The Great Gatsby (2013), directed by Baz Luhrmann

I did read The Great Gatsby. 

It was the summer (or winter?) of 2003 (2004? 2002?). Those were heady days. Okay, so I don’t really know when it was but it was probably 10 years ago now, and I remember very little of it other than I thought it was fantastic and something about a green light. (Listen, I read a lot for my degree, there isn’t room for everything up there. That and, you know, drinking.)

Baz Luhrmann’s new adaptation of the famed novel gave me enough of a sense of what I loved about the book to make me want to go back and read it again. It reminded me what I dug about  the beautiful tragedy of Jay Gatsby’s downfall. But I doubt I’ll have any desire to ever see the movie again.

It’s not that Luhrmann’s film is terrible, it’s just not very good. It has moments of greatness, particularly in the visuals and performances. I admired its gall, its ambition, the sheer scope of the whole thing. But in its bombastic excess it losses the humanity of the story. For all its splendor it leaves you wondering what all the fuss was about.

I realize some of my problems with Luhrmann are personal. Not as in he slept with my sister and never called her personal or anything like that, I just mean I don’t really get his whole…thing.

If Baz invited me to a party, I don’t think I would have a very good time. I wouldn’t like the music, the décor would seem gaudy to me and his friends would all strike me as silly and intolerable. They would probably all try to convince me to “loosen up” and I might for a time, enjoying his quality booze and quietly observing the madness, but I would leave early and likely not attend another.

Watching his movies is a similar experience. Normally I love the frenetic energy of a frantic, swirling movie like The Great Gatsby, but there’s something about Luhrmann’s style which prevents me from getting caught up in it. His insistence on using modern music annoyed me (especially when I realized Jay-Z [Yup!] is an executive producer, hence his prevalence on the soundtrack). I wanted to throttle most of his over-the-top theatrical types in the party scene. I felt more in common with Tom Buchanan than Gatsby when it came to the extravagance of it all.

Maybe that says more about me than Luhrmann, I’m willing to accept that. But I still believe the man is all style  And his style is akin to some foppish cabaret that might be appeal to some but likely wouldn’t see my business.

And it especially doesn’t work for a piece like Gatsby, where the whole point is how vacuous and empty all this partying like it’s pre-1929 is. Gatsby is a hero, because of his hope. He may be naive and pitiable, but his innocent hope for meaning is the core of the story. It is the meaningless excess of the times he lives in which is his downfall, even as he attempts to harness it for his noble, misguided pursuits. It is the enemy.

But it’s hardly the enemy in this film. While it may not be to my taste, it’s certainly Luhrmann’s, especially as he’s declared this summer to be the summer of Gatsby. I suppose the point is to have the audience understand the draw, but like so many films about excess and degradation, the form of the movie does far more to celebrate it than it ever does to denounce or question.

In the end I don’t believe you can have both when it comes to The Great Gatsby. To have a film celebrating the theatricality and excess of the times, while at the same time trying to get across the tragic downfall of Jay Gatsby, is to have a film divided against itself.

The Great Gatsby is in cinemas now.

(Above is the reaction no one had to the 85th Annual Academy Awards)

Well, as usual, I managed to correctly guess all of the major categories for this year’s Oscars. I mean, Christopher Waltz? Can you say obvious. Ang Lee? Geez, take a chance Academy! Tarantino? Borrrring.

None of this is true. Out of the 11 categories I predicted I was right for seven of them. I think that’s a C- in Canadian universities. My parents would not be proud.

Here’s the full list of winners.

Were the surprises good ones though? Well, not really. Argo was clearly going to win Best Picture and I was never happy with that idea. For three years running now merely competent films have been awarded the top prize (The King’s Speech and The Artist being the other two films I’m referring to).

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed Argo as a well-made distraction (as I did Speech and Artist), but shouldn’t we ask for more out of the BEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR?

Even if you’re going to pick the Oscar bait movie, shouldn’t you pick the best one, which was Lincoln?

The first big surprise of the night was Christopher Waltz winning Best Supporting Actor for Django Unchained. Undeserved? No, I don’t think so. He was fabulous in the movie. But he won only three years ago for a similar role in Inglorious Basterds and it would have been nice to spread the love.

Still, it’s hard to hold a grudge against a man that charming.

