Countless films have examined the futility of capitalism to deliver its promise of a meaningful existence onto the proletariat. The exertion of labor may keep a roof over one’s head, but the use-value of being a cog in the machine rarely provides that elusive sensation called happiness. Life has got to be more.

The 1966 film Daisies (original Czech title: Sedmikràsky), examines the lives of two women, both named Marie (Jitka Cerhová and Ivana Karbanová), who are seemingly unmoored from the mechanics of society. Living lives of decadence and idle play, the Maries frolic through their village, rolling down hills and convincing old men to buy them extravagant dinners. Life is what the Maries make of it, assuming there’s an easy mark around to foot the bill.

Director Věra Chytilová makes great use of the full sensory arsenal at her disposal as a filmmaker. Daises includes numerous sequences that rely solely on color and sound play, the idea of a narrative barely entering the equation. There is no real plot or single concrete idea anchoring the film, but Chytilová works with such a careful sense of deliberation that she manages to keep the audience thoroughly engaged through the brisk 76-minute runtime.

The two Maries exist both as individual characters and two sides of the same coin. Much of Daisies’ charm stems from Cerhová and Karbanová’s impeccable chemistry, often moving in complete synchronicity with one another while their characters remain fundamentally unaligned with each other. The Maries’ brand of self-centered living leaves little room for each other, but the desire for companionship is a natural human phenomenon. The two actresses do a remarkable job exploring their unusual dynamic against the backdrop of a film that is never particularly concerned with telling a story.

Chytilová pulls off the impressive feat of deconstructing capitalism without succumbing to the natural urge to offer a replacement. The system is not designed to crumble at the hands of a single arthouse film, even one designed solely to poke the eyes of the kinds of conservative governments that spent decades trying to censor such material. The wheels of capitalism will keep churning long after the credits roll.

The Maries do not live particularly meaningful lives, occasionally unwittingly playing a part in capitalism’s unending game. Anarchy, almost by definition, has no better alternative. Daisies is an amusing romp through a myopic fairytale. The Maries only pay lip service to the idea that they should be worried about tomorrow. Their antics, while amusing, do not plant any grandiose ideas in the audience’s head about alternatives to the endless cycle. The best lesson that Daisies leaves behind lies in the value of deviating from the norm, if only for a little while. We cannot exist independently from society, but we can challenge the status quo at every turn.

Video game superfans should generally temper their expectations toward big-screen adaptations of beloved works. Sonic the Hedgehog was a bit of an anomaly in this regard, a generic plot constantly uplifted by Jim Carrey’s nostalgia-heavy performance as Dr. Robotnik. Audiences generally don’t see a film play simultaneously to the generic kids movie crowd alongside older viewers who grew up with the source material.

Sonic the Hedgehog 2 remains acutely aware that many of the kids who grew up blowing into their Sega Genesis cartridges now have children of their own. The script for the sequel is laden with popular culture references that no one under the age of ten would understand. The efforts toward recreating iconic Sonic boss levels often sharply contrast with the otherwise abundant laziness toward just about every other aspect of the film.

The sequel mostly picks up where the first film left off. Sonic (Ben Schwartz) has the Wachowski residence to himself while Tom (James Marsden) and Maddie (Tika Sumpter) attend the Hawaii wedding for Rachel (Natasha Rothwell) and Randall (Shemar Moore), the latter serving as the film’s sole primary newcomer among the live-action cast. Longtime sidekick Tails (Colleen O’Shaughnessey) joins Sonic to take on Robotnik and fan-favorite Knuckles (Idris Elba), who seek to harness the power of the Master Emerald.

The plot is about as silly and generic as the first film. The script does little in terms of world-building regarding the Emerald’s power or Knuckles’ beef with Sonic, but it also doesn’t really need to. The chemistry between the pairs of Sonic & Tails, and Knuckles & Robotnik supplies most of the narrative’s best moments.

Director Jeff Fowler has no idea what to do with his live-action performers outside of Carrey. The middle of the film dedicates far too much time to Rachel and Randall’s wedding. The actors work hard to endear themselves to the audience with limited screentime, but that doesn’t really change the fact that the film is pretty boring whenever there isn’t a CGI character on screen.

