the protagonist. The director must have realized that there is still a large enough percent of the population that would develop a homo-dispepsic feeling upon viewing it to make the 5 minutes of film time spent setting it up to be worth it.
And when was the last time that we saw suture licking in a major studio movie.....it has to be Cronenberg's Crash (1996).....where it was done for sexual stimulation.
Or we could go back to Andy Warhol's Frankenstein (1973) where sexual hijinks with sutures (licking and fricking) is featured prominently. What was the famous take home line from that movie....."To know death, Otto, you must frick life.....in the gall bladder."
The King's Man - IMDB
What was up with the homosexual horror scene created by the director Matthew Vaughn. He clearly set the homosexual attraction up for a punch line effect, as the movie suddenly veered toward presenting both parties eagerly leaning into it.....then the ending with Rasputin (comically?) licking the suture wounds on the protagonist. The director must have realized that there is still a large enough percent of the population that would develop a homo-dispepsic feeling upon viewing it to make the 5 minutes of film time spent setting it up to be worth it.
And when was the last time that we saw suture licking in a major studio movie.....it has to be Cronenberg's Crash (1996).....where it was done for sexual stimulation.
Or we could go back to Andy Warhol's Frankenstein (1973) where sexual hijinks with sutures (licking and fricking) is featured prominently. What was the famous take home line from that movie....."To know death, Otto, you must frick life.....in the gall bladder."
The King's Man - IMDB
This post was edited on 12/25/21 at 12:25 pm
6
Posted on 12/25/21 at 4:27 pm to Gene Heinous
quote:
I hope no children try to learn the history of pre-WWI and the early days from this movie.
I was genuinely curious to read your opinion of this movie, but then I read this.
Posted on 12/25/21 at 4:31 pm to Fgiord
quote:
quote:
I hope no children try to learn the history of pre-WWI and the early days from this movie.
I was genuinely curious to read your opinion of this movie, but then I read this.
It should say "...the early days of the War...".
But, can you not tell wise-quackery when you see it...or does H always follow G in your book?
This post was edited on 12/25/21 at 4:34 pm
Posted on 12/30/21 at 4:54 pm to Gene Heinous
I saw this today. It was a bit long and melodramatic, plus had massive plot holes. But the action sequences are a lot of fun and very well done. Also, the ending was pretty awesome. Not a bad movie and worth watching. After the recent run of Tarantino movies, I don't really expect historical accuracy anymore. But the movie did get me searching out some of the highlighted events..
Posted on 12/30/21 at 6:39 pm to brmark70816
quote:
I saw this today. It was a bit long and melodramatic, plus had massive plot holes. But the action sequences are a lot of fun and very well done. Also, the ending was pretty awesome. Not a bad movie and worth watching. After the recent run of Tarantino movies, I don't really expect historical accuracy anymore. But the movie did get me searching out some of the highlighted events..
When I was watching the movie I was also reminded of Tarantino's recent historical inaccuracies. It is one thing to play it off for camp and another to stake out a serious sensation with serious message....like this film did occasionally throughout..... starting with the opening scenes in the Boer Wars concentration camps and then a few other places preaching pacifism.....and then switching back to a nonsensical feel while throwing all previous messages from the movie out of the window.
I could never get into the flick in any way.
In re: the suture licking. Warhol's Frankenstein was done totally for camp. It was a 3-D flick that got a soft X rating.....with scenes where a guy would get a pole run through his body and the audience would see his liver (or some organ) on the end of the pole coming out into their faces (3D). This scene always got shrieks.
Come to think of it.....Crash also had an NC-17 rating.
This post was edited on 12/30/21 at 6:40 pm
Posted on 12/30/21 at 6:59 pm to Gene Heinous
quote:
The King's Man - Disjunctive and a Bad History Lesson
Gene,
So the fictional movie about a secret spy agency during world war 1, that didn’t really exist, makes your headline for why the movie is bad?
I’m supposed to keep reading?!
Posted on 12/30/21 at 7:08 pm to Gene Heinous
quote:
When I was watching the movie I was also reminded of Tarantino's recent historical inaccuracies
Gene,
How old are you?
I mean if u are going see movies for historical accuracy than yeah Hitler dying in a German movie theater during Inglorious Bastards will be a letdown.
But if historically accurate stories are your main criteria then stick to documentaries or read books.
Fictional works of art don’t seem to be your slice of pie.
Posted on 12/30/21 at 8:09 pm to Gene Heinous
I thought the movie was fun as hell. It wasn't meant to be a history lesson
Posted on 12/30/21 at 8:26 pm to CovingtonTigre
quote:
quote:
When I was watching the movie I was also reminded of Tarantino's recent historical inaccuracies
Gene,
How old are you?
I mean if u are going see movies for historical accuracy than yeah Hitler dying in a German movie theater during Inglorious Bastards will be a letdown.
