There’s no disputing that the proliferation of streaming services has led to a serious uptick in the quantity of movie offerings. However, it is also tough to argue that the quality of those offerings has kept pace. That isn’t to say that all streaming originals are bad – far from it – but the truth is that “more” has not meant “better.”

Netflix is the most responsible for this content churn, releasing multiple new films on a weekly basis. And while a handful of those movies go on to be celebrated critical successes, the vast majority are disposable at best and outright bad at worst.

The new film “Interceptor” leans more toward the latter category than the former. Directed by Matthew Reilly from a script he co-wrote with Stuart Beattie, it is a small-cast military thriller that unfortunately falls short on the delivery of thrills. There’s a bit of a throwback vibe to the proceedings – if you haunted video stores in the late 1980s, you probably saw quite a few movies that bore a lot of similarities to this one – but those whispers of the past never get to the point of actually being fun.

Instead, we’re given a generic point-to-point action movie, one whose plot mechanics make less and less sense as we proceed and whose action sequences – ostensibly the reason we’re here in the first place – prove to be largely bland and uninteresting.

It’s no surprise that, in a cinematic landscape increasingly defined by IP-driven franchises, studios reach farther back into the past to mine content. Where once it seemed as if an idea was past its prime in a matter of months, these days, it’s not uncommon to get sequels that come a decade or more after their predecessors.

But what if a sequel arrived nearly four decades after the film that came before? Could a movie coming that much later possibly have anything like the impact of the original? It seems unlikely, but hey – when you introduce Tom Cruise into the equation, anything is possible.

The long-anticipated “Top Gun: Maverick” has finally arrived in movie theaters, more than three years after its initially-scheduled release and some 37 years after the release of “Top Gun.” It is a movie that seemed fated to fall short, based on a flawed-but-beloved jingoistic action classic and delayed multiple years due to circumstances both planned (extensive reshoots) and unplanned (COVID shutdowns). We’ve been waiting so long – how could it meet the inevitably-inflated expectations?

Reader, not only does it meet those expectations – it exceeds them. This movie is better than the one that inspired it, and not by a little. It is superior in terms of action, of emotional investment, of performance … just the better film, across the board.

I’m as surprised as you are.

That isn’t to say I though the movie would be bad – I didn’t. And I was definitely someone who came of age at the right time to have real affection for the original “Top Gun,” flaws and all. So I was poised to have a good time with this one. It’s just that I assumed that’s all it would be – an engaging-enough exercise in nostalgia that would be enjoyable in the moment but otherwise shoulder-shruggy.

Instead, what I got was far better than that, an exercise in top-tier action filmmaking that blends practical stunt work with CGI as well as anything we’ve seen before. Sure, some of the issues that marred the original are still here – the unabashed military self-celebration foremost among them – but thanks to a strong ensemble and a Tom Cruise capital-MS Movie Star performance, “TG:M” still manages to find an emotional resonance, exploring what it means to realize the obsolescence that comes with age and the difficulties that come with seeing change looming, even if it hasn’t yet arrived.

Sometimes, all you want is a big dumb action movie. You’re not interested in IP-driven blockbusters or massive franchises or any of that. You don’t want to worry about how this movie is impacted by what you’ve seen and/or how it will impact what you’re going to see. You just want explosions and movie stars and gunfights and quips and car chases and general big-budget tomfoolery.

That said … be careful what you wish for.

See, “Red Notice” – currently streaming on Netflix – has all of those things. It’s got an A-list trio at the top of the call sheet – The Rock, Ryan Reynolds and Gal Gadot. It has a huge budget – reportedly coming in at $200 million. It is an original idea, from a script penned by Rawson Marshall Thurber, who also directs the movie. Things blow up. There’s a heist AND a prison break. The Rock is strong and Ryan Reynolds is snarky and Gal Gadot is sexy. Fistfights and gunfire and explosions, double- and triple-crosses. It’s all in there.

It just doesn’t really work.

“Red Notice” is made up of a lot of pieces that should fit together, but don’t. There’s a flatness to it all that is prevalent to the point of distraction, with a vague feeling of disconnect permeating the entire film. The performances come off as a bit shoulder-shruggy, with everyone coasting on their preexisting personae; it feels surprisingly phoned-in in a lot of spots. The action sequences are so-so, with a couple of solid ones surrounded by some duds. The twists are telegraphed and characterizations are thin to the point of nonexistence. Rarely has such a big-time action film felt so sedentary.

