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)