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 

A Working Man (2025)

Considering the success that came from director David Ayer helming The Beekeeper last year, it was no surprise to hear about him working once again with Jason Statham in a vehicle that seemed tailor-made for his particular skillset. I was keen to see this as soon as I heard about it, and a standard trailer that basically showed me getting more of the Statham antics that had complemented his apiary time last year didn't do anything to dampen my enthusiasm.

Statham plays Levon Cade, a working man (ahem) with a military background that he's trying to leave in his past. He remains a formidable force though, and is asked to do what the police can't when his employers fear for the life of their daughter (Jenny, played by Arianna Rivas). Jenny has been snatched by human traffickers, caught up in a criminal web overseen by numerous Russian gangsters. Most people would be intimidated by such villains. Not Statham though. He'll tear through those baddies as if they were wet toilet paper.

I don't know why I bothered to write out that description because it doesn't really matter. This is a Jason Statham movie in which Jason Statham encounters a number of escalating problems that he can always manage to sort out with violence. It's very similar to many other Jason Statham movies, and that's not a bad thing for those who enjoy watching him do his stuff. The editing is a bit overdone at times, and the lighting doesn't always help, but it's very much in line with a lot of other action fare.

Based on a book, "Levon's Trade", by Chuck Dixon, this particular slice of kick-ass retribution is co-written by Ayer and Sylvester Stallone. Stallone has written for Statham previously (Homefront, based on a book by Chuck Logan, so maybe he just likes to adapt books written by people named Chuck), but this feels very much like a film that he would write with himself in mind for the lead role. There's more of an even balance between the fists flying and the gunfire, there's a sequence in which our hero speeds over some uneven terrain on a chunky motorbike, and the final confrontation feels as if it could easily have upped the numbers to allow for one or two Expendable-adjacent cameos adding even more firepower.

Statham remains an excellent lead, and he remains convincing enough when it comes to the action. This isn't going to convert anyone, but it should easily please those who know what they're letting themselves in for. Rivas is suitably likable and plucky in her role, although she's obviously sidelined for most of the runtime, and David Harbour has a bit of fun in his supporting role (playing a blind veteran friend who is ready to help our hero stock up on guns when it's needed). There are few highlights elsewhere though, with none of the many villains, minor or major, given enough truly great moments. Emmett J Scanlan, Eve Mauro, Maximilian Osinski, and Merab Ninidze fail to make the strong impression that they should. Jason Flemyng does better, but isn't around for long, and Chidi Ajufo seems set to engage in a grand confrontation that sadly never materialises, and they are the highlights. Isla Gie is okay as the the young daughter of our hero, allowing us to remember that he's a loving father who wants to get home in one piece, and many others jostle onscreen to be pushed to safety or punched in the face by The Stath.

Here's the main thing about A Working Man though. It's just not as good as many other Statham films, and it's definitely not as much fun as The Beekeeper. All we need is a nice and simple journey that has Statham moving up a ladder of criminals until he reaches the head honcho, but what A Working Man does is try to add a variety of extra steps that ultimately lessen the enjoyment and slow down any momentum. The finale doesn't even feel as satisfying as it should due to the network of higher-ups that seem positioned to cause problems in an inevitable sequel. Ayer can handle this kind of material, as he proved last year, but the script causes problems here. A weak script doesn't always matter for a decent action movie, just as it doesn't matter when it comes to certain horror movies, but you need enough bone-crunching action to distract from it. This doesn't quite get the balance right, which is a shame, although there are enough moments here and there to please fans of Statham doing Statham stuff.

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, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
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 

Expend4bles (2023)

If there was ever a prime modern movie example of nominative determinism then I suggest you can find it here, where a fourth Expendables movie has been co-written by someone named Tad Daggerhart. He sounds like he should BE one of The Expendables, never mind writing their adventures. And, judging by this mess, maybe he could have improved things.

This is another film in which Sylvester Stallone leads a team of tough guys on a dangerous mission. Except he sort of doesn’t. So it is a film in which Jason Statham is put front and centre as the new leader. Except he sort of isn’t. So it’s up to Megan Fox to be sexy and badass, which she sort of . . . you get the picture. Nothing here works, nothing, and any further attempt to summarize the plot would simply give you false hope. Let’s just all be clear that this is a film that starts with Stallone getting his tough mate to confront and beat up a bar full of guys because he lost his ring in a gambling session. It wasn’t stolen. He wasn’t duped. He got drunk and sloppy, lost his precious ring, and now storms back in like some kid who has made up a story about another kid he wants to see cry when his dad gives him a telling off.

