Releasing this week on Netflix, the sports comedy-drama shines a light on the Homeless World Cup, an annual event in which, yes, homeless male and female footballers — soccer players to us — play for their countries in matches of four-on-four “street” soccer, which is played on a smaller field, er, pitch.

Made with the support of the event’s namesake organization and said to be inspired by true stories, “The Beautiful Game” focuses mainly on fellas comprising the English club and their coach, a former professional star player.

The direction by the suddenly busy Thea Sharrock — her film “Wicked Little Letters” debuted at the Toronto International Film Festival last year and lands in Northeast Ohio theaters next week — and screenplay by Frank Cottrell-Boyce leave a lot to be desired.

The film has the flow of a match where neither team manages more than a few scoring opportunities, but it does eke out a win.

The ever-enjoyable Bill Nighy (“The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel,” “Living”) stars as the aforementioned player-turned-coach, Mal, who also spent time as a scout for a pro club. When we meet him, he is hunting for big game — former pro Vinny (Micheal Ward), who has been living out of his car for a stretch as he’s struggled to find steady work.

Mal explains to Vinny that he’s been involved with the Homeless World Cup for years and that he’s set to take his 12th team to the tournament, which this year is in Rome.

“You ever won it?” Vinny asks.

“It’s not about winning,” Mal says.

“You’re desperate to win it.”

“Well, I wouldn’t object.”

Mal tells him that every player at the tournament has a story to tell — “heartbreaking, unexpected, thrilling stories” — and seems to want Vinny to take part in the Homeless World Cup for reasons that go beyond the fact he clearly would be the team’s best player.

Vinny is the prideful type and initially rebuffs Mal, but perhaps eager to impress the young daughter he visits at a playground who’s being raised by his ex, he agrees to go.

With the possible exception of the team’s existing striker, Cal (Kit Young), the players warmly welcome Vinny into their supportive dynamic, but he chooses to keep his distance, even once they’re all in Rome and competing. He does provide some much-needed scoring punch, unabashedly installing a “pass it to me” core team strategy.

It isn’t the fault of Ward (“Empire of Light,” “The Old Guard”) that it’s so hard to warm to Vinny, as Sharrock, whose credits also include the controversial 2016 tearjerker “Me Before You,” and Cottrell-Boyce, perhaps best known for TV writing, fly too close to the sun with his character arc. Vinny simply is too hard to like for too long.

As a result, we wish “The Beautiful Game” gave us more time with Nighy’s Mal, who habitually talks to his beloved late wife. Still, there seems to be a little chemistry between him and Gabriella (Valeria Golino of “Rain Man” fame), who helps run the event and talks a little trash on behalf of her host Italian squad. it feels like a missed opportunity not to make more out of, um, “Mal-riella,” if we may be so bold, than the movie does.

“The Beautiful Game” includes mini-subplots involving the English players, the closest to impactful of which involves Nathan (Callum Scott Howells), a recovering heroin addict who tries hard to connect with his cold roommate, Vinny.

The movie also devotes some attention to two other teams: South Africa, expected to be the dominant squad in England’s group before running into travel trouble; and Japan, competing for the first time. Thanks to the performance of Susan Wokoma as the infectiously enthusiastic nun coaching the South African team, the former element adds a little something to the proceedings. (The latter adds very little.)

Lastly, we spend a little time with Rosita (Cristina Rodlo), a hugely talented player for the U.S. who catches the eye of British player Jason (Sheyi Cole), who doesn’t make the best of first impressions. After getting past that, they spend a bit of time together, with Rosita explaining why the Homeless World Cup — and soccer in general — could mean so much to her future.

Thinking “Ted Lasso” crossed with “Next Goal Wins” gets you in the ballpark as to what “The Beautiful Game” has to offer, although it’s not as strong as either the Apple TV+ hit or the 2023 film from writer-director Taika Waititi, respectively.

Despite all its fumbling about, “The Beautiful Game” succeeds as a celebration of the Homeless World Cup, championing not only what the experience means for those who participate in it but also its power to inspire others around the world.

According to the film’s production notes, the event has taken place 18 times since its inaugural 2003 event in Graz, Austria. After three years off due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Homeless World Cup took place last year in Sacramento, California, with this year’s set for Seoul, South Korea, in September.

A number of non-speaking roles in the film are played by those who have competed in the affair, lending that little bit of authenticity to “The Beautiful Game.”

In the end, what Mal says about the Homeless World Cup may be true, that it’s not about winning. Instead, it would seem to be about lifting the spirit, as the movie inspired by it does.

‘The Beautiful Game’

Where: Netflix

When: March 29

Rated: PG-13 for some language, a suggestive reference, brief partial nudity and drug references

Runtime: 2 hours, 5 minutes

Stars (of four): 2.5

In theaters this week, “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire” is the follow-up to the largely enjoyable 2021 adventure “Ghostbusters: Afterlife.” The latter, which saw Jason Reitman — son of Ivan Reitman, director of 1984’s original “Ghostbusters” and its 1989 sequel, “Ghostbusters II” — at the helm, introduced a new generation of brave spirit-catching souls while also bringing back key legacy characters.

Well, the “Ghostbusters” franchise obviously isn’t ready to let go of the past.

“Frozen Empire” — co-written, like its predecessor, by Jason Reitman and Gil Kenan, who takes over directing duties this time — is similarly packed with multiple generations of Ghostbusters. As a result, it doesn’t feel as fresh as “Afterlife.”

Nonetheless, it’s again a pretty entertaining way to spend a couple of hours.

Following a prologue set in 1904 New York City in which a few frozen folks literally fall to pieces, we move to the modern Big Apple and catch up with the family at the heart of the new movie, descendants of deceased original Ghostbuster Egon Spengler. Mom Callie (Carrie Coon), son Trevor (Finn Wolfhard) and daughter Phoebe (Mckenna Grace) are out on the hunt, packed into the vehicle synonymous with the Ghostbusters, Ecto-1, being driven by Gary Grooberson (Paul Rudd), who’s graduated from being Phoebe’s teacher to her, um, “step-teacher,” as he awkwardly puts it.

