**An excuse to make a film full of women swaying seductively without a hint of softcore.**
What can we say about a romantic film, with light touches of comedy, that spends most of its time showing us very attractive women in tight, short clothes, and bouncing around sensually in an atmosphere of mockery and debauchery worthy of a university graduation party? A lot of things. What leaves us no doubt? It is a film made with an openly and openly heterosexual audience in mind. Released in 2000, I don't know if the film would be possible today without being immediately accused of sexism and giving a stereotypical and sexualized image of women.
Let's start by talking about the good things. One of them, perhaps the best, is the extraordinary soundtrack, which compiles excellent songs into one of the best non-original soundtracks of the decade: “The Right Kind of Wrong” and “Can't Fight the Moonlight” are so good that the entire we know them. The music is so important here that, in a sense, it is more of a music video than a film: the protagonist is an aspiring songwriter who tries to make it in the music market without much success, but who discovers that she sings well and becomes one of the main attractions. of a nightclub.
The scenarios are convincing enough for us to believe them, especially if it is known that there really is a bar of this type in New York (in fact, it seems that others in the same franchise have already opened). Even so, there is so much exaggeration at parties that it is, in my eyes, difficult to believe in a certified and legal commercial space. Minimally decent editing, but sometimes lax, and cinematography that relies too heavily on red tones complete, on a less positive note, the more technical aspects of this film.
In addition to the good songs, we have the beauty of the cast, with young and slender actresses, who make up for their inexperience with fantastic bodies and good dancing skills: Piper Perabo, Maria Bello, Tyra Banks, Izabella Miko, Bridget Moynahan and Adam Garcia. It's a shame that physical beauty doesn't translate into talent: as the cast wasn't chosen based on the actors' abilities, none of them offer an inspired performance. They are a bunch of complete scoundrels and the film, at this point, is very weak. In the interest of justice, it is imperative to save the renowned John Goodman, the only good actor here, who shows us what it is like to act in a character full of grace and quite comical.
All of these, however, are mere stumbling blocks on the long road of a production that could, even so, be frankly good if it told us a good story. It is in the script and the story told that the film falls to the ground like an aspiring model who breaks both heels while parading. When watching the film, I asked myself over and over again where the hell the script was, because all that, that whole trip to the city, to a future in show business, is so absolutely cliché and has already been repeated so much that it is unacceptable. There is no substance. Then, all that sugary romance, without any chemistry, without any logic... it's too stupid, with stupid and unacceptably poorly written dialogues.

I managed to see this movie on it's first day of screening in New York, back in 2000, just before I went back to Europe.
'Coyote Ugly' is a nice romantic comedy, perfectly fit for the generation who didn't grow up with 'Flashdance', Saturday Night Fever etc.
Piper Perado plays the young aspiring song-writer who wants to get a major record-deal, write songs and then safely watch others perform her music. But then there's this little snag, called reality. Although the story is not very surprising it is solid and consistent told. We understand why she ends up on the bar dancing (no spoiler here). And at the same time we understand why her father is disappointed. A fine part played by John Goodman. At times their relationship reminded me of the one Madonna and Danny Aiello had in the 'Father Don't Preach' music-video. Father reluctantly sees his daughter grow up. And she only wants him to be proud of her.
After I saw the trailer on television I immediately went to the REAL Coyote Ugly Saloon on 1st Avenue on which this film was based (unless there's another one, of course). The real bar is not nearly as flashy as it's celluloid counterpart. But they DO hose down annoying customers with beer and there IS dancing on the bar. However by the female customers, rather than the waitresses. But they do get fresh with you if you happen to order something they don't serve. (anything besides beer and Jack Daniels) And they do drink shots with the costumers. Funny detail is that in the movie is explained why they don't get drunk.
I know, I know, we already have Flashdance. (Also from Bruckheimer) but I don't mind if this type of story is being updated now and then, right? Although the soundtrack could sound a bit more contemporary.

