⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

Director: Matthew Vaughn
Starring: Colin Firth, Julianne Moore, Taron Egerton, Mark Strong, Halle Berry, Elton John, Pedro Pascal, Channing Tatum, Jeff Bridges 
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 141 mins

Kingsman: The Golden Circle is the sequel to the very unexpectedly brilliant first installment in early 2015. The first one was a very guilty pleasure for me – it’s very boisterous and ultraviolent but still manages to carry all the swagger and suave tone that all the best spy films do with impressive action sequences and comedy to boot. Director Matthew Vaughn has a very impressive resume, directing X-Men: First Class, Stardust and Kick-Ass for example, the latter a very anti-comic book film with plenty of swearing and violence. Kingsman is to the spy genre as Kick-Ass is to the comic-book genre. Vaughn returns in the director’s chair, as does screenwriter Jane Goldman (also behind The Limehouse Golem which was released earlier last month) so the film should be in safe hands.

This time, Taron Egerton’s Eggsy is back for another mission after Kingsman’s headquarters are infiltrated very early on into the film and along with Mark Strong’s loveable Merlin team up with their American counterparts, Statesman. Together, they have to tackle Julianne Moore’s drug kingpin villain who has taken the whole world hostage with a sinister plan. It’s a certainly a well-worn narrative that has been done before, particularly the notion of literally expanding a film across the globe. John Wick: Chapter 2 earlier this year used this device as well to open up its cinematic world. Reviewers have not taken as kindly to this installment with reviews decidedly mixed compared to the positive reception of the first film. Many have been critical of its tone and the fact that it is even more violent, sexual and sweary than the first film.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle revisits a lot of the same notes from its original and is a bit of a mess narratively. Due to this, the film lacks the punch the first film had and suffers in its overlong pacing. These reservations aside, the film still manages to maintain the boisterous nature of the first one and I found it to be very entertaining and enjoyable despite the obvious dip in originality. It draws on a lot of the iconography of the spy genre and Vaughn impresses again with his ability to present a convincing subversion of society, particularly regarding current American politics. 

What allows the film to work and stand on top of its convoluted narrative are the strong characters. All of the characters that return from the original film are excellent again and have some great character beats, particularly Mark Strong’s Merlin. The new characters are also by-and-large a worthy addition to this canon. Jeff Bridges and Pedro Pascal in particular make a good impression as Statesman agents, Pascal’s character in particular is developed assuringly. Halle Berry and Channing Tatum aren’t given all that much to do but manage to do a serviceable job with what they’ve got and I anticipate that in future installments, they would suit the material well. As this next cast member has been heavily marketed in the promotional material so I don’t deem this to be a spoiler, it’s no surprise to see Colin Firth back in the film after his wonderful performance in the first film. Firth does an expectedly good job but I feel that Firth’s presence in the film does detract from the first film where it seemed as if he was well and truly dead. There’s always a problem when you bring people back from the dead that any sense of danger is lost and this is a problem with the film. I’ve lambasted Marvel for doing it many times and I personally would rather he had stayed dead to maximise effect. I’ve also got some problems with Julianne Moore’s vicious yet work-shy villain who is nowhere near as effective as Samuel L. Jackson’s lisping, hilarious villain in the first film but Moore does her best despite her acting ability not holding a candle to Jackson’s. The saying that a spy film is only as good as its villain is certainly the case here and this is where the film loses some ground too.

Vaughn still manages to pack in a few genuine surprises with the narrative that him and Goldman have crafted but the overarching narrative for the film feels rather contrived. The film is a rather hefty 141 minutes which could easily be taken down by 15/20 minutes with a couple of expository scenes. The mission that Eggsy is sent on as well feels like ticking a shopping list at times and it feels like characters need to do awfully complicated things before they can move on. This makes the film rather cluttered and haphazard in its pacing. Contrary to reviewers who have criticised the film for being more violent and crude than the first, I have to disagree. Whilst the film certainly earns its 15 rating, the fact that it’s lesser in tone results in violence that has less impact compared to the first film. The film felt more routine due to the introduction of this world that now has some familiarity.

Henry Jackman and Matthew Margeson return for the score, which again isn’t groundbreaking but they manage to craft a few themes that mesh well with the film but not really developing from the foundations of what they had for the first film. The film is again shot by George Richmond who does a really good job and there are a couple of shots that are just wonderful to behold.