Bankrolled by Ghostbuster-turned-philanthropist Winston Zeddemore (Ernie Hudson), the family now resides in the Ghostbusters’ old Tribeca firehouse, traveling by pole from where they sleep to the other levels of the aged building.

Another hero is, again, Dan Aykroyd’s Ray Stantz, the former Ghostbuster now spending his time buying old objects he eagerly scans with his PKE reader for paranormal energy and hosts an online show with the help of Podcast (Logan Kim), who has migrated to New York from Oklahoma along with the Spenglers, as has Lucky (Celeste O’Connor), Trevor’s friend.

We also get — and no complaints here — Bill Murray’s original Ghostbuster Peter Venkman popping in for a few meaningful minutes of screentime.

Expect another familiar face or two, while newcomers include Patton Oswalt’s Dr. Hubert Wartzki, an expert in ghostly and ghastly folklore, and James Acaster’s Lars, a scientist working with Winston’s new Paranormal Research Center. (Making his film debut, Acaster is a very creative comedian who earns a few lab-related laughs.)

The more important new characters, however, are Melody (Emily Alyn Lind of “Gossip Girl”), a ghost trapped in this world who befriends Phoebe, and Nadeem (Kumail Nanjiani), a neighborhood hustler who must embrace his destiny as “the firemaster” if humanity is to survive a coming threat.

That danger is Garraka, a terrifying demon with the power of “the death chill” who has been trapped in an ancient artifact for more than a century.

With so many characters to juggle and seemingly determined to give us a reasonable runtime, Reitman and Kenan don’t even try to give many of them arcs. The major exception is Phoebe, who’s benched after the fact that she’s only 15 becomes an issue for New York’s mayor, who’s not exactly a longtime ally of the Ghostbusters. (Meanwhile, Trevor is now 18 and wants to be treated like an adult, but “Stranger Things” star Wolfhard rather quickly becomes an afterthought in “Frozen Empire.”)

The most fun is provided by Nanjiani, the star of “The Big Sick” and “The Lovebirds” sticking some comedic lines as only he can as the increasingly important Nadeem.

Overall, even as “Frozen Empire” is essentially going through the ghostbusting motions, it is consistently pleasant thanks to its appealing cast. For example, Rudd (“Ant-Man”) is his usual brand of everyman-charming as Gary, who is asked by girlfriend Callie to start being more of a dad to her kids, which will mean being the bad guy sometimes.

Tastes surely vary on this kind of thing, but we’re pleased that, after building up the threat of Garraka, “Frozen Empire” doesn’t devolve into a seemingly endless supernatural battle sequence — like certain “Ghostbusters” installments we could name. Fear not, for there are ice spikes and proton packs aplenty in the climax, but we all know how this affair is going to end, so there’s no need to drag it out.

Counting the disappointing 2016 reboot, “Ghostbusters,” “Frozen Empire” — appropriately dedicated to Ivan Reitman, who died a few months after the release of “Afterlife” — is the fifth film in the franchise, and we’re guessing a sixth isn’t too far off in the distance.

We wouldn’t mind that, but maybe don’t invite quite so many folks to that paranormal party.

‘Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire’

Where: Theaters.

When: March 22.

Rated: PG-13 for supernatural action/violence, language and suggestive references.

Runtime: 1 hour, 55 minutes.

Stars (of four): 2.5.

The more willing you are to just go along with the new Netflix series “3 Body Problem” and not question its increasingly frequent leaps in logic, the more likely you are to enjoy it.

An adaptation of Chinese author Liu Cixin’s award-winning 2008 science fiction novel, “The Three-Body Problem,” the intriguing show is one of the first big projects of the Netflix deal signed by “Game of Thrones” showrunners David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, who are steering this ship along with fellow executive producer, showrunner and writer Alexander Woo (“True Blood”).

The eight-episode debut season boasts an appealing and diverse cast, including some “Thrones” alums and recognizable faces in movie actors Eiza González (“Baby Driver”) and Benedict Wong, a Marvel Cinematic Universe mainstay.

Plus, it begins with great promise, presenting the viewer with “Lost”-ian-level mysteries begging to be solved. Unfortunately, after much is revealed, “3 Body Problem” loses a great deal of its early promise, revealing itself to be a show unable to give its huge story the scale it needs to be believable enough.

Its propulsive first episode, “Countdown” — penned by Benioff, Weiss and Woo and directed, like its solid follow-up installment, “Red Coast,” by Derek Tsang (“Better Days”) — establishes both the major players and the season’s multi-time-period narrative.

“3 Body Problem” begins in Beijing in 1966, during the Chinese Cultural Revolution, and introduces the young version of Ye Wenjie (Zine Tseng), a woman who has more than one reason to lose faith in humanity. The highly important character is portrayed in 2024 by Rosalind Chao.

It is in and around present-day London where we meet the members of the group the show’s production notes refer to as the “Oxford Five,” a quintet of young brainiacs who’ve remained in each other’s lives after college as they’ve applied their smarts to this and that. They are Saul Durand (Jovan Adepo), a physics research assistant who, around age 30, already feels it’s too late for him to reach his full potential; Jack Rooney (“Thrones” alum John Bradley), an outspoken chap who’s used his physics degree to develop a multi-million-pound snacks empire; Auggie Salazar (González), the chief science officer for a leading nanotech company; Jin Cheng (Jess Hong), a theoretical physicist with an insatiable thirst for answers to big questions; and Will Downing (Alex Sharp), who chose to teach physics after concluding he could not cut it in the scientific big leagues.

As Jin and Saul are all too aware, it is an uncertain time in the scientific community.

“About a month ago,” Jin tells Auggie at a bar, “all the major (particle) accelerators started generating results that make no (expletive) sense.”

