Trumbo (****1/2)

There's a small but funny moment in "Trumbo" when the title author, blacklisted for being a Communist, is found nominated for an Oscar for a screenplay penned under a false name: Robert Rich. Dalton Trumbo sits around with some others and discuss who would even go up to accept the award should he win. "Don't worry," a producer says, "it's not that good of a script anyways." The moment finally comes, and Trumbo along with his family watch as his screenplay for "The Brave One" in fact wins the award. A producer goes to the stage to accept it on the writer's behalf, and it disappears. Will he ever get his hands on the prize at all?

So goes "Trumbo," a wildly fun and intriguing movie about a group of screenwriters billed as the 'Hollywood 10,' movie makers deemed unable to work in Hollywood due to their involvement with the Communist Party. Does that stop them from working? Of course not! Through schemes and pen names and various means, the authors develop a literal black market of smuggling and drafting movie scripts for production at various studios. Most everyone in Hollywood knows it's them, but since the pictures are good, who's to care?

Bryan Cranston delivers in perhaps his first major leading role. Moustached, wise, witty, and engulfed in a constant cloud of cigarette smoke, Trumbo is presented as an unassuming hero that cares more about supporting his family then winning name recognition and prizes. The challenges build as his work load increases and the threat of losing a job become more hazardous. Locked away in his office or typing away in his tub (18 hour work days, at one point), Trumbo goes gray and frail but never loses his passion for the movies.

Hedda Hopper (Helen Mirren), on the other hand, is presented as the one consistent 'villain' through it all. A former actress turned gossip columnist, she pokes around attempting to uncover the truth if only to boost her readership. She's not one to stand by convictions, but since anti-Communism is all the rage, naturally she must hop on board. Mirren's is a fun, quick, and memorable performance, but does little to upstage Cranston, whose presence on screen we take for granted for being so absolutely believable.

There has been a surge of 'movies about movies,' and the one I most vividly recall is "Argo," another story of the power of Hollywood to save the day in the end. While that film was without doubt a bit more optimistic in it's message, I found "Trumbo" to be even a bit more inventive; more grounded in the reality of such a situation. We all knew Ben Affleck would get the hostages on the plane in the end, but I felt genuinely concerned that Dalton Trumbo was on a track to die penniless and forgotten.

From 'Roman Holiday' to 'Spartacus,' Trumbo's career seemed to be on a never-ending incline after his return to public graces, and yet until the day he died he certainly carried around a bit of controversy. Drastically underpraised in his time and still an icon today, "Trumbo" succeeds at creating entertainment from a dark subject matter, and (though a fairly predictable screenplay in itself) delivers as a solid movie about a little known time in Hollywood history.

Straight Outta Compton (****)

It's kind of amazing watching a movie like "Straight Outta Compton," a music biopic of a group of men who revolutionized music in the late 1980's and continue to influence culture to this day. The end credits do little to gloss over this fact, and clips of Ice Cube and Dr Dre now are all the more amazing considering their roots and the singular idea of a dream to be heard.

F Gary Gray's directorial effort is an incredibly impressive epic spanning nearly 10 years. It covers a large ensemble cast and so many points, ideas, and cultural events, it's a wonder the film didn't wind up double its run time of nearly 3 hours. What we have is a fast-paced and exciting look into the world of music: the inspiration, writing, and collaboration of it. N.W.A. is the group ("No Whites Allowed?"), and they're using music to voice their anger. While other musicians saw songs as an abstract way to tell a story, Easy-E and Ice Cube were performing "Fuck The Police" to sold out arenas. Reporters and even FBI saw their work as a potential threat to the safety of armed officers; terrorism in a way. NWA saw it as giving a voice to the voiceless.

The cast is nearly beyond belief, not just in physical looks (it's great that Ice Cube's son inherited his father's role, but everyone down to the uncanny transformation of Jason Mitchell into Easy-E is eerie to say the least). The cast works together to present the creation of this rap ensemble with a great passion and honesty. There is love behind this film, and seeing the original artists as producers on the film only confirm this.

Storywise we follow a fairly traditional plot: the rise to power and the struggle to adapt to a life of wealth, etc, etc. I think the more interesting aspects focused on the influence of their founding manager, Jerry Heller (Paul Giamati), and the stake that it drove into the group over time. I'm no expert on rap music and especially not on music of the time, but seeing the unique impact such records could have was eye-opening to say the least. With Ice Cube leaving the group over salary issues and recording music against NWA and his former boss (right down to anti-Semitism), Heller responds with anger. It's defamation of character, perhaps he should sue. Easy-E simply steps back into the recording studio to retaliate through music.

In a way, music is the most powerful weapon.

The Big Short (*****)

I won't claim to understand fully the reasons for the Stock Market Crash of 2008, nor after seeing this film could I speak to it with great fluency. What I can say, however, is that I have a clear picture of the consequences of such a fiasco, as well as the brains (and lack thereof) of the people involved on both sides of the line of guilt. "The Big Short" is billed as a comedy, and in fact it whizzes past so quickly that you can't help but laugh at the absurdity. It's funny until it's simply not, and then it becomes quite a disturbing concept (and quite quickly, too).

There are several key players in the ensemble, and firstly is the talented and yet quirky Michael Burry (Christian Bale), a manager of a hedge fund with self-declared Asperger's Syndrome and a glass eye. He discovers a slight bubble in the widely regarded "stable" housing market that could lead to a total collapse. He decides to bet against the banks at stake, much to their amusement. His research gets out, and surprisingly only a handful of people realize the money that is at stake. From a compulsive trader named Mark Baum (Steve Carell), to a banker from within named Jared Vennett (Ryan Gosling), they probe deeper into the market of mortgages and loans to see just how clueless everyone really is.

The first half of the film introduces our cast, one by one, with backstories and cutaways and flashbacks. The film moves with a kinetic energy that is just simply miraculous, and on more than one occasion a character breaks the fourth wall and speaks directly to us. It's an odd and yet perfect choice in terms of structuring the film. Just as the economy is on unstable grounds, so is the style of the film: disjointed, frenetic, and dizzying.

It's so beyond belief that something as catastrophic as this could happen, and yet it's no wonder why given the CEO's and bankers and 'officials' they meet along the way. Asking lenders about why they would approve a loan without the person having any sort of credit score, Baum is told that the repayment doesn't matter, that they make money regardless. Frustrated, Baum asks his team "why are they admitting all this?" only to realize that they are simply bragging about their wealth and greed.

You would think the film would end triumphantly with the "cha-ching" of large checks falling into the laps of our heroes, and yet it feels even more so like a loss. By betting against the banks, these men made literally billions of dollars, and yet one moment in the film reminds us of the disturbing reality: that for every 1% unemployment goes up, 40,000 people die. By profiting off of a collapsing market, so many more millions of people are out of a job and a home.

For being a first-time dramatic film for director Adam McKay, he navigates the territory with the ease of a master filmmaker. Through exposition and hilariously-random cutaways (here's Selena Gomez to explain the financial meltdown), the extremely dense plot and several interwoven stories are presented with a clarity that I don't think many filmmakers could manage.

Christian Bale as the one-eyed discoverer deserves much praise for his zany and focused performance, as does Brad Pitt, playing a retired banker who feels very much like a conservative family man simply trying to do the right thing. The film belongs to Steve Carell, in an intensely layered performance that borders on genius at every given moment. With a glottal tone in his voice and a dark past, the film is that much better for his tremendous work, and I don't see any scenario that doesn't end with his second consecutive Oscar nomination. As a moral compass through the film, Carell's acting is pitch perfect at capturing the absurdity of the entire story, slowly coming to terms with the evil and corruption that is modern society.

I didn't expect much from "The Big Short," but having seen it I am all the better for it. It has reinvigorated the wonder of moviemaking in an otherwise typical Holiday season Oscar-bait lineup. Out of all the films playing in theaters, this is the movie I would immediately return to see once more.

