For It Is Man's Number

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 

I wasn't sure why I wasn't keen to make time for The Wild Robot, but the opening titles reminded me of my reasoning. This was a Dreamworks animation. As much as I enjoy a lot of their work, and I really love some of their stuff, they often feel like the kind of thing I have to be in the mood to watch. I assume that there will be lots of good gags, a certain visual style, and characters that will sell bucket-loads of merchandise for them. When I think of Dreamworks I think of Shrek, Madagascar, and Kung Fu Panda. They're all fun, and that doesn't begin to cover the range of Dreanworks Animation productions that you can, and should, check out, but I tend to know what I am going to get from them. I figured The Wild Robot would be the same, but then I started hearing more and more praise being heaped upon it. This is definitely not the same as many other films from Dreamworks, and I am already sorry that I didn't get to it even sooner.

A robot lands on a planet uninhabited by humans. That's how The Wild Robot begins. Wanting to be assigned a task, the robot (a ROZZUM Unit 7134, AKA Roz) tries to communicate with the many animals nearby, all of whom seem afraid of the thing that looks like it's been sent to kill them. Roz goes into a low power mode, listening to the many sounds around her and learning the languages of the many different animal species. Those language skills come in very handy when she ends up destroying a nest and then being imprinted on by a very cute, but also very vulnerable, little gosling. Roz gets advice from a fox, although whether or not she can trust this advice is another matter, and she ends up helping a lot of the animals around her as she aims to get her surrogate child ready to fly away before the weather becomes too inhospitable for the goose population. At least she won't have those pesky human feelings of loss and regret when her "child" leaves. Hmmmmmmm.

Based on a book by Peter Brown, this is written and directed by Chris Sanders, a man also responsible for helping to serve up three other animated movies I have loved (Lilo & Stitch, How To Train Your Dragon, and The Croods). If I had put two and two together sooner, and had a better memory for names, I would have had another bit of motivation to get to this before now. I really need to see his live-action feature, The Call Of The Wild, because Sanders is on 100% success rate with me so far.

The voice cast is worth mentioning now, before I get myself distracted by discussing the visual style, the music, and the ability this film has to reduce me to a blubbering wreck. Lupita Nyong'o is a fantastic fit for Roz, keeping her tone well-moderated throughout, with only the slightest inflections hinting at any possible changes in the way Roz views the world. Kit Connor is the goose who grows from the gosling, Brightbill, Pedro Pascal is the aptly-named Fink, the fox, and there is also some great additional work from Bill Nighy, Catherine O'Hara, Mark Hamill, Ving Rhames, Matt Berry, and Stephanie Hsu, as well as many others who aren't immediately familiar to me. 

Now I can once again allow myself to go on about the lovely visual style of the whole thing, the beautiful score from Kris Bowers, and the knack that Sanders has for pushing a button that seems to be directly attached to some tiny being that lives in my chest and is subsequently ordered to pluck my heartstrings like an expert harpist. I expect such emotional manipulation by the third act of many family films, but I was unprepared to be so fragile even before the halfway point. And once I'd been turned into a leaky-faced wreck, well, it was difficult to get through the rest of the runtime without at least feeling my lower lip quivering as I tried to keep myself composed.

I've used a lot of words here to praise this, and I am happy that I've now managed to compose my thoughts in a way that should be calm and understandable for all. This is beautiful, sweet, moving, and an essential new favourite for those seeking an evergreen family viewing choice. It's one of my favourites from 2024, and one of my new favourite animated movies of all time.

9/10

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

If you rolled your eyes and had to stop yourself from vomiting when you heard that there was another Christmas movie coming from Richard Curtis, and one that yet again made use of different intertwining and intersecting storylines, then you wouldn't be alone. There are many people who will probably never forgive him for Love Actually (although I quite like that one, mainly thanks to Hugh Grant and Bill Nighy), but maybe this animated feature will allow you to view him in a slightly better light.

Based on children's books written by Curtis, collaborating with illustrator Rebecca Cobb, this has a screenplay co-written by Curtis and Peter Souter and direction from Simon Otto. There's also a voice cast that includes Brian Cox, Guz Khan, Fiona Shaw, Bill Nighy, Lolly Adefope, Rhys Darby, and Jodie Whittaker, as well as many others (familiar and not so familiar). If you're interested already then you shouldn't end up disappointed.

The main story is told to viewers by Santa (Cox). He's visiting a small community that could potentially be about to have a very bad Christmas. A number of children have been left alone while their parents are stranded elsewhere, one young lad (Danny, voiced by Jack Wisniewski) is upset by the fact that he won't see his dad, as well as his mum (Whittaker) having to head off to her nursing job, and a stern teacher (Mrs. Trapper, voiced by Fiona Shaw) might have her own sadness and problems buried underneath a stern and prickly exterior.

Curtis has been quite vocal over the past few years in agreeing with criticisms of his own work. He doesn't exactly present anything very diverse, and most of his characters have been white and privileged. While That Christmas tries to show more variety, as do the storybooks, there's still a feeling that it's impossible for Curtis to figure out how to show the true range of human experiences, whatever the age, in modern Britain. Whether he cannot consider them, or whether he is simply unable to fit them into something that he wants to keep essentially cosy and sweet, he has never been able to present a character who doesn't have a safety net and support in place. This is a movie aimed at younger viewers, of course, and it's fine to keep things cosy and sweet. It just feels strange to see Curtis strive to some kind of halfway marker and think he's conquered his personal Everest. Or maybe that's just me projecting.

