Cruella

Well, no—it’s not that exhausting rooting for the antihero. If, indeed, you do wind up rooting for her. That’s the tough trick to pull off in this outing: making a most iconic villain into something resembling a sympathetic character. It undermines the mission when, in the midst of these goings on, the henchmen start complaining about the nature of the lead character. It shows just how wide a span there is for this story to bridge. In this case, the program is helped a lot by Emma Stone’s work in the title role. She inhabits the personage to the maximum extent while still leaving room for the audience to give the well-known criminal a bit of a break. The rest of the rehabilitation is accomplished through transference: the movie introduces a new villain who takes up the mantle of vileness, and indeed, Cruella earns points by being the new monster's victim. It’s a fine line to walk, but it is mostly accomplished successfully here. As an added bonus, the film’s music—an aural travelogue of the 1960s and ‘70s—really helps put the viewer in a sympathetic (or at least neutral) mood. So does it all work in the end? Mostly, yes. All of the positives listed above, along with some fine humor and a solid (and admirably consistent) storyline make for a piece that, in certain respects, exceeds its inspiration and stands as a success in its own right. For once, Disney mined the back catalogue without going to the dogs.

Shazam!

A real surprise. This flick appears at first glance to be a throwaway addition to Warner’s somewhat feeble attempts to build a DC cinematic universe. After all, it features what can best be described as a relatively minor character from the old pages--certainly so for those who are not comic heads from way back. But initial impressions can be deceiving. This movie actually stands as one of the better recent  efforts in the genre--even compared with that other studio’s output. The story here is presented with a lot of humor and charm, and--when you witness the interpersonal dynamics between Billy and his foster family--even a certain amount of beauty. The characters all around are well played and suit their roles in the story exceptionally well. You root for these people, and you care whether or not they triumph the end. Add all that in with some good action, good but not overwhelming special effects, and an excellent supporting role for my native town of Philadelphia, and it all comes together in an unexpectedly uplifting superhero film. Who’d have thunk it? The power word here is...PURR!

Green Lantern

A superhero movie that comes with an ironic undertone: beauty is equated with heroism and virtue, lack thereof not so much. No wonder Ryan Reynolds made more of an impact as the antihero Deadpool. The garish nature of that vibe makes it difficult to root for the people you're supposed to like, because you get a distinct impression that they wouldn't like you (unless you're one of them, of course). This story might have been strengthened if it had been more directly tied to an extended universe, a la later flicks in the genre, but there's little evidence of that sort of overarching thinking here. (Released in 2011, this may be the last superhero movie that was designed to be, at least somewhat, a standalone piece.) As it is, the film is mildly entertaining, but with too many stretches that are not engaging--and the climax is somewhat lame, if not downright dumb. We may be safe from seeing a sequel to this one, though a reboot is always threatened in this genre. I think this one effort is more than enough.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle

I'm not sure about this. This movie and its predecessor seem to want to be a looser, updated version of James Bond, and in some ways it pulls that off. It's got all the action--in spades--the gadgetry, the humor, the 'save the world' trope...it's all in place, and I can't really say it's not entertaining. And once again, the filmmakers have a certain amount of political insight where they try to deliver a satirical but somewhat cogent point. All well and good. But--and it's a huge 'but'--there are problems here, too. The combination of sophisticated and crude will clash a bit too much for some viewers. This film (and this applies to the previous entry, too) relies almost obsessively on long action sequences that are heavy on visual and camera gymnastics: stuff that looks good at first, but gets tedious after a while, despite the director's obvious love affair with his own shot-making cleverness. And, in addition to being crude, this outing is also remarkably violent; only the John Wick movies are a match for the violence displayed here, and those flicks are substantially darker in tone. This is almost like "playful psychopathy" here--which isn't always funny and entertaining. Toning it down a bit would probably make for a better movie--though I wouldn't count on seeing that in the seemingly inevitable third installment.

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

See, here’s the thing about spies: if they’re doing their jobs right, you’re not supposed to know what they’re up to. Seems that the spies in this movie are on that ball--for a good stretch of the flick’s running time, I couldn’t tell what was going on. Despite that handicap, and almost in spite of itself, the film does eventually grow into an engrossing viewing experience. By the end, when Oldman’s George Smiley has worked through the problem, you care about how it all plays out. This is clearly not everyone’s kind of film, but if you’ve got a thing for the spy genre and a high tolerance for opacity, you might enjoy this one.

Robin Hood

The ghost of Errol Flynn hangs heavily over this movie. It would be bad enough trying to do a standard remake of the Merry Man's adventures; a re-imagination that changes the story in significant ways asks a lot of the audience. Not that this film is bad; there's much to recommend it, including a lot of authenticity and good performances by leads Crowe and Blanchett. But even so, you walk away feeling that something is missing here. A tough call--probably worth a look, but no guarantees.