Carol (***)

CAROL attempts to be profound with the help of visual beauty and two terrific performances. There is so much to admire about director Todd Haynes' production, but in the end the movie left me feeling cold, unmoved, and perhaps more questioning of these characters' motivations than understanding.

It's 1950's New York, and we are introduced to our two leading characters. Therese, a quiet and oftentimes boyish girl who works selling dolls at a department store and drinks beers with the guys after a long day. It's a curiously similar role to the one Rooney Mara also played in "Girl With The Dragon Tattoo": she is fragile behind a strong facade, timid and yet confident. In many ways the movie is her story and perspective on meeting Carol, a high-class woman who wears furs and lives in a New Jersey mansion. Where Therese lacks confidence, Carol is bathed in it, ordering at a restaurant without so much a glance at the menu, inviting Therese to her house for the weekend without even knowing her.

The fascination comes from the underbelly of their beings and their reactions behind closed doors. Carol is anything but strong in her own home, as she fights a bitter divorce and custody of her only child. She clings to Therese if only for companionship during the holidays when otherwise she is alone. Therese explains her passion for photography, and Carol surprises her with an expensive trunk full of the newest technology and film. Therese accepts these gifts, this friendship, without hesitation. Her relationship with her boyfriend is crumbling, and her need for drastic change or perhaps a new life is with welcome arms at her meeting of Carol.

Like I previously said, the real beauty in this movie is the visuals. From costumes to cinematography, the look of the film rings true to a time gone by (as we know Todd Haynes is capable of, especially looking at another of his 'gay' themed melodramas "Far From Heaven"). Haynes has a control of the camera as though in a dream, with many shots through car windows or in the reflection on wet glass. Soft edges and moody lighting, one sequence in particular still stays with me in which Therese and Carol drive through a tunnel. Tell me that isn't one of the most astounding sequences in a film this year, one that captures the feeling of love with barely a word spoken.

The film opens and closes with a scene at a dinner table, where Carol and Therese talk (and we come to find later much time has passed). From first viewing to second, it's remarkable how much these characters have changed, and how my first impression of the dominant character was entirely wrong. The marvel of someone like Cate Blanchett (one of the great actresses today) is that she demands a presence on screen and so fully understands the emotion of any given scene. Rooney Mara has an equal (but nearly opposite) effect, but no less powerful.

I was not put off by the depiction of romance and love, but perhaps thrown off by the lack of understanding of these two women who progress against the grain of their society. The slow pace gave me time to soak up the look of the film, and yet it didn't help my appreciation of the grandeur of the story. Like the character, Carol is a beautiful thing to look at, and yet just below the surface are flaws and questions and mystery. Perhaps that's just the heart of a woman.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens (****1/2)

There are some spoilers here, so if you don’t want to have the film ruined, turn back now. 


JJ Abrams was notoriously going to be called “Jar Jar Abrams” by fans if he were to ruin the seventh installment, but thankfully that will not be necessary. How funny that the last Star Wars film was released only 10 years ago, and yet it feels like “The Force Awakens” has been hotly anticipated since “Return of the Jedi” 32 years ago. Gone are the days of the Senate and confusing dialogue and green screened sets (in the prequels, of course), Abrams’ installment is a return to form in more ways than one.

Thinking about it now, I think “The Force Awakens” is in many ways a remake of the 1977 original film. It follows roughly the same plot, as we meet our hero (Rey in this film, but more on her later) living in a sandy, desolate planet. Here she finds a cute little droid (BB-8) containing restricted information to use against the galactic forces (The New Order). Recruiting the help of some colorful characters, our hero learns the ways of the force, flies a spaceship, and helps destroy a planet-sized weapon originally designed to crush the rebels once and for all.

The first success is undoubtedly the casting. Like Lucas with his original film, Abrams recruited two relatively unknown actors to play our heroine, Rey (Daisy Ridley), and Finn (John Boyega), a young man who deserts his job as a storm trooper to fight alongside the rebels instead. The trailers were fairly vague as to their purposes in the story, but Rey is a dreamer in many of the same ways Luke Skywalker was. She teams with Finn (in a refreshingly non-romantic way) to travel to rebel headquarters to deliver BB-8 to the hands of General Leia.

Star Wars has proven to be a story more about characters than setting, and getting to see the return of people like Han Solo and Princess Leia is a feeling of warmth and overwhelming nostalgia. In a worse film, the returning characters might have been given some wise words to say and nothing more. Here, Han Solo is fighting and charming the socks off aliens at every step – but is that any surprise for a man of such charisma and style?

The villains are more or less carbon copies of the original trilogy, down to the costumes and hairstyles. Their leader is Kylo Ren, a helmet-wearing cloaked figure who possesses powers of the force and a red lightsaber to instigate his menacing presence. We learn that Luke Skywalker has gone missing for quite some time, and that all of the Jedi are long gone. In fact, his last pupil was Ren, and seeing his turn to the dark side sent him into exile never to return. Unlike Vader in the first couple films, Ren is a divided character, torn between the light and the dark, and his inner battle will surely come into sharper focus given some of his unspeakable actions and family ties to both his father and grandfather.

The scope of the Empire’s weapon in this film is nearly unimaginable, and it makes the Death Star look like a spare tire in comparison. With the power to destroy multiple planets at once, it’s a wonder the entirely of it can be brought down by destroying a bunker no bigger than a football field. Thinking too much about plot holes or the reality of such situations can become overbearing, but then again, this is Star Wars, not a documentary.

Overall, there’s very little to dislike about the film. The action scenes are thrilling and oftentimes beautiful to watch (remember that shot in the first teaser trailer of the Millenium Falcon upside down in the desert? There’s plenty more where that came from). The new characters are sharp and compelling, and the smart script is littered with some of the original trilogy's humor and playfulness. It’s a fresh perspective that makes us realize even more so how misguided the prequels were to begin with.

The ending is nearly perfect and sets up the sequel with so many questions left unanswered. At last, we find Luke Skywalker in his seclusion, and light saber in hand, Rey stands in front of him ready to learn the ways of the force. The buildup to such a quiet moment was well worth it, and even if the sequel is nothing more than these two characters talking for two hours, there’s a whole lot more I would like to hear about. As a passing of the torch to the next generation, Star Wars has been reborn.

The Danish Girl (***1/2)

"The Danish Girl" is two parts "A Beautiful Mind" and one part "The Theory of Everything." Good news for the filmmakers, as both films went on to reap buckets of awards in their respective year. Bad for the typical movie-goer, who will watch this film feeling a sense of deja vu, disappointed that the story is in many ways a retreading of the classic "Oscar biopic" which follows the following the following plotline:


1. Introduce the main character and their lover/partner. Establish they have a healthy relationship
2. Reveal the main character's ailment that will challenge their romance
3. Watch as the characters learn to adapt to said ailment and work through difficult emotional turmoil
4. With love and support, the main character goes on to achieve the impossible (complete with a rousing musical accompaniment)


I'm being too hard on the film, aren't I? Afterall, the director Tom Hooper has won an Oscar for dealing with an historical story in "The King's Speech." He must know how to make a good movie, right? (Oh, we can add "The King's Speech" to that list, too).

Overall, yes. The story, a beautiful and heartbreaking story of a husband and wife (Gerda and Einar), painters, and the discovery that Einar feels as though a woman trapped in a man's body. He feels a tickling sensation when he brushes against lace. His wife plays along and suggests he goes by the name Lili. They go to a party and test a disguise. It's all fun and games until it's not - when Lili feels compelled to fulfill a deep need to transition to a female through and through.

The story is fascinating in the way it shows the dual personalities of husband and wife. Eddie Redmayne (last year's Oscar winner as Stephen Hawking) is simply transformative playing a man who is coming to terms with a new life. He's shy, fearful, and deeply curious - fascinated by a newfound male gaze and the process of daily makeup. His wife, Gerda (Alicia Vikander) is a strong-willed woman who is simultaneously broken-hearted at losing her husband and yet compelled to work on becoming a better professional on her own. It's one of the better female performances of the year - all the better for being a standout in a script that could have given her a few more liberties. At the end of the film, isn't she still a bit too dependent on a man's guidance?