Anyway, the script from Curtis and Souter is perfectly fine, albeit also perfectly predictable. It would have been nice to have some more tension and surprises, and a few more laughs in between the emotional manipulation would have also been welcome, but it succeeds as it is intended. Think of it as a moving slideshow of various Christmas cards strung up above your fireplace and you won't be far wrong.

Otto directs everything well enough. The visual style is quite lovely throughout, and especially good when presenting aerial shots or just showing off the geography of the small town. It may not be at the very best level of animation we have seen in recent years, but it suits the material. Otto knows that he's in charge of a delicate ornament, and he treats it with the care and tenderness it needs.

A number of child actors do good work, including Wisniewski as the nominal young lead, but it helps to be able to recognise the many great names I mentioned earlier. Cox is a very good Santa, Khan is amusing as his main reindeer, Darby, Adefope, and others provide more of the comedy, and both Whittaker and Shaw add to the emotional heart of the whole thing.

This is a great, easy, choice for family viewing time. It's very Christmassy, very playful, very bright and twinkly, and full of the kind of snow-blanketed landscapes that we rarely see here in the UK. It also feels very disposable though, and I doubt it will endure for as long as the previous major Christmas movie penned by Curtis.

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, 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

AKA We All Know That It's Really Bottom: The Movie.

Rik Mayall and Adrian Edmondson star as Richard and Eddie, a couple of absolutely deranged individuals who are somehow running what is clearly the worst hotel in the UK. Richard is rude to many of the guests, although always has time for the long-term resident Mrs. Foxfur (Fenella Fielding), but he also just wants plenty of spare time to perv on any females that he hopes to see naked. His heart soars when the hotel is visited by Gina Carbonara (Hélène Mahieu), a gorgeous woman who is wanting to stay hidden away from her callous and abusive husband (Gino Bolognese, played by Vincent Cassel).

I was really disappointed when I first watched Guest House Paradiso. I somehow thought that Edmondson and Mayall would find a way to translate their characters into something that would retain the essence of their comedy while also expanding the size of their onscreen world. Although there are some exterior shots here, Guest House Paradiso largely takes place in the titular hotel. There's a bigger supporting cast, and some impressive practical effects, but the film-makers are more interested in just spending some more time putting our leads through the wringer than in seizing the opportunity to be a bit more cinematic in between people being on the receiving end of some major testicle trauma.

Perhaps that was always to be expected. Edmondson stepped into the director's chair, working from a screenplay co-written by the two leads, and it's understandable that they would want to keep things quite simple and within their comfort zone, especially as this was all being done after the quad bike accident that very nearly killed Mayall, leading to him being hospitalised for quite some time.

Anyway, revisiting the film all these years later, after buying a new physical media release of it, ended up being a very good idea. I still have problems with the film, it's not exactly a misunderstood classic, but it's actually a lot better than I remembered. That's partly to do with a cast full of now-familiar faces who were relative unknowns to me back in the late 1990s, it's partly to do with not having anything around nowadays that has that particular brand of Mayall-Edmondson comedic violence, and it's partly to do with me now appreciating a few more of the gags. And the set-piece that has Mayall running around the hotel in a red and spiky rubber set of underwear is impossible to watch without at least chuckling every time the situation gets worse for him.

While both Mayall and Edmondson can play these characters in their sleep, their commitment to the lunacy is always admirable. I don't know how anyone can keep a straight face while acting opposite them, but both Mahieu and Cassel manage, and both gain brownie points for wholly getting into the spirit of the thing. Cassel is particularly enjoyable as he commits to playing someone so repugnant and awful that both Rich and Eddie seem like a better companion. Which is really saying something. Fielding is delightful, and it's fun to see Bill Nighy, Kate Ashfield, and Simon Pegg cast together in a pre-Shaun feature (although they don't all share the screen at any one time). Lisa Palfrey also suffers some indignities for the sake of the comedy, and Steven O'Donnell is a very weary, angry, and drunken chef.

There's still something that holds this back though, something that stops it from being on a par with the TV show it stems from. I couldn't put my finger on it years ago, but now I know what the problem is. It's all too well-realised. The dirt, the body fluids, the stains . . . they're never as funny when you can almost smell them through the screen. It's a similar problem with the violence. Watching Mayall and Edmondson pretend to hurt one another is all well and good, and still works here, but there are some practical gags (one relating to eye damage and one that puts a fishing hook through the nipple of a sleeping victim) that lose some of the humour because of the painful detail shown. And don't get me started on the excessive amount of vomit filling up the screen during the third act.

You might never want to check in to the Guest House Paradiso, but you should definitely check it out.* It's gross, funny, and gross. But also funny. But very gross.

*IF you're a fan of Mayall and Edmondson.

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

When I first heard about them making a prequel to The Omen I was as sceptical as most people. While I love the original trio of main films, and the first is the absolute highlight, there have been unsuccessful attempts to move beyond that, with the TV movie that was the fourth film in the series and a competent, but comparatively weak, remake. Sometimes it is best to just let things be. 

But then I started to hear some good things about it. Horror fans seemed to be pleased, and even fans of The Omen claimed that this was a surprisingly decent prequel that put all of the pieces in place to lead nicely into the events of that landmark 1976 horror. I strongly disagree with those people.

Nell Tiger Free is Margaret, a young American who ends up in Rome to serve alongside other nuns helping to support young mothers, and expectant mothers. There’s something afoot though, something that starts to affect the mental state of Margaret. Her suspicions about things are confirmed when she is approached by Father Brennan (Ralph Ineson), a man on a quest to get proof of grave misdeeds committed in the name of the church.

