INGRID GOES WEST

Directing: B+
Acting: B+
Writing: B+
Cinematography: B
Editing: B+

I was afraid Ingrid Goes West might be annoying, with its stalker-needy protagonist. It probably says something that instead of annoying me, Ingrid made me deeply uncomfortable. And to a degree, Taylor Sloane, the object of Ingrid's obsession, did too. She's plenty obsessed with putting up a front on social media herself.

What director and co-writer Matt Spicer shows us with this movie is there is a fine line between Ingrid and Taylor, and far too much of the time, far too many of us straddle that line. Obsession comes in all forms, as does addiction. These are characters reflecting a world of people ironically desperate to present themselves as authentic.

In the opening scene, Ingrid, played with quiet menace by Aubrey Plaza, crashes a wedding. She maces the bride and screams that it's what she gets for not inviting her. But Ingrid is the very kind of mentally unstable person who can't see that her behavior is why she wasn't invited. We later learn that she never really was close friends with this woman anyway. That's not a spoiler; it's the setup. After some time spent in a mental hospital -- Ingrid is genuinely mentally unbalanced -- she sets her sights on a new target.

Taylor is the subject of a photo spread in a magazine, and it's still unclear to me exactly why. Just because she's gotten a ton of followers on Instagram, maybe? The headline says something to the effect of "Taylor Sloane wants to be your best friend." Ingrid takes this seriously, cashes a ton of inheritance money and moves to L.A. where Taylor lives.

There's a bit of a dichotomy in Ingrid Goes West's presentation of social media and its use. On the one hand, few movies get it so right -- the time people spend on it, and what kind of psychological effects it can have. On the other hand, although I can't remember if its brand logo is ever actually visible onscreen, the one app any of them uses is clearly Instagram, and in what world would that be the only social media anyone ever uses? Apparently in this one, the likes of Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat -- none of them exist.

That doesn't prevent this movie from being deeply cutting satire, mind you. Although it's billed as a comedy, and much of it is funny in ways that sneak up on you, it has a pervasive, lingering creepiness. Much of what these people do, in a multitude of subtle ways, hits a little close to home for anyone who spends a lot of time on social media. A minor example: early on, Ingrid is typing a comment on one of Taylor's Instagram posts. She types, and deletes, and types and deletes. Who among us has never done this?

It's worth noting, though, that Taylor herself is a perfectly drawn social media presence, all presentation and no substance -- at least not on her Instagram account. Elizabeth Olsen created a fake Taylor Sloane account on Instagram to learn and do research, but Matt Spicer could have just as easily found one of countless actors already using Instagram in the same way. Olsen was arguably a better choice, as she clearly understands that Taylor Sloane the character may not quite have the same objective look at how this story plays out.

It plays out in ways you don't quite see coming, and is all the better for it. Ingrid Goes West illustrates in painfully accurate ways how social media exacerbates our deepest insecurities. Ingrid herself may have genuine mental health issues -- which Aubrey Plaza plays with sympathy and compassion -- but she's never so many steps away from the average social media power-user that they can't see how easily it can be to end up where she spirals to.

Being set in Los Angeles, Ingrid Goes West also finds unique ways to jab at Hollywood and L.A. culture. Ingrid befriends her landlord, Dan Pinto (O'Shea Jackson Jr., giving a subtly comic performance all his own), and he is obsessed with Batman. This alone makes Ingrid Goes West a great movie for Batman fans, with its many references to the movies. Ingrid manipulates Dan by using his fandom, complete with a corny sex scene with her dressed as Catwoman that directly references famous bits from Batman Returns.

Social media has arguably transformed our world more dramatically than anything since the very invention of the Internet. Many movies have tried to capture the detailed effects of that transformation and failed spectacularly. Ingrid Goes West is one movie that for once gets it right.

Elizabeth Olsen and Aubrey Plaza's moment of peace will momentarily be replaced by the next post in your feed.

Overall: B+

GIRLS TRIP

Directing: B
Acting: B+
Writing: B-
Cinematography: B
Editing: B+

It's been six years now since Bridesmaids was released, and enough time has passed to make it clear that it paved the way for many undeniably similar films that will forever be compared to it. In fact, we may even be in Peak Bridesmaids Effect: this summer has yielded not one, but two crass comedies featuring ensemble female casts. Could it be that studio executives are finally admitting to themselves that there really are audiences for these movies?

