Kingsman the Secret Service was a good film, if you’re into that sort of thing. Basically a more over-the-top version of the early Bond films, boasting stylish action, interesting and fun characters and an ever impressive cast. For me Kingsman was better than most spy films, well ever, because of how well it caught the characters and how fun and well delivered the plot was. From classy heroes to ego-maniacal villain, Kingsman was a blast. Now we have Kingsman the Golden Circle, a sequel with the same cast and from the same crew of the first film. Needless to say, that has given this film some hype from many, including me. How does it fair?

The Kingsman are destroyed – well, that was quick – by an evil drug cartel known as The Golden Circle, led by the sugar-sweet, darling and possible cannibalistic Poppy. This calls Eggsy back into action. But this time, the Kingsmen are not alone. They discover the existence of the Statesmen, their American, whiskey brewing counterparts. Together they must find Poppy and stop her from releasing a fowled drug on a global scale; which would cause, you guessed it, mass genocide. From this adventure we get new characters, the action and gadgets we loved before but on a grander scale and…absolutely nothing else.

It pains me to say this – from minute one, when we enter a spectacular action scene right out of the gate, I knew we were in for an inferior ride. It’s quite amazing how the opening moments of the film summed up the rest of it. It looked good, it was fun to watch, there were a few laughs and wow moments – but I was never engaged by it, and ultimately didn’t care about it. This is director Mathew Vaughn’s first sequel, and it really shows. Here, he appears to be giving the film an identity of its own, while at the same time trying to make it feel like the first film. Needless to say, these things do not gel. As such, we also fall into a lot of sequel traps. You know the ones I mean – the idea that the same but bigger makes it better or equal. Or that it must be darker. There are a number of surprising character deaths in Kingsman the Golden Circle, and I don’t mean that as a compliment. Most of these I found to be completely unnecessary, with two very early on feeling like Newt and Hicks in Alien 3 (I might love that film, but that is a bad moment in it). We also get a repeat of some jokes and action scenes. Which, while still fun, do start to feel like pale imitations.

While I’m on this subject, why is Colin Firth back in it? I know he was one of the best parts of the first one (and is one of the best parts of this film), but why is he actually back? He’s given a paper-thin reason for returning and they never justify his return until maybe the end. Besides, his death worked wonders for the first one, why take that away? Not to say Firth does a bad job here, he doesn’t. None of the actors are bad, in fact they’re mostly really good. Taron Egerton is perfect as Eggsy. Eggsy does break character a couple of times here, but that’s on the writing, not Egerton’s stellar performance. Also returning are Mark Strong and Hanna Alstrom – both good yet again, if a little odd on the latter’s part. New-comers to the story are Channing Tatum, Halle Berry, Pedro Pascal and Jeff Bridges as our Statesmen, as well as Julianna Moore as Villainess Poppy. All did very well with their roles. We also have a minor role from Elton John, playing himself. I mention this because it is easily the most bizarre celebrity casting I have seen since – well, Johnny Depp in Fantastic Beasts.

But the problem does not come from the acting. It’s the script that lets them down. The writing for this film, much like the film itself, is a mess. We get great moments of action, comedy and even drama and character. But they are just moments. On the whole, I don’t feel it works. Not helping is the sudden change of pitch between films – where the first felt like a spy-thriller parody, this one feels like a run-of-the-mill comic-book movie. As such, it loses its uniqueness for me. Much like Guy Ritchie, Mathew Vaughn has an excellent ability to bring energy to all his films. Energy that made Layer Cake, Stardust and, yes Kingsman the Secret Service so much fun to watch. Sadly though, also like Guy Ritchie, Vaughn’s style is very hit or miss. In the aforementioned his style hit home, in this and Kick-Ass I found it to be very much a miss.

I’m not saying that I didn’t have fun with Kingsman the Golden Circle, because I did. I still found it funny. The action was entertaining. It was well acted and I did enjoy Julianna Moore and Mark Strong’s scenes in particular. But a convoluted story, messy writing, poor narrative and character choices, not to mention some awful special effects and a pretty colossal runtime really bogged it down. I hesitate to say that I didn’t like it, but it was a let-down. I’m not certain I would ever see it again personally. But if the action and the comedy are all you’re there for, then you can do much worse. To me it’s just a case of I loved the first one – this one I thought was just okay.