Django Unchained took another surprise win for Quentin Tarantino’s screenplay. Again, not undeserved, but I believe Zero Dark Thirty should have been honoured here. It’s also a strange day when Quentin Tarantino winning an Oscar feels like a soft choice. Not sure how I feel about that. Turn, turn, turn and all that I suppose.

Ang Lee won his second ever Best Director Oscar for Life of Pi, and good on him. I was rooting for Spielberg, but thought each equally deserved the honour. Pi is an exquisitely beautiful and well directed film.

The award show itself is slightly controversial. And that’s sarcasm. My Twitter feed has been going ballistic since the ceremony started yesterday and hasn’t let up.

People are up in arms over Seth MacFarlane’s hosting, calling his schtick sexist, reductive and, worst of all to him I’m sure, lazy and humourless.

I don’t disagree with all that, but what did you expect? I actually liked the moment near the beginning when he made it look as though he was going to do a standard hosting gig, and then got all MacFarlane-ie all of a sudden with Shatner showing up. I stuck up for him then.

And then he did a song about boobs. Even that I didn’t think was terrible at the time, again given what the Academy was obviously going for.

I think it was the overall tone of the show and the fact that MacFarlane couldn’t do anything BUT schoolyard humour jokes that ruined his hosting. If all he had done was the boob song it would have been a one chuckle, ‘oh that Seth MacFarlane’ type moment, but he went on and on, what with the flu joke, and the Rhianna joke, and the Kardashian joke, and the Aniston stripper joke etc. etc.

By the end we had heard so many jokes about women needing to look good or existing as sexual objects for men (never mind jokes about Jews, Latinos, etc.) it just got…boring, never mind offensive. If he had put the slightest bit of wit or interesting context to any of these jokes they might have gained some traction and we might have been able to forgive him. But they were all crude, simple, lazy one-liners, intended only to get the “I can’t believe he said that!” reaction.

Some would argue the parasitic intolerance found in many of the Best Picture nominees had already set up a night celebrating “the other.” Arabs in Argo and Zero Dark Thirty, the use of the “n-word” in Django, the lack of African-American characters in Lincoln, the inherent white man’s guilt tone of Beasts of the Southern Wild, the depiction of mental illness in Silver Linings Playbook.

While I don’t agree with all of those points of view, I think they all have some arguments and I’m wondering if we need to look deeper, into ourselves and the industry, to see where the nastiness MacFarlane so exemplified has its roots.

I’m going to stick up for him and the organizers of the show in this one way: at least they tried. Billy Crystal was embarrassingly old fashioned and dull last year as the host and proved that things need to change. I’m the only person in the world it seems who at least thought Anne Hathaway and James Franco brought something fresh, even if it didn’t always work. I like these attempts at freshening up the awards.

They haven’t found the right formula yet, but at least they’re looking.

So what I’m saying is I liked MacFarlane better than 2012 Crystal, but not as much as Hathaway and Franco. I’m not sure if that’s a compliment to any of those people.

One thing I would like to say is that I had to take a break from Twitter during the middle of the broadcast (lost my internet access), and I was sort of glad. While I’m no innocent here, I’ve been becoming less and less enamored of Twitter. I still think it has many great uses, and I will continue to use it, but the black-and-white view of EVERYTHING it breeds does get to me.

Every award handed out last night was either the worst thing to ever happen to mankind or the most apt recognition of a movie in the history of film. Every joke MacFarlane made was either the lamest, stupidest thing ever uttered by a human or…actually no one disagreed with that.

The negativity is getting to me. I know nastiness breeds nastiness, and people had valid reasons to be upset with MacFarlane’s jokes, but we all, myself included, need to settle down sometimes and try to find something positive to focus on, or talk to one another like human beings. Because while reading all our Tweets it’s sometimes hard to see that we all love movies and love talking about movies.

And I assume we do. Maybe we should try to show it a little more. Call me a softy if you like.

So let’s all watch this, the most delightful Oscar-related clip from last night: Jennifer Lawrence meets Jack Nicholson.

Until next year…

Well moviegoers, it’s that time of year again. The big one. All the marbles. Tea in China. That kind of thing.

Every year I feel the need to justify my love of the Oscars, but it really just boils down to having fun with it. Will Argo winning Best Picture really mean that it’s a better film than all the other nominees, or indeed a whole whack of films not nominated? Of course not. But it sure is fun to get mad about it and share your righteous indignation with all the other movie nerds out there.

