Shelter (2026)

I'm sure you won't be too shocked when you hear that this latest Jason Statham movie has our lead portraying someone who was an extremely valuable, and deadly, asset, in a life lived before he then decided to get off the grid. You also shouldn't be surprised to find out that he has a good moral compass, despite the murky waters he used to swim in, and he ends up having to put his particular skills to good use again when he ends up caring for a young girl (Jessie, played by Bodhi Rae Breathnach) who suffers a great loss while trying to deliver supplies to his remote home.

That's how this all starts. You then get numerous armed men trying to trap The Stath, there's one main enemy (Bryan Vigier) more skilled and persistent than all of the others, and a couple of politically-motivated individuals (Naomi Ackie and Bill Nighy) start to approach the situation from two very different directions. Will Statham be able to keep Jessie safe while he punches, kicks, and shoots his way through the swarms of bad guys? What do you think?

Written by Ward Parry, who doesn't have too many other credits so far, this is a very basic action vehickle for Statham. Some may be disappointed by the relative lack of variety throughout the main action set-pieces, and there's a steadfast refusal to commit to a tone with more lightness or more grit and gore, but there's certainly enough here to appeal to the core demographic (aka Statham fans).

Director Ric Roman Waugh has spent a lot of his time recently helming Gerard Butler vehicles, which might make you think that his familiarity with formulaic action fare should stand him in good stead for this job. That's not the case though. He does a perfectly fine job, but it never turns into anything more than that. Fine.

Statham does what he usually does, and he knows what he's capable of. Given the right story, Statham can easily be one of the best of our modern action heroes on film. He always looks as if he knows what he's doing, he has heaps of charisma, and he never feels the need to wink or undermine the material (although this is where I yet again mention how much I wish he would also be used in more comedic roles after doing such a great job in Spy). Vigier also looks like a very capable baddie, Ackie and Nighy are allowed to enjoy roles they could play with their eyes closed, and there's a decent little bit of screentime for Daniel Mays. The other main person I have to mention is Breathnach though, who does a great job of being both a bit tough and vulnerable as she tries to rush around while staying within close enough proximity to the safety zone that is Statham.

All of these words are just a long way of saying that people predisposed to this will enjoy it. They probably won't love it though, and I don't think it is up there with the better Statham action movies. Some people will view that as a complete condemnation, depending on their view of his filmography. I view it as one to hesitantly recommend to those after some violent entertainment best accompanied with yours snacks and beverage of choice. 

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Netflix And Chill: The Thursday Murder Club (2025)

Okay, let me state this very clearly from the beginning, books and movies are very different things. You have to accept that they just cannot deliver the same experience. Liberties need to be taken when it comes to adapting something from the page to the screen. Having said that, I believe I made a mistake in rushing to read The Thursday Murder Club, a very successful murder mystery novel that started the lucrative fiction writer phase of Richard Osman's long and healthy career in the world of media and entertainment.

Let's get to the film anyway, and what it gets right. The Thursday Murder Club is set in a fairly luxurious retirement home, in which a few residents work together to see if they can find solutions to various cold cases. The club used to include an ex-PC named Penny (Susan Kirkby), but she is currently barely hanging on to life in the hospice wing. The main members are now Elizabeth (Helen Mirren), Ron (Pierce Brosnan), Ibrahim (Ben Kingsley), and, relative newcomer, Joyce (Celia Imrie). Each brings their own set of skills to the group, but Elizabeth appears to be the one with a past that has her most prepared for anything that can be thrown at them. And what ends up thrown at them is a new murder, a lot of suspects who seem very bleeding obvious, and ties between the past and present that recontextualize friendships and relationships. Oh, and then there's another murder.

Turned into screenplay form by Katy Brand and Suzanne Heathcote, The Thursday Murder Club would seem to be a hard film to get wrong. Chris Columbus is in the director's chair. The cast includes the four leads just mentioned, as well as Naomi Ackie and Daniel Mays as a couple of investigating officers, Henry Lloyd-Hughes and Tom Ellis as younger men who find themselves entangled in the creeping spiderwebs that the murder creates, and Jonathan Pryce, David Tennant, Geoff Bell, Paul Freeman, Ruth Sheen, and Richard E. Grant. It's a real pick 'n' mix of delightful performances.

So why does it feel like such a slog?

The dialogue generally works well, helped by the fact that it's being delivered by people who feel almost perfect in their roles (let's just not mention the accent that Brosnan uses), but the mystery feels half-baked and hard to care about. Having said this, I wonder if I feel that way because I just read the book. While I still stand by my opening statement, there are choices here that feel very odd, including a detail revealed in the very opening scenes that is actually held back in the book until a finale that shows all of the pieces finally falling into place. I can understand some things being omitted, one other plot strand would have required the runtime to have at least 5-10 minutes add on to what already pushes up close to the 2-hour mark, but that just makes it a bizarre experience for those who know the material well enough to know that certain characters and moments are only being hinted at while never being given the time and attention that they deserve.