The feature debut of director Arkasha Stevenson, who also worked on the screenplay with Tim Smith and Keith Thomas, this is a film that does itself no favours by calling to mind a number of much better features. It obviously cannot avoid the fact that viewers will think of The Omen, but inserting a sequence that references an iconic moment from Possession is a sign of hugely misplaced confidence, at best. Fair play to the lead actress for giving it a go, but few people could deliver anything that compares favourably to that amazing turn from Isabelle Adjani.

While Stevenson doesn’t do that bad a job in the director’s chair, especially with the lighting levels and the overall look and feel of 1970s Rome shown onscreen, she is sorely let down by the screenplay. The best moments are the ones that try to put a twist on classic deaths from the series, but the rest of the film is just a tiresome and overcooked descent into paranoia and potential madness, with a couple of key scenes that should have horror movie fans thinking “wait a minute, why are they sometimes trying to link to the original movie while changing or removing others details that connect to iconic moments?” 

Free is decent in the lead role, although she fails to add any real depth or warmth to a character who is there to be nervous and frail for most of the runtime. Ineson is great, albeit undermined by a crucial change to his character that is never addressed, and therefore never integrated well into the messy “pick ‘n’ mix” continuity. Bill Nighy has fun in a main supporting role, Sônia Braga likewise, and there is solid work from Maria Caballero, playing the only other character I was actually interested in.

I kept forgetting to write this full review, having seen the film some time ago, but was reminded to get it done when I mentioned my dislike for this film during my review of Tarot. That film is a tame teen horror that won’t please many genre fans, but actually plays out well enough, for the most part, in the way it is intended. The First Omen doesn’t actually work how it should, with the exception of moments that remind you of the superior source material. It is decent, on a technical level, but it is never truly effective, never feels worthy of the IP it is warping, and sorely lacks any real imagination and creativity. So I stand by my negative opinion of it, although I suspect it will work much better for those who haven’t watched The Omen as many times as I have. 

Oh, and Immaculate is a much better wander through similar territory.

4/10

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

I can understand why people got upset when the news broke that we were getting a remake of the beloved Clash Of The Titans. I still ended up watching it, and I didn’t mind it. In fact, I eventually bought the double-pack that included both that film and this film in fun 3D. I have had that set sitting on my shelf for at least five years, and this week I decided that I should finally watch the second movie. There was probably some subconscious reason for that, considering the fact that the film is . . . well, we will get to the full critique shortly.

Perseus (Sam Worthington) is trying to live a peaceful life with his son. That peace is ruined, sadly, when his father, Zeus (Liam Neeson), gets himself in big trouble. Hades (Ralph Fiennes) has seen the writing on the wall - gods losing power, the titans almost set to break back through to their realm - and wants to end up on the winning side. He also has help from Ares (Edgar Ramírez), the son of Poseidon. It is up to Perseus to ensure that humanity survives, and he is soon joined by another demi-god, Agenor (Toby Kebbell), and the fierce warrior queen, Andromeda (Rosamund Pike). They will have to fierce a variety of huge and deadly enemies, including a cyclops or two, a minotaur, and at least one of the intimidating titans.

Written by Dan Mazeau and David Leslie Johnson-McGoldrick (billed here as David Leslie Johnson), this should have been a much better, and much easier, film to craft. Moving a step or two away from the beloved original, all it had to do was take a handful of familiar characters and throw them into something spectacular and fun. I guess that is the aim here, but it just doesn’t work, mainly due to the weakness of the villains and the feeling that the structure is just a pale retread of the previous film. 

It doesn’t help that director Jonathan Liebesman is now at the helm. While far from the worst person to take on the role of director, he seems to bring nothing unique to any of his projects. He can sometimes emulate better films informing his own, at best, but he usually just delivers something that lacks any hint of style or proper authorship. If you are asked next week to name the director of this movie then I would put good money on you not being able to remember his name. And the same goes for every other film he has directed.

The cast is quite a mixed bag, but the good far outnumbers the bad. Unfortunately, the bad includes our leading man, Sam Worthington. I don’t mind Worthington, and he’s certainly not awful, but almost every other actor that he shares screentime with does a better job. Except Ramírez, sadly, which makes him a sorely unentertaining villain. Neeson and Fiennes have fun in their godly roles, Danny Huston is welcome for the minute he is onscreen, and both Kebbell and Pike are excellent additions to the ensemble. There’s also a very small role for Bill Nighy, who almost steals the entire movie with his wonderful turn.

There is an over-reliance on CGI once again, as expected, and the cinematography focuses on dirt and flames to the detriment of anything more visually interesting, but the runtime isn’t bloated, the pacing is brisk enough, and it’s always fun to see the creatures featured here that were previously so well-realised in a pre-CGI world by the legendary Ray Harryhausen.

I was still tempted to rate this as ever-so-slightly above average, because I didn’t hate it while it was on, but it’s just too forgettable, too bland, and disappointing for being a waste of such a good opportunity. So I will consider myself generous enough already by rating it as absolutely average.

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

I like Kaley Cuoco, and have done for some time. As unpopular as it seems to be nowadays, I enjoyed The Big Bang Theory, and I enjoyed her in it. I am, however, happy to see the variety of roles she has taken on since that show ended, roles that have had people belatedly realising she can do more than just one type of acting.

For as much as I like Kaley Cuoco, I loathed Role Play, a film that feels lazy and predictable from start to finish. It is a mix of action, comedy, and drama that does none of those individual elements as successfully as it should. In fact, it does absolutely none of them well, only coming close during the few scenes that feature a wonderful turn from Bill Nighy.

