Review of Kingsman: The Golden Circle, Mother! and the Problem with Trailers
I had a bit of a bumper week for films the past week, knocking off Darren Aronofsky's Mother! (! is part of the title for reasons unknown) and then Matthew Vaughn's sequel to Kingsman, subtitled The Golden Circle.
Before diving into these reviews I'd like to talk a bit about the problems with trailers. Both the trailer for Mother! and The Golden Circle raise two different problems with modern trailers which are almost impossible to avoid if you are seeing movies in the cinema and therefore having to watch trailers before the actual film.
First, Mother!'s (this is never going to be an easy film to properly punctuate) problem relates to the potential for miss-selling the movie in question. The trailers for Mother! suggested that the film was going to be a psychological horror movie that was going to go further than any other movie before in terms of shock value. That isn't me hyperbolising, one trailer for the films come replete with ominous original Texas Chainsaw Massacre trailer voiceover warning you of the horrors you are about to see.
Despite the trailer suggesting a horror, I was sceptical that it was be a full bore horror due to the nature of the director's previous work and glancing at a few of the reviews when it was released. And whilst the film has an atmosphere of horror and claustrophobia thanks to some intense camerawork that very rarely pulls away from closeups, this is not a horror in the traditional sense of the word. I can only imagine the scale of the anger in movie patrons going into this film hoping for a fucked up horror film only to leave most likely confused, and at worst and most likely, bored.
But I don't blame them for feeling this way. Whilst I can be snobbish about what constitutes proper horror in films, it is hardly the fault of the viewer to be disappointed in a film when the advertising campaign has so clearly tried to mislead the viewer into what they are actually watching. Other films which I believe may have suffered in relation to audience scores due to misrepresentative trailers, although not to the same extent are The Babadook and The Witch. These again were advertised as traditional horrors, and to me they are scary enough, and the critic review quotes that get plastered onto those posters stating them to be the best horror films in x amount of years are true, yet audience scores for these movies don't match up. The Witch sits on 91% on Rotten Tomatoes critic score, whilst only 56% audience score. The Babadook holds 98% critics, and 72% audience. This clearly shows a disparity between what critic and what a general audience constitutes a good horror movie, a divide which I don't believe is helped by misleading trailers.
So is Mother! a good movie irrelevant of its misleading marketing campaign? Honestly, I don't know. In terms of the technical aspects of the movie it most certainly delivers on the uncomfortable, claustrophobic horror that was implied in the trailer. I can only remember one or two jump scares in the film that didn't land but instead what was memorable was the constant increasing in mania which is heightened by the consistent use of intense closeups on the actors. The film takes place solely within the confines of a creaking house out in the middle of nowhere, where Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem's couple become gradually besieged by an ever growing list of unwelcome guests. I say unwelcome, but in reality it is only Lawrence who seems suspicious of the guests whereas Bardem is happy to invite them into their home, despite the crazy antics which befall them.
After leaving the film I read some more detailed reviews about the meaning of it and as it turns out I was way off in terms of what I thought the film was about. To avoid spoilers I will just say I interpreted the film to be about how artists can neglect the inspiration which helped them create the art and instead they focus on the glory their art brings them. Whilst you may say films are open to various interpretations this is not the case for this one where the director has expressly stated what the film was about. And looking back in hindsight I see how that is the correct interpretation. Yet this stands as a key issue relating to the film, it is purely a parable, and unless you can wrangle out what the parable is about there isn't any emotional connective tissue to the film.
In relation to its shocking elements, the film does build to a properly chaotic climax but it wasn't exactly shocking or disturbing in terms of what happens and more shocking terms of how the film started so small but got to such a level of hysteria. I think the film has a slightly sick sense of humour as when some of the shocks do come they are presented in such a blasé manner that they elicited a few giggles from me. But maybe I'm just evil.
All in all I've genuinely no idea what I'd score this film if I had to nor who I'd recommend it to. The most I can say is that it is inventive and technically sound but apart from that, ignoring the trailer hype and you've a fairly standard arthouse project with a big budget.
And now the second issue with trailers which is a slightly more obvious one: they show too much. In the case of Kingsman this is particularly egregious as the trailers and even posters for the film spoil a major plot point that would've come across as a great twist in the film as it was clear that is how it was intended to be revealed come the moment in the film. I won't say what the spoiler is if you've been lucky enough to avoid the trailers and the publicity for the film.
A trailer for a film should ideally explain the tone and premise of the film, without detailing major plot events. These rules are simply not obeyed by the majority of trailers these days and it is not unusual for you to be able to draw a skeleton diagram of the entirety of the plot having only seen one trailer (from memory The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was particularly guilty of this, although if you did manage to sketch out the plot from the trailer, stop there and save yourself the price of a ticket).