*My Girl* (1991) is one of those movies that lingers long after the credits roll. At its core, it's a coming-of-age story that beautifully captures childhood innocence, friendship, and the tough lessons that come with growing up. The plot unfolds naturally, taking its time to let you connect with the characters, making the emotional moments hit even harder. It balances lighthearted humor with deeper themes without ever feeling forced, making it more than just a typical family drama.
The directing by Howard Zieff keeps everything grounded, allowing the story to breathe and feel real. The cinematography leans into a nostalgic, warm aesthetic that perfectly complements the film's tone. There's a sense of comfort in the way it's shot, almost like flipping through old childhood memories. The script feels natural, with dialogue that flows effortlessly, making the characters feel genuine rather than overly scripted or dramatic. The score is subtle but effective, never overpowering the story but enhancing the emotions in just the right moments.
When it comes to performances, Anna Chlumsky shines in her first major role, delivering a performance that feels authentic and heartfelt. Macaulay Culkin, fresh off his *Home Alone* success, takes on a very different role and does it with quiet charm. The supporting cast also does a great job, adding depth to the story without overshadowing the leads. Overall, *My Girl* is a beautifully crafted film that sticks with you. It’s emotional without being manipulative, nostalgic without being cliché, and tells a story that feels personal even decades later.

Diamonds Are Forever is a film I used to sight as one of the worst Bond films but on a recent watch I found it very funny and witty.

Sean Connery returned as Ian Fleming's "007" in this caper about a megalomaniac with a fiendish plan to use diamonds to blackmail the world. Shirley Bassey belts out Don Black's lyrics as we set off on a fun, action adventure that, from the outset, makes your political correctness hairs stand to attention! Charles Gray is super as the malevolent "Blofeld"; Jill St. John a brassy "Tiffany Case" and the sexually ambiguous Messrs "Wint" and "Kidd" as the assassins all help to make this an engaging hour and a half with it's tongue firmly planted in it's cheek and a fun denouement from "Bambi" and "Thumper" that might make Walt Disney blush!

007 follows a blood trail of diamond smuggling.
Of course it leads to a dastardly villain.
This one has a lot of the Bond elements. There is a lot of action, almost non stop, a lot of nice scenery, though not as great as the great Bond films. And there is wit.
Also lacking, due to the women's lib era being at its height, is the beautiful women. There is one super hot babe who quickly drowns to appease the women's lib.
The director seemed to want to make the point he was appeasing women's lib by presenting Jill St John (who isn't as homely as she appears in this movie) in a woman's lib fashion. A young boy even asks a mature man if Tiffany Case (Jill St. John) is his mother. Oops.
There is also a major problem with the "non pro" character who is supposed to be likable. The tycoon who is kidnapped is not likable at all, and that's a major weakness.
The saving grace is a very humorous (dark humor) pair of gay assassins. Their goofy quips are meant to be "groaners". They raise this a notch or two from me.
Not the best Bond, but far from the worst, because later in the series, we really saw the hate pouring out from Hollywood.

MOST of the bad reviews on a lot of the Connery era 007 movies are... political. They don't like classic 60s 007 because of contemporary Woke six decades later politics.
But.... this one just sucks. And, keep in mind, I say this with Connery being my favorite 007 and 4 out of his 5 (6 should NOT be counted) outings are my favorite 007 films.
However, this is Connery playing a goofy Roger Moore era 007 and that doesn't work. This is Connery in a film that had all the coming Moore tropes. And that doesn't work.
Had Diamonds are Forever been a Roger Moore 007, it wouldn't have been that bad. This was Moore's Bond film... only it had Connery in it, so it just didn't work.

_**The series gets silly as James Bond goes to Las Vegas**_
Agent 007 (Sean Connery) is sent to Las Vegas to uncover a smuggling ring and suspects Blofeld (Charles Gray) is masterminding the nefarious operation; meanwhile a gay duo of assassins threatens the investigation. Jill St. John plays a smuggling contact while Lana Wood is on hand as a casino opportunist.
"Diamonds are Forever" (1971) marks Connery’s return to the series after four years absence and missing out on the previous movie featuring George Lazenby. This one’s entertaining throughout, but it introduced a silly, cartoonish element more glaring than anything up to this point. Then there’s the fact that the storyline is almost impossible to follow unlike the previous installments which were easy to grasp, like “Dr. No,” “Goldfinger,” “Thunderball” and “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.” You just have to kick back and enjoy the madness of it all.
Beautiful Lana Wood stands out on the female front, but her role is too brief (her apparel too, lol). Meanwhile Jill St. John is lots of fun, not to mention alluring.
Needless to say, Vegas makes for a great setting for a James Bond flick. There are neon lights, highrise hotels, casinos, swimming pools, deserts, circuses, showgirls, tourists and thrills galore.
The film runs 2 hours and was shot in Las Vegas & the Nevada desert; Netherlands; Pinewood Studios near London; Palm Springs, Ca (Willard Whyte's Desert House); French Riviera, France (pre-credits sequence); and the Pacific Ocean.
GRADE: B-