There has always been something alluring about films inspired or set in the backdrop of true events. And I don’t mean when the industry abuses that saying; like, yes Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a good film but it’s not the true events of Edward Gein and the like. No, I mean true events in history, no matter how ancient or recent that still hold some power to this day. It’s from this thinking that we get powerful classics like 12 Years a Slave. It is also from this mindset that In Another Life comes into being.

In Another Life is the telling of a story set in an event more recent than most. This is the story of a man from Syria, who is trapped in the Jungle, a refugee camp in Calais in 2015 and 2016. He, and a number of others, is trying to get to England, where he can reunite with his wife. Needless to say, this is an important and rather touchy subject. Not only is it a recent issue, but it is one that is far from over, even if Calais Jungle itself is gone.

What we have here is a look at what life was like for the people trapped within these camps. Sometimes unapologetically so. We get some uncomfortable scenes here, chief of which are the treatment of the refugees at the hands of traffickers, who see them as little more than profit, if they see anything more at all, and an uncomfortable moment when refugee men and women are forced to strip down for thuggish entertainment. Moments like these are hard to offend, but that is what we should feel. We should be upset by what we see and hear in this film. And when it succeeds, we do feel the outrage. But, sadly, there are one too many times when it doesn’t succeed.

I wasn’t sure why, but I knew I should be feeling more than I was throughout the film as a whole; not just in these select moments. It took me a while to put my finger on it, but I found that, to me, my disconnect mostly came down to the films execution. Personally, I saw no reason for it to be in black-and-white. There is nothing wrong with that stylistic approach, but there had to be a reason behind it. I found it made the film feel more stylish when it should have been grit and dirty. Also, save for a handful of key moments, there was nothing shown within this film that felt overly cinematic – this had me wondering, why wasn’t this a documentary. Or perhaps a mocumentary. I feel that such a style would have worked wonders for what was trying to be achieved. This is ever present with how most of what we are given is told more than it is shown. This works at times, a discussion about the shower situation at these camps made my jaw drop with how appalled I was, and a moment where the lead uses a hose to wash his only shoes caught my attention. Other times, I could have done with being shown more to help me feel the moment better. Most of what was film lent itself to the mockumentary style, so the decision to go with a black-and-white arthouse style was an odd one to me.

I do, however, admire what this film was aiming for. This film depicts the desperation of the refugee situation in such places. In doing so it reveals a form of racism that most of us don’t even consider. The feeling that they should be doing better, when really these people have been given the bare-minimum and even that gets taken from them. The writing does help these emotions find their way when it really counts. The acting, while not great and without a real stand out performance, is good and sombre. What emotions these characters needed to get out, the actors delivered. A range was needed to achieve this, so we are clearly dealing with talented people who I hope find more success in their careers. It is just the directing style that causes a disconnect between the emotions of the film and the audience. And considering that this is a film made for emotional responses, this is a major issue.

If the mockumentary style was deliberately avoided, then what we needed was something unapologetic thought its runtime, like 12 Years a Slave. This would have delivered more power to the story and message I think. But, as it is, In Another Life is a good and somewhat important film for our time. Though, I cannot say how time will treat it. This is a story that needed telling, but the direction was a little mishandled for me. I am glad I have seen it, despite the issues I find with it. I didn’t leave with nothing and it did raise my awareness for the issue – for that I shall applaud it. It is one of those times when the story to the film is a lot more interesting than the film itself. I feel like, as a film, I needed more from it. As a message, however, it is one you need to hear.

Stephen King films are like buses. You wait ages for one, and then two come at once. After the lacklustre reception to The Dark Tower, it comes down to the other to prove that King still has it in him to chill us. Lucky for him, that this next film is based off what many consider his Magnum Opus; It. I have read the book and I have even seen the miniseries from way back when. Both gave me the same feeling; a warm, rose-red feeling that marked them both as special; hatred! I have hated every incarnation of It so far. To me, while not without moments, the book was a jarring mess of tonal inconsistencies and an over-abundance of unnecessary descriptions and subplots. The miniseries had the legendary Tim Curry in the spotlight, but that was really all it had going for it. No, I do not like It, and was not jumping with joy to know that yet another version was being made.