Cuoco and David Oyelowo play a married couple, Emma and Dave, who get a babysitter for the kids and  head out for a fun date night at a hotel, with a bit of fun role play on the cards. Unfortunately, Emma is frustrated by her work getting in the way. Her work, unbeknownst to her hubby, involves killing people. And so begins a trudge through some familiar tropes that have been done so much better in so many other movies. It’s so tiresomely dull that I can barely find the energy to write this review.

Writer Seth W. Owen is the person I want to rush to blame, considering the humourless and flat script, but director Thomas Vincent does an equally poor job of steering the ship. The fact that the cast cannot elevate the material is more of a testament to how bad that material is, as opposed to the skills of the actors.

Cuoco isn’t allowed to shine, with the exception of those scenes that have her interacting with Nighy, and there’s a disappointing lack of any chemistry with Oyelowo (although that is a plot point, the night of role play stems from them wanting a special date night to give them a bit of a spark again). Oyelowo plays his character as Mr. Dependable, but he’s left with nothing meaningful to do, apart from needing saved by his wife. If I spend much more time praising Nighy then people will start to rightly notice my overwhelming love for the man, but he absolutely steals the film with his few minutes of screentime. Connie Nielsen is wasted, although you can tell that she is trying to make a steak with the minced meat she is given, as is Rhudi Dharmalingam. Nobody else is worth mentioning, for good or bad, because the rest of the cast could just have easily been filled out by Sims.

Although technically competent, there’s something about this that makes it feel worse than many movies that don’t even get the camerawork and audio right. It’s depressing, mainly because it seems to have been thrown together with a minimum effort that shows a real disdain for potential viewers.

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

Although his work has been remade many times, I am sure that the filmography of Akira Kurosawa is still a daunting monolith that many approach with a mix of reverence and nervousness. There are so many outright classics, films that already feel as if they have told that story as perfectly as it can be told. Ikiru is one of those classics, and I don’t think anyone was confident that this remake (although not the first remake of it) would come close to it’s brilliance. It does though, and there’s one reason for that. Bill Nighy.

Nighy stars as Williams, a bureaucrat who spends his hours accomplishing very little, save for moving paperwork along in a way that keeps certain projects in a limbo of Kafka-esque proportions. Williams seems to view his role as someone ensuring the wheels are greased, even if those wheels are spinning around and around with no hope of ever actually going anywhere. That changes when he receives a terminal medical diagnosis though, giving him a looming “expiry date”. Deciding to keep the news to himself, for the most part, Williams treats himself to some time off work, enjoys some socialising with a young colleague (Margaret, played by Aimee Lou Wood), and struggles to consider what might be left behind that shows he actually made any difference. There is that playground that some local women have been petitioning for.

Written by the hugely talented Kazuo Ishiguro, transplanting the material from Japan to 1950s London is the first of many smart moves that allow the film to tread very similar ground while feeling more rooted in the manners and mindset of the British. Duty is very important here, as is how someone is perceived by others, but those two things become the focus for many people, a stifling straitjacket, when they should be the by-product of a life lived well. While some scenes are full of revealing dialogue, many others tell you just as much without any characters speaking, and it’s a fantastic balancing act throughout.

Director Oliver Hermanus does a great job with the direction, keeping everything fairly muted and quiet, in line with the man character, and he is helped immensely by a beautiful score from Emilie Levienaise-Farrouch. Hermanus, who has previously directed a handful of films I am sadly unfamiliar with, knows that this isn’t material to rush through, nor does it need lots of distracting bells and whistles. He focuses on Nighy, Wood, and the stroke of luck that shows them making an unexpectedly strong connection.

The acting, although I might be edging into hyperbole here, is almost flawless, and Nighy gives what may be the best performance I have ever seen from him in a movie. It feels very much in his wheelhouse, admittedly, but that’s because he makes it look so bloody effortless. Starting off as dour and grey, his performance starts to reveal light, humour, and warmth as he heads toward his final days, and the ending is no less poignant for knowing where the story is taking us. Wood is a great match for Nighy, conversing with him in a way that shows off her appeal, with her mix of care and consideration, energy, and youthful talent of occasionally blurting out what others would never say. Other people do well, with Alex Sharp playing someone who could very easily become the next in a long line of Williams figures, or may be saved, but the film belongs to Nighy, with very strong support from Wood.

Although about 40 minutes shorter than the original, this doesn’t feel rushed or incomplete. Ikiru remains the better film, and the longer runtime helps to more easily emphasise how slow the bureaucratic machinery works, but Living is a satisfying and worthwhile watch, and I would not have been disappointed to see Nighy get more praise for it last year. Although he has been doing great work for a long time, this feels like a special achievement, and I think it is easily vying for a top spot when ranking his performances.

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

This is the kind of thing that we get every so often in British cinema. A little gem of a film that works as well as it does because of the way in which various characters manage to maintain a sense of humour in the face of overwhelming derision/hatred from others. Having finally reminded myself to give Pride a watch, my timing could not have been any better. Remember that saying about those not remembering history being doomed to repeat it? I hope more people watch Pride this year. Not only is it a wonderful and satisfying viewing experience, it's a reminder of why those being held down and pilloried by authorities should help to support one another, hence the importance of unions, and also serves as an important reminder of the attitude people used to have towards gay people, a rush to demonise someone unknown because they weren't familiar with the concept in their own life. There's a LOT that is shown in Pride that still goes on today, the only differences are the main targets.

