There are three problems in trying to make a documentary about Lorne Michaels, who created and continues to run “Saturday Night Live” (except for five years) now for more than half a century. The first is the many, many documentaries already made about the show and the people who have appeared on it, including Steve Martin, John Belushi, Chris Farley, so this latest one is a small addition to a big jigsaw puzzle. It goes over events that have been thoroughly covered elsewhere, with some new archival material, like Michaels’ brief appearances as a performer himself in Canada when he was in his 20s and from a brief substitute for “SNL” that lasted less than a dozen years.

Second, Lorne Michaels really did not want to have a documentary made about him. As his close friend Paul Simon says to director Morgan Neville in the film, “You’ll capture a guy who is not happy.” So the movie is not about guy who is not happy, but about a guy who isn’t happy to have a cameras on him. Michaels likes his life, his job, and especially his home and family very much and he is, as anyone in that job would have to be, very even-tempered.

Third, because he is so even-tempered, and often downright dull, he is not a dynamic film presence, and because his job is “SNL” that is a gigantic contrast with EVERYONE ELSE on screen. Neville tries to jazz it up a bit with some animated segments, but we have to keep coming back to Michaels, who is not introspective beyond saying how much he loves nature or analytic about what does and does not work in the show (we see him re-arrange the order of the sketches but we don’t know anything about why).

I’ve watched “SNL” since the very first episode and have stuck with it through all of the ups and downs that are documented or in many cases glossed over quickly or ignored entirely in this film. I’m enough of a fan that I enjoyed it, though it is in no way an indispensable or particularly valuable addition to the record. Any serious fan has seen plenty about the early days, the “is ‘SNL’ past its prime” headlines the rocketing unknown-to-megawatt star trajectories (Eddie Murphy) and the “wait, what’s that one’s name again” cast members, plus the firing of Norm MacDonald (here’s a great take with David Letterman).

One benefit of surrounding himself with some of the most brilliant impressionists and comedians in the world is that most of them have a take on Michaels’ slightly stentorian delivery (and on his disappointed sigh). It is a lot of fun to hear so many of them almost subconsciously slip into his voice. And it’s a lot of fun just to hear them talk about him, his quirks (the entire schedule is built around his preferring to start the day at 4 pm and he is constantly munching on popcorn). The best moments are just listening in on a conversation with comedy legends John Mulaney, Bill Hader, and Fred Armisen, or the comments from Conan O’Brien, writer Jim Downey (see the documentary about him), and Paul Simon. Mulaney, hyper-perceptive as always, tells the film’s most illuminating story.

We know, as we watch the archival footage, how many of those people have died. But there’s hardly any sense of how those losses affected him. We hear about the pressure to revitalize the show, but not what steps he took. Instead we hear him fretting about whether host Ryan Gosling has a doctor for his raspy throat. The other documentaries, the books about “SNL,” or any given episode of the show will tell you as much and be more entertaining.

Parents should know that this film has references to drinking and drug use.

Family discussion: What are some of your favorite “SNL” sketches and stars and why?

If you like this, try: the four documentaries celebrating the show’s 50th anniversary, especially the one from Questlove about the music.

According to a study I read recently, art collectors who spend a significant amount of money tend to fall into distinct categories. Some by for investment, as though the art is a more decorative stock portfolio. Some buy for personal branding: “See, I must be rich and important because I have a Picasso!” Some buy because they feel an emotional connection to the work or because they like to support and interact with artists. And of course there is some overlap in those categories; people don’t spend hundreds of thousands of dollars or more for just one reason.

But when it comes to why artists create art, there are not so many categories. The few who do it for acclaim and money is a smaller group than those who actually achieve it in their lifetimes. Anyone who’s ever taken an art history course knows that Van Gogh never sold a painting and that some artists who were successful when they were alive are no longer considered significant or original. There is only one reason to make art, and that is that you can’t not do it. It is foundational to the artist’s character and purpose.

Thus, there is an impossible gulf between the person who creates art and the person who buys it. That is one of the key conflicts explored in “The Christophers,” an excellent film from two of the best, screenwriter Ed Solomon (“Men in Black,” “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure”) and director Steven Soderbergh (“Erin Brockovich,” “Oceans 11,” “Out of Sight,” “Traffic”) that is an unmistakable work of art itself.

We know Lori (Michaela Coel) is an artist from the first shot of the film. And we know she is not making any money a moment later when she leaves the plein air drawing she is working on to take an order from a customer at a food truck. Then she gets a call from Sallie (Jessica Gunning), a former art school classmate, with an offer. Sallie and her brother Barnaby (James Corden) are the estranged children of a famous artist, Julian Sklar (Ian McKellen). They want to pay Lori to complete, i.e., forge their father’s paintings so they can sell them as his after he dies.