Overall, Kingsman: The Golden Circle is a step-down as it revisits a lot of the same notes and themes the original had. But it’s still a rewarding watch that is generally very entertaining, mostly maintaining its obnoxious and crass tone and features some great performances once again. If you were a fan of the first film, I imagine you’d have fun with this and I struggle to see why some have taken so offensively to the film.

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

Director: Darren Aronofsky
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Ed Harris, Michelle Pfeiffer, Brian Gleeson, Domhnall Gleeson, Kristen Wiig 
Certificate: 18
Run Time: 121 mins

‘mother!’ is one of my most anticipated films of the year mainly because it is directed by Darren Aronofsky. Aronofsky’s entire catalogue (barring his debut ‘Pi’) is extremely strong, a director perhaps most famous for the towering heights of ‘Requiem For A Dream’, ‘The Wrestler’ and ‘Black Swan’. Aronofsky has always been devoted to exploring religion in pretty much all of his films and ‘Noah’, his film prior to ‘mother!’ is a particularly insane Biblical retelling in a mainstream format that could only have been created by this director. Sticking with this theme of creation, the ability to create plays an integral part in a lot of his films, again ‘Noah’ demonstrates this extremely well and ‘The Fountain’ is a similarly bonkers, allegorical account of life.

‘mother!’ has been marketed as a horror-thriler / home invasion film. Jennifer Lawrence (Aronofsky’s current real life muse) plays the titular, unnamed character (all the characters in the film are nameless) who is partner to Javier Bardem’s Him, a poet who is suffering with writer’s block. They lead a tranquil life in their country home where Bardem tries to (and unsuccessfully) write and Lawrence tries to renovate the house, marking their personal stamp on their property. This is all disrupted by the arrival of a man (called Man) played by Ed Harris who mistakes the property for a bed-and-breakfast whom Bardem offers to let him stay. His wife, ‘Woman’ played by Michelle Pfeiffer, arrives shortly after and Bardem’s poet begins to take a strong interest in the characters and finds inspiration for his works when all hell begins to break loose.

Narratively, the film doesn’t take a conventional route and it can be interpreted in many diferent ways. Again, it is extremely allegorical and in my opinion, contains Aronofsky’s signature themes of religion again and I see the film in many way as a continuation of ‘The Fountain’ and ‘Noah’. This is a film that is really going to challenge its audience which has showed by its big divide between critics who generally like the film and audiences who seem to dislike the film. Not that CinemaScore should ever be taken for gospel, but the film scored an F with audiences and there have been many an article online and in print damning the film. Like the vast majority of Aronofsky’s works, ‘mother!’ is more of an experiment into the surreal and spiritual.

One has to be tread very carefully when discussing this film and I am yet to fully form my genuine opinion of the film as the film requires multiple rewatches. My initial response to ‘mother!’ however, is that it is a film that I was enamoured by at times but I also have reservations. The film is a paranoid, nightmarish rush from beginning to end and is set in a world that is desolate, unforgiving and cruel. Lawrence’s character goes through all manners of physical and psychological torture and time and time again, we are made to witness this degradation.

The film showcases all of Darren Aronofsky’s best and worst qualities. Aronofsky revels in exploring religion here again and there are many parallels with the notion of Christianity prevalent in the film. Aronofsky’s characterisations demonstrate this, particularly with Bardem’s character who as the film progresses, is presented as a God-like figure, having physical and creative control of the events that unfold in and he is even referred to rather explicitly as a ‘Creator’. Aronofsky also continues to have a grandiose sense of scale, presenting the house as idyllic and initially a sanctuary that nurtures Lawrence and Bardem’s characters. The house is very much as important a player as the real characters in the film. Equally possible and quite explicitly, Aronofsky is critical of the state of the environmental world, exploring themes of overpopulation and war. The soul of the film literally turns very black as the film continues.

Aronofsky’s reach exceeds his grasp as the film progresses and particularly when the film reaches its latter half and tension really elevates, he can’t quite control the chaos that ensues on-screen. Again, it’s a film that I need to rewatch but I found myself rather lost inside the chaos and found the film hard and jarring to keep up with until it reaches its crescendo. I also found his message (or messages) rather overbearing and explicit (which in hindsight, need to be) in juxtaposition to the more subtle and quieter nature of the first half of the film.