As well as Daggerhart, this mess was co-written by Kurt Wimmer (who at least did much better with Statham on his most recent film, The Beekeeper) and Max Adams. I am not sure if they had much freedom with the writing, a lot of these movies seem to be plotted around the stars and their screen presence, but they have to now shoulder the blame nonetheless.

The direction from Scott Waugh doesn’t help. Waugh has a few films under his belt now, none of them are particularly great, but few are as bad as this, and he seems unable to do the best with any material he is given. His best asset here is the cast, because he also has Tony Jaa and Iko Uwais at his disposal, but they are almost uniformly wasted.

Sly does what Sly always does, even if he steps back this time around to let others take more of the strain and the bruises, and Statham is as dependable as ever when he is given a decent amount of screentime. That is the big problem though. A whole host of people are here, with none of them getting to do anything truly worthwhile. Jaa is wasted, Uwais is wasted, Fox is wasted. Dolph Lundgren? Levy Tran? Andy Garcia? All wasted. But at least there’s time for Randy Coutoure and Jacob Scipio to have some unfunny and unwanted banter together, and 50 Cent gets to be part of the team long enough to be involved in a scene that creates a diversion using . . . a 50 Cent song.

I have enjoyed all of these movies, to some degree, and I am quite easily pleased. Not to offend a large group of people, but I think the majority of those who lapped up the blend of nostalgia and action presented in this concept are generally as easy to please as myself. This doesn’t please anyone though. It seems to forget the main reason why anyone would want to see an Expendables movie, which is a real shame. Easily the worst of the lot, and I hope they stop now before figuring out some way to hit a new low.

3/10

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

The Beekeeper (2024)

I wasn’t really sure what to expect from this Jason Statham vehicle, especially with director David Ayer working from a script by Kurt Wimmer, and, as the credits rolled, I still wasn’t really sure what I had just watched. Was it good? Was every choice a deliberate one? Was I supposed to care about a twist I could see coming a mile away? I was sure of one thing though. I had fun with it.

Statham is the titular beekeeper, minding his hives and minding his own business. He is invited to dinner by a kindly woman he knows (Phylicia Rashad), but only finds a corpse when he gets there. The woman has been scammed by hackers, losing all of her money and all of the money that belonged to a charity organisation she worked for. Raging at the injustice, Statham decides to return to his role of Beekeeper aka a super-deadly agent who works to protect the hive. The bodies soon start to pile up as the beekeeping analogy is used over and over again, and Statham has to face overwhelming odds on the way to his final target.

What you get here is ridiculous, but it is all being handled by people who seem to know it is ridiculous, whether they are onscreen or behind the camera. As often as I rolled my eyes, I was also smiling at the mix of extreme violence and goofy plotting.

Wimmer should never be a first choice for any screenplay, I won’t traumatise anyone again by mentioning some of his past “glories”, but his material is improved here by a game cast all very aware of what they have gotten themselves into.

Is Ayer a safe pair of hands when it comes to the action? I would say yes. Set-pieces could be smoother, but there is some inventiveness in each main sequence, and he doesn’t allow for the film to be over-edited into incomprehensibility. He could do better, but we have seen the results of him doing a lot worse.

It’s worth remembering, however, that neither Wimmer nor Ayer will be the big draw here (although they do have their fans). This film is being sold as a Statham vehicle, and it delivers on that front. Our leading man has a lot of fun here, doing his usual gruff and deadly schtick, and there’s a real feeling of glee as he throws subtlety to the win at the very start of the film, portraying a character so sure of himself that he will often just enter any confrontation head-on, even telling villains exactly what he is planning to do next. On his tail are two cops (played by Emmy Raver-Lampman and Bobby Naderi), one being the daughter of the deceased, and they are good extra obstacles for The Stath, who doesn’t want to harm anyone innocent. Both Raver-Lampman and Naderi do well in roles that could have been eminently forgettable, especially when interacting with the villains. Ahhhhh, the villains. This is another big plus for the film, especially when Josh Hutcherson swaggers around as some kind of ultimate douche-bro. If you start to suspect that Hutcherson’s character belongs in a ‘90s movie, you will have that suspicion confirmed in a final act that brings on a character named Lazarus (Taylor James) who could have easily been in one of the first two Lethal Weapon movies. Although playing very different types of baddies, Hutcherson and James are equally fun for every minute of their screentime. The same can be said of David Witts, and there is some amusing scenery-chewing from Jeremy Irons, Minnie Driver (in a brief cameo role), and Jemma Redgrave.