But if historically accurate stories are your main criteria then stick to documentaries or read books.
Fictional works of art don’t seem to be your slice of pie.
I actually had the Manson movie, Once Upon a Time, in mind as the Tarantino one being too historically inaccurate for my tastes. But yes, there are people that like to settle into a movie and follow along in one consistent pattern.
Also, this movie was terribly disjunctive. It was serious and preachy about bad events that happened in history and then it was not. If you are going to present that kind of a message then the movie needs to keep an even tone.
With the movie being so historically inaccurate to the point of whimsey, did those naughty events even really happen? Well, the audience wouldn't know. So what was the message?
I'm surprised that there were no comments on the homosexual horror scene. I haven't seen a movie that presented the topic and set up the scene for a punch line in such a manner before.
Some people are content to watch a video game over another's shoulder.
How old are you?
This post was edited on 12/30/21 at 8:33 pm
Posted on 12/30/21 at 9:03 pm to CubanSaint
quote:
I thought the movie was fun as hell. It wasn't meant to be a history lesson
The opening scene. Boer Wars, South Africa. Did you know that there were concentration camps used by the British in that war? I didn't know that either. But, by the seriousness of how this opening was played out and by the message development in this scene we assume that it is true and thus we learn that concentration camps are bad.....war is bad and pacifism is good.
But after seeing the movie in its entirety and the whimsical way in which history was treated I was left asking.....were there concentration camps used in the Boer Wars? How the hell would I know after watching that movie. I don't know the answer in real life either.....haven't looked it up.
Why did the director put so much serious effort into this opening scene (and others) only to have it undercut by the subsequent 'funnies' in other segments.
When I watch the 3 Stooges I don't worry that Moe and the boys are making bad historical presentations because the clip is not serious.....at any point.
The same can be said of Inglorious Bastards. The movie is not serious at any point.
However, this movie tries to take itself seriously at various points. The constant jumping back and forth from serious to whimsical makes it fail.
This post was edited on 12/30/21 at 9:05 pm
Posted on 12/30/21 at 9:50 pm to CovingtonTigre
quote:
Fictional works of art don’t seem to be your slice of pie.
If this pieces of fiction didn't contain real people, you might have a point. A lot of morons get their history from movies like this.
The ending to Once Upon a Time to Hollywood was so weak and insulting/ But seems perfectly suited to all of the adult children that can't seem to get enough of comic book films and history altered to give fairy tale endings.
Posted on 12/30/21 at 10:03 pm to Gene Heinous
Um. You know this was a Kingsmen prequel right? Have you not seen those movies 
This post was edited on 12/30/21 at 10:04 pm
Posted on 12/31/21 at 11:35 am to Gene Heinous
I was disappointed. I like Ralph Fiennes but Colin Firth was much better in the original, Fiennes seemed a bit too old. His son in the movie was a boring pretty boy (again Taron Egerton was much more interesting). After the Rasputin bit the movie died. Aaron Taylor Johnson was wasted, though clearly set up to take over in the sequels.
Posted on 12/31/21 at 2:05 pm to CubanSaint
quote:
I thought the movie was fun as hell. It wasn't meant to be a history lesson
Yeah I enjoyed it a lot. It could’ve used a little more humor like the first two had.
Posted on 12/31/21 at 2:08 pm to dcw7g
quote:
His son in the movie was a boring pretty boy
The son was a tough fearless dude, but his sole personality trait was naive eagerness for war. The lack of any other personality had me a little suspicious as to where his character would go but I sure didn’t see that coming.
Posted on 12/31/21 at 6:55 pm to dcw7g
quote:
After the Rasputin bit the movie died.
You didn't like the end?
I agree it dragged for a long time in the middle. But I liked the ending and the fights were a ton of fun.
quote:
though clearly set up to take over in the sequels.
So more prequels?
Posted on 1/1/22 at 10:06 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
Um. You know this was a Kingsmen prequel right? Have you not seen those movies
Yes I have. I actually liked both the other Kingsman movies. They were both not to be taken seriously at any point and were meant to just lay back and enjoy.....or not.
A recent movie with some overlap of topic is 1917. 1917 was almost universally praised as being a good movie.....a serious movie up for serious Oscar gold.
Imagine if 1917 had a scene where a Richard Simmons character was in the trenches to provide fitness and entertainment for the British troops. Yes, this scene might get some laughs and might entertain some portion of the audience. But, do you think that most audiences would still consider this serious movie to be such a good or great movie? Probably not. The switching from fantasy to serious and back and forth is not a winner.
This post was edited on 1/1/22 at 10:17 pm
Posted on 1/2/22 at 7:13 am to Gene Heinous
quote:
The switching from fantasy to serious and back and forth is not a winner.
Jojo Rabbit disagrees
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News