Film Reviews by AER

I was really hyped up to see The Creator. In this day and age we are lucky to see films crafted from original scripts and not sequels/reboots/superhero stuff. However, The Creator, as amazing as it looks, failed to turn me on as the plot was basic, and the characters a bit flat. After Tenet, again John David Washington doesn't quite flesh out his protagonist, he seems something of a reluctant performer. I loved the child actress, she was very convincing but had little to do. I was remind of the films of Neil Blomkamp especially Elysium (they share a similar ending) who's work is similarly inspired by the drawings of Syd Mead. So basically, if it's originality you're after, go elsewhere, however, The Creator isn't short on spectacle and I;d like to see a return to non-franchise cinema....

5.5 out of 10

Interesting insight into the religious procedures of Jews living in 1980s Brighton Beach, NY. A young man David navigates teenagerdom whilst living with his grandfather in an apartment located with in a synagogue complex. This runs parallel to David's burgeoning homosexuality. It has an even pace, but the characters are well-developed even if the path is well-worn.

Sadly this film depiction of Harriet Tubman is very thin in the telling with an 80s-90s TV movie feel. Decent performances are scuppered by an endless parade of scenes containing dialogue made up of nothing but speeches and prayers. It's good Harriet Tubman's life and achievements have been turned into a movie at last, but this weak, dumbed-down approach to the subject was a mistake. All the more surprising that his was made by Kasi Lemmons who's earlier Eve's Bayou was a masterpiece. A let-down.

In a nutshell, if you came back for the fourth Expendables film, you must be a fan of the first three. They are fairly unique in their dedication to delivering wafer-thin action stories filled with lots of heavy gun-fire, hand-to-hand combat and heaps of corny dialogue. I've not even mentioned crap plot twists that can be spotted a mile off. Sadly I went back as I was looking forward to see Iko Uwais and Tony Jaa - but sadly a lot of thier efforts were squandered. In tight camera shots rendered a lot of choreography reduncant. None of fighting was seen in long shot - everything was close in and rapidly edited for crash band wallop, but I find that this limits the spectacle. Obviously this was the cheapest of the lot, they couldn't even afford anybody to write good jokes....

I look forward to Expendables 5 though as I still had fun despite the short-comings of this dorky sequel.

I'm sorry but I didn't know what was happening so I stopped watching around halfway. That's rare for me.

SPOILERS - Oppenheimer 5 out of 10 - As you know, I'm into movies I can get some emotional push and pull from and this one left me cold. OK, what did I expect from a business-like biopic of J Robert Oppenheimer, the godfather of the H-Bomb? Well, a bit of coherence and focus for a start but this low-stakes drama seemed to want to ditch the scientific aspects and achievements in favour of endless commie witchhunt interviews which didn't turn me on at all. We've been here before but more interestingly in films like Michael Mann's The Insider, and Oliver Stone's JFK, only in Oppenheimer it never really comes to life. I would've been more interested if they'd focused on the moral dilemna at this story's heart - if the military are the only ones to finance your experiments to push the boundaries of known physics, how would you feel if your creation was used as a WMD? How far does your patriotism go? I found the film muddled. It wasn't so much that I was too daft to follow what was going on (for once), I just had the feeling that it wasn't very good at communicating what was happening very clearly.

Plus points go to the actors and the SFX... the bombastic score (at times is impressive) and the editing was superb.

5 out of 10

This was M Night Shyamalan's first awful movie. His first four were either awesome or merely very good, with (imo) Signs, being the weakest compared to The Sixth Sense, The Village, and Unbreakable. Sadly, this convoluted and thoroughly unconvincing ensemble piece is utterly unconvincing and full of plot holes and unlikely behaviour from its characters. It has lengthy and complicated pre-credits story to sink us into its world but it's still very stupid and fails to come together at any point. I pity the varied and interesting cast who basically flop along like fish out water. They clearly came along to join in on the M Night bandwagon, but by now he was out of ideas and Hollywood hadn't caught onto the fact that he needed a supervisor. Lady In The Water stinks.