Not one of my favourite Bond films by a country mile but still so much fun. The recent complete-James-Bond-on-blu boxed set that was released has been my ONLY time seeing Sean Connery's last 'official' outing as 007 not edited for television and full screen, so it's basically my first-time REALLY seeing it. Decent. Even at his worst, horribly toupeed, and albatrossed with a script that's simply OUCH, it still oozes and smashes from the fact Connery's still the best Bond ever.

_**Brendan Fraser as a goofy Tarzan-like ape-man along with sweetie Leslie Mann**_
An expedition to the heart of the Dark Continent discovers a white man (Brendan Fraser) raised by apes. Captured by the wild man, it doesn’t take long for the heiress from San Francisco (Leslie Mann) to see that George is a better man than her arrogant, condescending fiancé (Thomas Hayden Church).
“George of the Jungle” (1997) is an over-the-top spoof of Tarzan inspired by the 60’s cartoon which I’ve never seen. You have to be able to appreciate fun, goofy humor to enjoy this quirky family comedy/adventure. It helps that Fraser is both likable and amusing in the eponymous role (I should add that he really inspires guys to improve their fitness). Meanwhile Mann is as sweet & beautiful as Bernadette Peters in her prime. Everything clicks for great entertainment; I laughed through practically the whole flick.
The film runs 1 hour, 32 minutes and was shot in Kaua'I & Maui, Hawaii, and the San Francisco Bay area, California, as well as other parts of that state (Middle Fork American River, Stockton & Los Angeles).
GRADE: A-

Colonel Bogey's Barmy Army.
OK! Lets get it out there right away, for historical facts of the real Bridge on the River Kwai story, one should research elsewhere, this film is a fictionalised account of the said events. Sadly there are those out there who simply refuse to judge this purely as a piece of cinematic art - and cinematic art it is.
A squad of British soldiers are held in a Japanese POW camp in the Burmese jungle. The respective Japanese and British leaders clash but an understanding is finally reached to build a bridge across the River Kwai. The importance of which could prove crucial in more ways than one...
It won 7 Academy Awards and 4 BAFTAS, and it was the film that saw the great David Lean enter his epic period. And what a start it is. Kwai is a masterful piece of cinema, it has a magnificently intelligent and complex screenplay - with tough edged dialogue in the script, is bursting at the seams with high quality performances, and beautifully photographed (filmed in Ceylon). Thematically it's about the folly and psychological madness of war, which in turn is ensconced in sub - plots of genuine worth. It all builds to a tremendous finale, where everything we have witnessed is realised with a deftness of talent from across the board. 10/10

An impoverished woman (Edna Purviance) feels compelled to abandon her child in the hope that he might find a better life - so she leaves him (with a short note) in the back of a car. The two men who find the little bundle don't want anything to do with him, so plonk him down behind some rubbish where de is discovered by the tramp (Charlie Chaplin). Now he's not that keen on children either, but the presence of an attentive policeman means can't just leave his new package in the pram of a woman nearby. Skip on five years and the two have become quite a formidable double act - the lad (Jackie Coogan) chucks stones at windows and his father-figure does the mending! Meantime, the mother finds success treading the boards and the boy's real father, likewise, succeeds - but that relationship is toast and she gradually starts to pine for and then search for her lost child. When the authorities cotton on to the lucrative acts of vandalism of the two, they attempt to seize the kid and put him in an orphanage - and that's when things all start to come to an head. There's a delightful bond that develops here between Chaplin and the enthusiastic young Coogan with Chaplin's direction showcasing both their skills and the extent of the poverty amidst which they lived and which drove people to make horrendous decisions to part with their children. The ending is exactly as it should be, so don't go expecting much jeopardy on that front - and the scenes with the angelic wings towards the end mix determination and comedy effectively, too. It makes you smile and pulls at the heart strings and is truly a classic piece of cinema.