So, what is the story of 2017’s It? The film follows a group of seven friends, lovingly named The Losers. They all have their quirks and issues but are mostly good kids, who’s only fear is wrathful parents and psychotic bullies. That is until they all start seeing things. Their worst nightmares come true. Children are missing, presumed dead. And at the centre of it all is a solitary figure; a clown. Finding that they are the only ones who can stop this being, The Losers must face their own fears and inner demons to stop this child-killing presence before they are next.

King was onto something with this story, and it really broke my heart to have such an extreme negative response to it. The trailers and advertisements to this film didn’t help either, it looked too silly to me. It wasn’t until I saw the positive reviews that I got interested. And now that I have seen it I find myself both understanding this reception, and yet feeling a little confused by it too.

It is easily one of the best Stephen King films I have ever seen. I might actually call it the best King film since The Shawshank Redemption. Director Andy Muschietti, who directed the thrilling Mama, did a good job of bringing the story to life and focusing the story, making us never lose sight of what is going on. It is shot beautifully, succeeding in being both visually interesting and dread filled. Accompanying this is a pretty strong script that in my eyes improves on the source material. There are plenty of changes to the book, but it always feels pretty faithful too. Key moments are brought from page to screen very effectively; from the storm-drain scene to the moment when the bully starts carving his name into the fat kid. With that we also get some new additions. Some really work, and some don’t.

But what makes It so special is that we have a horror movie getting the blockbuster treatment. That doesn’t happen anymore, and I’m so glad that we are bringing it back. Despite this blockbuster status, It still feels unique. It has a definite style and is very artistic in some regards. There is a feeling that this is a film from the 1980’s which really matches the film’s setting. We have that feeling we got from films like Gremlins, A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Evil Dead and The Thing gave us, and that the show Stranger Things revitalised. With that, we also have the darkness and camp of those aforementioned films gave us, as well as the heart despite itself.

At the centre of all of this is the acting. Child actors are always a gamble, there is no denying it. But, continuing with the recent trend of child actors in Hollywood today, all seven of these kids are really good. Bill, Rich and Eddy’s characters in particular; however, it is easily the actress who plays Beverly who steals the show. Beverly is easily the best character in this film. She captures the heart and soul of the character and is completely believable and she engages you with her character. This is helped by the fact that her scenes with her father – who is implied to be molesting her – are the scariest and most haunting of the entire film. I even thought that the actors who played the one-dimensional bullies were great in their roles too. So, a good story well told, great acting and interesting characters; all we need now is for It to be scary and it had succeeded…oh.

Don’t get me wrong, there are some creepy moments – like the drain scene, the slides, the painting and especially the library – but the film suffers from its own tonal inconsistencies. It’s partly a horror film about a killer stalking kids, with some creepy imagery throughout. But it also feels like Stand By Me and The Goonies in moments and then other times it becomes The Evil Dead, with an over-the-top nature to it. It’s because of this I found It to be more hilarious than scary. I heard praise for how scary the storm drain was, but the build up to the kill had me sniggering at it. The same happened again when they search for It in what I can only describe as Freddy Kruger’s house from Dream Warriors. Like I thought it would be, I found it all too silly to be scary. There’s a sense of Muschietti trying too hard to get a scream that he is rewarded with a laugh.

While we are on the subject of laughing, I think it’s time to talk about Pennywise the Dancing Clown. My praise goes to Bill Skarsgard. This must have been a hard role to play, not to mention the weight on his shoulders from fan expectations. Yet he pulled it off. We have a good performance for our villain, I have nothing bad to say about the actor. The clown himself on the other hand… I heard that he was scary; that unlike Tim Curry, this was not a silly clown, but a monster who will fuel your nightmares for days to come. I couldn’t disagree more. This clown was hilarious! The design is cartoony. The way he talks, a deliberate alien way to us, made me chuckle. The things that he does and say are akin to Kruger and the demons from The Evil Dead. I loved him for the fun he brought to the film. In a strange way, while this is the better film, I do think that Tim Curry played the scarier clown. Yes, Curry joked a lot, but when he was silent he was hair-raisingly chilling. Because he looked like a clown, there was this creeper aspect to him; an uncomfortable reminder of John Wayne Gacy that made him more terrifying. This clown looks like a monster, and sadly monsters aren’t scary.