Seconds later, as a man who’d just hit on them and is performing a horrendous rendition of Billy Joel’s “Piano Man” on the bar’s karaoke stage, Auggie begins to see a countdown in her field of vision. No one else can see the numbers, which terrifyingly suggest Auggie has a little more than four days before something occurs.

Also, prominent scientists are dying from apparent suicides, which are being investigated by Wong’s Da Shi, an investigator working for a cloak-and-dagger organization run by the extremely confident Thomas Wade (Liam Cunningham, another “GOT” vet).

As Auggie’s countdown ticks away and after she gets no answers from a neurologist, she is approached by a mysterious young woman we will come to know as Tatiana (Marlo Kelly), who tells her how to stop seeing the numbers.

“You don’t want it to get to zero,” Tatiana says.

Another key character who enters the picture later on in the season is Mike Evans, portrayed as a younger man by Ben Schnetzer and in 2024 by Jonathan Pryce. (On “Game of Thrones,” Pryce played the religious figure the High Sparrow, and his wealthy Evans also has a major worshiping streak in him.)

We won’t say much more about the story, in part because Netflix has asked that several potential spoilers to be avoided before the series’ launch.

That makes it difficult to be specific about the mounting frustrations caused by the narrative, as so many of them arrive after the major revelation in “3 Body Problem.” We will note, however, that a virtual-reality component of the story — Jin and others use shiny VR headsets that appear to be far more advanced than anything on the market to play a game to try to address the series’ titular physics problem — seems to be rather pointless in the grand scheme of things.

Without having read the book, which already has been adapted into the Chinese series “Three-Body,” it’s hard to know which plot shortcomings to pin on Liu and which to attribute to the “3 Body” showrunners. Benioff, Weiss and Woo have made changes to the narrative, including the invention of the Oxford Five, but that is to be expected. And let’s remember that “Game of Thrones” was widely considered to be at its strongest when Benioff and Weiss were working from George R.R. Martin’s book series, not when they’d run out of source material after the author had fallen woefully behind in his writing. That said, some of the latter “3 Body Problem” episodes cause groans that feel at least a bit familiar when you make them.

Liu penned two follow-up novels in what’s known as the “Remembrance of Earth’s Past” trilogy, and the show certainly ends with more tale to tell. Shockingly, however, “3 Body Problem” fails to hit you with more than a little nugget of what’s to come. Do not expect anything to leave you waiting breathlessly for its potential return.

“3 Body Problem” has its moments, such as a jaw-dropping set piece when Auggie’s nanotech is used to achieve a rather questionable end. But based on the way this season all but runs out of momentum at the finale, its ticking countdown may come to an end sooner than later.

‘3 Body Problem’

What: Eight-episode debut season of hourlong science-fiction drama.

Where: Netflix.

When: All episodes available March 21.

Rated: TV-MA.

Stars (of four): 2.

The highly compelling limited series, debuting this week on Apple TV+ with its first two episodes, is based on the 2006 bestselling and Edgar Award-winning nonfiction book from historian James L. Swanson, “Manhunt: The 12-Day Chase for Lincoln’s Killer.” Making liberal use of flashbacks and no doubt taking some liberties while filling in the blanks, the adaptation offers a window into the days and even years leading up to the murder of the legendary figure and extends through to the trial in which the government attempted to prove that a conspiracy involving several people was behind it.

The show is the creation of showrunner Monica Beletsky, who wrote or co-wrote each episode, lending the consistency you’re looking for with such a series even as its directorial duties have been divided up among three: Carl Franklin, John Dahl and Eva Sorhaug.

“Manhunt” is told largely from the perspectives of two men: Booth (Anthony Boyle), an actor who aspires for what he sees as a level of greatness the stage can’t offer him; and his hunter, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton (Tobias Menzies), a close Lincoln confidant during the president’s final years who operates with purpose and determination.

We are introduced to both of them on April 15, 1865, just hours before the moment Booth will shoot the president from behind in a box at Ford’s Theatre in Washington, D.C., where Lincoln (Hamish Linklater) and his wife, Mary Todd Lincoln (Lili Taylor), are taking in a play.

On this day, men exchange whispers — and a handgun — and an attempt also is made on the life of Secretary of State William H. Seward (Larry Pine) in his home in a related attack.

“Manhunt” soon moves us back a few days, to Lincoln and Stanton receiving the greatly awaited news that the Civil War is ending with the surrender of the forces of the Confederate States of America to its Union counterparts.

“The Confederacy is dead,” Stanton declares, dictating a message to the press. “The Union is saved.”

During this time, Booth talks to a man in a bar who has trouble hearing what Booth is saying due to the revelry around them.

“Ahhh, let them celebrate,” Booth says. “They’ll be sorry next Easter when they realize they’ve given away their whole country to (racial slur) thanks to Lincoln.”

As the viewer will come to understand, Booth expects to soon be more famous than other members of his family who make their livings acting, including the father he could never impress.

After that night in the theater — during which, after completing the heinous act and declaring “Freedom for the South!,” he injures his leg jumping down to the stage but still manages to get away — he certainly has a well-known name.

It is the name constantly on the mind of Stanton, who organizes the search for him. This displeases his wife, Ellen (Anne Dudek), who sees him as unable to delegate and who worries, understandably, about his asthma — a condition worsened by stress and one on the verge of causing him serious problems. However, his son, Eddie Stanton Jr. (Brandon Flynn), works with him to find and bring to justice Booth.

The trail quickly leads to a physician, Samuel Mudd (Matt Walsh), who shares a set of beliefs with Booth and the Confederates and who treated Booth’s leg before sending him on his way to Virginia with pal — and “lackey,” as he later will be called — David Herold (Will Harrison).

The magnetic performances of Boyle, seen recently in another strong Apple TV+ limited series, “Masters of the Air,” and, especially, Menzies (“Game of Thrones,” “The Crown”) anchor “Manhunt.” Each actor demands your attention every moment he is on screen.