The two movies in question do have a bit of a racial disparity. The first one, Rough Night, was released in June and had a mostly white cast (with the exception of Zoë Kravitz). It was poorly reviewed and so I never bothered to see it. I was convinced to see Girls Trip, which features four middle-aged black women friends taking their first trip together in five years, because the critical consensus was far more positive.

A bit more positive than my personal review will be, to be honest -- but, to be fair, only a bit. I found Girls Trip to be disappointingly contrived and often unnecessarily hokey. As always with a movie like this, it could be argued that the only sensible response to such a statement is: so what? This movie made me laugh, and I had fun. I was occasionally embarrassed for its stars, in its many cornier moments, but the long term impact of these moments was minor.

Presumably all four of the principal characters are in their mid-forties; three of them -- Regina Hall, Jada Pinkett Smith, Queen Latifah -- are played by actors ranging in age from 45 to 47. The clear breakout star of Girls Trip, Tiffany Haddish, on the other hand, is 37. Was her character a child prodigy ten years ahead of her peers when all these women were in college together? I suppose I'm nitpicking now. Technically even at 37 that's middle-aged.

They certainly all four have great chemistry together. And while Pinkett Smith, Hall and Latifah are all lovely and give their characters plenty of dimension, Haddish is funnier than the other three put together. If there is any one reason to see this movie, it's her. Her energy bursts off the screen.

These movies do seem to feel obliged to have at least one gross-out scene played for laughs. There's no shitting in the streets -- but there is peeing, from a suspended position over a French Quarter street in New Orleans, with an encore! I saw this movie by myself and kind of wished I had gone with a woman friend so I could ask: would the pee really spray that wide, if pushed through pants? Inquiring minds want to know.

It's the kind of scene about which it's easy to have mixed feelings, a set piece clearly intended to give the film some level of notoriety. It did make me laugh. The humor throughout the rest of the film, coming from a more authentic place, is far more satisfying. It's worth noting that this was directed by a man, Malcolm D. Lee, and he seems to be fully on board with celebrating black women with fully realized sexuality, while simultaneously telling a story that stresses the importance of true friendship. Girls Trip does come close to getting treacly, but it never quite crosses that line.

It's easy to believe these four women are longtime friends, who mean the world to each other but also harbor longtime and specific resentments. Any middle-aged person, regardless of gender or race, can relate. This movie's circumstances are specific, if somewhat contrived, but its themes are universal. You could do worse than spend a couple of hours hanging out with these ladies.

Regina Hall, Tiffany Haddish, Jada Pinkett Smith and Queen Latifah let loose on a Girls Trip.

Overall: B

WIND RIVER

Directing: B+
Acting: B+
Writing: B
Cinematography: B+
Editing: A-

When it comes to Wind River, the story is okay. What makes it worth a look is its setting, its characters and how they relate to each other. It's a rather dark and depressing reflection of the ongoing despicable American treatment of Native people. Its central character, Cory Lambert (Jeremy Renner), works as a tracking hunter on a reservation, for the Fish and Wildlife Service.

In a way you could call Wind River a modern take on cowboys and Indians. The long history of government neglect is unsubtly hinted at; the fact that this neglect followed outright genocide never mentioned. The fact that the tortured hero of this story is a white man is problematic at best, his ex-wife and the father of his daughter's best friend being Native the Hollywood script version of "Some of my best friends are Indians." Surely there are plenty of worthy stories to tell in which the heroes are Native?

But, okay, let's just resign ourselves to that framework, then. Wind River features multiple strong female characters, although predictably the one with the greatest focus is a white one, FBI agent Jane Banner (Elizabeth Olsen). She's brought in to investigate the killing of a teenage girl Cory has found dead in the snow, miles from any homes, while out tracking and hunting mountain lions. Local farmers hire Cory to hunt predators who are attacking their livestock.

The victim is a young Native American woman, who happened to have been best friends with Cory's daughter, who herself died under vaguely similar circumstances three years ago. Her name is Natalie (Kelsey Asbille), and she is the first character we see, in a striking image of her running for her life through the snow toward the mountains in the moonlight -- until she collapses. We later see her in flashback. We see her mother too, but only briefly, and with no lines of dialogue.