Anyway, let's get to the crux of the tale. It's the mid-1980s. The miner's strike is taking a huge toll on small mining villages all over the country. The LGBTQ+ community are busy trying to be treated like the normal human beings they are, something about to be made even harder by the rise of AIDs (which was seen by many as a "gay disease", and I suspect many still think that way). Seeing how the UK government have directed their resources and threats towards the miners, when it had previously been so busy crusading against the imaginary gay agenda, one young man (Mark Ashton, played by Ben Schnetzer) has the idea of supporting the miners and raising some money for them. Others don't immediately see the point of his campaigning, especially as the many small towns that would have mining at the heart of them would tend to be most unwelcoming, and outright hostile, to gay people. Mark keeps at it though, eventually getting more and more people on his side, and the charity group he heads up soon start to make a positive impact on a struggling Welsh town. Dai Donovan (Paddy Considine), a main spokesman for the miners in that town, is very happy to meet and thank them, and invites them to be thanked by the rest of the townspeople. The rest of the townspeople, however, aren't as eager to admit that they are receiving a lifeline from the gay community.

While director Matthew Warchus may not have an extensive filmography, he tends to aim for quality over quantity, and while this is the first screenplay by writer Stephen Beresford to be made into a film, Pride couldn't feel much more comfortable and assured. A large part of that is down to the casting, which I will get to shortly, but Beresford knows how to make the most of the laugh out loud lines that he intersperses throughout the film, Warchus moves viewers swiftly through the timeline of events without giving anyone whiplash, and the whole thing manages to maintain a constant bittersweet tone throughout, especially if you have any idea of how things ended for the main characters. This is a "feel good" film, but that's an impressive achievement when you consider just how many things aren't necessarily going to lead to a happy ending.

Is it all factually accurate? I doubt it. I'd imagine that the heart of the story is true, and some liberties have been taken to give us a better mix of characters and some dialogue that emphasises what everyone was striving for, be it tolerance from others or an ongoing attempt to smash through the iron fist of Margaret Thatcher. Yes, it helps that this often aligns with my own political leanings, and it's a very political film that offsets that with a focus on the humans at the heart of the machine being turns by cogs of government and the law, but it's hard to think of anyone watching this and absolutely hating it. 

Schnetzer is fantastic as the lightning rod for everything that unfolds, helped by the fact that he is surrounded by so many familiar faces. The Welsh accents are all fairly well executed, and you cannot go wrong with a cast that includes Considine, Imelda Staunton, and Bill Nighy, all of whom are doing absolutely fantastic work, and all of whom have fun with their new allies. Menna Trussler and Jessica Gunning are also wonderful, being inspired to do a bit more with their time as they see how the LGSM (Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners) live their lives, while Lisa Palfrey gets her teeth into the role of Maureen Barry, a character used as a personification of the intolerance and ingratitude that the LGSM come up against. George MacKay is Joe Cooper, a young man getting to grips with his own sexuality, and the film is helped by often placing viewers in a position to see his nervousness giving way to a sense of purpose and happiness, Dominic West steals a few moments, playing the flamboyant and carefree Jonathan, and there's also excellent work from Andrew Scott, Joe Gilgun, and Faye Marsay, the latter two portraying other core members of the LGSM.

What else can I say? There's a very good soundtrack, featuring a number of songs you'd expect to accompany this story, a hefty emotional weight to everything, and a real feeling of, well, pride in watching what can be accomplished by people connecting and working together instead of letting their lives be defined by what makes them different from one another. And there are few things funnier than Imelda Staunton's sharp retort to someone trying to be a smartass while she drives a bus donated to the community by the LGSM, but I won't spoil it by quoting it here. Enjoy it for yourself, and do it as soon as you can.

 8/10

Here is a link to Switchboard (the LGBT+ helpline).
And here is a link to the website for the Durham Miner's Association.

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 extent of my Pokémon knowledge is very limited. I know that people have "gotta catch 'em all". I know the best way to get Pikachu on a bus . . . poke 'im on. And I know that the mobile game was massively successful, and seemed to be the latest thing that everyone was obsessed with when it was released, for all of a month. I was also vaguely aware of the Detective Pikachu videogame. That's it. So I am not sure if it is a good or bad thing that I enjoyed this movie so much.

Justice Smith plays Tim Goodman, a young man who travels to tidy up some affairs after the death of his father, Harry. He ends up finding a Pikachu that seemed to belong to his father. He can even understand what it is saying, while others only hear sounds like "pika pika". The pair team up to find out what happened to Harry, which leads them to big battles, interrogating a creature that communicates via the medium of mime, and crossing paths with Mewtwo.

I've looked into this (these reviews aren't just slapped together without any care or effort, you know . . . not all the time anyway) and it seems that Pokémon Detective Pikachu is an entertaining movie that manages to satisfy both fans and newcomers alike. There are numerous nods and references scattered throughout every scenes, and the main storyline makes good use of some familiar characters. If you're going to make a movie from this particular brand, this isn't a bad way to go about it.

Smith is a good young lead, and he quickly builds a nice chemistry with his Pikachu (voiced by Ryan Reynolds). The two are a classic mis-matched duo, and Pikachu is nicely realised with some perfect CGI. Having said that, I cannot think of any mis-steps here, on a visual level. Every character is rendered in a way that aligns with their traits (some are a bit more cartoonish, some more realistic) and the production design is often gorgeous. As for the other humans, Bill Nighy and Ken Watanabe lend their not-inconsiderable talents to the proceedings, and it's amusing to watch them have some fun, Kathryn Newton is a plucky investigative journalist, Lucy Stevens, and has great onscreen presence, and you have some fun support from Chris Geere, Suki Waterhouse, Rita Ora, and Karan Soni (the latter two having much less screentime than the others).