The score is absolutely brilliant (again, last year's Oscar winner Alexandre Desplat), the photography memorable, the costumes unique and the sets convincing. On the basis of an Oscar-contender, we have a sure-fire winner. As I felt with last year's "Theory of Everything," and even more so here, it feels too much like a Hollywood romance presented with no loose ends and pretty bow on top. It's too bad the story took such a drastic departure from the truth, and yet with all the ups and downs, perhaps the movie would have never been made otherwise.

Beasts of No Nation (****1/2)

William Tecumseh Sherman once said "war is hell." Indeed, it's a phrase that has rolled into pop culture, and has been a focus of many films dating back as far as films go. Beasts of No Nation, an independent film released in conjunction with Netflix, is a marvelous and oftentimes dark movie that works to explore just that: that war is an attack on the soul.

It's an African civil war (and I don't even remember what country was setting to the story). Villages are falling apart, people are fleeing as refuges. The story is focused around a young boy named Agu. We first meet him carrying around a TV frame and using his friends to act out "stories" for the amusement of spectators. He is close with his brother, his mother... How much is lost when their entire town is executed and Agu narrowly escapes into the jungle.

He soon finds a militia of guerilla soldiers. Led by a powerful and intimidating Commander (the recognizable Idris Elba), Agu is taken in and sheltered, though in exchange he is developed into a child soldier who must kill the enemy without fear. The psychological breakdown of the child features some of the more disturbing moments in the film, and our first introduction to death comes when Agu's leader gives him a machete, a prisoner, and an order to kill him at this very moment.

Abraham Attah is the boy, a brilliant young actor who just about steals the movie at every turn and oversteps Jacob Tremblay from "Room" to be perhaps the most incredible performance by a youth in a film this year. From his initial requests to simply find his mother again, we trek Agu's descent into the underbellies of war, of sin, all the while we hear his prayers to God to understand that there is no other way. There's a final moment with him where he tries to justify his actions during the war and realizing that he will have to cope with these memories the rest of his life. There's a real weight on his shoulders. It's hard for me to believe that it's anything but the truth coming from this boy's mouth.

The violence in the film is truly brutal, and I was more shocked perhaps to see the majority of the bloodshed coming from these young children's hands. We have heard stories of child warriors and the horrors that come with such a robbery of innocence, but seeing it in the flesh makes it no less a difficult concept to grasp.

And yet I found beauty in the story, the potential for redemption and the gorgeous camerawork that makes this a story worthy of art and discussion. With current events the way they are and the amount of death in the news on a daily basis, "Beasts" was not a film I looked forward to watching with eagerness. I'm still glad I did.

Bridge of Spies (*****)

From Steven Spielberg, I don't think anyone ever expects a film less than stellar, and yet my urgency to see BRIDGE OF SPIES was on the back burner at most. A story of cold war, prison cells, and prisoner exchanges surprisingly didn't tickle my curiosity, and yet here I am convinced that it is one of the better films of the year and surely alongside 'Lincoln' as the director's best work in quite some time.

The intrigue of the Cold War was, I suppose, the lack of guns and the prevalence of quick wit. This wasn't a war of bloodshed but rather the need for information about the enemy. Espionage, as it were, stocked the front lines with men hidden in plain sight, both in America and Russia.

Enter Rudolph Abel (Mark Rylance), a quiet Brooklyn dweller who paints landscapes in the park and self-portraits in the quiet of his apartment. In fact, the front half of the film is dedicated to just that; the portrait of a spy living amongst us. He is arrested, searched, hated, and yet his first thoughts are to tidy up the apartment before being hauled to prison. As a Russian spy, he is even more unassuming given his vague Scottish accent. His birth records indicate he was born in England, but how can we be sure he isn't just making it all up?

As it's America, Abel is given due process of the law, and he is introduced to James B. Donovan (Tom Hanks), an insurance lawyer tasked with defending the man. "If Abel is the most hated man in America, then I'm #2," Donovan remarks during the case. Indeed, his entry into the story isn't one of passion, but as the case grows and evidence is assembled, Donovan can't help but see two things: that were it not for the high publicity of the case the trial would be thrown out, and that Abel is indeed a dignified man of honor.

The relationship between these two men is one of the more intriguing relationships I can remember in a movie. From distrust grows mutual respect, and though they part ways in the end, can the bond they share truly be considered a friendship? Tom Hanks is truly the man for the part, and in every way he bleeds a sense of urgency and dignity to his performance as a man only seeking to do the right thing. Same for Mr Rylance, sure to be an Oscar nominee within a month or two. His quiet and yet memorable turn as the Russian spy is constantly full of surprises and humor. When asked why he doesn't appear scared to be sentenced to death, he plainly remarks "will it help?"

The story is full of depth  and proceeds much further than the Supreme Court hearing (wouldn't any other movie make that the climax as opposed to the midway mark?). We see Donovan cross into Germany during the time of the Berlin Wall's construction. In the search for justice, it seems, he realizes that the importance of saving the life of a spy would benefit America if ever a prisoner exchange were to occur. What follows is a battle of wits and integrity between Donovan and American policy and Germany and Russia.

What's most surprising is the lack of John Williams in the production, nearly unprecedented in Spielberg's nearly 50 year career. The composer instead is Thomas Newman, one of the most established and recognizable musicians in movies today. Following in the vein of a true Williams' score and weaving in a tapestry of his personal style, Newman's work is truly memorable and perhaps could win him his first Oscar after a record 12 losses.

It's easy to take Steven Spielberg for granted. His name has come to represent excellence in movie-making, and yet his films are typically given a quiet ovation. 'Bridge of Spies' is a beautiful story of large proportions that is also an intimate, heartwarming account of a narrow sliver of global history. Here is continued proof why this is a director who will never be matched.

Brooklyn (****1/2)

BROOKLYN is a better film than I was led to believe by the trailer, proving yet again that you should never judge a book by its cover. What I thought would be a standard romantic drama involving various social and economic issues instead turned out to be a truthful story of immigration and hope.

Saoirse Ronan (SIR-shuh) plays our heroine, Eilis, a young girl who travels the Atlantic with the reference of a priest and a new job opportunity. In her mind, there are no more opportunities for her aside from living under the shadow of her mother or with financial aid from her sister. In Brooklyn, she is set up as a shop clerk. She takes night classes. She even meets a boy, a gentle yet passionate Italian-American named Tony (a believable and likeable Emory Cohen). Let's not hold back. As we know from the trailer, she even falls in love.

I am not well-versed in Ronan's films following her Oscar-nominated debut in Atonement. In that film, she played a clever young girl who's dishonesty ruins the lives of those around her. Here, she is an optimistic woman who curiously lives a life that stumbles into deceit. Again, we have seen the trailer: she makes a return to Ireland and is introduced to another suitor. Who will she pick, and where does her home lie??

Back to Ronan. She is in every scene of this movie, and golly does she deliver one of the year's better performances. From heartbreak to young love, every moment is absolutely brilliant, and even more amazing considering she is an actress all of 21 years old. Look at her first scene in the movie, and look at her last. Even here, she matures before our eyes and transforms into a woman with real emotional weight and incredible depth.

The story overall does occasionally fall into bouts of the cliche, but considering the source material and the incredible direction and writing (Nick Hornby with a beautiful adaptation), it's easy enough to look past it and see a movie of pure entertainment and joy. The film could be seen as a topical piece considering the state of immigration in our country today. I think it's more a portrait of a time we my never see again. Where hope was tangible and opportunities were readily available to those who worked for it. In a way, it's a depiction of the American Dream; the reason so many come to our country to begin with. After the film ended, I almost wished I could keep dreaming...