There are several Native American actors featured, at least. Natalie's father is played by longtime character actor Gil Birmingham (perhaps best known from the Twilight saga); and the ranking reservation law enforcement officer is played by Dances with Wolves's Graham Greene. Several of the supporting parts are also played by Native actors, which writer-director Taylor Sheridan was very deliberate about in casting. It does give the story an extra weight it would not otherwise have.

Whatever its imperfections -- Sheridan also wrote, but did not direct, both Sicario and Hell or High Water, each of which were among the best films of the past two years -- Wind River nicely rounds out Sheridan's trilogy of American Frontier films. Each of them examines a different, very specific intersection of American cultures, and all are worth the time. Wind River is maybe slightly less compelling in story execution, but it still has something to say that needs to be heard. How many people know that Native American women are the only demographic group for which numbers of missing persons are not tallied? That's insane.

That said, Wind River isn't exactly a good time -- although you wouldn't quite say the same of Taylor Sheridan's other films either. This is only Sheridan's second feature film as a director, and he is less assured as a director than as a writer. It makes this movie worthy, but not vital. It sticks with you, challenging its audience in respectable ways, while remaining beholden to certain Hollywood tropes in other ways. The story is well constructed, tense, and often gripping. It offers a slice of American life that gets far too little attention. If it weren't for its typical presentation through the eyes of white heroes, it could have been a great movie rather than merely a very good one.

Jeremy Renner is on the hunt for salvation in a white world.

Overall: B+

LOGAN LUCKY

Directing: A
Acting: A-
Writing: A-
Cinematography: B+
Editing: A-

Any time someone says they're never doing something again, don't believe them. Every "Farewell Tour" by any singer or band inevitably winds up followed by what might as well be called "The Just Kidding Tour." And Steven Soderbergh, who insisted he was done with theatrical motion pictures, took all of four years to return triumphant with Logan Lucky, easily one of his best films, and certainly his most fun since Ocean's Eleven (2001).

And Logan Lucky has a fair amount in common with Ocean's Eleven, which it even acknowledges in its own tightly polished script -- by one Rebecca Blunt, and here's a new twist: with no other credits, her bio on iMDB.com states, in part, "As of July 2017, suspected to be a fictitious person; a pseudonym for an, as yet, unidentified person." Whoever she is, she's an excellent writer. I honestly hope it's not Soderbergh himself. Anyway, a news segment in the film has people calling the heist around which the story revolves "Ocean's Seven-Eleven." Wink-wink. They also call it "the Hillbilly Heist." Clever.

Because, you see, Logan Lucky is essentially Ocean's Eleven meets O Brother, Where Art Thou? It just has characters who are far less sophisticated than those in the former film, yet far smarter than those in the latter. Channing Tatum is Jimmy Logan, laid off of his job because he failed to disclose his limp which qualifies as a "preexisting condition." He enlists the help of his one-handed veteran bartender brother Clyde Logan (Adam Driver) and his hairdresser sister Mellie Logan (Riley Keough) to snatch a bunch of the money out of the vault underneath the Charlotte Motor Speedway in North Carolina during the Coca-Cola 600 race.

Soderbergh introduces us to Jimmy and Clyde in a somewhat serious way as the movie opens. If you haven't seen the trailer and go into this movie cold, the beginning would make you think it was a drama. But Soderbergh has many tricks up his sleeve, not least of which is how he expertly, and gradually, makes the story more fun -- and funny -- as it goes along. This is the rare movie that is genuinely full of surprises.

Consider this: Logan Lucky has a large ensemble cast playing exclusively Southerners, and it never judges them, or even hints at its audience judging them. Not even when Jimmy's daughter, who is parented by Jimmy as the semi-absent father and a mother played by Katie Holmes in a welcome supporting part, participates in the Miss West Virginia Pageant. She's got enough makeup on that to be almost creepy, but this movie treats it like a normal part of Southern life. And maybe there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, the choice of the song the girl opts to sing during the pageant becomes a key plot point. In any case, this is one movie Southerners can watch without feeling like their intelligence is being insulted.