Which I’ll be doing via Twitter, so follow me at @CineFileBlog and we can dish and bitch together. It’ll be great.

I grew up watching the Academy Awards, awaiting them with hysteria, making my predictions and feeling entirely vindicated when I was right, utterly crushed when I was wrong (Shakespeare in Love, really?). I still do it, maybe with a little more perspective, but with the same pleasure.

So here we are, this year’s event. Following is a list of my predictions for the main awards, along with my view on what and who should win, and what and who should have been nominated. Again, all in the name of fun.

I hope you feel the same about it. And away we go…

Best Picture

What will win: Argo. Lincoln seemed like a lock heading into the new year, but Argo has been winning ‘em all ever since then. Out of the nine nominated films I think this is one of the weaker choices (I found it entertaining but shallow), but they never asked me, so it will win.

What should win: Lincoln. I know, I know, this is an Oscar bait film, which I’m usually the first to speak out against (The King’s Speech? Really?) but it’s honestly the most finely crafted film of 2013, full of the spirit that makes movies great but also the subtlety, attention to detail and craftsmanship to make it the best film of the year.

What should have been nominated: Honestly, I thought this year’s nominations was the best group of films the Academy has recognized in some time. Most everything I wanted to see on the list, is. If I had to pick one more though, I would go with Flight, which I thought deserved more credit as an overall film than it received.

Best Actor

Who will win: Daniel Day-Lewis. There’s no way Lincoln will walk away empty handed and Day-Lewis as the beloved president was wonderful to watch. Not a bad choice at all.

Who should win: Denzel Washington. As much as I loved Lincoln and Day-Lewis nobody this year defied expectations or blew me away as much as Washington. You sometimes forget what a great actor he is, what with all the yelling, but in Flight he balances fragile and ballsy so well it truly is the best performance of the year.

Who should have been nominated: Suraj Sharma. No disrespect to Quvenzhane Wallis, but if any young actor deserved a nomination this year it’s Sharma. His role in Life of Pi was beyond demanding and it handled it with a shocking amount of talent and charm. Not to mention he did it all in a boat in front of a green screen, talking to an invisible tiger.

Best Actress

Who will win: Jennifer Lawrence. I honestly am not sure why, but Lawrence is riding the wave and sweeping the awards. She’s very good in Silver Linings Playbook but her performance is slight compared to the others here. But she’s charming, young, beautiful and a movie star. Hollywood loves her right now and will let that be known come Sunday night.

Who should win: Emmanuelle Riva. I would be thrilled if either Riva or Jessica Chastain won, but I would give it to Riva, for a performance beyond brave in Amour. To see an actor of her age give such a deep, challenging, completely exposed performance was something to behold.

Who should have been nominated: Rachel Weisz. The Deep Blue Sea is a beautiful movie and Weisz’s performance is one of the primary reasons. It’s a quiet, rich performance which perfectly matches the subdued emotions of the film. I like simmering performances, and this is a superb example.

Best Supporting Actor

Who will win: Tommy Lee Jones. There are no standouts in this category. De Niro was good, but only for modern De Niro. Waltz already won for similar schtick. So Jones seems like the frontrunner for a wonderful performance in Lincoln, even if he just kind of did his Jones thing as usual. Which I like, but you know…

Who should win: Philip Seymour Hoffman. I didn’t love The Master as much as many of my fellow critics did, but if anything stood out it was the performances, particularly Hoffman’s. A robust role, to be sure, full of bellowing and sly coercion, and all handled with the quiet ferocity that Hoffman does so well.

Who should have been nominated: Leonardo DiCaprio. He was the best thing about Django Unchained and I love to see over-the-top performances in this category, especially from people who don’t normally go in for that sort of thing. His performance as a menacing, barbarous slave owner was a exploitation cinema delight.

Best Supporting Actress

Who will win: Anne Hathaway. Most people did not like Les Miz. But most people did like Hathaway in it, myself included. In a truly poorly put together film Hathaway was the one element that worked completely. You can’t take your eyes off her. Her performance is intense and flamboyant and perfect for the material.

Who should win: Anne Hathaway. What do you know? I agree with this one. As much as I disliked Les Miz (and I did) I loved Hathaway in it. Her small performance is a truly great movie moment.

Who should have been nominated: Judi Dench. I actually think this category is a pretty good one. But I think Dench would have been a nice nomination, especially because Skyfall was so darn popular. She has been excellent in her turn as M and had a more substantial role this time around.

