Have you ever asked yourself what the difference between “based on” and “inspired by” actually is?

It’s always tricky when it comes to movies, because obviously, filmmakers want (and should want) a degree of creative license with which to tell their stories. We’re not talking about documentaries here – these are fictionalized features, bearing as much or as little direct resemblance to their inspirations as deemed fit by the folks behind the camera. We can talk about based on or inspired by, but ultimately it comes down to this:

How true is the true story? And how true do we need it to be?

This brings us to “Amsterdam,” the latest film – and first in seven years – from writer/director David O. Russell. It’s clear early on that this one falls into the “inspired by” camp, with an opening title card that flat-out states “A lot of this really happened.” It should be noted, however, that the words “a lot” are doing A LOT of heavy lifting.

It’s got the standard galaxy of A-listers that we’ve come to expect from Russell’s movies, the sort of absolutely stacked cast that always seems to turn up. It blends comedic quirks with dramatic stakes and tries very hard to give its many stars a chance to shine.

Loosely (and I do mean loosely) based on the alleged Business Plot of the early 1930s, “Amsterdam” is a shaggy screwball mystery wrapped around a nugget of bleak historical truth. And while I myself found it charming and engaging, the meandering nature of the plot and the often-questionable relationship to the “real” events on which it is based might well prove a turn-off to others. As with many of Russell’s movies, your mileage may vary.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe is absolutely packed with heroes. You can’t throw a rock without hitting an Avenger or some Avengers-adjacent superhero. There are tiers, of course – your mainstays and your supporting players and whatnot – but there’s no disputing the sheer numbers.

Here’s the big question, though: with all of those characters, all those beloved spandex-clad derring-doers on the roster – your Iron Man, your Captain America – how is it that Thor is the first one of the bunch to get to four solo outings?

“Thor: Love and Thunder” marks the fourth film to center everyone’s favorite Norse god of thunder. Directed by Taika Waititi – who also helmed the previous Thor outing, the delightful “Thor: Ragnarok” – it’s a continuation of the irreverent tone and comedic evolution of the character, even as he continues to deal with cosmos-altering entities.

It is Waititi’s unique take on the character that has led to Thor being the first to four. While Iron Man and Captain America both came in hot, each getting to three films in short order, they were also somewhat handcuffed by the larger MCU story arcs. And then, eventually, the narrative required them to move on. Thor, on the other hand, was the perfect combination of important and irrelevant, giving an auteur type like Waititi the flexibility to steer the character in a more idiosyncratic direction.

With “Ragnarok” and now “Love and Thunder,” we get films that, while still slotting into the overall MCU house style, also have plenty of their own flavor. This new film is fun and funny, with a lot of the same goofball energy that powered its predecessor, though it should be noted that those who are looking for significant advancement of the larger Phase 4 narrative may be a little disappointed – in many ways, the story told here is self-contained, with relatively little impact on the grander arc (though if we want to talk about that as a symptom of the disconnected nature of this phase thus far, there’s a real discussion to be had).

Still, that’s OK – there’s definitely more room for fun when these films aren’t as constrained by the need for greater advancement. This one isn’t quite stand-alone – the Guardians of the Galaxy are here for a minute, for example – but for the most part, “Love and Thunder” is content to be its own thing. How you feel about that will likely play a major role in your enjoyment of the experience.

One of the complaints surrounding awards shows like the Oscars in recent years is the fact that often, the movies up for these honors aren’t necessarily movies that a lot of people have seen. They are critical darlings, but that acclaim only sometimes translates to significant commercial success.

“Ford v Ferrari” is that relative rarity, a film intended to win both at the ballot box and the box office. It’s pure Oscar bait, but with a big-budget sensibility – no surprise considering we’re talking about Disney here. It’s a sports movie and a biopic – the story of Ford Motor Company’s efforts to usurp Ferrari’s place atop the racing world back in the 1960s – with two no-doubt movie stars heading up the cast.

This kind of movie was once a mainstay of mainstream Hollywood. Now, it’s an unexpected treat. And it is a treat – you’ve got a talented and flexible studio director in James Mangold, with A-listers Matt Damon and Christian Bale taking turns driving. Just like the race cars produced by its namesakes, “Ford v. Ferrari” is sleek and fast; a powerful and expensive machine.

If you were to make a list of real-life political figures who might make a good subject for a biopic packed with satiric elements, pitch-black humor and a liberal sprinkling of absurdism, former Vice President Dick Cheney would probably sit pretty low on it.

And yet, that’s precisely what writer/director Adam McKay has done with his new movie “Vice.” The filmmaker’s follow-up to 2015’s “The Big Short,” his biting and surprisingly impactful riff on the housing crisis of the late-00s, takes on one of the most powerful and influential – for better or worse (mostly worse) – men to hold the office of Vice President.

With a virtuoso performance from Christian Bale as Cheney and an absolutely dynamite ensemble cast, McKay treats Cheney’s calculated rise through the ranks culminating in a consolidation of political power never before seen in the office of the VP. And he does it with a depth of intelligence and razor-sharp wit, bringing together stock footage and fourth-wall-breaking internal commentary with a more-or-less straightforward look at the biographical details; the end result is one of the most thought-provoking and challenging films of the year. Not to mention one of the best.

Rudyard Kipling’s classic 1894 novel “The Jungle Book” has served as the inspiration for a number of films over the years. Like any good source material, it has come to the attention of multiple filmmakers looking to tell their own version of the story.

Generally, we’ve seen a new movie about once every generation. Since the early 1940s, audiences have gotten a new version of Mowgli and his jungle brethren every 20-25 years. The iconic Disney animation hit in 1967; another live-action version swung through in 1994.

But then, “The Jungle Book” fell victim to the dreaded Hollywood disease known to some as ADIMMS (Armageddon/Deep Impact Multiple Movie Syndrome); two too-similar movies released too close together. There was Disney’s CGI-laden remake in 2016, replete with an all-star voice cast and directed by Jon Favreau.

And now there’s “Mowgli: Legend of the Jungle” courtesy of Netflix. The streaming giant meant for this big-budget outing – a motion-capture extravaganza filled with famous voices and directed by mo-cap maestro Andy Serkis – to be a theatrical release. But circumstances (including the massive success of the Disney film from just two years prior) led to a shift in plans – a very limited big-screen turn followed by a quick turnaround to home availability.

It’s certainly a darker look for the material than we usually see. But despite that darkness – or perhaps because of it – Serkis and company lose track of the story’s soul. “Mowgli” looks great, but looks aren’t everything. It’s a beautiful package without much inside.

Historical drama falls short of lofty ambition

Nolan's brilliant Batman trilogy concludes

Some filmmakers know how to do a trilogy. Some don't. Peter Jackson does. The Wachowskis do not. Steven Spielberg does (crystal skulls be damned). George Lucas did, but then he didn't.

Christopher Nolan definitely does.

After four long years, 'The Dark Knight Rises' has arrived. If you're like me, you've been anxiously awaiting this film since you walked out of the theater following a screening of 2008's 'The Dark Knight.' Nolan along with brother Jonathan and screenwriter David S. Goyer had slowly, steadily constructed a fully-realized comic book world. But this is not the brightly-colored bang-bang of Marvel's 'Avengers' assembly.