Jimmy and Clyde need an explosives expert friend who is in prison to assist them in getting into the vault. This guy, Joe Bang, is played by Daniel Craig, clearly having a blast. Jack Quaid and Brian Gleeson also show up as Fish Bang and Sam Bang, his smart yet unwise brothers. And I haven't even gotten yet to Hilary Swank and Macon Blair as the FBI agents who don't even show up until about the last quarter of the film, or Seth MacFarlane, totally unrecognizable as one of the NASCAR drivers. Steven Soderbergh seems to be gaining something in common with Woody Allen: a wide swath of Hollywood talent is clearly eager to be part of his ensemble casts, no matter how small the part.

And every such part here is key, and fits perfectly into a complex story told with as much skill and empathy as humor; the performances are top notch across the board. This is rare for a comedy, although this film is not strictly comedy. It's more of a crime drama that also happens to be consistently funny. There is real depth to all of the characters, even the ones that seem to exist for comic relief. They all have many dimensions, and feel genuine and real.

Perhaps most importantly, Logan Lucky will simply leave you with a huge grin on your face, its ending tying a bunch of supporting characters together in a sort of succession of callbacks that is uniquely clever. This is a story that ends both warming the heart and just making you feel happy. It's a crowd pleaser with emotional heft. The more I think about this movie the more impressed I am with it. It defies you to underestimate it.

Channing Tatum, Daniel Craig and Adam Driver hatch a plan that will surprise and delight you.

Overall: A-

STEP

Directing: B+
Writing: B+
Cinematography: B
Editing: A-

Here is a documentary you are bound to leave filled with joy and hope, unless you are a deeply cynical and suspicious person. It certainly hits all the right notes, sticking to the tried and true formula of feel-good stories about inspiring individuals overcoming hardships.

It's all about context, of course. It's one thing to celebrate a film that focuses on a group of young black women spending their senior year trying to win a regional championship with the step team they founded in the sixth grade -- and that is absolutely worth celebrating. The year in question occurs in the wake of the 2015 death of Freddie Gray, and the ensuing violent protests. The young women incorporate Black Lives Matter themes into their performances, adding weight to their already plainly obvious talent.

One thing Step fails to do, however, is address the degree to which these young women are themselves privileged -- and I mean that only comparatively. The clearly come from families with their own challenges comparable to those of many others. But they also attend an all-girls charter school that focuses on getting the entire graduating class accepted into colleges, and they do this as a result of having won a lottery.

I couldn't help but wonder: how compelling might the stories be of the exponentially larger number of young black women who aren't so lucky? Who don't win this lottery? That's just not how these movies are done. Filmmakers and audiences alike want to see the stories about winners, be they through hard work or by chance, or both. And to be fair, there's a healthy mix of both for these young women. Without this school, after all, none of these kids would have had these opportunities.

How did director Amanda Lipitz know this team was the right one to follow, though? I always wonder this when watching documentaries about teams attending competitions. Do they have a crew who follow countless participants or teams, and then in the end focus the editing on select kids who go the distance? I must admit to a moderate amount of my own suspicions. When it comes to the faculty we see in the school, or the family members: how much might they be playing to the cameras? Surely having a camera crew following you around is a massive distraction.

Therein lies the trick, though: the editing. God knows how much footage wound up on the cutting room floor, but what's onscreen emanates nothing but authenticity, genuine hopes and dreams, some nearly crushed and some rising out of ashes. I couldn't help but to be moved by this movie and the people in it, both the kids and several of their parents. Only about four of the students get a whole lot of focus. Again I wonder about the others on the team. How much time did they spend in front of the camera, expecting to see themselves in a movie? All this just goes with the territory.

At least the entire team gets showcased in several step performances. If you don't know -- as I did not -- step is a percussive dance, using no music, creating rhythms through the sounds and stomps and claps and chants. It's a little like Bring It On but without all the cattiness. Instead of trying to elicit "school spirit," it's a dance that presents as an art with its own merits. And these kids are very good at it. I actually wish there were more full routines in Step than it has.

Ultimately, Step emotionally manipulates its audience just like any effective movie does. It's all in the manner of telling the story, and this could have been told many other ways. To its credit, this is the way that works best, the way that gets people talking about it, and gets people watching it. These young women may be luckier than a lot of their peers, but that doesn't make them any less worthy of our attention.

The students of the Baltimore Leadership School for Young Women channel their artistic energy into step.