Best Director:

Who will win: Steven Spielberg. Some folks are saying Ang Lee will take it, but I think with Argo likely getting Best Picture the Academy will honour Lincoln in this category. And well deserved I think. Spielberg can be such a hack lately (War Horse, ugh) but he was in top form for Lincoln, showing a restraint I didn’t think he had in him.

Who should win: Steven Spielberg. Another agreement. For everything I said above and also his influence on cinema in general, Spielberg deserves this.

Who should have been nominated: Kathryn Bigelow. We all know it. This was the worst non-nomination of this year’s awards. The talent behind Zero Dark Thirty made the film a great one and Bigelow’s directorial touch was superb. That she managed to create a first rate procedural thriller and get an amazing performance out of Chastain shows true talent. Such a snub. And I mean, David O. Russell, really?

Other predictions:

Best Adapted Screenplay: Hard call. But I’m going to go with Tony Kushner for Lincoln, based on the source material and the stock of the writer.

Best Original Screenplay: Zero Dark Thirty. The academy knows this film deserves an award, and this will be it.

Best Foreign Language Film: Amour. If there was ever a lock, this is it.

Best Feature Documentary: Searching for Sugar Man. A crowd favourite, this will take it.

Best Animated Feature: Brave. I haven’t seen any of them, but the buzz says Brave.

Here’s a full list of nominations.

So there it is folks, I hope you enjoy the show. I’ll write a wrap-up afterwards. And join me on Twitter for trash talk. That’s all folks!

The 85th Annual Academy Awards are on Sunday, Feb. 24 on ABC at 4 pm PST.

Killer Joe (2011), directed by William Friedkin

Y’all know I can love a good lurid film. My favourite lurid film this year was The Paperboy which the more I think about, the more I like. I don’t mind my cinematic treats getting down and dirty.

But with Killer Joe I can’t decide if it’s strangely brilliant or utterly worthless.

The film is in that tradition of southern Gothic heat, sex and blood type movies. It takes place in Texas, features lowlife characters living in trailer parks and not batting an eye when one brings up the killing of another. It contains graphic, shocking violence and uncomfortable, just plain wrong sex. Sometimes they’re combined.

It’s certainly an odd film. On one hand it’s a comedy, because this is all so ridiculous and over the top that how could it not be. On the other hand though it takes it’s comedic side pretty seriously, making it an uncomfortable laugh at best.

The acting seems to be intentionally over-the-top. Emile Hirsch jumps around yelling like a crazy person the whole film, Thomas Haden Church revels in the slack-jawed yokel role, while Juno Temple’s childish sex kitten is played like a mentally-deficient Bambi.

Most interesting is Matthew McConaughey, who plays Joe, the glue holding this all together. Joe is the only smart one in the room and, as such, takes advantage of everyone else, playing them like pawns and reaping the benefits for himself.

It’s a caustic performance from McConaughey, who this year has proven he can actually act. He plays the role with deadly precision, his every move deliberate and calculated, creating a aura of menace around his character that you can’t take your eyes off of.

William Friedkin is a barely surviving relic of the New Hollywood era of the late-’60s, early-’70s. He hasn’t popped up much in, oh, 30 odd years, since one flop (the excellent Sorcerer, a remake of Wages of Fear) ruined his career. But before that he was known for directing The Exorcist and The French Connection and winning an Oscar for directing the latter.

He’s directed a handful of known films since then (Rules of Engagement, The Hunted, To Live and Die in L.A.) but this is the first time he has been taken seriously in some time.

I think in the end I wouldn’t say Killer Joe is a great film, but it sure is an interesting little thang. Along with The Paperboy, I think films like this challenge their audience over what they enjoy, what they can stand to watch, how strange they can take it. Killer Joe has a bit more humour to it than The Paperboy but I believe both films come across as very deliberate in their intentions.

As I say, I like lurid and have no problem being entertained by things that make me uncomfortable. Killer Joe made me uncomfortable and that’s probably what I enjoyed most about it. It’s a strange film, for sure, but worthwhile.

Killer Joe is available on home video now.

Life of Pi (2012), directed by Ang Lee

To be honest Life of Pi is a movie I had to drag myself to. If it wasn’t for the buzz and the glowing reviews and the inevitable Oscar nomination I probably would have given it a miss.