Both the direction and writing feel trapped by a prison of their own design. They're either too beholden to the book, or they make strange decisions to veer away from elements that could have made the film a much more rewarding experience, for both readers and non-readers alike. And, as much as I complain about it as a new standard, would anyone be bothered if the runtime had been just over, instead of just under, two hours? Those ten extra minutes could have given us a very brief overview of two whole other lives, and those whole other lives feed into the main themes of aging, regret, and the repercussions of different choices made at crucial junctures.

Still, it's easy enough to forget the many mistakes and mis-steps made here when any scene revolves around Imrie having a twinkle in her eye and Mirren having a glint in hers. The cosy and easygoing feel of the whole thing will certainly appeal to those after something that feels like the movie equivalent of a comfortable pair of slippers. I just wish we'd been given nicer slippers. Slippers that stay warm and comfortable for the duration. Not the cheap kind that fall apart after one month of regular use. 

5/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Prime Time: Your Christmas Or Mine 2 (2022)

I enjoyed Your Christmas Or Mine? and I have to start this review by stating that I quite enjoyed Your Christmas Or Mine 2. It’s not as good as the first movie though, despite getting so many people to reprise their roles, both behind and in front of the camera. There’s a very specific reason for that, a notable flaw that becomes clear as things move into the third act, but I will get back to that momentarily.

The plot is simple enough. James (Asa Butterfield) and Hayley (Cora Kirk) are setting off on another Christmas holiday, but this time they intend to remain together. And their respective families are joining them. Unfortunately, a slight mix-up at their destination leads to Hayley and her family ending up in a super-lush and expensive hotel while James and his family end up in what amounts to little more than a large shed. This isn’t enough to sustain the whole movie though, and it’s only the first half of the movie that keeps the two families separate. The rest plays out with a number of misunderstandings, personality clashes, and talk of people living in different worlds. Can James and Hayley soldier through another holiday mishap, or will this be enough to make them call it quits?

Director Jim O’Hanlon once again does well in terms of the straightforward visuals onscreen here, and in the way that he allows every member of the large ensemble cast to capitalize on at least one moment that allows them to shine. There’s nothing spectacular or unexpected here, but it has a fluidity and polish that many other non-theatrical Christmas movies lack.

Writer Tom Parry, on the other hand, seems to stumble slightly. He’s able to come up with some fun moments for the supporting cast, but there are times when it feels as if one or two people are being written in a way that serves the plot, as opposed to feeling natural and in line with how they have previously behaved.

Kirk suffers worst at the hands of Parry, and the grand finale relies on her being a bit less reasonable and willing to listen. She still remains a character you root for, but that is more thanks to her onscreen glow than it is thanks to the script. The same can be said of Angela Griffin (returning as Hayley’s mother), who is given a moment or two when she reacts to someone irritating her with a sharpness and anger that feels at least slightly misdirected. Butterfield gets to be a bit awkward and nervy again, and his character doesn’t seem to change much, which leads to him having a much easier task. Elsewhere, Daniel Mays, Alex Jennings, David Bradley, and Natalie Gumede help to add the most humour to the film, with newcomer Jane Krakowski also a welcome addition, and a running joke about her best-selling book creating exponentially more giggles every time it is mentioned. Ram John Holder (Hayley’s granddad) has some wise words at the right time, and the two youngest characters once again amuse themselves while the adults go through their different dramas. I suppose I should also mention Rhea Norwood as Bea aka Plot Obstacle B.

Skiing mishaps, a goat to be wary of, thoughtful Christmas gifts, an evening of excessive alcohol intake, and more fun elements guarantee that most people will at least enjoy this. It just doesn’t quite add up to a wholly satisfying picture though, and I think many looking for the right balance of Christmasiness, comedy, and romance will end up revisiting the first movie again before this one. 

6/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Prime Time: Your Christmas Or Mine? (2022)

Hayley (Cora Kirk) and James (Asa Butterfield) are a young couple in love. They have been dating for a couple of months, but have to separate for the Christmas holidays. Hayley is heading to see her family (including her grandparents, some young, lively, brothers, an aunt embracing the her potential cougar status, and her mum and dad, played by Angela Griffin and Daniel Mays). James will be reuniting with his father (Alex Jennings). Except he won’t, because he decides to leave his train and join Hayley . . . who had decided to leave her train and join James. The two end up with very different experiences, and also learn about the secrets they have been withholding from their families, as well as one another, while lessons are learned and the weather keeps disrupting plans for them to get to their respective homes.