Not necessarily an essential cinema viewing, The Beekeeper is an entertaining action flick that feels enjoyably “old school”, in terms of the characters and plotting, without also feeling as if it is trying too hard. Funny and violent, making much better use of Statham than a couple of other recent releases I could mention, this might just give you the action movie buzz you seek.

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
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Meg 2: The Trench (2023)

I like nonsense. Anyone who knows me can tell you that, and many people who know me actually assume that I tend to choose to watch nonsense over anything else most days. That isn't true though. But I can be easily entertained by films that others don't want to waste their time on. Nonsense has to hit the right spot though, and that ties directly to the logic contained within a movie. If a film is full of magic or sci-fi elements that throw the rules of our world out the window then that's fine. If there are monsters on the prowl then that's fine. Unbelievable fights that look great and feature people who at least look as if they can handle themselves? Again . . . fine. Meg 2: The Trench is not the right kind of nonsense though. It's bad nonsense. The kind of nonsense that shows someone imploding when they have a problem with their suit deep underwater moments before it shows someone exiting a structure to swim elsewhere to open an airlock . . . at a depth of 25,000 feet. Yes, Meg 2: The Trench asks viewers to accept that a human being can swim around, however briefly, at a depth of 25,000 feet. I gave up at that point, saddened by a film that seemed destined to alternate between making me balk and making me bored.

While the first film was based around the appeal of watching Jason Statham versus a giant shark, Meg 2: The Trench moves away from the simplicity of that idea. There’s one trained shark in the mix (maybe, but maybe it’s not possible to train a shark), there are more megalodons, there are a few land creatures, and a huge octopus-like people-eater (shown via the huge tentacles that grab “snacks” and cause carnage). Statham is still present, of course, but he is wasted, alongside the rest of the human cast, for most of the runtime, stuck in a very dull plot about corporate treachery and sabotage.

Written by the same writers who delivered the first film - Dean Georgaris, Jon Hoeber, and Erich Hoeber, all once again working from source material by Steve Alten - and directed by Ben Wheatley, it’s clear that the main aim here is to revel in silliness. Unfortunately, the silliness doesn’t work, and it doesn’t fill up as much of the runtime as it should. Seriously, who wants a Meg movie with so much time devoted to a sub-plot about scheming business folk?

Statham gets to do what he does well enough, but not often enough, and he remains a good fit for this material, delivering awful dialogue with ease and jumping around between sea monsters that we know he will need to defeat in battle. The other main stars worth mentioning are Cliff Curtis, Page Kennedy, and Wu Jing. The former two reprise their roles from the first film, with Kennedy being a lot of fun whenever he gets to show how he has learned to try and protect himself more from the danger of ginormous sharks, while Jing lends his name to a project that sorely mistreats him (fans of his work may be disappointed by how he is ultimately sidelined in favour of the Statham versus sharks plotting. There are some others in the cast, there to either be kept safe or turned into food for the big beasts, but I don’t want to spend time complaining about bad performances from people who aren’t given anything decent to work with.

The Meg was a disappointment, but it had enough fun moments to still make it worthwhile, just. This sequel is an awful mess, arguably something that the film-makers assume is saved by some of the special effects and ridiculous moments packed into the finale. I disagree with them. I stopped caring about anyone onscreen very early on, and I certainly couldn’t muster up any enthusiasm when it seemed as if the film finally remembered what it was supposed to be for the last 15-20 minutes. I hope Wheatley is satisfied now that he’s got this out of his system (although it has brought in some big bucks thanks to the way it pandered to the Chinese market for a box office win there), and I hope any future instalments in the series avoid boring me as much as this one did.

3/10

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: Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre (2023)

Guy Ritchie has certainly settled into a new groove in recent years. His output has increased, and he seems to enjoy moving between comedy capers, like this one, and darker fare (such as Wrath Of Man and his upcoming film, The Covenant AKA Guy Ritchie’s The Covenant). Working again with Ivan Atkinson and Marn Davies on the screenplay, Ritchie and his cast probably had a lot of fun making this. It’s a shame that viewers don’t get to enjoy themselves quite as much as those onscreen.