If you enjoy this review, please check out my blog, Old Hat Cinema, at https://oldhatcinema.medium.com/ for more reviews and other cool content.
Two Little Tramps
The most amazing thing about Charlie Chaplin’s The Kid is that it was released in January of 1921. That makes this film 100 years old! A century has gone by since it was made, released, and first viewed, and yet it’s still available to be appreciated anew today. The DVD print that I watched was in very good shape, the picture was great, and I felt that I was watching an important piece of cinema history.
However, The Kid is by no means one of my favorite Chaplin films. In fact, two out of my top three aren’t even silent films, but prime examples of Chaplin’s later work: Monsieur Verdoux (1947) and Limelight (1952). And my third favorite, the 1936 masterpiece Modern Times, is only two-thirds silent!
The plot of the film is quite simple: our beloved Little Tramp finds another little tramp, and and raises the foundling as his own. Years pass, and together, they rise above their life of poverty through the power of love and comedy.
“Professionally funny” is a phrase that I thought a fitting description of Chaplin. He was an artistic genius, and he knew what he was doing and how to engage an audience. In fact, this was his first feature-length film, and he took a whopping five-and-a-half months to shoot it, which was an incredible amount of time for a film production in 1921. Chaplin, of course, not only starred, but wrote, directed, produced, and scored the film!
Jackie Coogan was fantastic as “the Kid”, displaying a wide range of emotion and deftly tugging at the viewer’s heartstrings. His father, Jack Coogan, Sr., coached his son during filming and was paid $125 a week by Chaplin, and also played several small parts within the movie.
Chaplin and Coogan in The Kid (1921)
It is said that Chaplin and Coogan were as close off-screen as on, and every Sunday during the first few weeks of filming, Chaplin would take the boy to the amusement park or other fun activities. This relationship was seen as either an attempt on Chaplin’s part to reclaim his own unhappy childhood, or possibly he was just thinking about his own son whom he had lost, having died three days after birth.
The Kid features a truly bizarre dream sequence in which the Tramp falls asleep on his doorstep and dreams of everyone — including himself — as an angel or demon.
He envisions himself as an angel, with white, feathery wings spread out behind him, and a harp in his hand. Others, including a neighborhood bully, appear as demons, depicted traditionally in dark (presumably red) attire and horns atop their heads. Even a little dog, suspended on wires, comes floating by in a little angel costume!
It’s one of the strangest and most inexplicable dream sequences I’ve seen in a film, and yet it is oddly captivating.
The technical aspects in this film — both in the dream sequence and in the rest of the movie — are marvelous when one considers that it was made a hundred years ago, when the movie medium itself was less than thirty years old.
Whether or not it is one of Chaplin’s greatest works is up to the individual viewer, but you cannot deny that it is a landmark movie, and holds an important place in the history of American cinema. It deserves a look, maybe even more than one. As the opening title card reads, it’s “a picture with a smile — and perhaps, a tear.”

Cute and funny. It is difficult to say anything new from this movie or Charles Chaplin. He just delivers a complete story with a lot of different elements. Remarkable is also the performance of Jackie Coogan.

"Esther" (Isabelle Fuhrman) is the resident of an high security facility in Estonia where she is a distinct danger to anyone who crosses her path! Rather gorily, she engineers a daring escape and somehow manages to get to the United States where she convinces "Allen" (Rossif Sutherland) that she is his long lost daughter. Well whilst dad might be fooled, the wife "Tricia" (Julia Stiles) and her son "Gunnar" (Matthew Finlan) soon catch on - but it seems that they have secrets of their own to keep. Can an uneasy truce prevail between them? Well, no - of course not but frankly I really couldn't have cared less. She is all too readily accepted into the wealthy American family (no DNA tests with her father to verify?) and as the story plods along, it loses any grasp on plausibility. We are required to believe that "Esther" is this epitome of evil, but the plot has more holes than a Swiss cheese so I kept asking myself just how any of this could ever actually happen - even in cinema land. It does have the benefit of being quite short, and to be fair to director William Brent Bell, he doesn't hang around once what passes for the story gets going. I just found the whole thing too nonsensical and the lead character had more of a petulance to her than any believable sense of menace.