I read the book at some point. God only knows when, but it was long enough ago that I barely remember it. All I remember is that I seemed to be the only person around that didn’t think it was the cat’s pajamas. I remember loving the first half and then getting frustrated as the book became more and more fantastical.

And then the “did it really happen?” ending made me want to Brad Cooper the book out a window.

Well, time has passed. My tastes have matured, my appreciation of abstract theology has deepened, I’m a far more well-rounded with a more open-minded view of the world (I can almost hear my friends snorting).

In any case, some sort of intense spiritual development must have gone down because I really liked the film.

Easily the most impressive aspect of Ang’s film are the visuals. With a story that takes place primarily on a rowboat in the middle of the ocean, it would be easy to produce a bleak, claustrophobic film.

Instead Ang has managed to produce one of the most lush, colourful, beautiful films of the year, and one of the best examples of the use of 3D I have yet seen.

In regards to the 3D, its use is fabulous. It’s never showy, never used for the sake of using it, never gimmicky. It adds layers to the visuals that would not have been possible in regular old 2D and adds to the storytelling, for a change.

And it’s simply beautiful. Shots of the sea lit up with jellyfish or of Pi’s dreams of animals parading through the stars are breathtaking. For I guess obvious reasons stories related to India often use colour in amazing ways (see Renoir’s The River), and Life of Pi follows and improves on that tradition.

The story itself is as compelling as it is in the book (well, the first half of the book). It’s a fantastical story but Ang manages to sell it as entirely believable. Even the CGI tiger is reasonably affective, and I do understand the reasons a real tiger was out of the question.

To be perfectly honest, the things that I didn’t like about the book still bugged me about the movie, but not nearly as much. I can accept the ending now, even if I would have preferred something more concrete (sorry, I is what I is). The part with the magical island still lost my interest. I still found the whole thing slightly too intellectually smug for its own good.

But instead of ruining the whole, these became minor, totally personal complaints with what is generally an outstanding bit of cinema.

Life of Pi is in cinemas now.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986), directed by Tobe Hooper

Well devoted followers (or myself, as the case may be), we’ve arrived. When I set out on this Horror Pledge 2012, and really, every time I load up a horror DVD or sit down at the theatre, I set out to test my limits.

I like to be entertained, sure, but part of me also wants the horror movie that is going to take things to a new level and push what I can tolerate.

And I don’t mean that in a torture-porn kind of way. No, I can’t tolerate movies like Saw, and that’s OK by me. I don’t want to tolerate them. They leave me feeling sick and that’s about it.

When I say I want a film that pushes my limits, I mean a film that can surprise me, horrify me, make me extremely uncomfortable, but all the while making it so that I can’t look away. It has to be an actually good movie, one that sucks me in and spits me out wide-eyed and freaked.

Well, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 has to be one of the most unrelentingly discomforting movies I have ever seen. And I mean that in a good way.

The film is a direct sequel to the 1974 slasher classic The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, which is one of the all time great horror movies. It’s ultra low budget, bizarre, unnerving, brutal and brilliant.

Twelve years later the director of the original released this sequel, which, in the spirit of the 1980s, is like the original on coke. It flopped on release, nobody seemed to like it, Ebert hated it (of course) and it still seems to be a forgotten gem in the world of horror.

But people, give this one a chance because it is Messed. Up. Again, in a good way.

Dennis Hopper plays Lefty, a Texas lawman on the hunt for those responsible for the death of his brother’s kids in the original film. Caroline Williams plays Stretch, a radio host who gets a call from a couple of hooligans who manage to get themselves chain-sawed and car wrecked while still on the line.

Lefty convinces Stretch to play the call on the air to lure the killers in. They arrive. And it goes down.

This is a hell bent for leather, off-the-wall insane movie. It’s unrelenting in its carnage and energy. It’s far more gorier than the first, but still the most disturbing thing about the movie is the whole atmosphere it creates through bizarre characters, elaborate set pieces and a pace that never gives you a chance to breathe.

It also has this really off-putting humour to the whole affair that only adds to the movie’s general bizarreness. The first film took itself pretty seriously, but this one really cashes into how strange this cannibalistic Sawyer family is and presents them in a much more animated light. They all mutter and jump around hooting and hollering. Each is totally whacked in their own unique way and together they are about the strangest semblance of characters I have ever witnessed.