Usually you can depend on Denzel Washington to elevate the dullest of material - for once he fails to liven up the film around him. OK the Magnificent Seven is an ensemble Western but it was just flat, fairly boring and despite it's wonderfully eclectic and interesting cast making up the 'Seven' they had nothing to do. Only Chris Pratt and Ethan Hawke's characters were given a few brush strokes of character - the remaining four were ciphers defined by race or religion. Although, unlike some reviewers on here, I'm not angered by the diverse cast. It gave the film the only bit of spiciness in its whole bland 2 hour plus running time. Why do people hate diverse representation in films? All the races depicted in the film were present in the America depicted - they've not been shoehorned in. Please leave your right-wing politics out of film reviews - thank you.

It's a massive achievement to make an immersive film with no dialogue. Just sink into the sounds and shadows and lights as the cavers descend into the depths. beautiful parallels to the life and death of the elderly cowherder. simply beautiful. slow but amazing.

This Finnish musical is a hilarious, dead pan curio about a Russian Oompa band that go to America to find fame and fortune. Full of sightgags and droll humour, LCGA is an absurdist hit. It's probably Aki Kaurismaki's most famous film even though it was made back in 1990. Still as funny today as it was back then. Who influenced who? Jim Jarmusch's early films are definitely similar - he even has a cameo in this. Once seen never forgotten.

As well made as Cutter's Way is I hated every single character in this. It felt like a slog. The acting by John Heard (HOME ALONE), in one of his only lead roles, is brilliant and committed and he ably supported by Jeff Bridges and Lisa Eichorn (MOON 44) and a cast of faded 70s actors. However, some of the plot is nonsensical with a major player just disappearing out of the story with no explanation. I was glad when it was all over. It's rare I've seen a film where I've disliked the characters so much, and that's not the fault of the actors - it's just it was very convincing. This is usually my kind of thing, but I couldn't get near it.

I saw Unforgiven a few weeks ago so I was tempted to rewatch his follow up lead role (for the first time since 1993). I thought it was sh*t then, it's ten times worse now after 30 years of improvements to Hollywood dramas. I also watched JFK this morning (sick day off work) and thought by comparison that it was amazing and indepth, thoughtlful and intelligent. In The Line of Fire's villainous spy subscribes to the idea that the Warren Report was factual, so this makes the film look like the Conservative flag waving crap I avoid like the plague. File with Air Force One, White House Down, and Independence Day.... Utterly implausible, bad dialogue, laughable character motivation, sorry plotting. Wasn't good in 93 - even lower grades now.

In the Line of Cack

Centered on the builiding of the only prosecution trail related to the assassination of John F Kennedy, JFK is something of a modern masterpiece. This is possibly one of Oliver Stone's finest films about the diseased politics of 1960s America. It's a mindboggling labyrinth of plot points and names, places, agencies and double-crosses to keep following but somehow you can manage it thanks to a raft of great performances led by Kevin Costner (was he ever better than here)? Whether you trust the theory or not, it's convincing stuff when told from the POV of a crusading director who's film is based on two books - one based on the findings of New Orleans DA Jim Garrison(played by K Costner) which highlights the myriad of cover ups and lies regard JFK's assassination. Oliver Stone hasn't made many great films imo but this could be his crowning achievement. I'm certainly going to revisit some of his 80s and 90s films again.

8.5 out of 10

This 1994 adaptation of Anna Sewell's Black Beauty is very much a product of UK filmmaking in the 90s. The horse's narration (by Alan Cumming) is awkward to begin with but then the persuasive tone of the film develops and gets better as it proceeds. Support from Alun Armstrong, and David Thewlis (In particular) give the story extra depth and meaning. It's sad that all the kids in the film are a bunch of wooden planks. Why are kids in big-budget UK films always sooooo terrible? Worth the journey as the source material is so strong you'd be an idiot of a filmmaker to mess this up.

5.5. out of 10

It's finally happened - this series has run out of petrol. Tired stunts, the word family said 800 times, a string of cameos/lame callbacks, two very crap baddies (Jason Momoa & Alan Ritchson), and you never believe for a second anybody stays dead for long. It's become a parody of its parts. Finally Super Fast has the sequel it's been waiting for.

3 out of 10 - MOT failure - Worst in the cycle by a long way