From the moment he exploded onto screens in 1962’s “Dr. No,” James Bond – 007 – has cast a suave and swaggering shadow across the cinematic landscape.

It doesn’t matter that multiple actors have played the role. It doesn’t matter that there’s little to no consistency or constancy to the timeline – some events carry forward, others are forgotten. Over the course of decades, we’ve watched assorted Bonds ply their craft. They thwart elaborate plots with even more elaborate gadget-driven schemes, saving the world and inevitably falling into bed with one or more beautiful women.

That’s it. That’s the job. Or at least, it was.

Things changed when Daniel Craig assumed the mantle. For the first time, Bond was more than an unstoppable heavily-armed lothario in a tuxedo. Craig lent a heretofore unseen gravitas to the character, creating someone who actually dealt with the consequences of his actions, both bad and good. There was no more wiping clean of the slate – Bond’s deeds had lasting impact.

“No Time to Die” is Craig’s fifth – and final – outing as James Bond, and as far as sendoffs go, well … he certainly could have done a lot worse. It is very much a Bond movie, with all of the globetrotting intrigue and wild action set pieces that label entails, but it is also a surprisingly engaging character study of a man forced to confront the inexorable passage of time. Craig’s Bond is a flawed Bond – and arguably, the best of the lot.

Cary Joji Fukunaga helms this latest installment, taking the reins from Sam Mendes, who directed the previous two Bond films; Fukunaga also shares screenplay credit with three other writers. It is jam-packed with the sorts of extended action and convoluted plotting that marks most of the franchise’s offerings. One could argue that it is overstuffed – the runtime is a gargantuan 163 minutes – but considering that it doubles as a farewell to its lead actor, I’d say that it deserves to take as much time as it likes.

Starting with the revolutionary work of George Romero, the movie zombie has long been used as a sort of thematic cipher. The nature of the monster allows for a filmmaker to project their viewpoint regarding a particular cultural or societal issue; horror films are often about more than just the horror, with zombie movies serving as the most flexible palette for the expression of ideas.

Then again, sometimes a zombie movie is just a zombie movie.

While I’m not going to sit here and say that Zack Snyder DIDN’T have some sort of larger commentary in mind when he made “Army of the Dead,” currently in theaters and streaming on Netflix, it sure does seem like he just wanted to throw some hot zombie action onscreen and see what happened.

And that’s OK.

Basically, Snyder has grafted a heist movie onto his zombie movie to mixed-but-largely-positive results. There’s plenty of gore and viscera splattering all over the place. The heist side of things is reasonably heist-y. And Snyder shows a degree of self-awareness, embracing and sometimes winking at his well-known filmmaking tics. It’s got its issues – primarily its length and some unnecessary narrative/character convolution – and it lacks some of the pop of Snyder’s previous zombie feature, 2004’s “Dawn of the Dead” (his feature debut, no less!), but it is ultimately a successful genre mashup that works more often than it doesn’t.

If 21st century cinema has taught us anything, it’s that everything old is new again. We’ve watched as IP-driven blockbusters and nostalgia-trip remakes have dominated the box office over the past couple of decades.

Hollywood is a flat circle. We should never be surprised when a property from the past gets a shine-up and gets released onto a new generation of unsuspecting moviegoers.

So it is with “Mortal Kombat,” currently in theaters and available for streaming via HBO Max. Based on the iconic video game series of the same name and directed by first-timer Simon McQuoid, the film tries to breathe new cinematic life into the characters that have proved so popular for nearly three decades.

Tries and … sort of succeeds? But not really?

It’s a good faith effort, to be sure, but while we do get some narrative expansion, it proves to be awfully muddy and convoluted in ways that detract from the fundamental appeal of “Mortal Kombat.” By attempting to graft new characters and situations onto the already-extant foundation, we’re left with a film that can’t seem to get out of its own way. Yes, there’s some first-rate magical martial arts action – and a pleasantly surprising amount of visceral gore – but the clunkiness of the story development effectively caps the film’s potential.

I’ll admit to having had some fun at Gerard Butler’s expense over the years. He’s made some interesting choices, particularly in recent years, from the increasingly outlandish “[Something] has Fallen” series to ridiculous genre offerings like “Geostorm” and “Hunter Killer” to the outright execrable “Gods of Egypt.”

Quite the resume, no?