89% user rating, and somehow, even though this garbage doesn't have any written reviews whatsoever, my rating of a solid 1 didn't move that average rating at all (even stranger things which released TODAY already has 2 written reviews).
Then compare that to the rating of imdb, which is a 4.2 out of 10 (which seems far more realistic), I'm 99.9% certain that they paid for fake ratings on here.
I want to bet that their average rating here is as real as their eyes and nails (and the rest of their bodyparts that I cannot explicitly mention in a review).
Besides, who in their right mind would watch this waste of space anyway?

Pretty sweet movie. I'm glad they remade this movie. They have a lot of crazy spirits locked in there. I liked it!

This is a movie I could've sworn I had seen before, but remember little about it, which does say something. Still, some interesting elements, the ghosts' designs, when you can appreciate them, have an almost Hellraiser-like quality to them, and never a bad thing having Tony Shalhoub in the lead even when I didn't once buy into the family dynamic.
Has the hallmarks of a a film from that era, with the direction (and camera angles) plus the inclusions of Shannon Elizabeth (American Pie franchise) and Matthew Lillard (Scream franchise) in there. Also, the twist at the end didn't make a lick of sense. That said, can't say I was ever bored and honestly, if anyone actually remembered this movie, the setting would make for a fun scare house (and using special glasses to see the entities) somewhere like at the Universal Horror Nights or w/e it's called.
**2.75/5**

Weird to see Adam Sandler as a woman. I thought this would be more like a comedy role, but he was legitimately trying to play a serious role as a female. It was kind of disturbing then funny.

It's all the more fascinating to watch this again in 2021, almost sixty years on, when the office of the US Presidency is still mired in conspiracy and controversy. This film deals with Louisiana District Attorney Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) and his almost obsessive quest to prove that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas in 1963 was a concerted effort by rogue elements in the American establishment - government, military and industry - to avert his withdrawal from Vietnam and ensure billions of dollars continued to line the pockets of many a vested interest. Oliver Stone has amassed a creditable cast to illustrate the developing theorem postulated by Garrison - despite personal and professional threats - that proves both compelling and interesting to watch. My snag is that the hook on which much of this drama is based - the characterisation of Garrison - is really poor. Costner just doesn't deliver. He is weak and uninspiring; his impassioned search for truth and justice is set up well by the strong supporting efforts, but his on-screen persona just lacks the zeal and intensity needed to sustain the intensity of this investigation. Plaudits ought to go to an excellently enigmatic Donald Sutherland as his latter day deep throat "X"; and to Tommy Lee Jones as the seriously seedy "Shaw". Kevin Bacon also performs well as the aptly named, glorified rent boy "Willie". Maybe it is the presence of such acting luminaries - Matthau, Lemmon and Sissy Spacek (Garrison's wife) that serve to further compound the inadequacies of the lead? A failure that is finally embodied by the missed opportunity to present his rousing denouement to an open court that is quickly reduced to something akin to a third grade chemistry lecture with little inflection or potency. It's long, at times feeling unnecessarily weighty. Perhaps, had the director not gone for a box office pappiness to head this otherwise gripping docu-dramna, then it could have been a great movie. As it is, it's good but lacking. Congress ordered an evaluation of the documents supporting/contesting these assertions in 1992 - the absence, meantime, of any further developments will ensure this film stays pertinent, however flawed, for many years to come...