Overall: B+

COLUMBUS

Directing: B
Acting: B+
Writing: B
Cinematography: A
Editing: B+

Who knew that Columbus, Indiana, population 46,000, was a mecca for modern architecture? People who have seen Columbus know; several specimens of said architecture are featured in the film.

The population of Columbus the film is much smaller. It's mostly about a platonic relationship that blossoms under peculiar circumstances between a young woman only a year out of high school, Casey (Haley Lu Richardson), and a middle-aged man, Jin (John Cho), who has come to town to visit his Korean father who has gone into a coma. This father, who is only seen in the distance briefly in the opening scene, is himself a well-known architect who was slated to give a talk at the local library; Casey, who has an appreciation for her local architecture, was planning to attend the talk. She meets Jin only by chance, smoking cigarettes on either side of a fence.

Everyone smokes in this movie, incidentally. It's so rare to see it happening on screen anymore -- in movies or on television -- that I found it almost distracting. Nearly every scene shows one or more people smoking. Casey and Jin are smoking constantly. It made me wonder if this is a reflection of different smoking culture in the Midwest. As it happens, Indiana indeed has the seventh-highest percentage of smokers among U.S. states, 22.9% of adults. I've never been to Indiana, but to an outsider perspective, Columbus seems to have made an effort at authenticity to its setting.

I was moved by this film, although it's hard to characterize exactly why. It's easy to see it boring some people out of their minds. There's no particular action of any kind in it. It's not even the kind of movie that would be known as being dialogue-driven, although technically it is. This is a very quiet film, in a way I found sort of soothing. It seems just short of realistic, the way the characters always speak to each other in quiet, pleasantly measured tones -- even in the one scene where the two principal characters say hurtful things to each other.

The cinematography, by Elisha Christian, is the key element, and it beautifully showcases much of the local architecture the characters spend a great deal of time discussing. Otherwise it features in one way or another in the background as the characters face their particular predicaments. Jin struggles with handling the possibly pending death of a distant father. Casey resists opportunities available to her outside of town because she feels her recovering addict mother needs her too much.

Another treat: Parker Posey, the longtime darling of indie movies, as the architect-father's longtime assistant. Rory Culkin shows up as Casey's coworker friend with possibly unrecognized affections for her. The performances across the board are understated, but serve the story well. It all comes together to create an almost dreamlike sensibility. Without exception, they all speak softly. Only once does a character even briefly shout, and it's not a particularly key moment in the film, though it is important.

It's nice to see John Cho finally showcased as a leading man. Haley Lu Richardson has an almost celestial glow about her, and looks like she could be Jennifer Grey's daughter. These two have an unlikely chemistry that proves compelling, even as they talk about something as dry as architecture. I suppose if you enjoy quietly pleasant movies and have an interest in architecture, then this is a movie for you. I happen to fit that profile.

But, I would also argue this film transcends those parameters. This is a film about very different people who cross paths by chance and connect in a convincingly organic way. It's perfect counter-programming to the dumb noise otherwise found in the latest blockbuster.

Haley Lu Richardson and John Cho discuss all that's underappreciated in Columbus.

Overall: B+

THE DARK TOWER

Directing: C+
Acting: B-
Writing: C-
Cinematography: B+
Editing: C+
Special Effects: B

I'm trying to figure out who exactly this movie is for. By all accounts, it bears only vague reference to the source material, Stephen King's Dark Tower series of novels. Not that I ever think a movie is particularly beholden to its supposed source material -- I have long advocated judging a movie on its own merits. The thing is, this Dark Tower has hardly any merit of its own. It's incomprehensible, its premise is flawed at best, and it dialogue -- by a team of four writers -- ranges from abysmal to forgettable.

If this movie has any merit, it is its star, Idris Elba, who delivers a performance unworthy of the film itself. Here is an exemplary actor, someone who commands the screen, who gives life to otherwise clunky dialogue. It hardly matters who the director is, Elba shows up to elevate the material.

This material still isn't very high even after being elevated, though. At least Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets had spellbinding special effects. Then again, it was also way too long. The Dark Tower, conversely, is a mercifully short 95 minutes and has merely serviceable special effects. There's a sequence with an impressively rendered monster. The main issue with that sequence is it lacks clarity regarding where the monster comes from and why it's here.