Like the trailer for Mother! I understand that film companies need to get bums on seats in the cinema to keep making more movies and therefore you've got to show the goods in the trailers. But when huge plot twists or fights in the final from the film motions of the film are being shown you've got to ask yourself where is the priority for the company: money or enjoyment?
I recently saw Alien and Aliens back to back at a Hoyts screening and in between the two movies Ridley Scott pops up to show an exclusive prologue scene for Alien: Covenant. This was a great bit of teasing as the footage was, by and large, not footage that would actually appear in the film. It set the tone and reintroduced us to characters and the aim of the film. The upcoming Blade Runner 2049 has done a similar marketing campaign, with various directors, other than the actual director of the film, making short films detailing events that have happened in between the original movie and the new one. This a great idea as again it doesn't spoil any actual content in the upcoming movie and it utilises the various directors' talents, with some shorts being live action and one being an anime.
Anyway back to the Ridley Scott appearance. Once that prologue scene had been shown another clip started. Except this wasn't a clip, it was a full scene from the movie. In fact it was the first big scene of horror in the movie. Played in front of us. Out of context. Whilst on the whole I enjoyed the movie (weak plot and characterisation be damned) I can't help but thinking I would've enjoyed it more if I hadn't just seen a scene of horror isolated from the tension and world building that would've come before it if I had just watched the movie itself. Again, I can't help but feel there was a cynical marketing side to showing this as it provided proof that this film was apparently moving away from the philosophical sci-fi of the unfairly maligned Prometheus and back to full-blooded bloody horror.
I know this isn't just an issue that affects the viewing public as Kingsman director Matthew Vaughn has openly expressed his annoyance at the aforementioned trailers for his film ruining that twist and has vowed that for his future films he will exercise his directorial control to ensure it doesn't happen again.
Let's ask the same question as we did with Mother!: does the spoilerific trailer impact the enjoyment you can get from Kingsman? Well it didn't for me and I'd say this is a great sequel to the original, with the only faults being that it is a little bit bloated and lacks the character arc for Eggsy that the first film had.
The Golden Circle takes places sometime after the original movie with Eggys settled into his role as a Kingsman, working alongside Merlin, and the rest of the Kingsman whilst also juggling his spy role with his relationship with Princess Tilde who was the butt of a joke which many found offensive, myself not included, at the end of the last film. Soon, however, new uber-villain drug lord Poppy, living in sickly sweet 50s schtick Cambodian temple lair (go with me on this) has a new plan that may or may not involve mass death and destruction unless the Kingsman and their American cousins, the Statesmen can stop her.
So yes, the plot is your typical James Bond fare, starting with a big opening action scene, some sleuthing, then climaxing at the villain's lair, it is nothing new there. However, much as they did with the first, Vaughn and his near inseparable script writer Jane Goldman, infuse the cliché with quirky, odd, lewd, and often violent wrinkles. The villain's plot in particular is wonderfully subversive and is sure to get some discussions regarding the potential implications of her plan and the reactions to it by other characters.
The action is shot through with the same energy and vigour as the first one, giving the illusion of fights taking place in one shot. These may be spies but they move with the energy and speed of a Marvel superhero. And like the Bond films of yore, this sequel doubles down on the absurd gadgets used to explosively violent affect.
Unfortunately, the main character of Eggsy isn't given nearly as much to do in terms of character development. Whilst it is true he faces a true dilemma of conscience at the midpoint of the film, when the writers try to outdo and subvert the gross out humour that closed out the last film, this issue is only brought up in isolation to the main plot, with it very rarely, if ever, crossing over into dynamic character development.
The supporting cast are all good, with nearly all getting a moment to shine, in particular Pedro Pascal's Statemen Whiskey has an interesting character arc throughout the film. Despite this I'd say that much like the first film the female characters are given fairly short shrift, as Halle Berry's Statemen role is merely a counterpart to Mark Strong's Kingsman tech role but with less to do. It also seems the writers did take the viewer backlash at the treatment of Tilde to heart and they do work to give her a semblance of autonomy and most certainly do provide her with a full character, it is just a shame that he role devolves as the story goes on. Whilst the Kingsman series does so much to subvert the spy genre in lots of other areas, it is a shame that in characterisation they are a fair bit behind the times.
The only other negative I mentioned is that the film feels bloated, in particular the middle act where there are various less high stakes plots taking part that need to be tied up before the end. None of these are dull or bad but looking back at the film in hindsight there is one action scene involving a ski gondola in the middle that I feel could've been cut out of the film and rejigged and it would benefit the urgency of the plot greatly. Furthermore, a celebrity cameo appears just one too many times. Again, none of the appearances are bad but I think the jokes that come with the cameo would've landed harder if used more sparingly.