Even Leatherface is a totally different character in this film. The new remakes (I assume, I haven’t seen them) set up Leatherface as the typical unrelenting kill machine we’re used to seeing in these movies. In the original he was that, but also somewhat of a lackey for the controlling family.

In this one he’s a whole lot more: creepy, sexual, slightly sympathetic and hilarious. He falls for Stretch in an incredibly creepy scene where he puts his saw in between her legs. He then tries to hide her from his family and dresses her up in a skinned human face and dances with her. He gets all sheepish when Drayton finds out and starts ridiculing Leatherface for wanting a woman.

It’s extremely unnerving to watch but has these little comedic touches that only add to the discomfort.

My favourite is Leatherface’s little hip wiggle, chainsaw in the air move he does before an attack.

That’s just one of many notable parts. There’s Chop-Top scratching at his metal skull plate with a hot coat hanger. There’s Lefty buying chainsaws to fight the family and testing one out on a log while the clerk laughs manically. There’s L.G. stumbling around after being partially skinned. And his great last words.

And then end shot is a beaut. Just insane.

If this all sounds disturbing, it’s because it is. But it’s also funny. And disgusting. And just plain strange. And great.

It’s hard for me to explain why I think this is such a good movie and unless you are of pretty much the exact same temperament when it comes to these things, you’ll probably disagree. It’s really like nothing else I’ve ever seen and it certainly wouldn’t be made today. When it ended I was wide-eyed, weirded out and muttering “What the f- ?” It was perfect.

It got me to that place I like horror to take me once in a while, where I feel like I have just witnessed something awful, but I’m glad I did, because as strange and horrific as it is, I can respect it. This is a well made movie that accomplishes exactly what it sets out to do. And it’s a great sequel because it doesn’t merely strive to recreate the original. It goes for something significantly different and hits the bullseye.

Highly recommended and easily my favourite watch of Horror Pledge so far.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 is available on home video.

Paranormal Activity 3 (2011), directed by Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman

Well with Paranormal Activity 4 opening today and my Horror Pledge continuing, I figured it was about time I caught up and watched the third installment of (some will find this horrific enough) the most popular modern horror franchise. This one, part 3, made over $100 million in the States alone. Now, that’s not enormous but considering it cost about $5 million to make and that Cabin in the Woods made about $65 million worldwide, that’s saying something.

I’m a Paranormal Activity defender. For one thing, I like found footage films when they’re done right. And the first two Paranormal Activity films were done right. I saw the first in theatres and it scared the bejesus out of me. I loved it. I went with a girlfriend (she probably doesn’t read this, so it’s OK. If she does it’s a nice story anyway) who claimed not to be scared and then months later still wouldn’t be able to sleep if I mentioned it.

I watched the second one alone in my house and it’s probably one of the few times since I was a kid that I actually went and made sure the door was locked after it ended. It unnerved me. I loved it. In fact, I think part 2 might actually be the better movie of the series.

That being said, I can’t defend part 3. For as good as the first two in the series are great, the third one is horrendously bad.

It’s hard to pin down what it is that makes this one so poor compared to the others. Maybe it’s just me catching up with the rest of the thinking world in getting tired of the gimmick. Because despite how much I liked the first two, this one really felt old and tired. People in beds. Strange noises. Slowly escalating weirdness. A spooky kitchen mess making. Etc. Etc.

That’s exactly the formula of the first two, but somehow it worked for those. In this one it is tedious and dull. Part of it is certainly just that the freshness of the gimmick is running out. We’ve seen this all before now. When the first film came out, we hadn’t, and it was scary as hell. Now we know what to expect and watching the film go through the motions is frankly painful.

It’s not without a couple of gasp moments but it takes so long in getting to them that by the time they come around you’ve really stopped caring. And the film’s ridiculous attempt to throw in an explanation for the haunting is laughable and misguided. The filmmakers devote all of 30 seconds to it, pretty much just an offhand comment, and figure that will do for plot. It has something to do with witches, I think.

I think part of the problem is having it set in the past too. If nothing else the PA series relies on being immediate. It’s all about that moment that you’re watching, and because of the technological component (ie. the cameras) it also relies on feeling up to date and current; in the now. By setting in the past and using old technology, that puts up a divide between the audience and the movie that significantly reduces the impact.

I had heard that part 3 was terrible. I had hoped that my blissful ignorance of whatever everyone else hates about the series would continue, but alas I fear I have caught up. Paranormal Activity needs to come up with something new, or just quit, before it becomes one of those horror series with endless sequels that no one cares about.