The script is once again laughably bad, projecting a bland hero’s journey onto Sonic, who’s still quite the loner. You get the sense that someone is trying to say something about the power of self-confidence, but the narrative doesn’t have the attention span to stay on any one strand for very long. Elba’s top-notch voice work is undercut by the silly lines he’s expected to deliver with a straight face, lacking Carrey’s innate ability to work magic with amateur-level screenwriting.

Sonic the Hedgehog 2 is way messier than it should have been, full of cheap filler like a lazy dance-off in addition to the pop culture references that already feel dated. Fowler does nail the interactions between his principal players. Sonic benefits immensely from the presence of Tails and Knuckles, inching the character closer toward his rightful place as the epitome of cool.

The film fares better at serving its dual audiences of children and adults than most of its contemporaries, but that reality doesn’t change the fact that Sonic 2 is quite content with mediocrity for most of its bloated 122-minute runtime. Fowler delivered a stark improvement over the original film, but he did not craft a particularly impressive feature, once again leaving Carrey with far too much cleanup duty. Sonic diehards will find much to enjoy, but everyone’s favorite blue hedgehog deserves better than this half-hearted attempt at filmmaking.

A film like Uncharted is not really designed to spark broader conversations about the nature of entertainment. Based on the long-running adventure video game franchise of the same name, it is certainly fair to label the whole affair as a cash grab designed to appeal to fans of both the series and of superstar lead actor Tom Holland. There’s something more at stake for the action genre as a whole in this era defined by massive budges and connected universes.

The film is largely a paint-by-number swashbuckler that borrows heavily from 90s genre tropes. Nathan Drake (Holland) is a skilled pickpocket desperate for news of his long-lost brother Sam (Rudy Pankow), the two separated at an orphanage at an early age. Savvy fortune hunter Victor “Sully” Sullivan (Mark Walhberg) quickly enlists Nathan’s help in locating the lost treasure of Ferdinand Magellan, both displaying a knowledge of history that highlights their proficiency at reading half a Wikipedia page.

Nathan and Sully are joined in their quest by Chloe Frazer (Sophia Ali), a fellow thief with an arsenal of one-liners and a weird backstory with Sully. Santiago Moncada (Antonio Banderas), a spoiled heir desperate for treasure, and his chief enforcer Jo (Tati Gabreille) supply the necessary cartoon villainy that every globe-trotting treasure hunt needs. There are plenty of predictable character twists that anyone can see coming from a mile away, but the actors all showed up to engage in earnest to bring a semblance of seriousness to their one-dimensional roles.

The laughably atrocious screenplay is perpetually buoyed by the film’s tight pacing and strong cast chemistry. Though it often seems to have happened completely by accident, Uncharted manages to be a pretty entertaining summer action flick. It’s not good, but it’s too fun to be bad.

Other actors might try and phone in their performance when faced with a script as clunky as this mess. Holland is his earnest self, doing his best to give the audience a fun time, playful banter with Wahlberg and Ali that does grow on you after a while. Drake does not seem terribly likely to be Holland’s next blockbuster vessel, but the role does showcase his A-list credentials. Uncharted is a good testament to the power of a strong leading man in today’s franchise-heavy age.

Director Ruben Fleischer deserves a lot of credit for his technical skills. The special effects won’t necessarily blow anyone away, but Fleischer’s camera work does elevate the material above plenty of other video game adaptations. The narrative could do without about ten minutes off of its 116-minute runtime, but the pacing does have a way of keeping things fresh in a way that the script never seems to understand.

Uncharted is overly content in its commanding mediocrity, but there’s a certain joy in watching the film that’s hard to ignore. Some lines and plotholes are so terrible that they make you laugh out loud. The action sequences are completely over the top in their resounding absurdity. Fleischer’s work begs to be watched on the biggest screen possible, a throwback to the days when visiting the cinema felt like something you did just to sit in those comfortable seats and turn your brain off. Uncharted should have been a better film, but it’s too enjoyable not to recommend.