Director Rob Letterman also helped to write the screenplay with Dan Hernandez, Benji Samit, and Derek Connolly, from a story also co-created with Nicole Perlman, and this may be his best work yet. His animated movies always felt like second-tier efforts (especially Shark Tale), but his live-action work has been on a steady upward trajectory, from Gulliver's Travels to Goosebumps and now this. 

What could have been a painful cash-in is instead an impressive and amusing detective flick that benefits from the care taken with it, from the writing to the many details tucked away in every scene. Although not a traditional Pokémon story, it manages to treat all of the characters, and the whole universe, with respect. Fans of the series should have a lot of fun with this, and movie fans who don't know much about the games can also have a lot of fun. I THINK it's a very good Pokémon movie, but I KNOW it's a very good movie.

8/10

https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

You can watch the full movie, for free, here.

The last film to be co-produced by Aardman Animation and DreamWorks Animation, Flushed Away has a reputation as a bit of a disappointment. That's how it seems anyway, when you consider the relatively poor box office result and the fact that few people mention it nowadays when listing favourite animated films. That's a bit of a shame, because Flushed Away remains a lively and witty adventure comedy, full of great vocal work, wonderful sight gags, and hilarious singing slugs.

Hugh Jackman is the voice of Roddy St. James, a pampered pet rat who enjoys his good life. But that is all thrown into disarray when his owners go on holiday and a sewer rat named Sid (Andy Serkis) finds his way into the house and decides to take it over for himself. In attempting to get rid of Sid, Roddy ends up in the toilet, and then . . . flushed away. Down in the sewer, completely out of his element, Roddy eventually teams up with a rat named Rita (Kate Winslet), the two aiming to return Roddy to his home and foil the deadly scheme of a rat-hating toad (Ian McKellen).

Directed by Sam Fell, who came up with the initial story idea, and David Bowers, Flushed Away works as well as it does thanks to the detailing of the underground city populated by the rats. It's a mini version of London, with plenty of puns and visual nods and gags, and there are plenty of items repurposed for the rodent citizens. It also has a pretty great script, written by a team of writers including the mighty sitcom masters Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais. You get memorable characters and numerous fun exchanges between them, although the weakest element may be the central strand showing the two leads always being pursued by henchmen of The Toad.

The animation throughout is lovely, although fans of Aardman may be slightly put off by the fact that this is computer-animated throughout. That doesn't make any difference to the character design work, or the attention to detail, but it does give it a different look to the typical stop-motion aesthetic that so often adds to the charm of their projects.

Jackman and Winslet do well in the lead roles, the former really ladling on the charming toff act as he is appalled by grime and nastiness around him and the latter being much more ready to get things done without any attempted airs and graces. McKellen makes an amusing villain, helped in his scheme by characters voiced by Bill Nighy, Shane Richie, and Jean Reno, who are all also very enjoyable in their roles. Serkis isn't really involved for many scenes, but he does just fine. And whoever did the sound work on those slugs, who first appear shrieking at the appearance of Roddy before popping up occasionally to show off their singing voices, deserves a big slap on the back. It's a fantastic addition to the movie, even if it is just a bit of nonsense.

I am sure that I will remain in the minority with my love for this movie for some time to come, but I encourage others to at least remember it exists, and maybe give it a rewatch with the knowledge that the sheen of computer animation does nothing to lessen the humour and creativity we've come to expect from Aardman over the years.

8/10

You can buy the movie here.
Americans can buy it here.

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.

A lot of people love Total Recall, the 1990 movie directed by Paul Verhoeven that provided Arnold Schwarzenegger with another hit at the box office. I am one of those people. Which makes me one of the many people who groaned when they heard news of a remake. To be directed by Len Wiseman. Now, I actually quite like Wiseman's work. He makes glossy entertainment, and I think now that people have seen the godawful A Good Day To Die Hard we can all agree that the fourth movie doesn't actually seem THAT bad. Okay, I might still be on my own there, but the point I am making is that I was willing to give this one a go.

Colin Farrell stars as Douglas Quaid, a factory worker who starts to have strange dreams involving fighting, escape attempts, and a beautiful woman (Jessica Biel). He doesn't seem satisfied with his life, which is a bit strange considering that he's married to Kate bloody Beckinsale. It must be to do with the fact that he lives in The Colony, while all of the better opportunities go to the people from the United Federation of Britain. These are the only two living spaces left on Earth, after a period of chemical warfare, and The Colony is packed with citizens viewed as the lower/working class. Quaid decides to visit Rekall, a company that can insert memories into your brain, and opts for a memory that will give him an exciting adventure as a secret agent. Unfortunately, things don't go according to plan. It turns out that Quaid may already have some false memories creating a conflict within him.

Total Recall starts off quite well. The world displayed onscreen is nicely realised and textured, Farrell, Beckinsale and Biel are all good enough for their main roles, and there are fleeting glimpses of some great actors who you just know will appear later on in the film (Bryan Cranston, and Bill Nighy). The action is solid, there's an interesting layer to the movie that focuses on class and societal manipulation, and I started to consider that this was starting to prove itself as a decent remake. A retread of material - both movies are based on "We Can Remember It For You Wholesale" by Philip K. Dick - that was able to offer up more than just a reprise of what we already enjoyed years ago.

But then it starts to lose steam. Not a major problem, at first, but after the first hour has gone by and the movie settles into a dull cycle of action-chase-paranoia-repeat then it becomes tiresome. In fact, by the time both Nighy and Cranston eventually appear it's too late. Neither man gets to make a decent impression because viewers are too busy concentrating on trying to stay awake. This kind of material shouldn't be so unexciting.