Something has been stolen, and it is due to be sold off to the highest bidder. It’s not important to know exactly what the stolen item is. It’s important to know that it is very dangerous. The person most likely to be brokering that deal is the super-rich and super-dodgy Greg (Hugh Grant). A team is assembled to get close to Greg. That team is made up of action man Orson (Jason Statham), tech whizz Sarah (Aubrey Plaza), and a man who can support both, JJ (Bugzy Malone). Cary Elwes plays Nathan, the man trying to remain in charge of this small team, and problems arise when he realises that they aren’t the only ones assigned to this job. But they are the only ones who come up with the idea of getting close to Greg by introducing him to his favourite actor, Danny (Josh Hartnett).

I am not going to use this review to try and pretend that I didn’t enjoy this film (and to hell with typing out that unnecessarily unwieldy title every time I am referring to it). This is a fun time, thanks largely to the cast obviously having fun in their roles, but it’s an insubstantial and lesser fun time than many other films directed by Ritchie.

Timing is a big part of that, especially when the central idea is so close to the plot of The Unbearable Weight Of Massive Talent (which had the added bonus of letting Nicolas Cage playing a version of Nicolas Cage), but there’s also a script issue. This is an action comedy that doesn’t quite have enough action or comedy in it, and I cannot imagine how people will react to this if they aren’t already fans of the cast.

Statham is on good form in the lead role, doing what he does well (being charming, cocky, and good at punching people in the face), and both Plaza and Malone work well alongside him, the former getting more of the laughs with her constant playfulness and teasing. Elwes has to roll his eyes often as he tries to keep his team in order, and he is subsequently ordered around by Eddie Marsan, fun in an all-too-small role, while Peter Ferdinando does well as the head of the secondary team. Hartnett has a great time portraying a slightly precious actor, roped into a scheme he would rather know nothing about, and Grant delivers yet another hilarious rogue that seems to be his forte nowadays.

A lot of people will enjoy this. There certainly isn’t much here to hate. It just doesn’t do anything as well as expected though, sadly, with the 114-minute runtime feeling overlong, the soundtrack disappointingly sticking very much in the background, no major set-pieces, and a third act that lacks real tension. Nobody ever feels as if they are ever in proper danger, which means that you never get the sense of the stakes being very high. I don’t regret passing some time with this, especially as I like every main player, but I would rewatch either The Gentlemen or Wrath Of Man ahead of it, and I highly recommend both of those films to anyone who hasn’t seen them yet. The former is in line with the tone of this film, the latter is quite a bit darker and more violent.

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

Prime Time: Wrath Of Man (2021)

Guy Ritchie seems to be on a bit of a roll at a moment, having made use of his blockbuster success with the Sherlock Holmes movies to play around a bit more with projects that feel more in line with his earlier works without just feeling like regurgitated "mix tapes" of his past glories. Wrath Of Man may be a remake of a 2004 movie, Le Convoyeur (sadly, I haven't seen the original yet), but it's also great material for Ritchie to slot one of his favourite stars into.

There's also a great remix of Folsom City Blues, familiar already to anyone who saw the trailer. Yes, it's so good that I am mentioning it here before I forget to mention it at all.

Jason Statham is H, a man who gets himself a job at a cash truck company. The company had a truck robbed some months before, a robbery that resulted in some deaths, but H doesn't seem bothered by the risk inherent in his new role. In fact, he seems to want robbers to try their luck with him. He definitely has his own agenda, and there's a lot more to him than he is revealing to his new work colleagues.

Having worked on the screenplay with Ivan Atkinson and Marn Davies (who also worked on The Gentlemen and the upcoming Operation Fortune: Ruse de guerre), Ritchie uses a familiar bag of tricks - the friendly faces, a non-chronological approach to the main storyline, a good helping of dry wit - to sugarcoat what may well be his darkest film yet. The film is broken into a number of chapters and one, entitled "Scorched Earth", stands out as being a mix of the cinematically stylish and the incredibly nihilistic. It's a flesh-coloured trip through a circle of hell that shows Statham's character beginning his quest for whatever it is that he's seeking.