Spotlight (****1/2)

The final credits begin at a pinnacle of emotion and fulfillment, when a story of massive implications is finally published after years of research. The outcry and support and anger is channeled through an endless barrage of phone calls- one after the other - until the screen goes black and a list is displayed: a list of other cities where a sex abuse scandal arose in the Catholic Church after the infamous story written at the Boston Globe. And the list goes on and on and on... To say I got chills is of the most mild implications- to see a list including my home town quite literally took my breath away.

In a lot of ways SPOTLIGHT builds to that final list, shown after hours of growing suspense and involvement. The story, written by the 'Spotlight' team of journalists, began as little more than curiosity surrounding the story of a priest who was relocated to a different parish after molesting several children. A bit more digging and they found another priest. And another. If I told you they found 13 priest would you be shocked? If you realized there were 87 in Boston alone, how can you come to terms with it?

Like many of the great films regarding journalism, Tom McCarthy's film is both reserved and thrilling, with nothing more than a sharp script with razor dialogue to create an excitement that is rare in movies. There are so many moments that pay homage to some of the greats, from "All The President's Men," to "Network," from "Michael Clayton" to "Doubt." Sometimes the most powerful thing is nothing more than a real conversation.

"Spotlight" is building a lot of buzz and for good reason. In a year that has been marked with so many genres of story, this is a pure drama that unfolds as only a real-life story can. The characters are truly an ensemble that are portrayed with so much realism that believing it to be a documentary is not hard to imagine. 

We can give credit to Michael Keaton, who I would assume would be the leading role but only because he is the main editor of his division. His is a man of convictions yet smarts, one who plays his cards close and is believable as a charismatic leader. Same for Rachel McAdams, a confident and beautiful woman who must deal with the realization that the church her grandmother loves so much has betrayed so many. Or Mark Ruffalo as a the man with a nervous tick and a flair for spontaneity. 

Movies like this are interesting mostly because they show how the workings of a large organization function. In this case we have an insider look into the dealings of a newspaper grappling with a horrendous story of child abuse and yet trying to keep one step ahead of the rival publishers. The story was published in early 2002, and even in the midst of research the events of 9/11 nearly pushed the story to the back burner indefinitely. Who knew?

The pieces of the puzzle were always there, and in fact the Globe comes to realize nearly every piece of information they published was already given to them in years past. One case of abuse is sad, but we soon forget. What 'Spotlight' did (and what we realize in the final few scene) was to shake humanity to the core. As an editor says before publishing the story in a final scene, "sometimes we get lost in the dark, it's only when a light is turned on that we realize the mistakes we have made." I'm paraphrasing, of course, but what a whopper. 

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actress (McAdams), Best Supporting Actor (Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo, Stanley Tucci, Liev Schreiber, Brian d'Arcy James), Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Editing)

Spectre (***1/2)

SPECTRE had perhaps a bit too much anticipation built up before its release, and in that way maybe it was always doomed to fail. The return of director Sam Mendes after perhaps the best Bond film, "Skyfall," had many eager to screen the latest Daniel Craig flick. I'm not upset that the movie wasn't as incredible as its predecessor. Few action films are (and after all, I thought Skyfall was one of the 10 best movies of 2012). What we got instead was a return to form for the James Bond story: a bit camp, a bit over the top, lots of guns and lots of fun along the way.

In penning a screenplay for a new James Bond adventure, it's obvious that the screenwriters felt a need to "up the ante." The opening action scene (a particularly long-take that is sure to catch the eye of vigilant film buffs) centers around a Mexican Day of the Dead festival, with costumes and bodies squeezed to the horizon. Bond, emerging from under a skull mask, tails the actions of a man he was sent to investigate by our late, great M (Judi Dench, may she rest in peace). He's on a trail to solve a mystery surrounding a ring with an octopus embedded on it, and perhaps unlock clues to his own upbringing and the past 3 or 4 movies.

I'll admit, much of the story drifted over my head and looped around near the ceiling in a very confused way. Here is a movie weighted down by dialogue and plot in a way we know is needed but in reality no one really cares about. Audiences want to see car chases (wait for this one) and impossibly accurate marksmanship, not ramblings about what someone said or why. In a nearly 3 hour movie, there were some opportunities to trim the fat.

The throwbacks to earlier Bond films is at times nostalgic but overall a bit of a stretch, especially when a character lists every villain by name from the past few films and basically says "they're all connected by this one thing!" Okay we get it, but do we really care whether or not Silva from the previous film was working for a worser, baderer villain?

Christoph Waltz, speaking of, is of course an unsettlingly calm man for his performance as the villain. Absent as he is from the bulk of the story, his few scenes of torture and exposition are some of the more memorable in a film full of endless locations and scenery. Likewise with Daniel Craig, our Bond, who for once is portrayed as a lethal assassin more so than a martini-sipping womanizer. Even more than in films past, here we recognize that Bond is trained for one purpose only: to kill, and boy is he good at it.

Will most people like this movie? I'm sure they will. The action scenes are well-staged and the story is gripping in ways that a more traditional action flick should be. Is it a great film? No, but I think that's okay, especially when we remember the fact that James Bond isn't meant to be a high-art experience. However, coming from Sam Mendes (the man who truly breathed life into the franchise and has helmed some great American movies), I still get the feeling that he was phoning this one in. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but I would like to think we could have expected a bit more from a director of such talent and skill.

(Awards potential: Best Art Direction, Best Original Score, Best Visual Effects, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing)

Victoria (****1/2)

There's a lot to dissect and think about with a movie like VICTORIA, a little German film with a story as powerful as it is absurd. Told in real time during the sunrise over a small metropolitan setting, here is one of the real cinematic treats of the year, a movie that is as real as it is honest.

Victoria is a carefree and somewhat desperate girl, one we first meet dancing alone in an after hours club. She is energetic, full of life, and yet in a failed attempt to buy the bartender a drink, we learn she is alone. As a city girl she is foreign in more ways than one. She is a recent transplant from Madrid, and in her 3 months of living in the city she has yet to make friends.

Leaving the bar, she runs into three young men, carefree and in a way the sort of people Victoria has been looking for. They roam the city, talking, wandering aimlessly in a city that is silent and deserted. They steal beer from a sleeping store clerk. They climb to the roof of their apartment building to get a better view. Sonne, the man who seems to be oldest and wisest, takes Victoria across the street to her cafe where she works (she opens at 7am, so the night has a time frame).

For the first third of the film, I recalled several movies that have found success in the conversation of strangers, mainly "Before Sunrise." The candid way these 5 characters address each other and interact was real to the point of being a documentary. In small ticks and one-liners, we learn so much about these nomads: where they've been, where they're going...

This is not to say the film is a slow-paced drama. In fact the conflict of the story (which I won't spoil even though the film has a more limited release than anything I have yet to see this year) propels Victoria down a labyrinth of mystery and growing suspense. From the beginning to the end, the arc is so wide and vast that to compare the front of the film to the end is almost like watching a different movie, altogether.

I can't figure why a movie as accomplished as this is receiving little to no attention. The performance of Laia Costa as Victoria is nothing short of astounding. As a worry-free and timid girl, she undergoes a change so revolutionary that it's next to impossible to imagine how it was done all in one single take.

Yes, the other accomplishment of the movie: it's filmed without a single cut and spans nearly 140 minutes. This makes it without a doubt the longest single-take movie ever made by a mile, and surely the most elaborate (remember "Russian Ark," the single-take movie that took place entirely in a museum?). From bars to rooftops to cars and everything in between, this is stuff of movie magic that I cannot even begin to comprehend the technicalities behind the making of it. The accuracy of every actor and cameraman involved is so watertight that is makes the wizardry behind "Birdman" look like a walk in the park.

It's easy to praise a film for being a "gimmick," but with 'Victoria' the accomplishments span more than just the camerawork. Here is a story that is exciting, emotional, and completely immersive. The use of no cuts only adds to the suspense, and the actual run time in relation to the faultless camerawork is something that perhaps can never be surpassed. This is one I won't soon be forgetting.