It is actually called It Chapter One, with a hopeful second part on the way very soon. So for those who get confused by the ending, that’s why. To be fair, if there was any book that should be split into two films it’s It, with its 1,100 odd pages. I was pleasantly surprised by It and would gladly see It again. Horror films have their work cut out for them this year now. Not perfect, by any means, and certainly more silly than scary, but it never fails to entertain. With how well it’s doing I think that Chapter Two is assured. After witnessing this, I wait for it with baited but eager breath.

Centre of My World is the coming of age story of Phil.

Phil is a young, gay man who lives with his single mother, Glass (that’s actually her name) and twin sister Diana. Phil has been away for some time over the summer and has found that all is not right within his once happy family unit. However, the answers he searches for constantly elude him, as he is distracted by an attractive young man he meets in class. What follows is a series of joy, laughter, misery and heartbreak as Phil’s world is unravelled as he faces the realities and tough choices of life.

From the get go I will mention that this film is a German/Austrian production and the cast speaks German throughout it. If subtitled films are a struggle for you then this film isn’t really going to change your mind on the matter. Because of the foreign language I find it hard to gage the acting in Centre of My World. I can’t tell if they are emoting the words as well I can an English language performance. But, from body language and facial expressions alone, I thought that the acting was actually pretty good. All across the board I could at least feel the emotion of the characters throughout the film, even if I wasn’t really hearing the emotions as well.

But while the performances do make their characters more interesting, I found the actual characters and characterisations to be really lacking. Most of them are blank slates or one-dimensional. Interesting events happen around them, and even because of them, but none of it really builds on the characters themselves. Except for Phil, but Phil as a character wasn’t the most interesting either. He starts out as an innocent, and somewhat naive optimist, and ends as just an optimist. This does work well with the film’s theme of lost innocents, but it’s also a character we have seen one too many times before. The story doesn’t help out much either, with the plot basically being the sequence of events that are driven by the characters. And even then, it feels muddled and unfocused.

I could split this film into three equal sections. There’s the section when Phil is an adult, and either with his mother, sister or lover. Then there’s the section when Phil and his sister are children. And then there are these strange and out of nowhere segments where the film goes a more arty route, and will give us a montage of silent images with some music, narration or both playing over them. And not a single one of these sections gel together. The adult and child sections are both fine in their own right. But together and with the way they edited, they feel at odds with some clashes of tone. Although, oddly enough the child section is darker than the lighter adult section. But it is that third section that is completely at odds with the rest of the film. It’s almost like watching This Is England, and then bringing in scenes from Trainspotting at random intervals. Also, at nearly two-hours long Centre of My World is just too long a film, feeling very drawn out in the middle.

With that being said, the directing and cinematography of these individual scenes is spot on. Director Jakob M. Erwa knows how to set up the perfect shot for what he aims to show his audience. The colours are always exactly what they need to be. He appears to have a good grasp on how to handle his cast. He makes the best of his sets and wastes nothing visually. However, the music does feel out of place when it plays at most points. Especially in the more arty montage segments. But, mastering the visuals of a film is nothing to be snuffed at. He has almost a Danny Boyle way of using his visuals to tell his story. It wouldn’t surprise me if Boyle was an inspiration of his. I can even see the more emotional moments, especially in the revelation scenes, really striking people. Although I personally couldn’t enjoy these moments because of how unfocused I felt the film as a whole was.

I have no trouble seeing why people could like, or even love Centre of My World. But in the end I am not one of them. Great visuals and some effective emotional moments just can’t save an unfocused story with pretty bland characters for me.

If you don’t mind subtitles and are interesting in the visual arts or simple want a purely emotion driven narrative then I’d recommend it to you. Otherwise, we still have other coming of age stories to enjoy.

Centre Of My World hits cinemas on 15th September.

There isn’t a man or woman who doesn’t know of Stephen King these days. And why should that not be the case? While King himself would say otherwise, there is no denying that the man has become one of the greatest and most influential authors of modern times. He has written countless books, namely in the horror genre, and his work has been adapted into countless films and mini-series. There was a time when I would read nothing but Stephen King books and I have seen many of the adaptations of his work – from the amazing The Shining and The Shawshank Redemption to the far from amazing Sleepwalkers and The Graveyard Shift. These days however, I find it hard to get into his work due to the repeat of his stories, which makes sense when you consider how much he’s written.