Aside from Statham, being as great as ever in the lead role, the rest of the cast includes some fine supporting turns. Holt McCallany enjoys one of his best ever movie roles as Bullet, one of the main company staff members, straight-talking and with the potential key to information that would prove invaluable to H. Josh Hartnett is good fun as the "all mouth, no trousers" Boy Sweat Dave, Eddie Marsan is the depot boss, Jeffrey Donovan is someone who thinks they have a perfect robbery planned, and Scott Eastwood does his best work yet (not saying much though, compared to how bland so many of his other performances have been) as Jan, a robber with the kind of attitude that you just know is going to lead to trouble. There are other people doing good work here - Andy Garcia, Niamh Algar, Alex Ferns, Darrell D'Silva, etc - but they're very much minor moons orbiting the planets at the heart of the big set-pieces, although D'Silva still does enough to make himself an easy highlight.

I'll want to see the original movie at some point, and some people have said that it's a superior work, but this surprised me with how good it was. It's a classic tale of revenge, and the structure of the narrative helps the pacing and increases the tense gathering of thunderclouds and the impact of the storm that you just know is coming along in the third act. It's not one to watch if you want an action thriller grounded in any kind of reality, but it's a perfect choice if you want a superior Statham vehicle that has plenty of bloodshed, fun dialogue, a cause you end up rooting for, and a number of set-ups that are all paid off before the end credits roll.

8/10

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

Netflix And Chill: War (2007)

Sometimes you are hunting around for the right thing to watch on a Saturday evening and you remember a Jason Statham movie you have yet to see. Not only that, but this particular Statham movie also features Jet Li in a main role.  

Statham plays an FBI agent named Crawford who is after a deadly assassin named Rogue (Li). Rogue apparently killed Crawford’s partner, Tom, as well as Tom’s wife and child. He now seems to be killing off both Triads and Yakuza, which makes his motivation very puzzling. 

If you haven’t heard of director Philip G. Atwell then the opening scenes of this movie will make clear why. I haven’t seen a director make action quite so headache-inducing since I endured the second Resident Evil movie. I was completely unsurprised to find that Atwell has a background based largely in the music video world, an approach to the film format he isn’t able to shake off here. 

I was equally unsurprised to see that this was the first full script from Lee Anthony Smith and Gregory J. Bradley, two men who decided to blend a bunch of action movie clichés with one or two frankly preposterous plot twists. Yet the silliness of everything helps to make it more enjoyable as it all moves towards an action-packed finale. 

Despite the efforts of Atwell, this is a hard film to truly hate. There are some decent set-pieces, the pacing is surprisingly good for a film that runs to approximately 110 minutes, and you at least have your star power. 

They may not interact as often as viewers would like, but Statham and Li are given enough moments to do what fans will want to see them do. The former is left to do the less exciting stuff, he is piecing together a puzzle that can only be fully revealed in the very last scenes, but he still does his usual thing with conviction. Li is his expected mix of quiet and power, and gets some decent fight sequences in the second half of the film. There are also solid supporting turns from John Lone, Devon Aoki, Ryo Ishibashi, Mathew St. Patrick, Sung Kang, Luis Guzmán, and Saul Rubinek. 

Violent, silly, and entertaining. It’s the least you expect from a Statham action thriller. One of his lesser films, but still an okay watch. 

5/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019)

Anyone who knows my view on the Fast & Furious franchise should predict that I was optimistic, yet also very cautious, about this spin-off. The car-based core series has often entertained me, they peaked with the mix of action and ridiculousness in the sixth and seventh instalments, and then eight just went too far over into the kind of silliness that kept taking me out of the movie. This film, pairing up Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham for their own action-packed adventure, looked enjoyably silly from the first trailer I saw.

And it is. Which was a huge relief for me. This film makes it obvious from the very beginning that the central characters are almost superhuman and your brain shouldn't spend too much time calculating the odds of all of their plans and stunts being physically possible.

Written by Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce, the story concerns a deadly virus, a cybernetically-enhanced supervillain (Brixton, played by Idris Elba), and a young woman named Hattie (Vanessa Kirby) who has already tried to defeat Brixton, but finds herself defeated. Fortunately, Hattie is the sister of Shaw (Statham), which is why he is asked to help, along with the one person he really doesn't want to be paired up with, Hobbs (Johnson). This isn't a one-man job though, and working together may be the key to any chance of success, which would also basically save the world.