The Dark Tower wants to have it both ways, presenting a story meant to be epic but truncating what should be a complex story to the point of incoherence. Trying to explain it here would just be a waste of time, except to say that it features rat-people who wear human faces as masks. Huh? The Dark Tower of the title apparently protects the universe from monsters that live outside of it, and the Man in Black is using children's minds to destroy it. There's this one boy from "Keystone Earth" whose mind is the most powerful and therefore the most sought after. Are you following this?

Matthew McConaughey is the Man in Black, and he proves not to be the best choice as the villain in a would-be blockbuster fantasy thriller. He's not particularly believable as a big, bad, evil dude, and as such, he lowers the same material Edris Elba heightens. McConaughey never quite comfortably fits into the role. Tom Taylor, as the boy who "shines" (meaning he has telepathic ability; when did this become a mashup with The Shining?), is somewhat inconsistent but fine in the context of the mess that surrounds him.

I might have enjoyed The Dark Tower slightly more if it didn't take itself quite so seriously. Instead, it's so misguided in its attempts at gravitas that it can't even manage to be enjoyable as a bad movie. It just gets lost in its own hodgepodge blandness. There are subtle attempts at humor when Elba's Gunslinger leaves his own dimension and navigates the boy's world in New York City, but it never quite works. A clear tone is never settled upon: is this movie confusingly dumb, or is it forgettably chaotic? I'd suggest you be the judge, but I can't suggest you see this movie.

Idris Elba and Tom Taylor search in vain for meaning in the lives they lead in this movie.

Overall: C+

DETROIT

Directing: A-
Acting: A
Writing: B+
Cinematography: B+
Editing: A-

This must be acknowledged up front: Detroit is a movie steeped in black American history, starring a whole bunch of mostly male black actors -- directed by a white woman, which is a bit of a mystery. Black directors do exist; it could not possibly have been difficult to find one to tell this story; one is left to wonder what different choices might have been made with one -- of either gender.

But, okay: let's say we have no idea who directed Detroit. It's an objectively impressive film. It's just as relevant, however, that I say that as a white guy writing this review, so take that however you feel is appropriate.

The story starts with a fairly long stretch of the chaos that made up the 1967 riots in the city of the title, taking a macro view of longstanding racial unrest. Then the focus narrows, organically, to a single incident in the Algiers Motel, where three white Detroit Police officers terrorized several black men, and two young white women, and killed three of the young men. They were there, ostensibly, to investigate what they thought was sniper fire, depicted here as a black man deliberately shooting a starter pistol toward nearby cops embroiled in the riots, just to stir up trouble.

None of Detroit is particularly easy to watch, which is as it should be. The scenario and the history and the details are all complicated, but it all still comes down to a mostly-white police force, as stated in the opening titles, "known for its aggression." The film spends a great deal of time on the incident at the motel, with the cops lining several occupants against a wall and demanding to know who had a gun. Several of the people being questioned were not even in the same room from which the starter pistol was fired, but when they say they know nothing about any gun, the cops are convinced they are lying.

All of this is both preceded and followed by what we are clearly to understand is murder by the police. I almost feel bad for Will Poulter, who plays the ring leader of these three cops; he plays him so well that it's easy to hate him.

This is quite the ensemble cast, which leaves Detroit without any star. This is not the kind of story that demands one anyway, as the focus is rightly on the events themselves. Some familiar faces do pop up: John Boyega as a security guard working nearby who predictably winds up a suspect; John Krasinski as the cops' defense lawyer. Most of the rest of the cast is not as familiar, but across the board the performances are solid. If anyone deserves to be singled out, it's Algee Smith, as the lead singer of a group of musicians who happened to be at the motel. He gets more screen time than most and he serves it well.

And what this ensemble does, as a team, is present America with some hard truths. A lot of what goes on in this movie, you could do nothing more than update the hairstyles and fashions, and it could be set in the present day. It's not long before you realize that Detroit is reflecting a shameful American tradition of police being acquitted for shooting and killing unarmed black people.

Every incident is different, with its own unique set of circumstances, and here director Kathryn Bigelow focusing on just this one case. But it's also one of the earliest high-profile cases that long ago established a disturbing trend, where they all end in the same way: known killers escaping punishment.