*the film was deemed ineligible for Best Foreign Film at the Oscars last year due to it's large concentration of English spoken. Too bad...

(Awards potential: Best Foreign Film, Best Actress (Costa), Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography)

Room (*****)

The Allegory of the Cave was a parable I often heard about in school and lectures but could barely grasp a way to picture it in reality. To live in a darkened cave and perceive shadows as the entire reality of being is a stretch to imagine but logical for the purposes of the lesson. Who knew I would one day find a movie that explains it in simple terms, as black and white as can be and in a style that is nearly child-like.

ROOM is obviously the story of a woman imprisoned, locked away in a shed by her kidnapper for 7 years, during which time she has a son, Jack, and raises her as best as she can given the circumstances. Ma, as she is called, teaches Jack to read, write, clean, cook, but most of all imagine. In this tiny shed, the "room" they frequently reference, is the entire universe, and out of fear or sadness in his finding out the truth, she tells him that there is nothing else but this tiny place in existance. "Old Nick," their captor, supplies then with weekly rations of food and TV, but for Jack, the images he sees on that TV are all fake, and Nick gets food and medicine from the land inside the TV. Being born and raised entirely in a 10-foot squared space, who's to tell him differently?

The kind of wonder that comes with a movie like this is not the intricacy or set-up of the characters, but rather the intimately real feeling we get when watching it. The movie takes many turns, and it's no surprise they escape in one of the more beautiful moments I think I have seen in a movie (Jack for the first time in his life rolls out of a dirty carpet to see an entire panorama of sky and trees and road. The scenery is anything but beautiful, but the look on his face would have us believe this is a once-in-a-lifetime spectacle). From here on out, the movie dives into a more traditional drama involving the reuniting of Ma's family and the emotional implications such a tragedy can have in the long run.

Brie Larson has been getting most of the attention for her difficult work in the film, and she is surely admirable (a fragile and yet determined personality that's rough around the edges we also saw from her in "Short Term 12"). This is really a two-person show, and the young actor playing Jack (Jacob Tremblay) is nothing short of miraculous. We hear his opening narration, a sweet, high voice that tells us about the world he knows to be real, and then later in the film the same voice telling us how he has learned about the size of Earth and ponders why we don't fall off the face of it. It's remarkable for a 9 year old to reveal such truths in a movie like this as convincingly, and even the smallest gestures he uses are absolutely heartbreaking and true (the time he first meets a dog, or perhaps the way he carefully nurses a tooth in his hand while sleeping). Tremblay gives serious competition to become potentially the youngest Oscar winner in history, but looking at some of the best from the past (Ana Paquin and Tatum O'Neal), he stands level-headed as perhaps the finest performance of the year.

In a movie that could have been dark, Room explores hard subject matter with a light hand along the lines of "Life is Beautiful," another film that shows the power of a strong parent protecting their child from emotional damage. The story follows so many absolutes and yet flows with a poetry that makes it feel like a timeless story. Near the end, we hear Larson's character say "I'm not a good enough ma," to which Jack innocently replies "but you're ma." If that isn't one of the most gorgeous summaries of life, I don't know what is. Life has ups and downs and wins and losses. How we choose to live in it is entirely our own decision.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Actress (Larson), Best Actor (Tremblay), Best Supporting Actress (Joan Allen), Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing, Best Original Score)

Steve Jobs (*****)

STEVE JOBS is a frenetic film that does cartwheels around the audience and dares to tell the story of a man in no less than 2 hours of real-time, that is to say that the 3 scenes that compose the film play out with no jarring transitions or fast-forwards through time. The three scenes, all encompassing the 30 or 40 minutes before the launch of a major Apple or Next product, create a film that is unlike a lot of movies that have been made about a historical figure. As a biopic, this is changing the rules. As a film, it checks all the boxes that would define it as 'great.'

What is there to say about the plot? We had "Jobs," that atrociously-sloppy film starring Ashton Kutcher. In that film, we saw him adopt a funny way of walking and put on the gray wig and spectacles. Visually, he was the man, and yet here with Danny Boyle's (the director) take on the story, Michael Fassbender goes that much deeper into the character, despite bearing little resemblance to the deceased Apple CEO. All I needed to learn from Jobs was told to me through a water-tight screenplay by Aaron Sorkin, all without having to resort to the standard flashbacks to his early years or founding of the company. Yes, the film does have flashbacks, but rarely is it used to create more than an addendum to what we already know. It's easy for a movie to show a clever montage of footage that demonstrates a rise to power or fame. To withhold such tropes only creates an experience that requires that much more focus from the audience.

And boy is this a movie that rewards its audience. At times repetitive and constantly whirring in and out of fluorescent-lit corridors, Boyle's camera movements and Sorkin's 'walk-and-talk' style of writing makes for a nearly perfect marriage of filmmaking and writing. Just like Boyle's previous film, "127 Hours," he is not afraid to tell the story in claustrophobic spaces, in fact he relishes them and makes it all the more artful. Likewise with the words written on the page: effortlessly heard and yet overflowing with exposition... Listen to the voices and we move the plot along. Listen to the subtext and we understand the depth of these characters and the relationships they share.

We have Steve Jobs, of course, cocky and arrogant to the point of distancing himself from his staff, all but Joanna Hoffman (Kate Winslet), his confidant and personal aide of sorts. Throughout the years, she is the one constant in his life that continues to guide his hand and assure his success. We also see Steve Wozniak (Seth Rogen), Jobs' earliest friend and cofounder. We see him only as a witness on the sidelines, nearly forgotten in the roar of fame and fortune all around him. And then there is John Sculley (played by a genius Jeff Daniels), Apple's previous CEO and the man blamed for firing Jobs. The scenes these two men share are nearly all coupled by simultaneous cuts to earlier times they shared, scenes that present conflicting emotions and demonstrate perhaps the most difficult and exciting relationship we see in the film.

This is not to sideline the story of Steve's daughter Lisa and her mother Chrisann, unwelcome for the first half of the film and then challenged through the rest. Yes, Jobs is stubborn, but the change of heart comes from the small moments over time that demonstrate his coming to accept and embrace his estranged daughter, herself a quirky genius not unlike her father. It was in this aspect that the movie finds a heart, and provides an ending that is tear-jerking in a most unexpected way.

I think "Steve Jobs" is a great work of art and compassion. I left the movie with no differing thoughts on the man, but perhaps more insight into the way a man can become success and likewise become his own worst enemy. Michael Fassbender hits all the right notes and will surely walk away with an Oscar nomination, and so will Kate Winslet I imagine. Maybe the picture doesn't fall into any particular genre or style, but simply as a movie-going experience, this was a revolution to my senses.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Fassbender), Best Supporting Actor (Rogen, Daniels), Best Supporting Actress (Winslet), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing, Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, Best Sound Mixing, Best Original Score)

Black Mass (***)

There's a piece of trivia floating around that Johnny Depp believes "Black Mass" to be his favorite movie of those that he has starred in. There's also a bit of trivia that says Johnny Depp doesn't typically watch many of his own movies. This makes sense, I suppose, as "Mass" is far from spectacular and Depp has clearly worked on better pieces of cinema. There's nothing terribly wrong with "Black Mass," but as a work contributing to the organized crime genre, it has little more to chip in.

The story is of James "Whitey" Bulger (Depp), the criminal, and John Connolly (the FBI agent). We witness the rise and fall of Whitey through the eyes of his accomplices. The movie opens with a close up of one of Whitey's goons giving his testimony to the FBI. We assume the movie will follow the story according to his point of view (in the same manner of "Goodfellas," perhaps). Not so. Instead, we weave in and out of the whole gang and on both sides of the law. With each new character, we realize that the film is quite an ensemble cast, and by the end, I wasn't sure quite who the story was about at all.