All in all, I am surprised at the low rating this has achieved on Rotten Tomatoes, sitting at a lowly 49%. I saw it with a group of friends and the general consensus was that we enjoyed this as much if not more than the original. I see this as like comparing Skyfall to Spectre. Whereas Skyfall kept the balance between characterisation, plot and action, Spectre went all out on spectacular action, letting characterisation and coherent plotting fall by the wayside. So if you strap yourself in for more of the same just done somehow even bigger, more broad and more outrageous than the original, I can't see how you couldn't enjoy The Golden Circle.
Before diving into these reviews I'd like to talk a bit about the problems with trailers. Both the trailer for Mother! and The Golden Circle raise two different problems with modern trailers which are almost impossible to avoid if you are seeing movies in the cinema and therefore having to watch trailers before the actual film.
Mother! and a Misleading Trailer
First, Mother!'s (this is never going to be an easy film to properly punctuate) problem relates to the potential for miss-selling the movie in question. The trailers for Mother! suggested that the film was going to be a psychological horror movie that was going to go further than any other movie before in terms of shock value. That isn't me hyperbolising, one trailer for the films come replete with ominous original Texas Chainsaw Massacre trailer voiceover warning you of the horrors you are about to see.Despite the trailer suggesting a horror, I was sceptical that it was be a full bore horror due to the nature of the director's previous work and glancing at a few of the reviews when it was released. And whilst the film has an atmosphere of horror and claustrophobia thanks to some intense camerawork that very rarely pulls away from closeups, this is not a horror in the traditional sense of the word. I can only imagine the scale of the anger in movie patrons going into this film hoping for a fucked up horror film only to leave most likely confused, and at worst and most likely, bored.
But I don't blame them for feeling this way. Whilst I can be snobbish about what constitutes proper horror in films, it is hardly the fault of the viewer to be disappointed in a film when the advertising campaign has so clearly tried to mislead the viewer into what they are actually watching. Other films which I believe may have suffered in relation to audience scores due to misrepresentative trailers, although not to the same extent are The Babadook and The Witch. These again were advertised as traditional horrors, and to me they are scary enough, and the critic review quotes that get plastered onto those posters stating them to be the best horror films in x amount of years are true, yet audience scores for these movies don't match up. The Witch sits on 91% on Rotten Tomatoes critic score, whilst only 56% audience score. The Babadook holds 98% critics, and 72% audience. This clearly shows a disparity between what critic and what a general audience constitutes a good horror movie, a divide which I don't believe is helped by misleading trailers.
After leaving the film I read some more detailed reviews about the meaning of it and as it turns out I was way off in terms of what I thought the film was about. To avoid spoilers I will just say I interpreted the film to be about how artists can neglect the inspiration which helped them create the art and instead they focus on the glory their art brings them. Whilst you may say films are open to various interpretations this is not the case for this one where the director has expressly stated what the film was about. And looking back in hindsight I see how that is the correct interpretation. Yet this stands as a key issue relating to the film, it is purely a parable, and unless you can wrangle out what the parable is about there isn't any emotional connective tissue to the film.
In relation to its shocking elements, the film does build to a properly chaotic climax but it wasn't exactly shocking or disturbing in terms of what happens and more shocking terms of how the film started so small but got to such a level of hysteria. I think the film has a slightly sick sense of humour as when some of the shocks do come they are presented in such a blasé manner that they elicited a few giggles from me. But maybe I'm just evil.
All in all I've genuinely no idea what I'd score this film if I had to nor who I'd recommend it to. The most I can say is that it is inventive and technically sound but apart from that, ignoring the trailer hype and you've a fairly standard arthouse project with a big budget.
The Golden Circle and the Trailer which Showed Too Much
And now the second issue with trailers which is a slightly more obvious one: they show too much. In the case of Kingsman this is particularly egregious as the trailers and even posters for the film spoil a major plot point that would've come across as a great twist in the film as it was clear that is how it was intended to be revealed come the moment in the film. I won't say what the spoiler is if you've been lucky enough to avoid the trailers and the publicity for the film.
A trailer for a film should ideally explain the tone and premise of the film, without detailing major plot events. These rules are simply not obeyed by the majority of trailers these days and it is not unusual for you to be able to draw a skeleton diagram of the entirety of the plot having only seen one trailer (from memory The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was particularly guilty of this, although if you did manage to sketch out the plot from the trailer, stop there and save yourself the price of a ticket).
Like the trailer for Mother! I understand that film companies need to get bums on seats in the cinema to keep making more movies and therefore you've got to show the goods in the trailers. But when huge plot twists or fights in the final from the film motions of the film are being shown you've got to ask yourself where is the priority for the company: money or enjoyment?