If you think a movie like 12 Years a Slave provides an easy out by focusing on one guy who got a happy ending after years of hardship rather than on the countless more who lived entirely hopeless lives under the existential threat of oppressors, then Detroit might be the movie for you. This story features characters who find some level of peace only through death or resignation, the sacrifice of hope and dreams, resilience in the face of unchanging injustice.

These things are precisely why Detroit needs to be seen. It's hard to imagine many people wanting to see it, for wildly varying reasons depending on the viewer's on socioeconomic background. Usually a movie like this goes out of its way to leave audiences with a sense of uplift or inspiration, and this one merely hints at it, until veering back to a specific event that in hindsight represents the lasting effects of institutionalized racism to this day. America is in desperate need of taking a hard look at itself, and here is a movie doing its part.

Well, it may be difficult to watch, but it's also almost impossible to look away. That's how skillfully assembled this movie is. As soon as it starts, you know nothing good is coming, but you still most know what it will be. The trick will be getting people to turn their gaze on it to begin with. To say you'll be glad you did wouldn't be quite accurate, but there is a certain satisfaction in something that is compelling and provocative in the right ways.

*whispers* This movie is going to make you uncomfortable.

Overall: A-

AN INCONVENIENT SEQUEL: TRUTH TO POWER

Directing: B
Writing: B
Cinematography: B
Editing: B-

Here is a movie with a vital message, one that we all need to hear, with visuals we all need to see. Consider just one of many examples, but among the most important: a graph that former Vice President Al Gore shows in the latest version of the slide show he's now been giving for nearly two decades, showing in the plainest terms how global temperature averages have shifted higher, acknowledging that there are still colder than average days but -- and this is an important point -- they occur far less frequently, with an explosion of hotter than average and extremely hot days. Those who listen to politicians who hold up snowballs in Congress to supposedly prove global warming is a hoax would do well to take one look at an image like this.

The thing is, those people don't want to look at these images. This issue is even more politicized now than it was when the first movie, An Inconvenient Truth, was released eleven years ago -- when George W. Bush was still the president. And that film, in its context at the time, had the power to get people fired up, spreading information -- and visual proof -- about this issue to more people than had ever been managed before.

At the time, I wrote: Anyone who outright refuses to believe in global warming as theory rather than fact is likely going to be wasting their time watching this movie -- you might as well try and turn a fundamentalist Christian into an atheist in 100 minutes. But for anyone on the fence, who isn't sure what to believe -- and there are a great many -- then this movie is for you. If An Inconvenient Truth doesn't convince fence-sitters, then they weren't really sitting on the fence to begin with.

But who will even see this follow-up? Certainly not fence-sitters, of whom there are now fewer still. Therein lies the inherent problem with An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power, with which comes an unmistakable feeling that we've long since passed the point of no return, and perhaps we had even when the first film was released. This would be the case even if Hillary Clinton were sitting in the White House right now -- and, of course, this film offers the 2016 election as a major sticking point.

To be sure, it's inspiring to see the passion in Al Gore and his talks. He is shown here leading Climate Reality Leadership Corps Trainings, showing others how to give these talks on their own -- although as presented onscreen in the film, it's basically an updated version of the presentation he gave before. He gets fired up, and when you're watching, he makes you want to get fired up too.

That said, Truth to Power falls victim to some minor pitfalls of many a movie sequel, just in terms of its presentation. Remember the dynamic impact of the "off the charts" graph he showed in the 2006 film, using an electronic life to show the dramatic difference in temperature increases? He does a similar thing here, although it's with the exponential increase in solar energy investments. It provides some much-needed hope, to be sure, but unfortunately having used the gimmick once already, its impact is diminished. He even opens his talk this time with an updated version of his "I used to be the future President of the United States" line, now offering an anecdote about a woman who mistook him for someone who looks like Al Gore. Beat for beat, An Inconvenient Sequel follows nearly the exact same format as An Inconvenient Truth. This was maybe not the best approach, because it lends an air to the "been there, done that" feeling that serves as a barrier to calls for action.

A lot of things have happened in the sphere of climate change in the past decade, of course, from the increased frequency of severe storms (long-ago predicted) to the milestone of the Paris Agreement. This film doesn't state it explicitly, but certainly infers that Gore himself was key to getting the most significant holdout, India, to come around. It basically presents Gore as the hero of the Paris Agreement, and I am left a little skeptical -- it could not possibly have been that simple. For an issue as critical, and as unfairly criticized, as climate change, this kind of borderline misleading storytelling is dubious at best.