Somehow, part 4 will make a tonne of money this weekend. Some if it will be mine. But my anticipation is low.

Paranormal Activity 3 is available on home video.

Seven Psychopaths (2012), directed by Martin McDonagh

(I took a much needed break from horror to watch this “normal” movie. Don’t worry, I’m going to see Sinister tonight.)

In Bruges is one of my favourite movies from the past decade or so, so I have been pretty stoked to see Martin McDonagh’s followup film Seven Psychopaths, coming about four years after Bruges. In Bruges has this magnificent character-driven plot matched with a wonderful cinematic quality, larger, overarching concepts and a hilarious sense of humour running through it all. It’s a great movie.

Seven Psychopaths is not as great a movie, but it’s a pretty darn good one.

It’s about…well, a lot of things. It’s about these dognappers who steal dogs and then return them for reward money. It’s about this writer, Marty (Colin Ferrell), who is trying to write his screenplay, Seven Psychopaths, but is being slowed down by a lack of inspiration and alcohol. It’s about a killer who only kills mobsters and leaves behind a jack of hearts at the crime scene. Also there’s a part with Tom Waits and a bunny. So lots going on.

All of this is delivered with a buddy comedy type feel, splashed with intense violence, a postmodern trim and a coating of existential philosophy.

McDonagh is the type of director who can make this chaos work, and he does for the most part. Despite all the ins and outs of the plot, the film flows smoothly and makes sense. The characters are fantastic, as are the actors playing them. It has everything that makes an action comedy work, but with a little more substance to it, thanks to McDonagh’s unique take on storytelling. And, of course, what makes it all come together is the humour, which is excellent. Laugh out loud even.

I’m going to be this guy again and talk about the film’s use of racial, sexist and homophobic slurs. The film is littered with them, especially the latter two.

I had a great, real life example last night of why these things can be troublesome. Behind me in the cinema was a group of three or four college guys who were drinking a mickey of vodka and obviously felt everyone else in the theatre would appreciate their comments as much as they obviously did.

Most of their comments were just general jackass hoots and hollers and declaring the return of Chris Walken whenever he said something slightly odd (I would bet money these guys have never seen The Deer Hunter, so they need to shut the hell up and show some respect). But at one point they started to compare an older black woman in the film to Aunt Jemima (which is nauseatingly racist). And then, once Woody Harrelson’s character used the n-word they decided that must be okay then and used it too.

I myself have used the argument many times that characters in the movie using homophobic or racist or sexist slurs is just an honest reflection of their characters. I still believe that’s true for many movies. But in something like this, something designed to be “cool”, with characters that are funny and stylish, that are going to be quoted ad nauseam, a film you know is going to be a college hit, can’t we try a little harder? Isn’t there a more intelligent way to use these words? Or hey, maybe even not use them? I don’t think not having the characters use ‘f-’ or ‘bitch’ throughout the movie would have in any way taken away from it.

McDonagh is a smart man and an intelligent director. He questions these pitfalls even as he commits them. There’s a great part where Walken’s character, Hans, asks Marty why his female characters are all so useless. He says he’s known a lot of women and most of them are able to at least string a sentence together. A part I really liked too is when Hans rewrites a part of the script with a topless hooker so that she is in a pretty dress and wants to have a conversation.

It’s a bit of a cop-out because then you can do anything you want and no one can hold you accountable because you’ve pointed it out yourself. I wrote a term paper like that for a class on media studies claiming that the teacher had to either fail me or give me an A because I recognized the shortcomings of my own argument (in a nutshell). I got a B-. I deserved it.

That’s how I feel about McDonagh’s handling of the use of slurs and his depiction of women. He gets a B-. If he knows his approach is flawed, as he admits, why not try to do a better job?

But most of the film is much better than that. And at least McDonagh has the wherewithal to question these things and not just slip them in unnoticed like in most Hollywood movies.

It’s no In Bruges, but Seven Psychopaths is still one of the more interesting and entertaining movies out lately. And I’m still intrigued to see what McDonagh comes up with next, because he is certainly a talented writer and director, who I feel can do a lot better and has a lot more to offer.

Seven Psychopaths is in theatres Friday.