Your Christmas Or Mine? is a lot of fun, benefiting from a better budget and cast than most, but still resolutely selling itself as a typical Christmas film in many ways. There’s a lot of snow, you have at least one fun montage, different people share their different holiday traditions, and, most importantly, some people end the film in a radically different place from where they started. There’s at least one grumpy “Scrooge” who doesn’t embrace the spirit of the season, and one dead parent who plays a defining role in the lives of some of the main characters.

There are also some big chuckles here. Nothing that will necessarily top any “greatest comedy of all time” lists, but writer Tom Parry allows a number of abrupt and cheeky moments that may occasionally make you choke slightly on your mince pie and cocoa as you enjoy a well-placed insult, surprise, or implied naughtiness. Everything stays fairly family-friendly, but Parry knows exactly how far he can go with the warm banter and rude words.

Director Jim O’Hanlon is equally assured, and it shows how well both writer and director have honed their craft over the years spent working on a wide variety of TV projects. O’Hanlon paces everything perfectly, using the obvious transitions and manipulative shot choices to play viewers like a fiddle, and the effective score by Paul Saunderson only assists with the emotional manipulation. Did I know how everything would play out? Yes. Were one or two small surprises enough to keep me even more engaged during the 95-minute runtime? Yes. Did I still get a lump in my throat at various times during the third act, despite knowing where this was all going? I couldn’t possibly confirm or deny that.

Butterfield and Kirk are a winning combination in the lead roles, even if the former still needs to somehow stop his big eyes seeming to take up half the screen. Although I am not familiar with Kirk, I hope to see her in more movie roles soon. She has an easygoing likability and works best when her character is allowed to remain cheery and optimistic. Griffin and Mays also work very well together, having a lovely chemistry onscreen that makes them feel like a genuine married couple, warts and all. Jennings has to be the stiff-lipped and grim character, certainly for most of his screentime, and he does very well in that role. In fact, his delivery of lines that show him teetering on the edge of being more emotional ended up moving me more because of his refusal to ever fully show any “weakness”. There are also enjoyable performances from Harriet Walter, Natalie Gumede, June Watson, Ram John Holder, Lucien Laviscount, David Bradley, and Mark Heap, as well as Aston Wray and Harris Kiiza, playing those aforementioned young brothers.

Probably due to be viewed as just as disposable, ultimately, as many other films made for the Christmas TV schedules, Your Christmas Or Mine? deserves a bit more attention and appreciation. It may work with a familiar template, but it’s certainly miles away from, and much better than, the kind of thing we see rolling off the Christmas movie production line at this time of year. If my final rating doesn’t seem to reflect that, it’s worth noting that I am actually rating it AS a movie, and not just as a Christmas movie.

7/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

The Limehouse Golem (2016)

Bill Nighy has, let's face it, been making a lot of people happy by playing what we all consider a version of Bill Nighy onscreen for the past couple of decades. He's the elderly gent with a wry sense of humour, ready to give us a wink before heading off to the dancefloor with a crowd of youngsters who have embraced his good company. He's basically the cool uncle at a wedding party, although that means you sometimes roll your eyes when he shows up because you know he's going to be there a bit too long, might still be wearing jeans when they don't suit him, and will probably ask the DJ for a bit of Whigfield near the end of the night. Some people will always enjoy those moments, whereas some people will start to feel bitter about him. I am in the former camp, but I can see why people may start falling into the latter camp.

Why have I started this review with that rambling, poor, analogy about an uncle at a wedding party? Well, The Limehouse Golem is an interesting and surprising film for many reasons, but the main one may be what a great lead role it hands to Bill Nighy. And he does so well with it that you are reminded of how talented the man is. Like meeting that cool uncle during the week, when he is in between meetings during a typically busy work day. The fun aspect of him is just that, one aspect.

Anyway, let me get to the film itself. Directed by Juan Carlos Medina, who previously gave us Painless AKA Insensibles, this is a very dark murder mystery, so bloody on the odd occasion that most horror fans should be kept happy enough, set during a time in London not that far removed from the exploits of Jack The Ripper. Indeed, this feels very much like a Jack The Ripper film in all but name. It's based on a book by Peter Ackroyd, and the script was written by Jane Goldman (possibly her best work), but I have no idea if the source material tries to make things more or less . . . "Ripper-esque".

Nighy plays John Kildare, a lawman tasked with solving the series of murders perpetrated by a mysterious figure people have taken to referring to as The Limehouse Golem. Kildare is a man who has already had his reputation questioned, due to his perceived aversion to female company, and he knows that he has been given this case as a pretty hopeless endeavour. He will take the expected fall if no culprit is caught. Olivia Cooke plays Lizzie Cree, a woman put on trial for the crime of poisoning her husband, and the two tales quickly intertwine as Kildare starts to suspect that helping Lizzie may actually help him solve the case. He believes that she knows something she doesn't want to reveal to the public, a secret she may end up taking to the grave if she is found guilty, and he wants to gain her trust, learn her full story, and kill two birds with one stone, so to speak.