This movie is still packed with plenty of updated, vastly important information, and most people who care about the environment will find it suitably compelling. Some might even find some surprising hopefulness in it. Even I did, in the midst of my lack of faith in effecting any real change on this issue at this juncture. After all, Gore visits Georgetown, Texas, where the mayor calls it "the reddest city in the reddest county in Texas," and it is poised to become the largest U.S. city to rely solely on renewable energy. The man makes the practical argument that should appeal to most conservatives: it's now the cheapest option for providing city utilities. It's the kind of thing that makes you want to contact your own local government and demand they work swiftly toward the same goals.

The point, which An Inconvenient Sequel arguably doesn't hammer hard enough, is that industry trends are bending quickly toward renewable energy, regardless of what the skeptics (and the outright ignorant) think. What the film doesn't quite address, on the other hand, is exactly what impact the "turning point" he feels the environmental movement is poised to make will have on the tipping point of irreversible effects and damage of climate change. When, exactly, will the streets of Miami Beach stop being flooded by high tides that never behaved this way before?

Again, I fear the damage has been done. An Inconvenient Truth made us feel like we could do something to mitigate the damage, and An Inconvenient Sequel shows us what we still can and should do, but doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the same kind of potential. It looks increasingly like that ship has sailed, and it sailed through waters that were once covered in ice. I guess there's something to be said for the idea of knowing the war is likely lost but still refusing to go down without a fight. That's a fairly cynical attitude that I will own, and which this film absolutely does not advocate. But neither does it inspire a proportionate amount of hope to combat that cynicism.

Al Gore can't be faulted for any of this. This is a man who fought hard for attention to this issue for decades, and for that he should be commended, and perhaps even rewarded with attention to both of his films. This second film's direction is not quite as focused, but its message is clear and transcends its storytelling flaws. It's just not liable to change anyone's mind, is all. We'll just keep on using severe winters as straw men until we choke on baked smog in the summer, as the world keeps turning until it sheds itself of this cancer called humanity. In the meantime, a few of us will vacillate between feelings of inspiration and futility, sometimes within the space of a 98-minute documentary.

There goes the planet! Al Gore visits a rapidly melting ice sheet.

Overall: B

LANDLINE

Directing: B+
Acting: A-
Writing: B+
Cinematography: B
Editing: B

Jenny Slate is a singular personality, and her presence alone brings a peculiar charm to just about anything she's in. You could say the same of Edie Falco, who here plays her mother. Ditto John Turturro, who plays her father. She and the younger woman who plays her high-school aged sister (Abby Quinn, a match for all around her) suspect their father is having an affair.

In the midst of this, Dana (Slate) is having her own affair, freaking out in the lead-up to marrying her fiancé (Jay Duplass). For some reason, all of this is set during the mid-nineties, which I suppose justifies the title of the film, in a way. Young Ali (Quinn) has her own landline phone in her bedroom, which has to be taken away from her as punishment at one point. No one in this movie has smart phones. Honestly there's something weirdly refreshing about that, almost a relief. There is something to be said for personalities getting through more clearly without devices serving as distractions and barriers.

I can't say there's anything particularly vital about this story, and especially in the beginning, I found myself almost wondering what was the point. But then the story picks up, and the two sisters join forces in trying to solve the mystery of their father. Ali has found oddly written love notes on his very 1990s Apple Computer.

The thing is, these two young women feel very much like real sisters. The whole family feels very real, in their New York City way of veering between matter-of-factness and neuroses. Before long, thanks to truly solid performances all around, you've become invested in every one of these relationships. The sisters' relationship with each other. Their relationship with their parents. The parents' relationship with each other. And in a fairly breezy 97 minutes, the perfect amount of time and attention is paid to all of them.

Landline is ostensibly a comedy, and I wanted it to be funnier than it was. I did get a few good laughs out of it, and in the end was perfectly satisfied with it anyway, because my investment in these characters was well rewarded. This is the kind of movie that has a surface appearance of being ordinary or generic, but gradually reveals itself to be a rare treat.

Overall: B+