And one book, or book series, that has fallen victim to my King illiteracy is what many consider his magnum-opus; The Dark Tower.

Years later we now have a film to go with the novels. Although from what I hear, this film is about as accurate to the book as the Percy Jackson films were to the Rick Riordan novels. The story we are presented is that of young Jake, a young kid with strange abilities – you know, maybe it was apt that I mentioned Percy Jackson earlier. This kid has psychic powers, the Shining to be exact, in a pretty cool link to King’s universe. With the Shining, Jake has dreams of a man in a black suit destroying a titanic black tower – and that only a gunslinger with expert marksman skills can stop him. Jake soon finds his way to a different world and must help the gunslinger, and himself, take revenge on the devil in the black suit. For if the tower falls all hell, literally, breaks loose.

When this film started most of my optimism died-out. Why? Because, for the beginning at least, this film follows that formula of late 2000’s-early 2010’s young-adult fantasy adaptations. It felt just like Percy Jackson; like the awful City of Bones; like the more recent (but pretty good) Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children. With that, I had a feeling that I knew what I was in for – and boy was I dreading it. With the exception of Miss Peregrine’s, this formula has never worked, and I have no idea why it’s still being used. The acting wasn’t helping either. We hadn’t seen Roland the gunslinger or Walter (yes, Walter) the man in black yet, and everyone before them was pretty awful. The actor for Jake was wooden, and his voice was clearly breaking during the filming. Coupled with messy writing and basic directing, I was taken out of this film very early on. Then we got to the other world.

In this other world, we finally meet Roland and Walter, played by the film’s celebrities Idris Elba and Mathew McConaughey. It here that the film finally starts to feel alive. Almost immediately the directing picks up, becoming more visually interesting and even a little creative. There’s a moment in the ruins of a theme park that feels like classic Stephen King. The acting improves drastically too. Elba stands out here – not only does he look the part, and looks very cool too, he plays it with the right amount of seriousness and satire to the Clint Eastwood westerns. He almost single-handedly carries the film with charisma and gravitas.

Sadly, less positive can be said about McConaughey. Not that he was bad, although he was far from top-form. But he plays the role in a way that anybody else could have. He’s that classic silly villain – while his dialogue and character is pretty well written, he himself is constantly whispering his lines, hiding in the shadows and always has a henchman to take his coat. He is clearly having fun, but is also trying to take things seriously. I don’t know if it’s creative choices, what the director was telling him or if he was just miscast, but something was letting him down here.

For the most part, the film plays like a young-adult adaptation – albeit darker than most. Despite an obvious benefit of a higher rating, we have a 12a film. Censored brutality and mild creeps throughout. There’s a good bit of CGI here, and not all of it is very convincing. The characters are surprisingly fun and engaging, particularly as the film goes on, but are fairly underdeveloped. Some scenes caught me by surprise, but for the most part it follows a very familiar formula.

Where the film really shines is in its action. They actually get away with a few things 12a’s don’t usually do in moments – nothing majorly violent or gory, but a little harder than you’d think. The gunslinger scenes we a constant blast, no pun intended. The man in black gets some pretty awesome and even intimidating moments here and there too. Awesome shoot outs and creative uses of magic help this film out of the hole the story’s in.

While The Dark Tower starts off very poor it ends on an enjoyably thrilling, dumb-fun note. I can almost promise that this is not how the books go, but it’s enjoyable none-the-less.

The Dark Tower might rightfully rub book fans the wrong way, and if I had to hazard a guess I’d say King wouldn’t be overly thrilled with the end result either.

But, if you’re like me and haven’t read the books you may find that there’s some fun to be had once you plough through the opening and switch your brain off. If you look at The Dark Tower on sites like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic then you’ll see that it’s getting panned. Personally, I wouldn’t be that harsh on it as I found it overall enjoyable, if messy. But at the same time, it’s not the first film I would defend. It’s much better than most of the King adaptations out there. My advice is see it for yourself if you haven’t read the books. If you have, then it’ll probably be best if you leave this one to crumble.