And as a key supporting play, Linklater (“Gaslit”) grows on you in scenes where he navigates the pressing issues of his nation with Stanton as well as those of his family with his wife. Daniel Day-Lewis he’s not, but his work contributes to “Manhunt” significantly as it moves forward.

“Manhunt” makes some time for Mary Simms (Lovie Simone of “Power Book III: Raising Kanan”), a slave-turned-servant working as Mudd’s housekeeper. A little-known person from history, she serves here as the embodiment of the plight of the Blacks at the time.

Even though Simone gets third billing in the series, “Manhunt” may have benefited from even more time spent on the character. It is, of course, understandable that we bear witness to myriad interactions of white men on both sides of the ideological wall, but the proceedings occasionally can be just a little confusing as the series jumps forward and backward in time and presents us with so many characters. To her credit, Beletsky ensures we always know when and where we are via on-screen text.

Overall, this is highly commendable work from Beletsky, who has spent time as a writer and producer on excellent TV series in “Friday Night Lights,” “Parenthood,” “The Leftovers” and “Fargo” at various points. Seeking here to blend true-crime flavorings with historical fiction, she shows great promise as a showrunner.

On more than one occasion, Beletsky and her co-writers seem to draw parallels between what was happening in the country and today’s political climate, which is effective. Mostly, though, it succeeds as a powerful reminder of just how fragile the war-torn nation was at the time.

Consider when Stanton is asked, before the credits roll at the close of the first episode, what it means if a conspiracy is found to be behind the assassination.

“Might have to start another war,” he says.

‘Manhunt’

What: Seven-episode limited series of hourlong drama.

When: First two episodes debut March 15 with subsequent installments arriving on Fridays.

Rated: TV-MA (for mature audiences).

Stars (of four): 3.

“There are many stories of chivalry, where the heroic knight saves the damsel in distress,” star Millie Bobby Brown declares in the opening narration of the fantasy film, hitting Netflix this week. “This is NOT one of them.”

That is true, for “Damsel” is a tale in which the princess must save herself.

It also is a movie that asks too much of Brown, the talented young actress we’ve watched grow up in Netflix’s popular science-fiction-meets-horror series “Stranger Things” and who’s delighted in two previous Netflix movies, 2020’s “Enola Holmes” and its likewise enjoyable 2022 sequel, “Enola Holmes 2.”

She has had a lot of on-screen help carrying the dramatic weight of those projects. In Damsel,” however, despite notable cast mates in Angela Bassett and Robin Wright, Brown is asked to haul almost all of it.

Perhaps she could, were the screenplay by Dan Mazeau (“Fast X”) much stronger and the direction of Juan Carlos Fresnadillo (“28 Weeks Later)” better than acceptable.

With these key components at the levels they are, “Damsel” is a mildly entertaining time-passer, one likely to appeal to a younger demographic — an audience perhaps ready to graduate from basic princess tales to something a little darker and at least a little more interesting.

Brown’s Elodie is no princess when we meet her but instead a simple girl from a simple family living in a place where people are starving and freezing, she and her sister, Floria (Brooke Carter), gathering what they can for kindling. When a letter arrives from Queen Isabelle (Wright), proposing Elodie be wed to her son, Prince Henry (Nick Robinson, “Love, Simon”), Elodie’s father, Lord Bayford (Ray Winstone, who’s also on Netflix this week in the series “The Gentlemen”), and stepmother, Lady Bayford (Bassett), are excited about the promised bounty that will be given to them in exchange.

Although Elodie initially feels this is not reason enough to marry, she dutifully accepts her fate.

“The union will save us,” she allows. “I’ve made my peace with it — my happiness is a small price to pay for the future of my people.”

Upon the family’s arrival in the queen’s opulent realm, however, there are signs all is not what it seems. (Hint: That probably has something to do with the fire-breathing dragon we encounter in the film’s prologue.) While the viewer is beaten over the head with reasons to fear for Elodie, she mostly brushes off any concerns and marries the prince, who, to be fair, seems like an OK chap.

Without giving away further details, know that our heroine will come face to face with the dragon (voiced by the unmistakable Shohreh Aghdashloo) — who has reason to be furious with the royals — and must fight to survive the dragon’s hunt inside a cavernous maze. (That Elodie will find herself in such an environment is foreshadowed by the revelation she draws mazes as a hobby. Do Mazeau or Fresnadillo use Elodie’s gift for maze design in any kind of clever way as the adventure unfolds? No, not really. “Damsel” just isn’t that kind of movie.)

Elodie makes a couple of illuminating discoveries within the caverns, but it would help the film’s momentum if she encountered, say, a collection of communicative cave people — a few new characters to help carry things along. As it stands, it’s mainly a lot of Elodie, intermittently chatting with the vengeful dragon.

To say that “Damzel” moves in fits and starts may be too kind.

Brown, whose movie credits also include MonsterVerse entries “Godzilla: King of the Monsters” (2019) and sequel “Godzilla vs. Kong” (2021) and is also counted among this movie’s executive producers, is not the problem here, giving a performance that crosses Ts and dots Is. She simply isn’t so good as to be the solution, either.

Again, no one else gets much screen time, but it is fun to see Wright as an evil queen given that many first knew her as Princess Buttercup in 1987’s “The Princess Bride.” She brings some of her fierce “House of Cards”/Claire Underwood energy to “Damsel,” but that doesn’t move the needle.

Considering some of its tasty ingredients, you wait for “Damsel” to find a way to lift itself out of its below-average realm, like a dragon rising to rain fire on the poor souls below. Alas, though, that spark never comes.

‘Damsel’

Where: Netflix.

When: March 8.

Rated: PG-13 for sequences of strong creature violence, action, and bloody images.

Runtime: 1 hour, 49 minutes.

Stars (of four): 2.

It’s inspired by his similarly enjoyable 2019 film of the same name in which expensive-suit refinement meets drug-trade violence.