A lot of people had a hand in the writing of the movie, with Kurt Wimmer and Mark Bomback credited as the main writers, but that's not reflected in the final product. The exposition is fine, and needs to be with such ideas about identity and paranoia, but everything else is found lacking, from the lines uttered in the thick of any action to the ineffective characterisations. This is a film populated by decent actors as opposed to any good characters.

Wiseman does his usual solid job in the director's chair, revelling in the effects and showing off when he gets the chance. There's a one-shot fight sequence that manages to impress, although it doesn't make up for the lack of energy elsewhere. If only he could have maintained the quality of that first 40 minutes, this could have been a very pleasant surprise. Alas, it wasn't to be.

Beckinsale steals the show, her husband (Wiseman) knows how to utilise her well in movies, and the movie moves up a notch whenever she's onscreen. Farrell is solid in his role, putting himself across as a capable everyman with an undercurrent of Jason Bourne. Jessica Biel is, unfortunately, the worst person in the movie. It's not her fault, and I love seeing Biel in anything, but her character is horribly underdeveloped and neglected. It's almost as if she was added as an afterthought. She may be a worthy companion during the fights, but any other interactions she has with Farrell could be consigned to the rubbish bin with very little impact on the movie. Bokeem Woodbine does alright with his small role, John Cho sports a fun, blonde hairdo, and I've already mentioned the main problems for Nighy and Cranston, although the former also struggles with an American accent.

There are worse movies you could pick when you fancy a bit of sci-fi action. There are also many better ones, including the original film that this is based on.

4/10

http://www.amazon.com/Total-Recall-Blu-ray-Colin-Farrell/dp/B0092QITO2/ref=sr_1_3?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1409479079&sr=1-3&keywords=total+recall

If there's one thing that can often be relied upon to upset horror fans it's the misappropriation of the Frankenstein name. As each and every one of them will hasten to tell you, Frankenstein was the creator. The creature was called . . . . . . . . well, he was called by a variety of names, but none of them were/should have been Frankenstein. Call me pedantic, but I guarantee that many will agree with me.

I, Frankenstein starts off by upsetting horror fans with this central point. The title is more understandable by the time the credits roll, but there are one too many occasions between the beginning and end that have people referring to the central character as Frankenstein when they really shouldn't.

The film then continues to upset horror fans by being pretty horrible from the start - a potted version of the classic tale retold in one or two minutes - and then continuing to be horrible right up until the very end. Think of Underworld, a movie with which this shares a LOT of similarities (including shared cast members in similar roles), and then remove the style, the better cast members, and the decent action sequences. I don't even need to rehash the plot here, as it's so close to Underworld that you can figure it out for yourself. I'm serious.

Although it's Stuart Beattie in the director's chair, a lot of the blame for this mess can be laid at the feet of Kevin Grevioux, who also gives himself a small role onscreen. Grevioux, funnily enough, came up with the original story idea for, yep, Underworld, and has developed a number of stories since that have seemingly sprung from the same well. The overriding thought that ran through my head as I watched a creature caught amidst a battle between good and evil was that the well has all dried up.

I don't want to spend much time on the cast because they don't make any decent impression. Not a one. It's as if they realised that they would be overshadowed by lame action and overdone CGI anyway, so decided not to bother. I guess, however, that I have to namecheck the main players. Aaron Eckhart is the creature - AKA Adam - and is stuck with one of the worst interpretations to ever be excreted on to film. I like Eckhart, but he needs to bury this film with better choices as soon as possible. Yvonne Strahovski is a female scientist, and does okay with what she's given (translation = she spouts science stuff while looking very purty). Bill Nighy is almost exactly the same as he was in Underworld, Miranda Otto tries to overcome the weak dialogue that she's given, and Jai Courtney can quit acting any time he wants without worrying about me being upset by it. Please. Seriously, Jai Courtney, please. I can already envision a sports bar that would be perfectly suited to your ownership.

There are one or two good moments, mainly in the first half of the movie when the lead character finds a way to release a lot of anger, but they don't help to make this a less painful viewing experience. Like Frankenstein's creature in his darkest moments, it's awful and soulless.

3/10

http://www.amazon.com/Frankenstein-3D-Blu-ray-Aaron-Eckhardt/dp/B00IKM5N1G/ref=sr_1_2?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1409085946&sr=1-2&keywords=i+frankenstein

The oh-so-lovely British bandwagon that has been built and driven by Richard Curtis, for some years now, rolls merrily on with this, his latest slice of harmless comedy fluff.

When Tim (Domhnall Gleeson) is 21, he is told by his father (Bill Nighy) about a special trait that all of the male family members have. They can all travel back in time. This is, of course, huge news. After a few experimental trips, attempting to improve his love life, Tim quickly realises that it's not as easy as you might think to make changes that will alter your future for the better. Thankfully, that doesn't stop him from using his unique gift when he falls for the lovely Mary (Rachel McAdams), and that makes up the main premise of the movie.

For anyone expecting something akin to Groundhog Day, or even The Butterfly Effect, be forewarned now. This is not a movie that uses the time travel aspect all that well. It does have elements of both of those movies just mentioned, but many scenes play out with very little interest in the more fantastical aspect of the plot. In fact, there's at least one sequence that's completely redundant, just there to illustrate a point that could have been mentioned to Tim at any other time in the movie.