On 22 November 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. On 24 September 1964, the President's Commission on the Assassination was presented to Kennedy's successor, President Lyndon B. Johnson, presenting the results of the official Government investigation.
_JFK_ follows New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) as he form his own alternative investigation, culminating in the trial of businessman Clay Shaw (Robert De Niro) on 29 January 1969 for conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy. This is, to date, the only trial to have been brought for the assassination of President Kennedy.
As political dramas go, _JFK_ is aimed at the truly hardcore fans. With its three hour runtime, the first two hours of the film are spent delving into the background of Kennedy's death and setting up the plausibility of the "alternative" scenario. It is important to remember that this is, ultimately, a propaganda film and whether you believe the events or not, it differs from the official Government narrative.
For a newcomer to the events of 22 November 1963 - which I was - this extended setup is simultaneously extremely helpful and mentally exhausting, and it is difficult to keep both awake and aware, so approaching the film with some knowledge - even of the Government narrative - is beneficial.
However, the final act of the film is extremely compelling watching, featuring Costner delivering a famous soliloquy that undoubtedly helped to influence later courtroom dramas, such as A Few Good Men and Amistad, as they pitch one man against the Government.
While _JFK_ was - rightly - nominated for a number of Oscars, including Best Picture and De Niro as Best Supporting Actor, and won Best Cinematography and Best Film Editing, it is difficult to feel that Costner was inexplicably overlooked as he singlehandedly carries the final act.
Extremely dry, but immensely compelling. You will question what you have just witnessed.

This is a Michael Bay movie. I could probably stop the review here because that says all about the movie. Lots of special effects and a mediocre story at best.
This Michael Bay movie is no different. The two stars I gave it is solely for the action and the special effects. The script is not even mediocre. It is rubbish.
I think what grated on me the most is that there are two characters in the whole movie that are somewhat likable. The rest are either assholes or idiots. Mostly both.
The actions of almost everyone are just annoyingly stupid and illogical. The constant bickering and shouting is frustrating. This “criminal mastermind”, Danny Sharp, is alternating between being a psychopath and just an idiot. His idiot comment towards the end that they were not the bad guys, they were just trying to get home was so braindead it was unbelievable. The police force is not really any better.
The entire chase part is just so ridiculous most of the time and the constant shouting and arguing drags it down further. The idea of doing an operation, over the phone, during a high speed chase while taking 90 degree turns every two minutes or so is laughable.
Then they had all this silly work up to where the baddies were going to assault the cops with their customized vehicles and the one time I expected Michael Bay to shine and even go a bit over the top it ended up being rather meh and mediocre.
Normally I do not really care that much if the script is not top notch in these kind of movies as long as it is good enough to drive the action but this script was too ludicrous and devoid of intelligence even for me.

I laughed, I cried, and now I think I need a nap.
My second Bay movie. Jake Gyllenhaal, nitro dog, fantastic cinematography, great emotional core, etc. Excellent stuff.

MORE SPOILER-FREE REVIEWS @ https://www.msbreviews.com/
"Ambulance is one of the most frenetic, literally non-stop action flicks of Michael Bay's entire career - which might be shocking to state. The cast is exceptional - curiously, it's Eiza González who stands out the most - and their interactions are far more hilarious than I anticipated.
Choppy editing and inconsistently shaky camera work can be extremely frustrating, especially outside of the action sequences, but on the other hand, these elements also contribute to the unstoppable energy of an authentic blockbuster.
Is it absurdly ridiculous? Undoubtedly. As silly as can be expected. But entertaining nonetheless."
Rating: B-

**If you want escapism action, you have come to the right place.**
Ambulance is as Michael Bay as a movie could possibly be. There’s a total of maybe 10 minutes of story and plot development before jumping fully into all-out action. Who needs character development when you have a 2-hour car chase and shootout? Not me! It is a non-stop action romp with next-level camera work and stunt work. You should know what you’re getting if you watch a Michael Bay film, and this is everything you would expect at its very best. Peak Michael Bay action.

I generally like Michael Bay movies, even when they go into stupid, inane territory. However, his latest, Ambulance is a 90-100 minute movie that is stretched to over two hours and got tedious pretty quickly, most notably the aerial/drone shots that did make me a tad nauseous. The writing also was pretty poor including the cringe "comedic" lines that didn't work, not to mention a few unnecessary scenes for the supporting characters. I guess on the plus side Jake Gyllenhaal can play psychotic pretty well and Yahya Abdul-Mateen II has his moments. I also liked how Bay/composer Lorne Balfe recycled one of the themes from 13 Hours at the end.
As a whole, this is not one I'll revisit. **1.75/5**

6 out of 10 for this waste of good actors. Garbage camera work, loud score, and anticlimactic ending that leaves the viewer just disappointed. Car chases and gun fights must have been directed by an action flick newbie, never even once is the cause and effect in the same frame. Looking at people shooting something off-screen and in the next scene seeing bullets hit another thing does nothing for me. Might as well read a book if I'm supposed to connect the dots myself. Similarly watching cars drive fast in close-ups or over hidden ramps is just boring. Dialogue wants to be clever so much and characters are overly colorful, not very believable on the whole. The movie is suspenseful though if nothing else and that is why my rating is relatively high.