Nighy is just great in all of his scenes here. He doesn't overdo things, this isn't a role looking to squeeze comedy out of his usual demeanour and mannerisms, and viewers get to stick close to him and his appointed assistant (Daniel Mays) as clues are uncovered and witnesses questioned. Cooke is also excellent, allowed much more screentime as the investigation delves deeper and deeper into her life story. Douglas Booth and Sam Reid both do well, playing men in Lizzie's life, and also suspects in the case (the latter is the murdered husband - no spoiler, that is how the film begins), and you also get enjoyable performances from Eddie Marsan and Maria Valverde.

Every aspect of this production is polished and handled with care. Medina brings everything together beautifully, with impressive camerawork throughout allowing viewers to be fully immersed in the world depicted onscreen. It's grimy and gorgeous at the same time, with impressive sound design and an effective score also helping, yet none of the details or flourishes ever detract from the performances that sell every scene. The structure may disappoint some - shock opener, a hefty middle section full of characterisation and details, fairly swift resolution - but it will work well for those who don't need jumps or set-pieces every 10-15 minutes. Sometimes the joy is in the destination, sometimes in the journey. The joy here is in both.

Goldman deserves a decent amount of praise for her script. It's masterful in the handling of the characters, with plenty of ambiguity throughout to keep viewers guessing the identity of the killer, alongside Kildare. And I must say, as slow as I can sometimes be with movies like this, I was very impressed by the finale.

I am sure that many sharper viewers will be unsurprised by anything the film delivers, and it does enough to allow you to be one or two steps ahead of the main characters, but I loved how it was put together, and I was also surprised by one or two moments throughout. Highly recommended.

9/10

You can get The Limehouse Golem here on bluray.
Or here, Americanos.

Byzantium (2012)

Director Neil Jordan is no stranger to the vampire movie. He did, quite famously, bring Interview With The Vampire to the big screen, somehow managing to craft a brilliant film despite the death of one of the original cast members (River Phoenix), criticism from author Anne Rice (who eventually recanted when she saw the final result), and ridicule from everyone who thought Tom Cruise incapable of effectively portraying the vampire Lestat. Well, Byzantium may not be quite the achievement that Interview With The Vampire is/was, but it's another very good film from a director who provides viewers with consistently interesting works, barring one or two mis-steps.

Gemma Arterton and Saoirse Ronan are the two young women being a bit vampiric. They seem to be able to walk about in daylight, and don't sleep in coffins or anything, but when it comes time to label their characters . . . . . . . . . vampire is the most suitable title. Struggling to make ends meet and avoid scrutiny from the authorities, the two seem stuck in a vicious cycle, with Arterton's character using sex to make money and help her look after the youngster. But things are complicated by a young man (Caleb Landry Jones) who takes more than a passing interest in Ronan's character. As things build up to a climax, viewers are also told more and more of the main backstory to the characters, a tale that allows Jordan to once again refresh and play with the mythology of vampirism.

Not quite as interesting or thought-provoking as it could be, Byzantium is nevertheless a solid entry into the vampire movie subgenre. Written by Moira Buffini, adapting from her own play (and, admirably, the film never feels stagey at any time), there are some very interesting ideas toyed with, including a theory about vampirism being quite a "men only" club, but not enough time given to any of them.

Jordan does his usual great work as director, but his work here is often downplaying anything that would make the story too pretty or evocative of past horror work. This is the life of a vampire shown in all of its mundanity. Sitting between the fangs-out fun of films such as The Lost Boys, and Vamp, and the grimy, downbeat likes of Martin and The Addiction, Byzantium shows just how boring eternal life can be when it means always having to move along every few years and never being able to get close to anyone.

Arterton and Ronan are both fantastic in the lead roles, with the former really making it easy to believe how men could be won over by her, and the latter doing a great job of being an old head on young shoulders. Caleb Landry Jones overdoes the strangeness of his character, and his accent/mumbling doesn't help, but there are better supporting turns from Daniel Mays, as a very sweet man who becomes smitten, Sam Riley, Uri Gavriel, Tom Hollander, Maria Doyle Kennedy, and Jonny Lee Miller, having great fun as a complete bastard.

Although this is the weakest of the recent crop of vampire movies from the past few years (fans of fangs will most certainly want to check out We Are The Night and Kiss Of The Damned), it's still well worth a watch thanks to most of the main performances, a few great visual moments, and a thoughtful script.

7/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Byzantium-Blu-ray-Gemma-Arterton/dp/B00BJ0RLMK/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1390686045&sr=1-1&keywords=byzantium+blu