The blame for the shortcomings of the movie rests entirely with Curtis. As writer-director, it would appear that he is now at his happiest when churning out another inoffensive "Richard Curtis rom-com". I like many of his movies, don't get me wrong, but I think it's a shame to try and sell About Time as something a bit different from his previous works when it is, in fact, almost completely the same. It makes the whole thing feel very lazy. The generic pop soundtrack, the big emotional moment accompanied by a classic track, the narration from the main character. This is Curtis 101, by the numbers stuff. The fact that the characters played by Lindsay Duncan and Bill Nighy are simply credited as Mum and Dad really tells you all you need to know. Curtis can do this stuff in his sleep and, considering the lack of care taken with this script, maybe this time he did.

The cast all do quite well, I guess, with what they're given. Gleeson isn't exactly standard leading man material, but that makes his need to tweak things all the more believable. McAdams is always lovely to see onscreen AND I WON'T HEAR A BAD WORD AGAINST HER (*breathe, breathe*). Sorry about that, but she IS pretty hard to ever dislike. Nighy is a cool dad, while Duncan barely registers in the role of Mum (she's just not given anything to do), and Lydia Wilson is the requisite slightly tragic character, Kit Kat (AKA Tim's sister). Tom Hollander steals a few scenes as Harry, a very angry man that Tim ends up living with at one point, Richard Cordery is a dotty uncle, and Margot Robbie is captivating in a small role, as the first major love in Tim's life.

If you're in the mood for a romantic comedy then I'd suggest you go for many better examples ahead of this one. Hell, go for almost any other Richard Curtis movie and you'll get more entertainment value. If you're in the mood for a good time travel movie then, again, there are far too many superior movies that you could choose from. Want a mix of the two? Yep, I'm willing to be that there are still others that you can prioritise ahead of this. It's not terrible. It's just not really worth your time, ironically enough.

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 

Knock back your egg nog, put on your Santa hat and buckle up for a sleigh ride that will see the blog devoted entirely to Christmas movies for the month of December. They may be obvious choices, they may only have one or two scenes allowing them to qualify but every film reviewed this month will have a connection to this tinsel-strewn holiday season. And anyone wondering why I've missed out a number of obvious choices . . . . . I probably covered them previously over at Flickfeast or even reviewed them on IMDb. Happy holidays.

When I heard about Arthur Christmas I was pretty darn pleased, I'll tell you that. I love Christmas movies. I love Aardman Animation. I love British stalwarts of cinema Jim Broadbent and Bill Nighy. This movie combined all of those things, with an added sprinkling of James McAvoy, Hugh Laurie, Imelda Staunton and Ashley Jensen, all people that I like a lot.

Christmas just wouldn't be possible without the National Elf Service, of course.

James McAvoy provides the voice of the titular Arthur, a sweet young lad who is as enthusiastic and happy about Christmas Day as he is prone to accidents. His father, Santa (Jim Broadbent), spends a very busy time getting all of the gifts delivered with the help of his many elves and Arthur's big brother, Steve (Hugh Laurie). It's a busy time for all, of course, but Steve has put a number of procedures in place to make things easier and to ensure that all goes smoothly. That's why it's quite a surprise to find that one child has been missed out, one present still needs to be delivered. Steve sees it as a minor blip in an otherwise perfectly executed Christmas and convinces Santa that they can deliver it a little bit later and still be proud of their work. Arthur, on the other hand, doesn't think that any child should miss out and worries that the poor little lass will think that Santa doesn't like her enough to deliver her gift. He thinks that the delivery should be made and he's encouraged by his grandfather (and the previous holder of the good Santa name, played by Bill Nighy). They may not have the gadgetry and precision planning that Steve has but they have a sleigh, some reindeer and an eager elf (Ashley Jensen) along for the ride.

You may not recognise Bill Nighy in the middle but, trust me, that's him.

As you would expect from an Aardman Animation film, this is a movie chock full of lovely visuals, great gags (they even recycle one of my favourite gags from the Wallace & Gromit adventures involving a toy train and some track being laid) and cute characters. The CGI sheen means that it doesn't quite feel as cute and loveable as some of their earlier output but that's just a minor quibble when everything is still crafted with so much care and attention to detail.

Barry Cook and Sarah Smith are the co-directors and Sarah Smith also co-wrote the screenplay with Peter Baynham which means that she gets to have the bonus points for steering everything so smoothly. The story is a very slim one, VERY slim, but it's enriched by the different character motivations and the amusing sideroads that are taken (sometimes literally).

It's also enriched by that great cast I mentioned up there in the opening paragraph. McAvoy is cheery and endearing as Arthur, Broadbent and Nighy are both very good as Santas a generation apart and Hugh Laurie is also enjoyable as someone who may seem bad but may also just be a bit misguided. Imelda Staunton is a fine vocal fit for Mrs. Santa and Ashley Jensen suits being an elf. Speaking of elves, other names such as Marc Wootton, Sanjeev Bhaskar, Robbie Coltrane, Joan Cusack, Jane Horrocks and Andy Serkis also lend their voices to a number of Santa's little helpers while Laura Linney provides the voice of the main computers used in the North Pole and on the delivery vehicles and Eva Longoria plays a government official who mistakes a flying sleigh for a potential threat.

You could say that it's just far too lightweight and sweet for its own good and you'd be perfectly entitled to your opinion but I expect sweetness from my Christmas movies and enjoy anything that doesn't overdo it all to the point of putting me into a diabetic coma. As for it being lightweight, it is. Yet it also manages to take the ever-so-slim premise and turn it into a feature that you will watch and enjoy without feeling as if it ever outstays its welcome.

To sum up then - another winner from Aardman Animation and definitely one to consider buying now and then leaving under the Christmas tree for the kids to unwrap on December 25th.

8/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Arthur-Christmas-Blu-ray-Copy-Region/dp/B005FLCD1I/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1353957042&sr=8-1