I recently saw Alien and Aliens back to back at a Hoyts screening and in between the two movies Ridley Scott pops up to show an exclusive prologue scene for Alien: Covenant. This was a great bit of teasing as the footage was, by and large, not footage that would actually appear in the film. It set the tone and reintroduced us to characters and the aim of the film. The upcoming Blade Runner 2049 has done a similar marketing campaign, with various directors, other than the actual director of the film, making short films detailing events that have happened in between the original movie and the new one. This a great idea as again it doesn't spoil any actual content in the upcoming movie and it utilises the various directors' talents, with some shorts being live action and one being an anime.
Anyway back to the Ridley Scott appearance. Once that prologue scene had been shown another clip started. Except this wasn't a clip, it was a full scene from the movie. In fact it was the first big scene of horror in the movie. Played in front of us. Out of context. Whilst on the whole I enjoyed the movie (weak plot and characterisation be damned) I can't help but thinking I would've enjoyed it more if I hadn't just seen a scene of horror isolated from the tension and world building that would've come before it if I had just watched the movie itself. Again, I can't help but feel there was a cynical marketing side to showing this as it provided proof that this film was apparently moving away from the philosophical sci-fi of the unfairly maligned Prometheus and back to full-blooded bloody horror.
I know this isn't just an issue that affects the viewing public as Kingsman director Matthew Vaughn has openly expressed his annoyance at the aforementioned trailers for his film ruining that twist and has vowed that for his future films he will exercise his directorial control to ensure it doesn't happen again.
Let's ask the same question as we did with Mother!: does the spoilerific trailer impact the enjoyment you can get from Kingsman? Well it didn't for me and I'd say this is a great sequel to the original, with the only faults being that it is a little bit bloated and lacks the character arc for Eggsy that the first film had.
The Golden Circle takes places sometime after the original movie with Eggys settled into his role as a Kingsman, working alongside Merlin, and the rest of the Kingsman whilst also juggling his spy role with his relationship with Princess Tilde who was the butt of a joke which many found offensive, myself not included, at the end of the last film. Soon, however, new uber-villain drug lord Poppy, living in sickly sweet 50s schtick Cambodian temple lair (go with me on this) has a new plan that may or may not involve mass death and destruction unless the Kingsman and their American cousins, the Statesmen can stop her.So yes, the plot is your typical James Bond fare, starting with a big opening action scene, some sleuthing, then climaxing at the villain's lair, it is nothing new there. However, much as they did with the first, Vaughn and his near inseparable script writer Jane Goldman, infuse the cliché with quirky, odd, lewd, and often violent wrinkles. The villain's plot in particular is wonderfully subversive and is sure to get some discussions regarding the potential implications of her plan and the reactions to it by other characters.
The action is shot through with the same energy and vigour as the first one, giving the illusion of fights taking place in one shot. These may be spies but they move with the energy and speed of a Marvel superhero. And like the Bond films of yore, this sequel doubles down on the absurd gadgets used to explosively violent affect.
Unfortunately, the main character of Eggsy isn't given nearly as much to do in terms of character development. Whilst it is true he faces a true dilemma of conscience at the midpoint of the film, when the writers try to outdo and subvert the gross out humour that closed out the last film, this issue is only brought up in isolation to the main plot, with it very rarely, if ever, crossing over into dynamic character development.The supporting cast are all good, with nearly all getting a moment to shine, in particular Pedro Pascal's Statemen Whiskey has an interesting character arc throughout the film. Despite this I'd say that much like the first film the female characters are given fairly short shrift, as Halle Berry's Statemen role is merely a counterpart to Mark Strong's Kingsman tech role but with less to do. It also seems the writers did take the viewer backlash at the treatment of Tilde to heart and they do work to give her a semblance of autonomy and most certainly do provide her with a full character, it is just a shame that he role devolves as the story goes on. Whilst the Kingsman series does so much to subvert the spy genre in lots of other areas, it is a shame that in characterisation they are a fair bit behind the times.
The only other negative I mentioned is that the film feels bloated, in particular the middle act where there are various less high stakes plots taking part that need to be tied up before the end. None of these are dull or bad but looking back at the film in hindsight there is one action scene involving a ski gondola in the middle that I feel could've been cut out of the film and rejigged and it would benefit the urgency of the plot greatly. Furthermore, a celebrity cameo appears just one too many times. Again, none of the appearances are bad but I think the jokes that come with the cameo would've landed harder if used more sparingly.
All in all, I am surprised at the low rating this has achieved on Rotten Tomatoes, sitting at a lowly 49%. I saw it with a group of friends and the general consensus was that we enjoyed this as much if not more than the original. I see this as like comparing Skyfall to Spectre. Whereas Skyfall kept the balance between characterisation, plot and action, Spectre went all out on spectacular action, letting characterisation and coherent plotting fall by the wayside. So if you strap yourself in for more of the same just done somehow even bigger, more broad and more outrageous than the original, I can't see how you couldn't enjoy The Golden Circle.
Comments
Post a Comment