Directed by David Leitch (who previously did such good work on Deadpool 2), this is big dumb fun that runs for just over two and a quarter hours (do any major action movies nowadays manage to come in at a brisk 90 minutes?) and manages to entertain from start to finish, thanks to the comedic tone of the script, the charisma of everybody with a major role, and the pacing. The set-pieces are enjoyable loony, with as many challenges as possible thrown at our heroes while they generally outrun, out-think and out-fight everyone around them.

If you enjoyed the interplay between Johnson and Statham in Fast & Furious 8 (which, let's be honest, was at its best when they were onscreen) then I don't see any way that you wouldn't enjoy this. They remain amusingly antagonistic towards one another, and competitive when it comes to who can despatch the most disposable henchmen, and both men get an equal amount of time to show off. Elba is a fantastic villain, and he appears to be having a lot of fun in the role, and Kirby is as good as, if not better than, anyone else onscreen, with a tough attitude and a badass skillset ensuring that she can hold her own in any of the major action sequences (including a scene in which she believably takes on Johnson). Helen Mirren reprises her role, as the mother of the Shaws, and entertains once again in her one main scene, and Eddie Marsan is good value in a small supporting role, a Russian Professor who may be able to help ensure the virus can't harm others.

Plenty of punches are thrown, you get a few moments of vehicular mayhem, there are a couple of fun cameos (which I won't spoil here), and those who are patient enough to sit through the end credits will be rewarded with numerous little extra scenes, which are also a lot of fun. I doubt anybody is going to spend too much dissecting this, or searching for hidden meanings or metaphors, because it's absolutely not that kind of film. But I am pretty certain that it will please most action movie fans, and be on regular rotation when it comes to the home media market later in the year. I know I'll be getting it, and am already looking forward to a rewatch.

8/10

The Meg (2018)

Let's all be honest with one another, The Meg should have been advertised as "Stath vs Shark" because that is what everyone is paying to see. The shark in question may be a megalodon but that doesn't mean it has an advantage over the mighty Stath.

The plot is fairly simple, of course. Some deep sea explorers go even deeper than they expected, penetrating a cloud layer that hides a potential whole new ecosystem, and maybe even a new species or two. Unfortunately, their exploration gains the attention of a humongous killer shark (the meg of the title), and the majority of the movie is spent with the humans trying to avoid becoming fish food while they figure out how to destroy the monster.

Yet, whatever else is thrown onscreen, The Meg is all about Stath vs Shark, and it is in those pure moments that the film comes closest to being as entertaining as I wanted it to be. Stath uses his courage and smarts to outwit the killing machine, often escaping by the skin of his teeth (or, indeed, the skin on the soles of his feet as the shark bites the water just inches from him).

It is just a huge shame that the rest of the film doesn't come close, hampered by pedestrian direction from Jon Turteltaub, a lack of much-needed gore and bloodshed, and a script that makes the mistake of thinking viewers need fleeting attempts to be earnest in between scenes of a big shark out to chomp everything in its path. The novels by Steve Alten may be a lot of fun, although I haven't read them so cannot comment definitively on their quality or entertainment factor, but writers Dean Georgaris and Jon and Eric Hoeber are unable to shape and polish what should have been an easy "win".

It's hard to fault the cast, who work with a script that is constantly undermining them with poor dialogue and a wildly uneven tone, but it's also hard to forgive everyone when compared against those who pitch their performance just right. Statham does well in the lead, which is a saving grace, and he's almost matched by Rainn Wilson, playing the required douchebag of the film (although, to be fair, he isn't depicted as irredeemably bad, he's just not half as smart as he thinks he is). Ruby Rose, Cliff Curtis, and Page Kennedy all do quite well, as does the little girl playing young Meiying, the one child amongst the adults. Those faring much worse include poor Li Bingbing and Winston Chao, both suffering when involved in the scenes that try to be more earnest, and also Jessica McNamee and Robert Taylor.

There are fun moments throughout, and the whole movie is saved by the timing of the set-pieces, but The Meg is another big, dumb blockbuster that proves that size isn't everything. Great CGI and special effects can't make up for the laziness of the jump scares, the outright laughable dialogue, and the fact that the characters are so paper-thin that I'm amazed they don't disintegrate as soon as they come into contact with the seawater.