We all are familiar with the crime genre in movies. Goodfellas, The Godfather, and practically anything done by Martin Scorsese. "Black Mass" is perhaps most closely related to "The Departed" in its relation to Boston, the hot pursuit of the law, and the gray area in between crime and justice. Yes, Whitey is a terrible man, but he has his redeeming features, just as Connolly (who takes Whitey in as an informant) seems to fight for justice but is also tempted by the ideals of the criminal underworld.

The film is well-photographed and aptly made, but how much more can we learn about crime that already hasn't been told in a more artful way? Not much, apparently, as Scott Cooper (the director known most for "Crazy Heart") pays homage to better made films and contributes not much more to the pot.

Johnny Depp drew a lot of early praise for his performance, and the trailer promised this to be a potentially Oscar-winning role. It's true, Depp carries few if any of his typical acting traits, and he is nearly unrecognizable throughout the film. His voice is velvety and yet dangerous, like a dog that growls after feeling threatened. His eyes are focused. It's quite a good performance, indeed, and while he rarely has an opportunity to sink his teeth into any juicy scenes, Depp succeeds in being the only person in the extremely large cast that stuck in my mind once the film ended.

And speaking of the ending, it's a sloppy and unfortunate way to end, indeed. We get a traditional post-credits story of what happened to each character, jail time and such. And then we see the capture of Whitey several years later (spoiler alert). In a film that is slow-paced and perhaps more focused on setting the tone than setting up a traditional narrative, the ending left me feeling like the filmmakers didn't quite know how to wrap up the story they started. If they were drawing such parallels with the work of Scorsese, why not end with a bang? Just a suggestion.

(Awards potential: Best Actor (Depp), Best Original Score)

*I refuse to believe this film will be nominated for Best Makeup, even though I wouldn't be surprised if it was. The blue contact lenses worn by Depp throughout the film were quite jarring, and only now did I realize that the pupils on such lenses are set. That is to say, in a dark room in the middle of the night, Depp's pupils were as tiny as they would be on a sunny day, and for the entirely of the film, all I could think of was that the makeup artists should have used varying lenses throughout the film to better convey a simple concept like lighting.

The Nightmare (***1/2)

THE NIGHTMARE by Rodney Ascher is a documentary that seeks to understand the mysteries (and possibly the truths) surrounding sleep paralysis, a condition that leaves a person conscious during the REM cycle of dreaming and often leads to very graphic or frightening scenes. I have experienced this scenario several times in the past few years, and it is quite honestly one of the most horrifying feelings: to be trapped in your own body while a malevolent force watches you from the darkness.

Ascher, the director behind "Room 237," uses all the skills in his directorial arsenal to recreate the dreams and visions suffered by 8 people in the film. In my mind, they were beautiful depictions of the truth, and on several occasions the hairs on my neck stood up from seeing something so accurate and close to the truth. Even while the maladies of these victims range widely from visions of light to genital mutilation, we can hear in their voices the resounding fear that it could happen again.

What I found most interesting was the theories surrounding the disorder and the hypothesis the film chose to pursue. As in "Room 237" (a documentary about "The Shining" that explores various hidden meanings and themes), the narrators here offer various clues and conflicting accounts that leave it up to the imagination of the audience to sort out. One woman claimed to have said "Jesus" and the demons left her forever. Another man began feeling physical pain during these episodes, and he forever left his Atheist views behind in favor of Christianity. Some choose to live with it, others see it as a more spiritual problem.

What are we ultimately led to believe? Surely there were no doctors or sleep experts interviewed so as not to contradict the testimonies of these individuals. Yes, it makes for a more compelling argument and undoubtedly a better horror movie overall. The film had me believing that these dreams I have could potentially be a deeper evil, and yet aren't there two sides to every coin? As a movie to scare the pants off you, "The Nightmare" might very well succeed in keeping you up a few extra hours with a nightlight on. As a film focusing on the physical causes and cures for such an unusual disorder, it's about as realistic as the Boogeyman.

(Awards potential: Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing)

The Walk (***)

The story of Philippe Petit's crossing of the World Trade Center Towers in 1974 is about the most thrilling and ingenious I think I've ever heard. My first knowledge of it came from watching "Man on Wire," an equally genius heist-style documentary that chronicled Petit's "coup" to break in and string a wire 140 feet between the towers over a quarter mile tall.

That same story is retold in Robert Zemeckis's oftentimes astounding but clunky "The Walk." Digging a bit deeper into Petit's backstory and his life maturing as a street performer, we are nonetheless left with a final sequence that is both terrifying and jaw-dropping in every sense of the word. More on that in a bit.

The success of "Man on Wire" is undoubtedly Petit himself, a man now in his 60's but still full of life, energy, and a captivating ability for storytelling. While the majority of the documentary is told with recreations and still photos, it is his narration of events and how they unfolded that left me speechless - with his detailed memory and anecdotal qualities turning a typical caper into a sort of fairy tale. In one memorable line, one of Petit's friends recalls the time he first saw a photo of the World Trade Center and declared "of course, they're being built for Philippe." In a way, his destiny was sealed with the construction of these towers that were an unusually perfect stage for a high wire act.

"The Walk" clearly takes inspiration from the documentary, as well as the source book by Petit himself. Joseph Gordon Levitt (cast as the frenchman) proves that it is possible to be too big of a star for a part. The film is highlighted with moments of Petit telling us his story... Directly to the camera... Quite often, in fact. Levitt attempts the same speech patterns and excitement as Petit demonstrated, and yet his performance consistently falls flat. Physical capabilities aside (and I see he actually learned tightrope walking for the film), this was a role that required less of a star and more of a charmer.

Likewise with the remaining cast; perfectly charming on their own merits, and yet oftentimes forgettable and easily forgotten when the film rolls to a stop. Trust me, when the credits were rolling, I wasn't wondering why some of his accomplices looked familiar.

As Robert Zemeckis has aged, so has his skill for computer wizardry, and he seems to be among the forefront of visual effects to aid his story and not choke it (remember "Flight's" terrifying crash scene or any number of moments from "Back to the Future."). Here, I was quite literally blown away. The recreation of the World Trade Towers is done with such skill and expertise that you can all but feel yourself in the wind watching the action unfold. Not for a second did I doubt what I was seeing was real, and as seen in 3D, it's something to admire.

And the actual walk... We've seen some impressive 3D films in the past, but I don't think any film has warranted the extra price until now. As one who is scared of heights, I nearly found myself looking away more than once, and during the 20 minute sequence (or however long it actually is... It felt like an eternity of white knuckling) the entire audience in my theater was absolutely floored. Twitching and pushing as far back from the screen, this was a brilliant stroke of filmmaking and something that quite frankly left me feeling crippling vertigo the next morning.

See the film for the last half (as most reviewers have already confirmed). Watch "Man on Wire" to learn everything else (and coincidentally it's available on Netflix). Overall, this was a movie I won't soon forget.

(Awards potential: Best Original Score, Best Cinematography, Best Visual Effects, Best Sound Mixing)

The Martian (****)

THE MARTIAN is an exciting film that is full of science and thinking and "what if's" galore. The filmmakers must have been overjoyed to hear that water has been found on the red planet just as their film was being released, and there's no doubt that the press coverage has raised even more interest in exploring our distant neighbor.

I've heard a fair share of reviews (let's be honest, nearly all of them) refer to this movie as "Apollo 13" meets "Cast Away." It's a just way to define it. If you've seen the trailer or have any skills at discerning plot, you know that the story follows an astronaut stranded on Mars while his crew leaves him behind fearing him dead. A rescue mission is at hand the second they find out he is alive, but don't forget, Mars is nearly a year-long trip by spaceship, and the food supplies at his camp are limited. How ever will he survive?

The astronaut is Mark Watney (Matt Damon), a whipsmart and optimistic botanist-turned-astronaut. The opening scenes of the film reveal his predicament: a sudden Martian storm erupts and forces the crew to abandon the planet and terminate their mission. Heading to the ship, Watney is struck by debris (a satellite dish, to be precise), and his life support system goes offline. The next morning, he awakens in the sand, suit still pressurized and with gash in his stomach. It's like "Home Alone" when Kevin wakes up in the morning, except the family isn't a mere plane flight away, and he has no way of contacting Earth.

