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)