5/10

The Meg will be surfacing here.
Americans can give it a wave here.

The Expendables 3 (2014)

Well, here we are again. I enjoyed The Expendables, as did many other people. The Expendables 2, on the other hand, fell a bit flat. It was too busy being smug and self-referential to work as well as the first movie. Thankfully, this third outing is a bit of a return to form.

The plot this time sees Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone) recruiting some newcomers to help him track down a very bad man (Mel Gibson) who was once one the same team as Barney. But will the newcomers be up to the task? Or will Barney still need some help from his regular colleagues (Jason Statham, Dolph Lundgren, Terry Crews, Randy Couture, and Jet Li)?

That's all you need to know. The essence of the movie has already been made clear from the advertising campaing. If you haven't seen it then let me surmise it for you just now: STALLONE, STATHAM, LUNDGREN, CREWS, COUTURE, LI, SCHWARZENEGGER, BANDERAS, SNIPES, FORD, ROUSEY, ORTIZ, LUTZ, POWELL, GIBSON. If this is successful enough to lead to a fourth movie then they're going to need a much bigger poster, because it's all about mixing the action beats with more star power than you'd usually glean from a dozen movies of this ilk. Everyone does a good enough job, all clearly having fun, and that fun is infectious. Gibson is a bit underused, although he does his best with the role, but these movies always struggle to give everyone enough screentime (Harrison Ford only gets a few minutes, and Jet Li pops up for what amounts to a fleeting cameo).

Before opening in cinemas nationwide, The Expendables 3 was already getting a lot of attention for two main reasons. One, the content was being toned down to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. Two, a torrent of DVD quality leaked online a few weeks before the big release date. For the first part, I have to say that I didn't notice this being a lighter affair. There may be less actual bloodshed, but the fights and stunts are all still top-notch stuff. As for that torrent, the conspiracy theorist in me wonders whether or not someone had the bright idea of doing that to head off any potential disappointment at the box office. I recommend seeing the movie in the cinema, with all of the action accompanied by some major, seat-rumbling, surround sound, and I hope it actually does well enough to satisfy all those involved.

Patrick Hughes may be the director this time, with Stallone on screenwriting duties once again (this time accompanied by Creighton Rothenberger and Katrin Benedikt), but this is a film, and indeed a franchise, that seems designed to work no matter who is behind the scenes. It's all down to the stars, it's down to the set-pieces, and it's down to the many fantastic stunt performers who help create such memorable moments.

Highlights include an opening sequence that celebrates Wesley Snipes joining the crew, and actually features a winking gag that works well, a sequence in which Stallone is joined by Kelsey Grammer as he looks to recruit his new team, Banderas being a non-stop motormouth, and pretty much any scene starring the lovely Ronda Rousey.

It's cheesy, it's dripping with machismo, it's completely over the top. In short, it's in line with the series, and delivers exactly what fans will be hoping for.

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

Homefront (2013)

Jason Statham plays, surprisingly enough, a tough guy in this standard action vehicle that allows him to do what he does best. Kick ass. This time around, he is a former DEA agent, named Phil Broker, who moves to the country for a quiet life with his daughter, Maddy (Izabela Vidovic). Things don't start off so well, however, when Maddy deals with a bully by using some of the moves that he daddy taught her. The parents of the lad are furious, and they're not the type of people to let things slide. In fact, the mother (Kate Bosworth) enlists the help of her drug-manufacturing brother (James Franco), which then leads to Phil's past being discovered, putting both him and his daughter in great danger.

Based on a novel by Chuck Logan, Homefront is simple stuff, yet it feels a lot better than many other standard action thrillers I've seen over the past few years. A part of that is down to the sparse, but effective, script by Sylvester Stallone, and a part of that is down to the solid direction from Gary Fleder, who does especially well during the vicious fight sequences that are peppered throughout the movie. He also paces the whole thing perfectly, from a prologue sequence that quickly establishes the basics, to the character introductions, to the tense and enjoyable final act. Everyone involved knows what viewers expect, and they deliver. In spades.