Scene by scene, the story breaks down into Watney's problems of survival. He only has enough rations to last 100 days or so, so he devises a clever way to grow potatoes in Martian soil. Earth finally finds a way to communicate with him through an old camera from an earlier mission, but it's one-way communication with no audio.

On earth, the mission is helmed by Vincent Kapoor (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and NASA President Teddy Sanders (Jeff Daniels). They each have unique thoughts on ways to ensure Watney's survival: Sanders presumes the worst, and Kapoor the best. Using no more than satellite images and their stilted communications, NASA and their team are also forced to work through increasingly difficult situations in order to bring Mark home.

I hadn't read the novel on which the movie was based nor read how the story ended, so I was thoroughly intrigued at each turn of events. Director Ridley Scott is no stranger to space and science fiction, but here he keeps the story both intimate and technical that proves why he is such an iconic director.

Matt Damon as the lead is a curious choice of casting, and the running joke now is that he has a knack for playing roles of men needing to be rescued (Saving Private Ryan, Interstellar, and now here). He is apt in the role and does a good job, but rarely are we let into his head or his emotions, and more often than not, Watney just seems a bit too optimistic about potentially dying all alone on a deserted planet. The story jumps back and forth from Earth to Mars seamlessly, and the situational approach to the story is effective and intriguing.

Would I recommend the film? Absolutely. The scenery is gorgeous and there are some good visual effects to watch. It may feel like a film you've seen before, and I still think a movie like "Gravity" did a better job of portraying the look and feel of space travel. It's a fun ride that felt scientifically-sound and was a lot of fun to experience. It's not the most amazing movie of the year, but conventions aside it gets the job done.

(Awards potential: Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing, Best Costume Design, Best Art Direction, Best Visual Effects, Best Score, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing)

It Follows (****1/2)

For horror movies nowadays, it seems like they need to become more and more innovative in order to succeed. The simple slasher films from the 70's and 80's have fallen by the wayside, and it's clear that filmmakers are trying to find ideas that still create the same sense of dread and fear. I remember my first time seeing "Halloween" as a child. I was pinned to the chair and overflowing with a sense of fear I have yet to feel again. The idea that an unstoppable force will stop at nothing to kill you seems pretty basic, but even here with "It Follows," the thrill of Michael Myers has taken new form.

I praise David Robert Mitchell, the director, for taking such a novel approach to such a repetitive concept. How many killers in movies have we seen walking slowly towards their victim, and even when we yell "run!" or spout our own ideas of how to evade the villain, they are still caught and killed in the most cliched fashion? It's Michael Myers: though he walks slowly with a knife and mask, he always catches up, no matter how fast Jamie Lee Curtis runs away. Here, the evil still moves slowly, but no matter how far away you get or how much time you buy, we still know that 'it' is constantly moving straight for you, slowly and surely...

It all begins with sex, perhaps the other cliche of the horror genre today: if you have sex, you die. With "It Follows," again it completely reinvigorates the idea. Instead of a curse, the characters who have sex are instead plagued by this phantom evil like an STD, and only by 'passing it on' are you temporarily cured.

It's hard to explain the story without ruining it, and in fact I was overly thrilled with this movie because I hadn't learned too much about it prior to watching. Aside from a few decisions made in regards to the depiction of evil in this movie (the idea that it is tangible to the point of being harmed by bullets is questionable), I found the movie a brilliant homage to the teen slasher films of the 1970's and a beautiful tribute to the one that started it all: "Halloween." From the synthetic soundtrack to the retro art direction and promiscuity, "It Follows" is a hell of a good time.

(Awards potential: Best Original Score)

Everest (****)

For all the notoriety and esteem surrounding Mount Everest, it was a surprise to see in the beginning preface to the film that nearly 1 in 4 people who attempt to climb the mountain perish. The story we witness was (up until this past year) the worst climbing accident in Everest's history, with 8 people losing their lives due to circumstances that may or may not have been preventable. The movie doesn't explore this idea, one of many that seems pushed to the side. What we have instead is a document of events as they unfolded and little more than the tragedy of death to mull over once the credits begin to roll.

The accident, the climb that inspired John Krakauer's "Into Thin Air" (perhaps you read it), unfolded like any typical season. It was May of 1996. The mountain saw two competitive organizations leading paying customers to the top: Adventure Consultants led by Rob Hall (Jason Clarke), and Mountain Madness led by Scott Fischer (Jake Gyllenhaal). With an influx of traffic that quite literally led to lines of people waiting to proceed up the slope, the two men decide to join forces and summit with aided forces and supplies.

If you've seen the trailer, you realize the tragedy that unfolds, and a vicious storm hits the mountain while half of the group still remains in the "death zone" (that area of mountain over 20,000 feet where oxygen is so low that it's truly a battle to survive in the best of conditions). Radio communication with the base camp below remains in play, and yet as one character says, 'they might as well be on the moon' with the slim chances that rescue attempts offer.

I read that the film originally focused on Rob Hall's story, a man who tragically died near the summit while his wife was expecting their first child in New Zealand. There are very heartbreaking moments where the two of them speak to each other in his final moments through radio, all the more saddening knowing these conversations most likely happened. The film instead ventures down a more unstructured narrative, as we jump around seeing drama unfold from all members of the climbing expedition. Perhaps I was losing focus, or perhaps there wasn't enough time spent with character introductions, but with the majority of these people wearing goggles, masks, and hoods, it became nearly impossible to distinguish characters, and even more confusing when we find out certain people have died in front of our eyes without our knowledge.

The film is well-photographed and the 3D does occasionally add to the story. I ultimately think the movie would have been more effective had it honed in the story to fewer characters, as gripping as the large ensemble cast is. It's a marvelous movie to look at, but I think the story could have functioned even better as a documentary or just as a book. In the end, I'm not planning on becoming a mountaineer, and this movie did nothing to help change my mind.

(Awards potential: Best Cinematography, Best Visual Effects, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing, Best Makeup)

Mistress America (**1/2)

MISTRESS AMERICA is what happens when an idea is stretched too thin. The films of Noah Baumbach deal with a variety of emotional and family-oriented issues, but here is his first film that seems to have taken a graceful swan dive and hit every rock on the way down.

Here's the basic story: two women meet prior to becoming sister-in-laws. They both live in New York City, and their parents plan to wed by Thanksgiving. Tracy, the younger of the two, is just starting her freshman year at college, and Brooke, the elder, is a 30-something year old with a free spirit and a flair for the wild. They click instantly.

What follows is a film about their friendship and growing relationship. It's funny at times, and other times are sad. It's co-written by Greta Gerwig (the attractive blonde in the leading role), so it's no surprise to see her character is weighted down by melodrama and heavy "acting" scenes.

Brooke hopes to open a restaurant (one of her many failed ideas in her early adulthood years), and the majority of the film's drama comes from her finding investors to support her ideas. They travel to Connecticut to visit her old fiance and his wife in hopes of additional financial backing. The scene is long, tedious, and completely out of left field. It lasts a good 20 minutes and takes up the majority of the film's second half. It is written as though a school project for a play, complete with quick dialogue framed by detailed choreography and witty one liners. Compared to the rest of the film, the scene is jarring and out-of-place. It is here that many characters are given a more fleshed out back story, and yet it never feels natural or rhythmic. It's like this 20 minute scene was written as a short play and then a movie written around it.

Up until that point, the film was witty and occasionally thought-provoking. It's clear that the writers didn't know how to end the story or fill a large gap in the script, which is unfortunate considering the wealth of subject matter they had explored up until that point. Maybe this is a story only meant to be a short. Ironic, especially considering the main character's obsession with writing short stories for fun. Perhaps she could have taken a look at this screenplay as a side job.