(This would seem to be similar to the move Ritchie made as a producer with 2000’s “Lock, Stock…,” a seven-part series coming two years after his feature directorial debut, “Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.”)

Hey, sometimes it’s best to stick with what you know.

First, know that you need not have seen the big-screen ‘Gentlemen’ to sip, sophisticatedly, on its small-screen cousin. Although press materials for the series state it “is set in the world of ‘The Gentlemen’ film,” we get not so much as a quip about Mickey Pearson, the drug kingpin played by Matthew McConaughey in the film.

In this streaming offering, it is Ray Winstone’s Bobby Glass who oversees a cannabis empire built on high-yielding weed labs existing underneath English country estates. One such estate is Halstead Manor, home to the Horniman family.

In the series’ opening minutes, as the Duke of Halstead (Edward Fox) nears death, his problem-solving son Eddie (Theo James) is called home from duty with the British Army to be with the family. Father then instructs son to watch out for his brother, Freddy (Daniel Ings).

“He won’t survive without you.”

We soon get a sense of why that may be true when the now-deceased duke’s will is read, with older brother Freddy not receiving the windfall he anticipates, the estate instead being handed to Eddie. First suggesting there may have been some understandable Eddie-Freddy confusion, Freddy goes ballistic.

And so now we have an important dynamic: Freddy being the Fredo Corleone to Eddie’s Michael — at least if Fredo were prone to going on cocaine binges and racking up huge debts to dangerous men such as Tommy Dixon (Peter Serafinowicz), a member of powerful drug family.

As Eddie tries to plot a course of action that will free Freddy, he also gets close to Susie Glass (Kaya Scodelario), the daughter of the imprisoned Bobby and the runner of his business’ day-to-day activities.

After learning of the deal his father had made with Glass, which helps to explain how the family has managed to maintain its quite comfy lifestyle, Eddie wants to end the partnership. However, he knows this cannot be done immediately, and he agrees to help Susie with various business-related matters for the time being. The measured-and-steady type, he shows a real affinity for this work, even if he’s hampered by his inexperience at the onset.

Susie, in turn, helps him with his Freddy trouble, which, predictably, goes from simmer to boil at the climax of the first episode. It isn’t easy to rattle her, but she may have a weakness in her pro-boxing brother, Jack (Henry Goodwin).

Among those who may look to exploit such a potential pain point is Stanley Johnson (Giancarlo Esposito), an American with an appreciation for the finer things who affords them with a meth-pedaling organization — a fun nod to Esposito’s great character from “Breaking Bad,” Gus Fring.

At least a tick stronger than its movie counterpart, “The Gentlemen,” is never stronger — or more stylized — than its first two episodes, which see Ritchie making his TV-directing debut. These are highly cinematic installments not matched by the series’ other directors Nima Nourizadeh, Eran Creevy and David Caffrey. (To be fair, your eyes tell you that none of them had the per-budget episode afforded to Ritchie.)

“The Gentlemen” may feel like a film in stretches, but, as written by Ritchie and six others, it certainly dances to the rhythms of a television show, with lower-stakes middle chapters leading toward a climax that brings together several plot threads.

It possesses many pleasant elements, such as colorful side characters including sincere, stoned-out-of-his-mind pot grower Jimmy Chang (Michael Vu) and Halstead Manor gamekeeper Geoff Seacombe (Vinnie Jones), to whom there’s more than initially appears. The inclusion of Jones is a nod to Ritchie’s past, the actor making his movie debut in “Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels” and also appearing in the director’s second film, “Snatch.”

“The Gentlemen” almost certainly would have benefited from a ratcheting up of the sexual tension between Eddie and Susie, a bit more will-they-won’t-they energy. As it stands, their mutual attraction rarely rises above the level of a polite flirtation.

All the same, the talented actors are enjoyable together. James (“Divergent,” “The White Lotus”) is ideal in the lead role, fitting nicely into his character’s pricey menswear but also is believable when Eddie shows the aggression fueled by his inherent determination. And Scodelario (the “Maze Runner” movies) is pretty cool and confident herself as Susie, a strong woman operating in a world of violent men, er, gentlemen.

With episode titles such as “Tackie Tommy Woo Woo,” on-screen translations for certain chunks of dialogue and colorful language that’s oh-so-British, to go along with spurts of violence, “The Gentlemen” is pure Ritchie and will most delight his fans.

For the rest of us, it likely will prove to be as impactful as many, but not all, of his films — a flashy but ultimately flimsy distraction you’ve all but forgotten in a week or so.

‘The Gentlemen’

What: Eight-episode debut season of hourlong series.

Where: Netflix.

When: All episodes available March 7.

Rated: TV-MA.

Stars (of four): 2.5.

The director-cinematographer tandem from 2021 science fiction hit “Dune” were looking for an interesting way to begin its just-debuted sequel, “Dune: Part Two,” that would put audiences back in novelist Frank Herbert’s influential universe and specifically back on the desert planet Arrakis but do it in a fresh way.

They landed on an eclipse.

And funnily enough,” says Fraser during a recent audio interview, “as we were shooting that scene, there was an eclipse in Jordan — obviously not for the entire scene.

“I believe there might be a shot of that eclipse of the sun (using) a long lens.”

“Dune,” an acclaimed film and box-office hit, and “Dune: Part Two” together serve as an adaptation of Herbert’s “Dune,” published in 1965.

In a conversation edited for length and clarity, Fraser — who won the Academy Award for Best Cinematography for “Dune” — talks working with Villeneuve, why he’s not all that interested in shooting something that looks shiny and new and whether he’d work on a third “Dune” film, one not yet announced but widely expected to be directed by Villeneuve and adapted from Herbert’s 1969 sequel to “Dune,” “Dune Messiah”:

Q. You’ve worked with many different directors. I imagine that a director of photography’s level of creative input can vary from project to project and director to director. What is it like working with Villeneuve, who would seem to be a strong visual storyteller?