The cast also do their bit, of course. Statham has been doing his tough guy act for years, and he's damn good at it. I like him onscreen, even if he's trying to do an American accent, and he always brings a believable physicality to his action roles. Vidovic is great as his daughter, a winning combination of cute and tough. Bosworth feels as if she's overdoing her "white trash" act at times, but she gets better as her character is allowed to take things down a notch in the second half of the movie, and Franco has a lot of fun as a rather unlikely villain for Statham to clash with. Marcus Hester, Winona Ryder, Frank Grillo, Chuck Zito, Owen Harn and Stuart Greer play an assortment of supporting villains, and all do good work (Grillo doesn't get a lot of screentime, but he still makes one hell of an impression). On the side of good we get Clancy Brown as a local sheriff, Rachelle Lefevre as a caring teacher, and Omar Benson Miller as a young man helping Statham to fix up his homestead.

One of many movies that you will probably know beforehand whether you're likely to love or hate it, Homefront shouldn't be quickly dismissed just because it takes standard, familiar elements and puts them together for a great end result. I'd argue that it should be applauded for exceeding expectations, no matter how low some of those expectations might be.

7/10

http://www.amazon.com/Homefront-Two-Disc-Combo-Pack-UltraViolet/dp/B00HEPCRLE/ref=sr_1_2_bnp_1_blu?ie=UTF8&qid=1405285617&sr=8-2&keywords=homefront

If you like this blog (yeah, if you can admit to such bad taste), or have been pointed towards a decent movie by any reviews here, then please feel free to head on over to Amazon and grab a copy of my e-book, TJ's Ramshackle Movie Guide. I assure you that it's good value and, more importantly for me, every copy purchased puts a pound or two in my pocket, and helps me to show my wife that I'm not wasting my entire life.

The UK version can be bought here - http://www.amazon.co.uk/TJs-Ramshackle-Movie-Guide-Reviews-ebook/dp/B00J9PLT6Q/ref=sr_1_3?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1395945647&sr=1-3&keywords=movie+guide

And American folks can buy it here - http://www.amazon.com/TJs-Ramshackle-Movie-Guide-Reviews-ebook/dp/B00J9PLT6Q/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395945752&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=TJs+ramshackle+mov

As much as I love the rest of the world, I can't keep up with all of the different links in different territories, but trust me when I say that it should be there on your local Amazon.

Parker (2013)

Parker (played here by Jason Statham) is a bad man, but one of the good ones. Does that make sense? No. Well, he's a thief with his own set of morals. For example, he always tries to rob only from those who deserve/can afford it. He doesn't like anyone to get hurt if it can be avoided. And when he says that he'll do something he always does it. When he's double-crossed by some colleagues and left for dead, Parker sets out to make things right, even as his wounds are still healing.

Based on a novel by Donald E. Westlake, Parker has a decent enough script by John J. McLaughlin and competent direction from Taylor Hackford. Fans of the character have noted that it doesn't really feel like a Parker movie, but it's certainly an enjoyable Jason Statham movie.

Alongside the leading man, support comes from Jennifer Lopez, Bobby Cannavale, Micah A. Hauptman, Clifton Collins Jr, Emma Booth, Michael Chiklis, Wendell Pierce and Nick Nolte. Lopez has the biggest supporting role, as an estate agent who gets caught up in Parker's scheme, and she's enjoyable, if unspectacular, in the role. It's a shame that the scene in which Parker makes her disrobe to prove that she's not wearing a wire didn't feel completely, and eye-rollingly, gratuitous, but I'm sure J-Lo fans won't be complaining. Cannavale just keeps doing solid work, and is quickly becoming someone I like to look out for in movies, and his turn here as a concerned police officer is another good one. Nolte and Booth are fine, while Chiklis, Pierce, Hauptman and Collins Jr. are all suitably mean.

Action fans may be disappointed that there aren't more fights throughout the movie, but what IS onscreen is good stuff. It's gritty, brutal stuff in places, with Statham taking a lot of hits as he tries to continue on his path of vengeance. Take note, however, that it's not just the fight scenes that might make you wince. Yes, this is another movie in which The Stath attempts an accent, and it's pretty horrible.

Parker is, like many other Jason Statham movies, an easy film to enjoy. It doesn't require intense concentration, it's not trying to change the rules of the game, it's just a solid bit of action entertainment. I recommend it to viewers who probably already suspect that they're going to enjoy it anyway.

7/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Parker-Blu-ray-Jason-Statham/dp/B00CP7ZWMW/ref=sr_1_2?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1394051775&sr=1-2&keywords=parker