Well ladies and gentlemen, here we are, summer movie season. This is for all the marbles. Granted two of the biggest films of the year are already behind us (Hunger Games, The Avengers) but that doesn’t mean there isn’t more Hollywood spectacle to come. What follows is CineFile’s official top 10 most anticipated movies of the summer. Enjoy.

Click on the posters for the trailer

10) The Campaign, directed Jay Roach

I’m split on this one, because I do love Will Ferrell when he’s on, but have a hard time with Zach Galifianakis (I have to look up how to spell that every time) in most movies. He only ever seems to play idiotic men, who may or may not be gay, that we are supposed to laugh at. Still The Campaign looks like a good summer laugh, which is a great movie tradition. Plus Ferrell punches a baby, so it has to be good, right?

Out August 10

9) The Bourne Legacy, directed by Tony Gilroy

In some ways this is even more exciting than if Matt Damon had a new Bourne film coming out, because with this one we finally get to see Jeremy Renner as the top billing in an action film. He’s not playing Jason Bourne, but another agent in the Treadstone program that bred Bourne. Expect thrilling chases in Euorpean locales. I’m in.

Out August 3

8. Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, directed by Timur Bekmambetov

This looks silly and awesome. As a piece of revisionist history fantasy, this movie tells the tale of Lincoln before the presidency, before the Civil War, before the assassination, back when he hunted vampires. You got that history lesson, right? This just looks like a ton of fun.

Out June 22

7) Rock of Ages, directed by Adam Shankman

I can’t believe I want to see this one, but you know what? It looks really good. I’m rarely a fan of modern musicals, and I must say I’m not fan of the music this movie is celebrating either, but darn it if this doesn’t just look like a whole lot of fun. Plus I like it when Cruise camps it up. This will be something different, that’s for sure.

Out June 15

6) Magic Mike, directed by Steven Soderbergh

Although this seems like one for the ladies (Channing Tatum and Matthew McConaughey look like will be shirtless for the majority of the film), this movie about male strippers also looks like it will be a flirtatious, gyrating, all-out-fun ride around the pole of a summer movie. Plus with Soderbergh at the helm you know it is in…well, good hands.

Out June 29.

5) Lawless, directed by John Hillcoat

I know, I know, Shia LaBeouf. He’s not my favourite either, but at least the kid tries. And here we have Tom Hardy as a moonshiner and Guy Pearce as a flamboyant lawman to make up for it. A great trailer promises a good old fashioned prohibition era gangster flick, which I can get behind. Plus Jessica Chastain (isn’t she in everything?) is in it, so all the better.

Out August 24

4) Ted, directed by Seth MacFarlane

Full warning: mature content advisory for the trailer.

Even I, a hardcore college fan, am getting a little tired of Family Guy, but this movie, about a man and his walking, talking teddy bear, looks freaking hilarious. Plus I can’t resist Mark Wahlberg in a comedy role, and his listing off of the trailer trash names in the red band trailer is pure gold. This is the comedy event of the summer.

Out July 13

3) Savages, directed by Oliver Stone

This is Taylor Kitsch’s last chance to impress this year (well, not me, but most other people), and I think he has a good chance to do it in this off-the-wall, explosive film from Stone. The set-up looks killer, Travolta looks eccentric and Salma Hayek is ready to kick ass and take names. This looks intense. I’m in.

Out July 6

2) The Dark Knight Rises, directed by Christopher Nolan

This is unavoidable and even though I would love to seem cool and not care about it, I’m so flipping excited to see the final chapter in Nolan’s Batman trilogy. This really speaks for itself. We all saw Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. This is the third one. Tom Hardy is Bane. Anne Hathaway is Catwoman. It looks dark and epic and intense. Will likely be the biggest movie of the year. Get some.

Out July 20

1) Prometheus, directed by Ridley Scott

Dark Knight Rises may be the biggest, but I am ever so slightly more excited about Ridley Scott’s return to sci-fi and the Alien franchise (sort of) with Prometheus. I mean, the man directed Blade Runner and Alien. Come. On. The trailer is fantastic, the buzz electric, and if you’re as big a fan of 1980s sci-fi and action epics as I am, this is the summer film for you. And it opens this weekend!

Out June 8

So there it is folks, my rundown of the best of the debatable best. Stay tuned to CineFile over the summer to find out if I was right, or if there were some unexpected gems that I didn’t foresee. Either way, remember to stay indoors this summer, away from that dangerous sunshine, and go see a movie. I’ll see you there.