A. Denis is a fantastic storyboarder. He thinks in terms of storyboards, which is fantastic because it gives you a really great head start to understand what’s going through his brain when he’s talking through a scene. So a scene like the sandworm-riding sequence (in “Dune: Part Two”) or some of the battles is kind of (planned) a fair bit in the storyboarding.

He knows a lot about visuals, but he does very much lean on his DPs. If you look at his films and look at them quite closely, they all do look significantly different when with the different DPs. I think he really (adopts) the DP’s vision for the film but injects his own vision into it. It’s very much a collaborative process. It’s not the case that Denis wants me to put the camera there (and use) this lens. It’s like, “Let’s discover what the world is together. Let’s find what this world is and make it happen.”

Q. To piggyback on that, I saw where, a couple of years ago, you’d talked about wanting to do justice to the art department’s work on the first “Dune” and working to figure out how to do that given various constraints. Is a lot of your job problem-solving?

A. It’s a pretty high bar that they set when they give us the concept art. And then they build these beautiful pieces of art. You walk into their sets and you’re in awe of the shapes. (There’s) a self-pressure that I’m making sure that I light it well enough that I can look the designer in the eye make sure that he doesn’t feel that I’ve done him a disservice and that I’ve done the film service by showing those designs (as well as possible).

Q. These movies have been shot in various locations, including some desert environments. Did that make your job more challenging?

A. The sand is something the actors have spoken a lot about in their press that they’ve done, and what they failed to mention is that cameras and cranes and dollies — sand is their biggest killer. Lights do not (work well) with the sand because we have a lot of wind. You can tell on screen there was a lot of wind that we created — a lot of sandworm riding and a lot of dust flying around. We had a very hard time. But here’s the thing: The equipment that we chose we chose in part because it was sturdy, because it was the type of equipment that could withstand a bit of a beating. I’m pretty proud of the way my team kind of stood up and did that job of protecting the gear so that we could continue to make the film.

Q. The “Star Wars” universe is often referred to as having a “lived-in” quality, and I think the same can be said of these “Dune” films. Do you agree, having played in both sandboxes?

A. I personally have a distaste for any film in which the costumes look like they’ve literally just come out of the designer’s stall or where the actors have literally just walked out of the makeup chair and looked as coiffed as possible. I’m personally drawn to design, to costume, to makeup and to world-building that has an element of grit, because if you look around, the world is textured, the world is lived-in.

Unless you’re living in a gallery which constantly sees white paint, you are looking at texture, so it’s important. Just because something was built yesterday doesn’t necessarily mean it (should look) like it was built yesterday.

As the representative of the camera, it’s up to me really to say, “Hey, we need more dust on this costume” or “I think we need more rough texture on the walls.” And on this film, we had a great team, so I didn’t really ever have to say that.

Q. You also worked on another big Warner Bros. Pictures film with plenty of grit, “The Batman,” which I think visually fit with what we think of as Batman’s world but that didn’t look like previous big-screen takes on the Dark Knight.

A. it’s really funny, isn’t it? It’s like everybody has a bit of a take on Batman, and it’s like everybody has a take on a sci-fi world.

“The Batman” was something not dissimilar to “Dune,” but it’s obviously in a very different world. But you had to be able to taste the texture. You had to have to taste that world. And I think visually, part of my job is to make sure that as an audience member you walk out of that cinema in the case of “Dune” being able to taste the sand in your teeth. Or in the case of “The Batman,” you feel like your feet are wet from having to (walk) through the water for three hours. You want to (impart that feeling) on the audience.

Q. Before I let you go, have you blocked out any time to work on a film that could be called “Dune: Part Three” or “Dune: Messiah”?

A. (Laughs) I mean, listen, if Denis, calls me and says, “We’re doing It,” and I’m free, I’m there in a heartbeat because it was an amazing experience working with this team.

I don’t know what the future holds for “Dune: Part Three.” Denis would probably be the best person to talk to about that. But yeah, listen, if he calls I’m there.

Unlike the comedic live-action and animated romps the actor and producer has churned out as part of the multiple-times-extended movie-making deal between his Happy Madison Productions and the streaming giant, this is a drama with Sandler front and center trying to make one giant leap for mankind and boldly going where no man has gone before.

But while “Spaceman” sees Sandler’s character travel deep into the solar system on a solo mission, this story is primarily one of an introspective journey, as the protagonist worries the marriage he left on Earth is failing and works through choices he’s made with the help of an unusual new friend.

It’s always interesting to see Sandler take on the occasional drama, the “Saturday Night Live” alum giving strong performances in, for example, the well-received “Punch-Drunk Love” (2002) and “Uncut Gems” (2021). Sorry to say he’s not as good here, the actor never seeming to find a groove with the character of lonely Czech cosmonaut Jakub Prochazka.

Still, it is a little surprising — and very disappointing — that “Spaceman” is rarely more than borderline-engaging given it’s directed by Johan Renck. Best known for helming episodes of television shows, including a handful of “Breaking Bad” installments, he most notably directed every chapter of the acclaimed 2019 limited series “Chernobyl.”

“Spaceman” is not on that level.

After a brief sequence in which we watch Jakub walk through a small river while wearing his spacesuit, we are formally introduced to him as he is nearing Jupiter. Near the giant planet resides what’s been dubbed the Chopra Cloud, a visually striking phenomenon in space that poses a threat to Earth.

“I wish you could see it the way I do,” he says during a broadcast back home before expressing excitement about soon venturing inside it and learning more about the mysterious particles that comprise it. “We still don’t know what they are or where they come from, but as I enter the Chopra Cloud, I might just unravel some mysteries of the universe.”

During this chance for folks to interact with him, a young girl asks Jakub if he’s lonely, noting that he’s been referred to as “the loneliest man in the world.” He assures her that he is not that, that he talks every day with his wife, Lenka (Carey Mulligan), who is carrying their child.