Julian was once very active and acclaimed. But just after his most famous work, a series of portraits called The Christophers, he stopped painting and spent the next decades as a celebrity, something of an enfant terrible. He is known for biting, Simon Cowell-like disdain for young artists as a judge on a reality show competition. When we first see him, he is recording Cameo videos (upcharge if you want to see him mime his signature).

Lori, who has been working as an art restorer, turns down the offer from Sallie and Barnaby. But as the apothecary in “Romeo and Juliet” says, “My poverty, but not my will, consents.” She agrees, and goes to work for Julian as his assistant.

Their conversations, or, rather, verbal parrying, are pure delight, so smart and sharp. Lori learns about where the Christopher series came from and why Julian never completed the second set of portraits. Julian remembers what it is like to talk to someone who speaks his language. McKellan and Coel have a crackling chemistry and play off each other, his dancing around, deflecting, his trying to be shocking, her steady intelligence. And it reflects a very deep understanding of the world of art, the people who create it, struggling to realize their visions — to capture them, in both senses of the word, as well as the complexities of maneuvering the world of critics, gallery owners, and wealthy collectors. In its way, the film itself is a work of art, and one that honors the true spririt of the artist.

Parents should know that this film includes constant very strong and crude language, alcohol, a sad death, and sexual references.

Family discussion: What did Lori and Julian have in common and what made them realize that? What kind of art do you like and why?

If you like this, try: “The Square,” “The Burnt Orange Heresy,” “Untitled,” and the documentary “Made You Look”

Love is the great human adventure but it is also the great human conundrum, which is why it drives us crazy. And also by there are so many stories, songs, paintings, novels, and theories about it. We all want it. And we are all terrified about being vulnerable enough to accept it, knowing we might come to depend on it and then lose it. And that presents itself in the core conflict. We want to be loved, which means being known. But if we allow ourselves to be known, we understand that we might scare off the very person we most want to love us. That is the precipice of intimacy that is very seldom . And that is the subject of “The Drama,” which has the courage to take on this conflict. It just doesn’t do a very good job. It’s non-stop cringe.

It’s also the kind of movie actors like to be in because it presents them with some very intriguing acting challenges, and if you can handle the cringe, you will appreciate the performances. They are as excellent as we would expect from four of the best young actors working today.

The movie begins with a close-up of a very pretty ear. It belongs to Emma (Zendaya), who is reading a novel in a coffee shop. She has an earbud in the other ear. Charlie (Robert Pattinson) wants to find a way to talk to her, so he quickly looks up her book on GoodReads so he can pretend he read it. She does not respond. He thinks he’s blown it. But she did not hear him. She is deaf in that other ear. She encourages him to try again. And she forgives him on their first date when he has to confess that he never read the book.

That’s a flashback. In the movie’s present time, it is just a couple of days before their wedding and they are working on the speeches they will make after the ceremony, explaining what they love most about each other. Charlie is getting some help from his best man, Mike (Mamoudou Athie). Everything seems all set for happily ever after.

But then, at a tasting dinner with Mike and his wife, Rachel (Alaina Haim), who is Emma’s maid of honor, they all get a little tipsy (“This isn’t a bar,” the caterer mutters), and everyone makes the first of a series of excruciatingly painful mistakes. They decide they should each tell the story of the worst thing they ever did. And Emma’s is so shocking to the other three that it shatters their understanding of their relationship. Charlie starts to panic. He pesters Emma with questions, not trying so much to understand as he is to find a way to feel better about making a lifetime commitment. There’s a certain amount of projectile vomiting. And some more mistakes that just make things worse.

Some viewers may think Charlie should be concerned about another of Emma’s actions, one happening in the present, more concerning than the one from her mid-teens she picked as her worst. She makes a decision based on questionable evidence and without regard for the consequences. But the script makes this seem more like a distraction than a central counterpoint to the theme.

As noted, the performances are outstanding. In one scene, just after the big reveal, the couple are posing for the wedding photographer and it is an acting class to watch the hesitations and performative re-enactments of their pre-reveal comfort with each other. Their scenes together have an electricity beyond what the script intends. Athie understands the subtlety of Mike’s internal struggle to make everyone to get along, Hailey Benton Gates gives a vivid but layered performance as Charlie’s colleague, who tries to find a way to respond to Charlie’s inappropriate hypothetical as a subordinate who socializes with him (she and her plus one are wedding guests).

There are some sharp moments in the script but it is not up to the level of the settings, the score by Daniel Pemberton, or the performances. There’s not enough substance and way too much cringe.

Parents should know that this movie includes very disturbing content and references to school shootings. Characters use strong and crude language, drink, and use drugs, there are sexual references and explicit situations,

Family discussion: What would you have done if you were Emma? If you were Charlie? What will happen next?

If you like this, try: “Bad Sabbath” and “The Trouble with Jessica”

Fair warning. I have never played Super Mario and have only the slightest acquaintance with his world and characters. For me, the best part of the film was hearing the appreciative laughs and gasps of the fans in the theater who were very happy to recognize their favorite elements and anticipate how they would fit into the story.

