"Everybody" Can Enjoy Linklater's Latest

There's a common thread in writer/director Richard Linklater's work: knowing yourself. His filmography moves effortlessly from the realistic poignancy of "Boyhood" and his "Before" trilogy ("Sunrise/Sunset/Midnight") to experimental titles like "Waking Life" and "A Scanner Darkly." Meanwhile, his well-developed characters share unique insights about life, regardless of genre -- dramatic, fantastic, or anything in between.

His latest movie, "Everybody Wants Some!!" (yes, with two exclamation points) is no exception. Revisiting the tone and themes of his defining early works -- 1991's "Slacker" and 1993's "Dazed And Confused" -- Linklater imbues "Everybody" with the same spirit and wisdom without copying them. Instead, it's a wholly original and equally significant contribution to his cinematic output. Don't let the dumb-jock, easy-joke vibe of the trailer fool you; the marketing belies the movie's emotional and interpersonal intelligence. Linklater takes an overdone premise (1980s college athletes on the weekend before school starts) and gives us something brawny with brains to match.

Sure, there's a dumb jock or two, but these characters are game to prove their mettle off the field as much as on it -- so much so that they don't even play baseball until an hour into the movie. "Everybody" uses the competitive nature of social lives, a shared house, and sports as a lens on the timeless masculinity crisis. These guys aren't just coming of age; they're coming to an understanding of how to be men by integrity, not by gender. The fact that Linklater can wring hearty laughs and sharp observations from those concepts proves his skill in painting vivid, slice-of-life portraits.

The talented young cast gives their all, priming them for bigger things. Watch for Blake Jenner, Glen Powell, and Zoey Deutch in the future. Based on Linklater's past collaborations, he knows up-and-coming stars when he sees them, and his movies are perfect skies for them to shine.

How Sally Got Her Groove Back

You'll like (really like) Sally Field as the title character of the offbeat, charming dramedy "Hello, My Name Is Doris." Despite leading the ABC series "Brothers & Sisters" and steady film work in smaller roles, Field hasn't headlined her own movie for a long time, so it's nice to have her back in the spotlight.

"Doris" finds our heroine facing a major transition: restarting her life after years of caring for her ailing mother. She inadvertently latches onto her younger coworker, John, played by Max Greenfield (wisely trading in his snarky "New Girl" affectations for a genuinely conflicted nice guy). They form an unexpected friendship that may hold something more. As Doris's family tries to force her to move on, we also see an amusing push-pull about what to do, courtesy of her best friend Roz (the always-delightful Tyne Daly) and Roz's teenage granddaughter. Naturally, Doris wants to find things in common with John, and the smart script goes for laughs not from the obvious age difference but rather from her accidental embrace by the hipster community. These trendsetters mistake her eccentric, everyday style as a statement of reclaimed vintage (so the joke's on them).

Field's comedic timing and dramatic chops are both still in fine form, and her facial expressions -- as endearing and exasperated as ever -- deserve shared billing. She usually plays outspoken, iron-willed and courageous women; as Doris, she builds a more quiet strength. Thanks to attentive directing and co-writing by Michael Showalter, Doris is never treated as flat nor as a caricature. Instead, Field breathes three-dimensional humanity into the performance, and I predict a nomination for her at all of the major film awards.

To top it off, we get a well-rounded supporting cast and an effective indie soundtrack. But does Doris get John? The ending is ambiguous, but the man isn't the point. Doris finally gets herself, and that's the most significant goal that she (and we) could ask for.

Extra, Extra! Read All About It

Musicals based on movies can be good or bad compared to their sources. Musicals based on Disney movies are often just unnecessary. They adjust the plot and characters, add songs, and stretch the story too thin. While their spectacle is fun to watch, Disney shows coast by on brand recognition and nostalgia rather than a worthy adaptation.

"Newsies," based on Disney's 1992 movie-musical, rises above its contemporaries as a family show doesn't pander to The Mouse Empire's sanitized standards. Recreating historic New York and the 1899 newsboy strike grounds the production, so disbelief isn't suspended like it is when staging worlds of cartoon fantasy. Naturally, minor plot contrivances are made to ease its translation to the stage, but thankfully nothing like the misguided dimming of Mrs. Banks' fiery feminism in "Mary Poppins." Though the cast needed better dialect coaching, I'm impressed that they kept the film's mild swearing (common and in-character for teenage boys). It helps immeasurably that Broadway legend Harvey Fierstein adapted the script. The dialogue is witty but kid-friendly, and there are great zingers and profound modern parallels to cherish.