In truth, not only is Jakub lonely, but he’s also not sleeping well, thanks at least in part to a malfunctioning toilet making constant noise. One night, he dreams of a small alien entity literally getting under his skin and crawling around under his face.

Soon, though, he encounters a much larger creature from a far-away place, a spider-like being he will come to name Hanus.

Initially, Hanus terrifies Jakub, who flees to the craft’s airlock, suits up and exposes the ship to a blast of anti-contaminant chemicals in an attempt to hurt the nightmarish visitor. However, Hanus, speaking calmly and gently (Paul Dano of “The Batman” provides the mellow voice work), quickly convinces the fellow explorer he means him no harm.

Although he believes he may have lost his mind, Jakub is happy to have someone to talk to, especially since he suddenly isn’t hearing from Lenka, which concerns him.

His worries are not off-base, as his wife has recorded a message in which she informs him she’s leaving him — a message the woman in charge of the mission, Isabella Rossellini’s Commissioner Tuma, is refusing to send through to Jakub.

Hanus not only can communicate with Jakub in his own language, the creature saying he has studied humanity and refers to Jakub only as “Skinny Human,” he seemingly has the power to help Jakub replay moments from his life, many of them painful.

However well-intended, this all is a bit … well, something. It feels a little precious at times, downright trite at others.

Scenes on the ground featuring Lenka, who goes to visit her mother, Zdena (Lena Olin), are strong enough that “Spaceman” may have benefited from more of them — especially given the acting talent of Mulligan (“Maestro,” “Promising Young Woman”).

The screenplay for “Spaceman” is written by Colby Day, who adapted it from Jaroslav Kalfař’s 2017 novel, “Spaceman of Bohemia.” Regardless of whether this is intentional, the story keeps you guessing as to whether Hanus is real or something Jakub has unwittingly constructed — distractingly so, as that really isn’t the point of the film.

It’s also a little distracting that both Sandler and Mulligan sound as they typically do, Renck noting in the film’s production notes that he doesn’t “do accents.” (You may recall that in “Chernobyl,” a lot of Russian characters sounded VERY British.)

Ultimately, thick accents wouldn’t elevate “Spaceman” to the point of being easy to recommend — especially with an ending that may require more than one viewing to understand. (Thank the cosmos for the rewind function!)

As it is, the film’s appeal lies mainly in the fact that it is not the typical Adam Sandler-Netflix movie, and that takes this journey it only so far.

‘Spaceman’

Where: Netflix.

When: March 1.

Rated: R for language.

Runtime: 1 hour, 48 minutes.

Stars (of four): 2.

Or, at least, the filmmakers behind it — the husband-and-wife of tandem director Ethan and co-writer and -producer Tricia Cooke, who’s also credited as the movie’s editor — do not expect that.

They’ve made a guilty-pleasure romp that gives a nod to the B-movies of the late 1960s and ’70s, one that, in its first few minutes, quickly goes from graphically violent to explicitly sexual.

“Drive-Away Dolls” is a lesbian-forward adventure — Cooke, who identifies as queer, initially cooked up a title with a different “D” word at the end — with two girl-loving heroines taking a road trip and running afoul of some criminal types.

This is the second film as a solo director from Coen — who, with fellow directing brother Ethan, has given the world a slew of acclaimed films that include “Raising Arizona,” “The Big Lebowski,” “O Brother Where Art Thou” and “No Country for Old Men” — following the 2022 documentary “Jerry Lee Lewis: Trouble in Mind.”

It’s half-baked and, for the most part, pretty silly. And at not even 90 minutes, it’s also pretty slight, providing cause to wonder if Coen and Cooke perhaps shot a longer movie and then cut “Dolls” down to the bone to find something that works.

And work, this movie does, if barely. Like the junky old Dodge Aries our leading lesbians drive, the reasonably laugh-filled comedy feels as if it could fall apart, or at least run out of gas, at any moment.

Those gals are the appealing duo of Margaret Qualley‘s Jamie and Geraldine Viswanathan’s Marian. They’re friends with very different personalities, as the former is way more outgoing and uninhibited than the latter, and want to get out of town for different reasons: Jamie, having been caught cheating by her cop girlfriend, Sukie (Beanie Feldstein), desires a change of scenery; Marian, meanwhile, is fighting general unhappiness and thinks some time in Tallahassee birding with an older relative is just what she needs.

Wild girl, that Marian.

After a mix-up at Curlie’s Drive-Away, they’re given the aforementioned Dodge by Curlie (a grumpy-funny Bill Camp) to haul to Tallahassee. The car carries something valuable, along with a piece of very incriminating evidence, in its trunk. That makes them the target of the Chief (an underused Colman Domingo), who detaches henchmen Arliss (Joey Slotnick) and Flint (C.J. Wilson) to find them and retrieve the cargo.

Fortunately for the young ladies, Jamie convinces the reluctant Marian they shouldn’t take the straightest path from Philadelphia and instead seek out some side quests, namely finding spots peppered throughout the South believed to have one sort of lesbian-centric draw or another. This not only makes it harder for them to be found — of course, they’re blissfully unaware for a while that they’re being chased — but also allows for opportunities for them to learn more about each other. (“Drive-Away Dolls” is set in 1999, a time largely before mobile phones and GPS services, making ascertaining their whereabouts believably tricky.)

Coen and Cooke give us mirrors of Jamie and Marian in Arliss and Flint, but it’s less fun to spend time with the bungling and bickering crooks than it is with the women. The gents are good for a laugh for two, but that’s about it.

In the film’s production notes, the filmmakers cite inspirations such as Rus Meyer’s “Motorpsycho” and Doris Wishma’s “Bad Girls Go to Hell,” as well as “Kiss Me Deadly.” However, we couldn’t escape that they also are paying homage to writer-director Quentin Tarantino, not only via the film’s tone but with the inclusion of an all-important, “Pulp Fiction”-esque case that characters open but that we don’t get to see inside of … initially.