Buried deep within _Ambulance_’s loud, flashy action, sickening editing, overstimulated filming techniques, and a screenplay that seems like it was fished out of a port-a-potty is a somewhat thrilling film. Jake Gyllenhaal is a cashmere obsessed lunatic that you can’t help but love, but _Ambulance_ is a gaudy and sloppy excuse of an action film otherwise.
**Full review:** boundingintocomics.com/2022/04/11/ambulance-review-action-at-its-dumbest-and-gaudiest/

So here's the gist. "Will" (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) needs $231,000 urgently, so he taps up his brother "Danny" (Jake Gyllenhaal) who, as luck would have it, is on that very day about to hit a bank for $32m. All he has to do is drive and his worries are a thing of the past. They manage to relieve the bank of the cash ok, but horny young police officer "Zach" (Jackson White) becomes a fly in their ointment when he decides to ask one of the cashiers out on a date, and gets caught up in the now much more precarious raid. He gets shot, and as the ambulance is leaving to take him to hospital the two robbers jump on board as their ticket out of the now police-strewn crime scene. Luckily, onboard the ambulance, is feisty no-nonsense paramedic "Cam" (Eiza González) who now has to keep the critically ill officer alive whilst her two passengers try to evade the might of the LAPD with their loot. What now ensues is just ridiculous. This sixteen tonne truck manages to evade snipers, souped-up police cars, helicopters all whilst having a critically injured man in the back. It seems to have no issues running out of gas; and must have an axle and suspension system that wouldn't be out of place on a Boeing 747. Gung-go police captain "Monroe" (Garret Dillahunt) demonstrates adequately that the more resources you have, the cockier you become - and the less successful; and the introduction of FBI man "Anson" (Keir O'Donnell) a college pal of "Danny" who has to rush from a marriage guidance session with his husband to try and apprehend the fugitives just tops off this rather preposterous narrative. The production is very good; the use of drones and high speed photography does create an effective image as the ambulance continues to evade pursuit, but the dialogue is dreadful. Lots of repetitive expressions with hardly a smile to be had as the plot descends willingly into the absurd. Luckily, we get to come up for air for a moment or so thanks to Christoper Cross' "Sailing" but otherwise this is a relentless chase movie with it's root firmly placed in fantasy. The ending takes 2¼ to come, and when it does it is as inevitable as it is poor. I'm sorry, but this is nobody's finest work and being the only person at the screening I couldn't help but wonder if others knew better than me - and stayed at home!

There is something really quite authentic looking about this western. Set at a time when the law was beginning to seriously impose itself on the otherwise lawless "wild" west, it depicts the story of Wyatt Earp (Kurt Russell) who just wanted to retire to peace and quiet in the eponymous Arizona town. Once there, he quickly realises that his fellow townsfolk are not on the same page. The arrival of his brothers Virgil (Sam Elliott), Morgan (Bill Paxton) and his lifelong friend "Doc" Holliday (Val Kilmer) make a confrontation with the red-sashed "cowboys" inevitable. This film takes it's time to develop the characters and the narrative. That's not say it is dull, it isn't - it just allows the story to breathe as the tension mounts before culminating in the legendary gunfight at the OK Corral. Russell was maybe not the best choice (though at times he reminded me of Gene Hackman); but Kilmer was oddly effective as was Stephen Lang's pretty duplicitous Ike Clanton. It's narrated by one Hollywood legend - Robert Mitchum, and features the briefest of cameos at the end from another - Charlton Heston, is well constructed and paced, and rather creatively, poignantly (and violently at times) depicts the end of an era.