What is easier to determine are the quality of the performances. Jennifer Lawrence continues to impressively progress her career here and she manages to perfectly encapsulate both the idyllic and the torment she faces. She is very much the means to which we explore the film, Aronofsky’s regular cinematographer Matthew Libatique’s lens constantly and uncomfortably focussing on our main character. Javier Bardem has perhaps the meatiest role of the film, a character who we can forgive at first for his seemingly rash decisions but then a character who we feel just as isolated from as Lawrence’s character does too. Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer are also superb here, Pfeiffer particularly unlikeable and smarmy as she begins to tear the couple’s relationship and the house from the inside out. It’s a perfect role for her. Domhnall Gleeson’s performance is also equally paranoid as the film who is also given an important role and Kristen Wiig crops up as a character who her personality perfectly matches too.

The glue to all of Aronofsky’s films thus far has been Clint Mansell’s scores which particularly in ‘Requiem For A Dream’ and ‘The Fountain’ have soared. This is Mansell’s first departure from an Aronofsky film and the film is deeply uncomfortable without it, often giving us a false sense of security. Denis Villeneuve-regular Johann Johannsson had first been approached to score the film and wrote a score but both composer and director came to a mutual decision that the film would be better off sans score. This does work and it only adds to the lack of order and coherence the film has but I think the film could have done with some score in parts to really help the film flow better and give it more weight. In particular when you have Johannsson involved, to throw out a score is sacrilege!

I still haven’t really made up my mind on ‘mother!’ and I doubt I will until I have watched it a few more times. The first two acts are particularly grim and brooding and develop really neatly into what is a bonkers third act. I think I enjoy the film more for its conceptual nature rather than the actual film itself which I found a little hard to get into at times. That said, the film has made a very long lasting impression on me and I keep thinking about it. Aronofsky crafts some really strong and memorable images and I really enjoyed the characterisation. ‘mother!’ reinforces my love of the medium of film particularly as it challenges its audience. It’s not a film designed to just be acceptable and dumb and appeal to the lowest common denominator. I’m not really sure (and it is surely deliberate by Aronofsky) what the film means but on first viewing, I found the film to be delirious, deeply allegorical, manic, paranoid and genuinely unnerving. ‘mother!’ is definitely a film that deserves and I appreciate exists.

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

Director: Andres Muschietti
Starring: Jaeden Liberher, Bill Skarsgård, Jeremy Ray Taylor, Sophia Lillis, Finn Wolfhard, Wyatt Oleff, Chosen Jacobs, Jack Dylan Grazer 
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 135 mins

‘It’ is the deliriously anticipated film adaptation of the 1986 Stephen King novel. ‘It’ focuses on the cursed town of Derry, Maine where a demonic presence (taking the form of Pennywise the Dancing Clown) inflicts terror every 27 years, terrorising and murdering children and shapeshifting into their worst nightmares. The narrative follows a group of misfit children who call themselves ‘The Losers Club’, together attempting to end this malevolent curse. There has previously been a mini-series in 1990, perhaps most famous for Tim Curry’s electric performance as Pennywise. This 2017 iteration is directed by Andres Muschietti, his second film after the grating, cliche-ridden ‘Mama’ (2013). Muschietti had replaced Cary Fukunaga who now remains with solely a writing credit.

‘It’ is hypnotic and tension-fuelled for the first half, flowing very naturally. Fukunaga’s influence in tone remains, fully fleshing out its captivating characters. Where the film has wildly succeeded is in its casting. ‘The Losers Club’ are all cast perfectly and Jaeden Libeher and Finn Wolfhard give a particularly genuine performance as Bill, the group’s leader and Richie, a character with an uncommonly foul mouth. Facing stiff competition from Tim Curry who set the bar extremely high, Bill Skarsgard makes Pennywise his own and is supremely sinister and charismatic. The film also features a thoughtful and melodic score by Benjamin Wallfisch and is handsomely shot by Chung-hoon Chung.

Unfortunately, ‘It’ becomes rather wearing in its second half and its scares cheap and uninventive. The ending is quite predictable, with too much concern of setting up the upcoming second part. The visual effects are also surprisingly ropey despite the film’s modest budget.