We won’t spoil its contents or reveal much about an item earlier on in “Drive-Away Dolls” that is affixed to Sukie’s wall. Honestly, we couldn’t if we wanted to, but it is briefly the topic of much discussion.

Amid all this raunchy zaniness, Qualley (“The Leftovers,” “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood”) and Viswanathan (“Blockers,” “The Broken Hearts Gallery”) anchor the movie with their performances. You may relate more to one than the other, but both characters are worth spending time with thanks largely to these actors. Most crucially,“Drive-Away Dolls” makes you care about them and how they’ll end up.

“Drive-Away Dolls” also gives you a dash of Pedro Pascal, a spritz of an uncredited Miley Cyrus and a healthy serving of Matt Damon, who shows up late in the proceedings as a conservative senator.

“Drive-Away Dolls” makes multiple allusions to the work of author Henry James and certainly argues that members of the same sex ought to be encouraged to live happily ever after together. Then again, it also plays at times like a stoner movie.

So maybe take it a little seriously, but just a little.

‘Drive-Away Dolls’

Where: Theaters.

When: Feb. 23.

Rated: R for crude sexual content, full nudity, language and some violent content.

Runtime: 1 hour, 25 minutes.

Stars (of four): 2.5.

Excessive drinking is bad. Faith in God is good.

And sure, those ideas come across in the latest film from Kingdom Story Company, a Lionsgate partner specializing in Christian films.

Now, to be fair to Kingdom, we certainly enjoyed, at least to a reasonable degree, “American Underdog,” the 2021 biopic about Super Bowl-winning quarterback Kurt Warner.

“Ordinary Angels” is even stronger.

This tug-at-your-heartstrings — heck, downright moving — drama taking a few liberties with a real story about a young girl in desperate need of a liver transplant and a struggling hairdresser who made it her mission to help make that happen is, unquestionably, a winner.

A lot of people deserve praise for the strength of “Ordinary Angels,” starting with director Jon Gunn, the co-writer of Kingdom’s 2023 big-screen offering, “Jesus Revolution.”

‘Jesus Revolution’ a sanitized, scattered story about religious movement | Movie review

And then there are the film’s co-writers, actress and novelist Meg Tilly and Kelly Fremon Craig, the writer-director of last year’s absolutely adored adaptation of Judy Blume’s novel “Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret.”

Last but not least: the solid cast, led by a terrific Hilary Swank, a force of nature as the aforementioned hairdresser.

When we first encounter Swank’s Sharon Stevens — in 1993, at a crowded bar in Louisville, Kentucky, where the Black Crowes’ “Hard to Handle” is blasting — she’s a mess. Although she’d assured her friend and coworker Rose (Tamala Jones) they were going for just one drink, Sharon’s out for a good time. How good? When Brooks & Dunn’s country anthem “Boot Scootin’ Boogie” starts playing, she jumps on the bar to dance.

Her fall, both literal and figurative, isn’t hard to predict.

The next morning, Rose insists on taking her to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. While Sharon refuses to state at that meeting that she is an alcoholic, another person’s address to those gathered, in which he encourages them to find a purpose bigger than themselves, speaks to her.

When she reads in the newspaper about a 5-year-old girl, Michelle Schmitt (Emily Mitchell), who’s recently lost her mother and is fighting for her own life, Sharon feels compelled to get involved.

Not exactly dressed for the occasion, she crashes the funeral for Theresa Schmitt (Amy Acker) — whom the viewer gets to know briefly in the movie’s opening minutes, which jump from the time of Michelle’s birth to Theresa’s last moments with loving husband Ed (Alan Ritchson) — making friends with Michelle and older sister Ashley (Skywalker Hughes) and altogether perplexing their father.

Although she calls herself “stupid” for attending the event, she nonetheless remains determined to help and soon injects herself into the Schmitt family dynamic, which is OK with the girls and with Ed’s mother, Barbara Schmitt (Nancy Travis), who isn’t about to turn away any assistance. After all, Ed, a roofer, is drowning in debt from medical bills and isn’t exactly in a position to insist Sharon mind her own business.

Sharon pours her booze out and pours her energy into helping the Schmitts, working to improve Ed’s professional situation, fighting to lower his bills and more. Rose sees this as more addict behavior, as Sharon is so focused on the Schmitt’s that she is letting her work life suffer.

Sharon is, however, also trying to reconnect her son, Derek (Dempsey Bryk), but he isn’t ready to forgive her for past failings.

“Ordinary Angels” hits the major story beats you expect, including the incident that infuses the requisite fresh conflict as the film hits its home stretch. That the movie is predictable isn’t a problem, though, with the deft Gunn behind the camera and Swank in front of it.

The latter, whose career highlights include Academy Award-winning performances in 1999’s “Boys Don’t Cry” and 2004’s “Million Dollar Baby,” probably won’t win an Oscar for “Ordinary Angels,” but she turns in dynamic work. Within a narrative in which blizzards play important roles, she creates a hurricane with Sharon. At the same time, the character remains relatable and believable.

Swank is nicely balanced by “Reacher” star Ritchson, who brings that hit Prime Video series’ titular character’s lack of interest in being chatty to Ed. (Think Jack Reacher without the frequent revenge-driven violence and, perhaps, not all of the muscle mass.) Given the circumstances, it can be frustrating when Ed is resistant to help from Sharon, but we can buy it thanks to the authenticity Ritchson gives to Ed.

Last but not least — and even though Gunn (“The Case for Christ”) does finally lay it on a little thick — “Ordinary Angels” sticks the landing, celebrating the people who came together for this family in real life.

You need not have faith in the extraordinary to enjoy “Ordinary Angels,” but be prepared to walk away with a stronger belief in the power of the human spirit.

‘Ordinary Angels’

Where: Theaters.

When: Feb. 23.

Rated: PG for thematic content, brief bloody images and smoking.

Runtime: 1 hour, 56 minutes.

Stars (of four): 3.