That being said, I’ve always derived enjoyment from these movies precisely BECAUSE they’re so flawed. Butler has carved out a niche as the guy you call to star in your nonsense movie. He’s good at it, lending an unearned gravitas to projects (I personally prefer him in his natural accent, but his generic American works just as well) that otherwise would sink unnoticed to the bottom of the VOD seas.

“Greenland” – directed by Ric Roman Waugh from a script by Chris Sparling – is a perfect example of the kind of B-movie sensibility to which Butler has hitched his wagon over the past near-decade, a straightforward end-of-the-world movie that nevertheless manages to engage on a more individualized level. It’s a film that embraces its budgetary limitations, giving us a film that is heavy on the human element rather than CGI pageantry.

Now, is it a great movie? Of course not – this is Gerard Butler we’re talking about. But it is an undeniably fun movie, one that manages to prove surprisingly moving in moments despite the general outlandishness of its plot machinations. We’ve seen a lot of apocalypses play out on the silver screen over the years, and while “Greenland” certainly isn’t the best of the bunch, it is far from the worst.

I’ve been a fan of Jackie Chan for a quarter-century. Ever since his “Rumble in the Bronx” hit U.S. theaters back in 1995, I’ve been enamored of his brand of self-deprecating action cinema, combining martial arts master with outlandish stunts and over-the-top physical comedy. He and frequent collaborator Stanley Tong didn’t invent the slapstick kung fu sensibility, but I’d argue that they perfected it.

The latest collaboration between the two is “Vanguard,” and while it doesn’t ascend to the heights of their most successful team-ups, it has enough of the stuff you expect to make it an entertaining experience. It has the outlandish action you expect, whether you’re looking for gunfights, car chases or hand-to-hand combat. In terms of the story being told, well … the action’s pretty good.

That’s the thing, though – you’re not turning up for a Tong-Chan joint to experience the story. You want to see some hot kung fu action and wildly dangerous stunts, and in that respect, “Vanguard” delivers.

Everyone has their particular tastes when it comes to movies. Even those of us whose job it is to offer up opinions regarding films have our personal preferences. And while we strive for objectivity, we also recognize that when it comes down to it, we like what we like. Taste matters.

Take action movies, for instance. There are those out there who find action movies to be generally lacking in appeal, who think that watching bullets and/or fists flying simply doesn’t make for good cinema. They are entitled to their opinion.

Their wrong, wrong, wrong opinion.

“Extraction,” the latest Netflix original offering to hit the streaming service, isn’t the greatest or most original action movie you’ll see … and that’s OK. See, it’s driven by some excellent set pieces and a strong lead performance from Chris Hemsworth, which means that it’s plenty good enough. It isn’t necessary to innovate when you’re willing to embrace the essence of what has always worked.

Adapted by Joe Russo from his own graphic novel “Ciudad” and directed by longtime stunt coordinator and first-time feature director Sam Hargrave, “Extraction” adheres pretty closely to standard action tropes. However, by executing at a high level, the film manages to largely transcend formula, offering viewers a thrilling and exciting two hours of escapist action.

There’s something appealing about a fresh start.

That’s as true in Hollywood as anywhere else. Studios love their long-running franchises, embracing the sureties that come with an ongoing concern. But they also love reinvention, returning to a property after a time to start all over again.

But you don’t often see both.

That’s basically what you get with the latest installment in the “Terminator” franchise. This new entry – “Terminator: Dark Fate” – is the sixth film in the franchise. However, it is ALSO a reboot, as it is intended as a direct sequel to 1991’s “Terminator 2: Judgment Day.” Essentially, this means that the three films that preceded this new one – “Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines” (2003), “Terminator Salvation” (2009) and “Terminator Genisys” (2015) – have been erased from franchise canon.

In many ways, “Dark Fate” offers a return to the spirit of those earlier films – films that were largely superior to the misguided franchise fodder that followed. It’s a simpler, pared-down story, one that avoids being bogged down by convoluted, tangled mythology resulting from multiple movies jammed with time travel.

By taking us back to that still-relatively-clean initial timeline, “Dark Fate” can bring us back into contact with the world that drew us in in the first place. This new film doesn’t quite scale the heights of those earliest entries – though creator James Cameron’s fingerprints are all over it (which is a good thing) – but the streamlining of the experience is welcome. Add to that some strong performances and a director who gets what makes the franchise tick and you’ve got a movie that certainly outstrips the mediocre trio of films that preceded it.