SpaaceMonkee

The new Superman movie manages to be delightfully campy and generally funny without being stupid or cringy, which a lot of movies fail to pull off. In short, it's a lot of fun.

Most of the DC comic films have been disappointing; the ones that weren't have trended towards dark and serious, which is fine, but isn't always what you want from a movie. Superman is just an enjoyable time at the movies. The character development may be a little thin - and Lex Luther may be absurdly evil - but it's just enough to make you care.

Come for the army of evil monkeys cranking out hate posts on social media, stay for the corporate team of metahumans playing backup to Superman.

A House of Dynamite comes across as part disaster-movie thriller about a surprise nuclear attack on the United States and part political drama. More than anything, though, it's a think piece that asks the audience to consider how life-changing, irreversible decisions can need to be made under compressed timelines with seriously incomplete information. The movie hits the theme of acting under uncertainty over and over, where decisions are made through chains of command, but each individual may have only a small piece of information necessary for the decision at the top.

I think it's best to see the movie as a high-stakes procedural political drama rather than an action movie, and that may disappoint many viewers. It's not Sum of All Fears or Day After Tomorrow, with extravagant CGI effects showing building and landmarks being blown to smithereens. There's a mystery at the core of this movie, but it's not a mystery film with a narrative arc that ties everything up neatly at the end. That will drive some viewers crazy. More than a whodunnit, it's about what to do when you don't know and may not know before you need to act.

Hammering home these points, the movie tells the same story three times, each time focusing on a different set of perspectives and decisionmakers. Here, the movie falls off some as the iterations progress. If the first telling is gripping and edge-of-your seat engaging, the second telling is much less so, because you know where it's going, and the third version starts to feel repetitive.

Still, even though I wish the final round would have taken the story slightly further and didn't repeat as much ground, A House of Dynamite is a great movie that leaves you with a lot to think about.

The first 80% of this movie is terrific. It's innovative, filled to the brim with savage social commentary, and endlessly thought provoking. Dennis Quaid's producer character is a both too on the nose and too absurd an amalgam of "every bad male Hollywood figure ever" for my tastes, but the movie is such a tour de force that it blows through minor shortcomings like that.

The movie is sexy while simultaneously critiquing Hollywood's beauty standards. It's a philosophical exploration of doing the right thing personally, all shown by characters choosing the wrong end of a corrupt bargain. It's an exploration of one's self and values, and how those things change over time, demonstrated through juxtaposing past and present versions of a person. It's a seriously smart film. It's also a cringe-inducing body-horror flick.

Then you get to the final fifth and everything falls apart. Rarely have I watched a movie where I felt myself thinking, "Please don't do that and undo everything you've built over the last ninety minutes," only to watch the movie do exactly that and destroy itself. Absurdism is fine, and illogical elements can be used to make a point. What you can't do - and what The Substance seemed intent on doing as it careened towards its terrible ending - is defy the internal logic of the movie. It's a shame it went so off the rails, but the rest of the movie is excellent enough that it's still worth watching.