The real reasons to enjoy "Newsies," however, are its toe-tapping music and top-notch dancing. A deserving winner of Tony awards for Score and Choreography, the show hums with a kinetic energy that's absent from many current musicals. The lyrics aren't particularly memorable on their own, but they're bolstered by catchy, uptempo music from stage and screen veteran Alan Menken. Further elevating the production are acrobatic dance moves that exuberantly showcase its youthful characters without showing off. The audience gets a feast for their ears and their eyes.

My cynical side predicts that Disney won't rest until every last one of their movies has a musical counterpart. Meanwhile, my optimistic side hopes that future productions wind up closer to the sincerity of this one than the safety of the rest.

What Really Makes A Movie Successful?

The movie industry relies on an ideal balance of art and commerce. With two recent movies serving as the extreme ends of that spectrum, there are lessons worth considering for everything else in between.

The harsh minimalism of "The Witch" ranks it among the most unsettling horror films. Its premise is simple: an exiled colonial family is picked off one by one. The difference here is that everything feels authentically, tangibly fearful, from an ominous score and bleak cinematography to period-specific accents and dialogue. The movie also forms a treatise on the core of psychological thrillers: trust, paranoia, and loss of innocence. So why hasn't it found a larger audience? Critics rave about it, and it even won a directing award at Sundance. The short answer doubles as the sad truth: studios don't take as many chances on movies that make viewers think. Ironically, without the artistic integrity of independent film, there would be no barometer for cinematic achievement.

Meanwhile, the record-breaking "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice" is DC's belated attempt to match Marvel's franchise. The movie is pure entertainment value, nothing more or less. It's not as bad as critics say (I've seen worse), but its artistic credentials begin and end with director Zack Snyder's trademark visual style. The story forced together threads from too many unrelated comic-book arcs, and its trailers spoiled many of its own surprises -- namely the big introduction to Wonder Woman. An actual highlight thanks to Gal Gadot's genuine screen presence, her role became anticlimactic in the grand, cluttered scheme of things. Worst of all, the film over-philosophizes about the nature of power and good versus evil but never commits to a side. Something's wrong with your heroes if Lex Luthor makes sense!

Ultimately, the industry will set its own course. However, the merits found in movies like "The Witch" and "Batman v Superman" should complement each other, not cancel each other out.

Fear Has A New Address

Conventional filmmaking wisdom says that showing is better than telling. "10 Cloverfield Lane" is a smart, thrilling exercise in how to invert that formula and generate unbearable suspense.

2008's "Cloverfield," told through found footage, follows a group of friends fleeing New York during a monster attack. The camera gives us immediate, unprecedented access to their efforts, making the hybrid of disaster movie and documentary feel unflinchingly real. In a compelling twist, this sequel is a quietly paced character study with new protagonists and a different setting. A car accident lands a young woman in the sealed underground bunker of doomsday fanatic Howard (played by John Goodman), who saved her from the wreckage to protect her from what's happening. So what IS happening, exactly? It could be the end of the world, or it could be Howard's extreme paranoia.

Goodman's recent work in the legal series "Damages" and indie films like "Red State" has a menacing edge that makes you forget he played Roseanne's husband on a network sitcom. Here, his riveting performance -- every blink, twitch, sigh, and clench -- keeps us on our toes about Howard's true nature. This interpersonal roulette acts as a microcosm for their collective anxiety about what's happening above them. The most impressive elements of "10 Cloverfield Lane" are the unnerving moments that it creates with so little dialogue. What's communicated with pauses and silences makes the tension almost deafening, especially during long, uncomfortably slow shots that lull you into a false sense of security. Exemplary sound effects and lighting also create a palpable dread, somehow making the bunker feel gradually smaller.

In the final moments of the film, our heroine makes a choice that all but guarantees a third installment. While the first movie had a distinct ending, this one closes with several lingering questions. The merits of this entry make me patient enough to wait for its dots to be connected.