If you’re looking to be suitably scared, prepare to be disappointed. This is more ‘funhouse’ scary than truly neck-prickling more in the vein of Richard Donner’s ‘The Goonies’ (1985). Although ‘It’ may not do much to advance the horror genre, it’s certainly thrilling enough particularly in its first half to pass the time well.

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

Director: Taylor Sheridan
Starring: Jeremy Renner, Elizabeth Olsen, Gil Birmingham, Jon Bernthal, Graham Greene
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 111 mins

‘Wind River’ is Taylor Sheridan’s directorial debut (if you discount the critically mauled torture porn horror, ‘Vile’ in 2011) after writing ‘Sicario‘ and ‘Hell or High Water‘, both films that I really love. Sheridan regards ‘Wind River’  as a third part of a trilogy which began with the aforementioned two films on the modern American frontier, certainly helping ‘Wind River’ gain weight.

Set in Wyoming on the Wind River Indian Reservation, tracker Cory Lambert (Jeremy Renner) discovers the raped and murdered body of Natalie Hanson who has just turned 18 years old. She is barefoot, without proper Winter clothing and miles away from civilisation. FBI Agent Jane Banner (Elizabeth Olsen) is brought in to solve the case who enlists the help of Lambert for his tracking expertise and the local Police headed by its Chief, Ben (Graham Greene). Banner is clearly out of her depth in this chilling climate, a fish-out-of-water character whom the Tribal Police are critical of due to her gender and lack of experience. But Sheridan is deeply respectful as always, he doesn’t explore gender in a derogatory manner.

This narrative is familiar ground for Sheridan but as the film progresses in solving this mystery, we learn about some of the other area’s inhabitants and characters who battle their own demons. The town in ‘Wind River’ is just as important a character as its living ones, its personification of it being a predator to the Indian prey is deeply elegiac. One of the very first scenes we see in the film is a deeply haunting and mournful shot of a herd of sheep being stalked by wolves. This is an environment where one lives to survive or be killed.

‘Wind River’ is another cracker by Sheridan who ably steps up to the task of directing as well as writing. Like his previous projects, it is very poetic in parts and deeply haunting and melancholic and his script intelligently written with memorable lines. The unpredictable outbursts violence are extremely raw and brutal, portraying the utter nastiness that this conflict between cultures has resorted to.

There are clear juxtapositions between the cold, harsh lanscape surrounding this civilization and the warmth of the inside. There is a constant presence of the cold wind breathing on the necks of these characters which makes ‘Wind River’ deeply sensory for its audiences. At times, I got tingles from the cold, piercing feeling of walking barefoot on snow – Sheridan really has succeeded in crafting a believable world for this narrative to inhabit within.

The film is also surprisingly important as it has a lot to say on Native Americans and their mistreatment – a title card at the very end of the film really hits this story home. This mistreatment of Native Americans on a macro scale ties very cleverly into the theme of family on a micro one. We briefly meet the parents of this murdered teenager, the father played by Gil Birmingham who puts in a sombre and reflective performance in the two very powerful scenes in the film that he features in. Even more brief is our insight into how her mother has taken this shocking news. But it is not just Natalie’s death that has caused the Hanson family to descend into turmoil, it is the detachment of their son, Chip, to drugs – again the film is insightfully investigative into how the landscape and town can split our characters up from each other and leave them only clinging on for survival.

Both Jeremy Renner’s and Elizabeth Olsen’s performances as Lambert and Banner are also wonderfully intertwined into the film. Renner, in a career best performance, gives a more subtle and quiet performance as Lambert’s tracker who also secretly battles his own demons. Elizabeth Olsen also excels as the FBI Agent who struggles to get a grip of controlling the volatile situation, a character who is both naive and out of her depth, but academically intelligent and has her heart in the right place.

Nick Cave and Warren Ellis’ score is particularly atmospheric and moody and really lends itself well to the film’s harsh and brutal lanscape. Cave and Ellis continue to prove why they are one of the finest composing duo’s of recent memory and also did an outstanding job on ‘Hell or High Water’ last year. They revisit some of the familiar themes implored in that film and their other body of work and Cave lends his soothing voice in multiple moments to further describe the barren and feral environment these characters are living in.