The story, of course is the issue when a game becomes a film. Instead of the interaction a player has with a game, we need a narrative that puts the story where the game-y parts go. And on that basis, at least to a newbie, like the first one, “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie” does pretty well.

Rosalina (Brie Larson) is the devoted adoptive mother of the sweet, star-like Lumas, and watcher of the cosmos. They love her bedtime stories about the plumbers Mario (Chris Pratt) and Luigi (Charlie Day), who rescue Princess Peach (Anya Taylor-Joy).

And then a giant robot attacks and it is Rosalina who has to be rescued. She fights back fiercely until one of her star babies is in peril, and they are both captured by Bowser Jr. (Benny Safdie), son of Bowser (Jack Black), who was defeated and shrunk down to dollhouse size in the last episode. Bowser Jr. is determines to avenge his father: “From the ashes of his defeat rises a new emperor.”

Princess Peach is having a birthday celebration, but she is sitting alone. Mario arrives to give her a gift, a pretty pink parasol, and she tells him it is not her birthday but the anniversary of the day the mushroom people found her. She wishes she could find her family of origin.

All of this will come together, along with many other Super Mario characters and settings (and in-jokes) all very colorful and more silly than scary. Mario, Luigi, and Princess Peach are joined by Yoshi (Donald Glover) and by Bowser Sr., who gets his size back, improves his anger management, and joins the good guys, at least until he is reunited with his son.

Is it essentially an informercial for the games and merch? Of course it is. But is is good-hearted and colorful, and has genuine affection for the fans.

Parents should know that this film includes extended cartoon fantasy-style peril and violence. The issues of adoption and family separation are gently handled but may be upsetting for some children.

Family discussion: Should Mario and Luigi have believed Bowser when he promised to help them? Which version of Super Mario is your favorite?

If you like this, try: the games and the first film

NOTE: Stay ALL the way to the end for an extra scene

There’s a small genre of films I call “cheerfully nasty.” This is an ultra-violent story of hard-core featuring a time-traveling criminal who, between shoot-outs, has a serious conversation with his colleagues about whether Jess, Dean, or Logan is the best boyfriend for Rory. If you don’t know and appreciate that these are casual murderers who have all watched every episode of “The Gilmore Girls,” this may not be for you. But for the right audience, it is a hoot. It has a terrific cast, some delightfully deadpan dialogue, a bunch of great needle-drop songs, some surprising twists throughout, even a post-credit scene with one more.

It opens with Billy Joel’s “Why Should I Worry?” from the 1988 animated film “Oliver & Company” perhaps a nod to another movie with an ampersand in the tile. Symon (Ben Schwartz), a nerdy-looking guy in a garage filled with tech equipment is bopping along as he is doing something techy. Then someone shows up and shoots him. We will find out what been cooking up in that lab and we will see the nerdy guy again in a flashback.

The first of a series of chapter titles tells us we are at: “The Party.” It’s a welcome home party for Jimmy Boy (Jimmy Tatro), back from service a prison term. The host is his devoted father, Sosa (Keith David), the local crime kingpin. Sosa jovially welcomes the crowd, but lets them know that the person who framed Jimmy Boy will be dealt with.

Nick (Vince Vaughn) and Mike (James Marsden) are part of Sosa’s crime family. They leave the party to drive to a house, and Nick tells Mike to use a chloroformed handkerchief to knock out the person who answers the door. But when he gets to the door, the person who opens it is — Nick. It turns out that there are two Nicks, one from the present and the one in the car, who is used a time machine invented by Symon a few months in the future to go back in time and prevent Mike from being murdered by an assassin. Sosa believes Mike is the one who framed Jimmy and has sent a very scary hit man who solves the murderer’s biggest problem — disposing of the body — by eating them. Yes, he’s a cannibal assassin.

Another complication: Mike is having an affair with Nick’s estranged wife, Alice (Eiza González).

This is a top-notch cast, and every one of them gets the delicate balance of tone right on the button, keeping the energy of each scene high while they stay matter-of-fact in the most outlandish circumstances and handling the most outlandish dialogue with hilarious understatement. These are all awful people, but some of them are less awful and being funny about all the madness helps keep us on their side.

NOTE: Stay through the credits for an extra scene.

Parents should know that this is a very violent film about criminals who kill without any hesitation. There are many fights and shoot-outs with guns, grenades, and whatever blunt objects are at hand, as well as a cannibal assassin, with graphic and disturbing images. It also includes sexual references, nudity, and non-explicit situations with strippers, prostitutes, and references to impotence. Characters use constant strong language.

Family discussion: If you found a time machine, where would you go?

If you like this, try: “Mr. Right,” “Boss Level,” and “Shoot-Em-Up”