(Awards potential: No potential)

The End of the Tour (*****)

The mysteries surrounding great works of art are as endless as they are fascinating, and perhaps more so is the interest in the actual creator. To look at a great painting or listen to a beautiful song is inspiring and no less frustrating: inspiring that someone could make something so perfect in the first place, and frustrating realizing that it is beyond the abilities of the everyday man.

So goes the loose plotline of "The End of the Tour," a remarkably perfect film about an author and a journalist, both seeking to understand the world they live in and perhaps the means to live a fulfilling life. It's 1996, and David Foster Wallace (Jason Segel) has just published his 1,000-page opus titled 'Infinite Jest,' a book that would later be listed as one of the 100 greatest english-language novels in the last 100 years. We meet David Lipsky (Jesse Eisenberg), an aspiring writer and journalist for Rolling Stone magazine. Upon hearing the hype for the book, he picks it up and immediately sees that is is something greater than mere words on a page. David convinces his editor to allow him to write an article on Wallace, even though we learn that the magazine has never written a piece about an author before. Lipsky sets off for central Illinois to follow Wallace on the final days of his book tour and attempt to summarize the heart and soul of a man bound for greatness.

The film that follows is as charming and fascinating as anything I could imagine. Over the course of the film, we listen in on the two men discuss things from food to life to aspirations. Though I haven't seen it (shame on me), I would imagine that this film dances in the footsteps of a movie like "My Dinner With Andre," another story that allows plot to take a backseat to discussion. Under lesser actors, the film could have floundered, but these two men keep our attention from start to finish.

What drives Lipsky throughout the movie is his attempt to humanize a man that by all accounts is a literary genius, and yet Wallace is nothing more than an average middle-class American with a small home in the suburbs and a couple of dogs. He jokes about meeting women, likes to eat junk food, and is humbled by the praise his book is receiving. Lipsky interprets it to be a cover for a more cocky personality, but what he realizes is that Wallace is in fact a man of principle, and that a well-rounded individual does not have to be corrupted by success in every scenario.

The casting is inspired, and it is with Jason Segel that the movie has it's crowning achievement. Yes, he wears the bandana and glasses and captures Wallace's look, but his overall demeanor is wrought with such delicacy that the role is one for the ages. His portrayal of Wallace is one of the year's great performances: subtle, calculated, and yet never acted. It would be a shame for Oscars to overlook such a monumental achievement even from such a small film early in the awards season.

The script (based on a book published by Lipsky after Wallace's suicide in 2008 (can you believe Rolling Stone passed on the original article?)) has a lyrical flow and its success is that our minds never realize once that all the conversations we are watching are anything but genuine. It's a beautiful piece of writing, and coupled with a clear love for the memory of David Foster Wallace, this is a movie not to be missed.

(Awards potential: Best Actor (Segel, Eisenberg), Best Adapted Screenplay)

Ex Machina (*****)

It would sound strange to compare a science-fiction film like "Ex Machina" to some of the best work of Alfred Hitchcock or even Stanley Kubrick, but there's really no other way to describe it. Here is a story of two people brought together through unusual circumstance - a romance as well as a mystery. The twist is that one very well may not be human.

Our premise is simple: a young programmer named Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) wins a trip to spend the week with his company's CEO and founder, a reclusive man named Nathan Bateman (Oscar Isaac). The company is called Bluebook, a search engine that is meant to be the fictional equivalent of Google. A helicopter ride deposits him in the middle of a wild, mountainous setting, where he find's Bateman's extensive mansion filled with high tech security and capabilities.

Bateman is by no means an ordinary man; he drinks, has a temper, and is overall a peculiar guy. The purpose of Caleb's trip is then named: he is to test a new invention for AI (artificial intelligence) using the Turing Test. Essentially, through means of discussion with the robot, can blur the line between what is artificial and what is human. The concept is intriguing, and Caleb is introduced to Ava (Alicia Vikander). Her face and hand appear like flesh and blood, and were it not for her metallic, machine-driven body, it would be impossible to distinguish her from any other woman.

Through a series of conversations, Caleb gets to know Ava, asks her questions, she she of him. They are separated by a partition of glass at all times, though Ava appears nothing if not gentle. She asks if he is single, and later shows him the dress she would wear if they would ever go outside in public. Is this flirtation or just another level in advanced programming?

I say it is like a Hitchcock film in the way it slowly builds a sense of claustrophobia. We learn that Caleb is granted access only to certain rooms in the house, while others remained locked. Nathan keeps a constant eye through cameras, and remains a nearly god-like presence over their existence.

The ending is perhaps an ending that shouldn't surprise many, but the execution and final moments of the film are a shock to the senses and mind. The film takes place in a future that seems to be no more than a year or two ahead of us, and the reality of artificial intelligence is no longer paired with the romantic idea of fantasy that other films have in the past. This is the real deal, and who knows how long we will wait before someone like Ava comes to fruition.

Like "AI" (Steven Spielberg's masterful film on a similar subject), the future world of technology is a marvel, if not potentially tragic era. I ponder the title, "Ex Machina," and wonder what the ultimate meaning is? Does the invention of advanced robotics come to solve world problems as in "deus ex machina," or are we heading down a path of self-destruction through our own brilliance... Tomorrow is right around the corner.

(Awards potential: Best Supporting Actor (Isaac), Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Art Direction, Best Makeup, Best Visual Effects, Best Sound Mixing)

Trainwreck (*1/2)

It’s rare to find a comedy with a certain level of insight and jokes that are actually funny, especially one that is female-driven. Perhaps that’s why “Trainwreck” was billed as a follow-up to “Bridesmaids,” that clever film from a few years back that was full of creativity and craft. I think most people are going to see this film in the hopes that it follows in the same line of absurd humor and characters, and what a shame that for all those reasons it is a movie that falls flat across the board. 

You know your film is in trouble when the opening scene remains the best scene once the credits role (not to mention the only scene I could remember in detail, no less). We open on a divorced father describing monogamy to his two young girls by putting it in relatable terms. “You wouldn’t want to play with one doll for the rest of your life, would you?” “Wouldn’t you want to play with your doll’s friend every now and again?”

Cut to present day, when Amy (Amy Schumer) is an alcoholic, sex-addicted woman who works for a Cosmopolitan-type magazine and casually dates a beef-cake named Steven (John Cena). While she uses Steven as a date to the movies, she takes guys home to sleep with to fulfill some carnal wishes and apparently appease her father’s initial remarks.

Assigned to write a story about sports which she playfully knows nothing about, Amy meets a sports doctor named Aaron (Bill Hader), an awkwardly-lanky gentleman who is shy and inexperienced with women at times and open to exploring sexuality at others. One drunk night they sleep together, and from there the film takes a left turn into messy and oftentimes nonsensical territory.

As a romantic couple, Schumer and Hader could not be a more awkward pair. Their chemistry is so forced that the film oftentimes felt like a satire on a more traditional romantic comedy. I found myself waiting for a punch line that never came. As characters, their motivations are entirely inconsistent. Take, for instance, the scene after their drunken hookup. Amy is avoiding his calls and texts because she doesn’t want to form a relationship, but the next time they meet, she admits to really liking him. To her sister, she admits “he’s different.” Why? Never once is her character developed to the point where her change of heart is recognized, and it left the story feeling more and more convoluted.

At times the story becomes emotional, like a scene at a funeral where Amy delivers an impassioned speech about a person she cared for dearly. It’s a heartfelt scene that feels out of place, since the entire time leading up to this moment has us believing that Amy is a self-centered person who didn’t care as much for this person as her speech would have us believe. Other moments featuring LeBron James, Tilda Swinton, and Matthew Broderick feel like unnecessary cameos solely for the sake of the audience being able to say “hey, I know who that is!”

With a run time of over 2 hours and a pace that felt like it would never end, “Trainwreck” ultimately became a fitting title for a movie with so much promise that ultimately crashed and burned in a pitiful sight.

(Awards potential: No)