Although overall melancholic and sorrowful, ‘Wind River’ faulters in its third act. The big reveal is quite jarring in its pacing and disrupts the pace of the film. Its conclusion feels a little too neat and the film could have really propelled from another twist – as far as murder mysteries go, this one is fairly simplistic for its audience to solve. It also doesn’t quite boast the same amount of energy ‘Sicario’ or ‘Hell or High Water’ had with their breakneck pace and tension. ‘Wind River’ is a more sensory film about discovery and cruelty and the theme of isolation.

‘Wind River’ is definitely a film worthy of your time and attention and Sheridan manages to deliver another satisfying rural Western that is very thematic. It boasts some terrific performances and an intelligent script that has a lot to say on its subject matter. Although on first viewing ‘Wind River’ doesn’t feel quite as strong as Sheridan’s other work, it’s still an excellent piece of work and hopefully a film that will further improve the more it is unpacked and rewatched.

⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Excellent)

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

Director: Juan Carlos Medina
Starring: Bill Nighy, Olivia Cooke, Douglas Booth, Daniel Mays, Sam Reid, Maria Valverde, Eddie Marsan
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 109 mins

“Let us begin, my friends, at the end”, a theatrical actor states in the film’s first frame before enticing audiences into a thrilling murder mystery blend of fact and fiction. Bill Nighy’s Inspector Kildare, “a man not of the marrying kind”, is thrown straight in the deep end, assigned to a seemingly unsolvable case against the titular Limehouse Golem serial killer. Intertwined to this narrative is the poisoning of John Cree (Sam Reid), who Kildare soon investigates as a suspect to the murders by linking him to a library where the Golem has attended. His actress wife, Elizabeth (Olivia Cooke) is also suspected and brought to trial and Kildare, convinced of her innocence, tries to save her but also use her recounting of events to try and catch the killer.

‘The Limehouse Golem’ is an adaptation by screenwriter Jane Goldman of Peter Ackroyd’s 1994 novel. This material suits Goldman to a tee, previously writing similarly Gothic material such as the excellent ‘The Woman in Black’. The film is directed by Juan Carlos Medina, who previously directed a film called ‘Painless’ which similarly intertwined two stories in the horror genre. An all-star cast round out the film with the ever-reliable Bill Nighy in the lead, replacing Alan Rickman after his sad death. Rising stars Olivia Cooke and Douglas Booth also star as does an almost unrecognisable Eddie Marsan who can always be relied on to elevate the quality of a film.

‘The Limehouse Golem’ is generally a solid film and thematically rich, knowingly investigating themes of duality, the theatre and performance, gender and blame. It boasts some very assured performances and particularly in its second half, has some well-executed twists and turns. However, the film is a little cluttered and severely lacks tension. There are many graphic blood splatterings and images of murdered bodies but the intended shock is never earned due to this lack of tension – there never really are any stakes. But when the film finds its footing in its second half and its narrative develops, it’s very solid and I did generally have a good time watching this film.

Elevating the material are the impressive performances by its cast and they don’t disappoint. I can’t remember the last time Bill Nighy has had a lead role in a film, but he is fantastic here as Inspector Kildare and proves why he is one of Britain’s finest actors. Olivia Cooke continues to impress after impressive turns in ‘The Quiet Ones’ and ‘Me and Earl and the Dying Girl’ and proves which she is one of Britain’s rising stars. She suits this film to a tee and really seems to revel in the horror-thriller genre. Douglas Booth’s theatre owner Dan Leno manages to pull off multiple performances that the character plays in productions. Daniel Mays as a policeman, George Flood, shares great chemistry with Nighy’s Inspector and Sam Reid also has good chemistry with Cooke’s suspected murdering wife. The ever-reliable Eddie Marsan, who is almost unrecognisable in this film, plays a very multi-dimensional character who walks a fine line between comedy and sternness.

The script by Jane Goldman is another fine one to add to her resume, who seemingly revels in the material. The film moves at quite a fast pace but not without neglecting to thoroughly investigate its characters and more importantly, its suspects. As the film progresses to its explosive finale, I started to really care for quite a few of its unpredictable characters. Both Medina and Goldman throughly delve into the film’s thematic elements, particularly through metatheatre. The stage is a big presence in the film and it is here that we see multiple sides to these different characters and their duality. It is also a place where both genders are portrayed in ways that challenge convention in their context.

A shortcoming, largely of Medina’s direction more than Goldman’s script is the film’s depriving of tension. There are many instances where the film could have implored more of this particularly prior to each of the grisly murders that are explicitly detailed on-screen, fully earning the film’s 15 rating. Medina, bizarrely, seems to just gloss over these and prioritises gore over what the audience cannot see. Perhaps if he had managed to carve a more nerve-wracking atmosphere prior to showing the murders, this would have been more thrilling but there really isn’t much horror in this film other than some bloody images. There was certainly scope for a more suspense-fuelled film in Goldman’s script but Medina seems to have overlooked this. It’s a testament to the quality of the characters and narrative that the film still manages to succeed.

‘The Limehouse Golem’ is another strong Victorian-set murder mystery film which is elevated by its strong analysis of its core themes. It features some very assured performances and a fine script. I was very satisfied by the film’s climax and where its narrative had developed and the film is generally quite intelligent and thoughtful. What it lacks though is atmosphere and tension which would really have elevated the film and cemented it into more of the horror genre as opposed to the grisly murders feeling quite mechanical and mere plot devices to advance the narrative. Otherwise, a generally solid effort and its plethora of talent do the film proud.

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)

Director: Patrick Hughes
Starring: Ryan Reynolds, Samuel L. Jackson, Gary Oldman, Salma Hayek, Elodie Yung, Joaquim de Almeida, Kirsty Mitchell, Sam Hazeldine, Richard E. Grant
Certificate: 15
Run Time: 118 mins

‘The Hitman’s Bodyguard’ is frankly, a terrible title for a film but if you look beyond this oversight, what you get here is what seemingly appears to be an old-school throwback 80’s style action film with two wisecracking actors, Ryan Reynolds and Samuel L. Jackson. The film has looked like an extremely fun film from its trailers with plenty of swearing and violence thrown in for good measure.  The story is rather run-of-the-mill where Reynolds and Jackson’s characters have to put aside their differences to take down a ruthless, merciless Belarussian director played by Gary Oldman. Where the film looks a little less promising is behind the scenes. The film is directed by Patrick Hughes of whom this is his third title to his belt after ‘Red Hill’ and the utterly awful ‘The Expendables 3′. Hughes’ career has been pretty patchy to say the least so far so one has to be weary of this film as a trailer can always look good but the film could be just as incoherent, humourless and overlong as the latter.

‘The Hitman’s Bodyguard’ doesn’t break any new ground and is quite simplistic on the narrative front. That said though, it is ashamedly enjoyable, the leads have fantastic chemistry and it’s really quite funny in parts. The film is a little wearing in places and overlong but Hughes actually has been able to craft a good-enough film here. He even shows considerably flair for the action sequences which are finely crafted. I was never bored throughout the film and it always managed to grab my attention.

The performances are what really propel this film and without the electric chemistry shared between Reynolds and Jackson, ‘The Hitman’s Bodyguard’ could have had a very different critical fate. Both Reynolds and Jackson play themselves in effect and both characters are suitably developed so we actually care for them as the film progresses. In particular, Samuel L. Jackson in great in anything he’s in and here is no exception. Out of the rest of the cast, Salma Hayek and Elodie Yung fare the best, the former as Jackson’s wife and the latter, Reynold’s ex. Gary Oldman is suitably ruthless as the over-the-top villain.

Perhaps the most impressive aspect of the film is in conjunction with the strong characters are the action sequences. An extended sequence set in Amsterdam later into the film is particularly impressive and I was really impressed with the camera work by Jules O’Loughlin and playfulness of the action being portrayed on-screen. Compared to ‘The Expendables 3’ which was lazily crafted and its action incoherent due to there being far too many edits, O’Loughlin manages to have a good variety of camera trickery. It’s a brilliant sequence that manages to blend action film tropes, innovation and stakes for the well-developed characters.

‘The Hitman’s Bodyguard’ is luckily not the disaster it could have been and whilst it holds its badge of pride high and it is a little obnoxious tonally, it is generally really solid and always fun. Reynolds and Jackson really help to anchor this film and combined with some thrilling action sequences elevate the material that these filmmakers had to work with. Had these two aspects not been so good, the film could seriously have suffered. I feel rather ashamed to have liked it as much as I did but ‘The Hitman’s Bodyguard’ ultimately makes for a dumb but fun Summer action flick with a beaming heart.

⭐⭐⭐ (Good)