Seven Psychopaths (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews



Message


Empire Admin -> Seven Psychopaths (3/12/2012 6:22:29 AM)

Post your comments on this article




elab49 -> RE: Seven Psychopaths (3/12/2012 2:30:19 PM)

It's not In Bruges and citing Tarantino, IMO, is a shallow nod to a structure play which Quentin hardly thought up himself and is not deserving of the -esque term. Where it also has nothing to do with Tarantino is that it isn't just messing about with vignettes it's playing with an idea.

I think it's very different to In Bruges and I can see some reviews suffering because of it - the ones that bang on and on about the other film as if McDonagh has to write the same thing over and over again. Which, oddly, is one of the points here - because that's pretty much what Hollywood would like writers to do. I think Mr Newman's right about there being almost too much to take in in one go - I'd say this is more about the Hollywood writing process and the ideas running through a writer's head than the straight caper narrative the trailer sells it as (I was more persuaded of the autobiography part than I think the review is - or, certainly, that that was the story being told by almost not being told). Of all the films I saw in Leeds this is the one I was still thinking through the next day and one of the ones I'm most looking forward to rewatching.




MuckyMuckMan -> RE: Seven Psychopaths (4/12/2012 1:42:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49

It's not In Bruges and citing Tarantino, IMO, is a shallow nod to a structure play which Quentin hardly thought up himself and is not deserving of the -esque term. Where it also has nothing to do with Tarantino is that it isn't just messing about with vignettes it's playing with an idea.

I think it's very different to In Bruges and I can see some reviews suffering because of it - the ones that bang on and on about the other film as if McDonagh has to write the same thing over and over again. Which, oddly, is one of the points here - because that's pretty much what Hollywood would like writers to do. I think Mr Newman's right about there being almost too much to take in in one go - I'd say this is more about the Hollywood writing process and the ideas running through a writer's head than the straight caper narrative the trailer sells it as (I was more persuaded of the autobiography part than I think the review is - or, certainly, that that was the story being told by almost not being told). Of all the films I saw in Leeds this is the one I was still thinking through the next day and one of the ones I'm most looking forward to rewatching.


Agree with Elab on this, why is the film being compared to In Bruges. They are totally different vehicles. The performances are top notch (especially Walken, Rockwell and Waits) and there is enough lunacy going on to make this a cracking and quirky hour n half watch. I'm also in the mind that it'll be even better on a repeat viewing.




Indio -> RE: Seven Psychopaths (4/12/2012 5:04:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MuckyMuckMan



Agree with Elab on this, why is the film being compared to In Bruges.


Because it's the same writer/director, using the same actor in the lead role? I know this is only McDonagh's second film, but if you saw any other reasonably recognized director making a follow up to a successful film that uses the same actor as that film, then it is more than reasonable to expect comparisons.




elab49 -> RE: Seven Psychopaths (4/12/2012 5:47:23 PM)

It's more that some reviews have criticised it because it's not In Bruges (not Empire's), that it isn't the same structure or themes or another version of the same story. Shouldn't the first hope for any film be that it isn't just a retread of the one before, no matter how good that was?

Anyway, 2nd film or not the director/writer is already a well-established and accomplished playwright. No-one gave him crap for In Bruges not being as good as The Pillowman. Also, 3rd film surely? His first deservedly won an Oscar and In Bruges isn't like Six-Shooter either. They just share a strain of dark humour (as does Seven Psychopaths).




R W -> RE: Seven Psychopaths (5/12/2012 6:52:19 PM)

Four years have passed since Irish playwright Martin McDonagh made his feature-length debut In Bruges which has gained cult status as one of the funniest and darkest dramas… to be set in Bruges. After his first America-set play A Behanding in Spokane, McDonagh’s return to cinema looks into Hollywood screenwriting, in a funny and fittingly psychopathic crime caper.

Living in Los Angeles, Irish alcoholic Marty Faranan (Colin Farrell) struggles to finish his script “Seven Psychopaths”. When his best friend Billy Bickle (Sam Rockwell), an unemployed actor and part-time dog thief, and his partner-in-crime Hans (Christopher Walken) steal the Shih Tzu of a gangster (Woody Harrelson), the three go on the run in which Marty finds inspiration for his screenplay.

With a plot that’s fairly more mainstreamed and Tarantino-ish, the film is not quite what the advertisements are showing. Whilst In Bruges was an intimate character piece of two hitmen who fall into violent and hilarious situations, Seven Psychopaths is more slapdash in terms of the character interactions that are fairly outlandish. What it lacks from McDonagh’s previous black comedy is strangely, an emotional heart as the protagonists and antagonists are basically oddballs which indeed have their moments of hilarity such as McDonagh’s sharp dialogue.

Despite the main crux of the dognapping plot, the real flashes of brilliance lie within Marty’s struggles and eventually inspirations on writing his script. From factual stories Marty hears and ideas from Billy and Hans, we see the film within the film which shows the lives of the seven psychopaths, which can be perceived as weird but moving. In the film’s funniest sequence, Billy tells his two compatriots his ideal climax on the script, being an over-the-top bloody shootout, of which he hopes to be reinterpreted in his actual situation with Marty and Hans.

Having displayed his comedic talent in In Bruges, Colin Farrell retains that here as the Irish screenwriter who has a drinking problem of which he denies. However, it is his two friends-in-crime that are the real standouts as Sam Rockwell who is perhaps the top psychopath of the story, while Christopher Walken is at his best in years as the tragic figure whose past was a violent one. While there is a cameo from Tom Waits who is always top mumbling form, the female cast is understated although there is a nice gag regarding that flaw in Marty’s script.

Nowhere near as good as In Bruges, but Martin McDonagh is still a fresh voice that cannot be ignored as Seven Psychopaths is a hugely entertaining comedy with flashes of brilliance, and a cute Shih Tzu.




Qwerty Norris -> RE: (9/12/2012 1:59:48 PM)

Seen this over the weekend, I must say I was extremely disappointed.

Elab is right that comparing this to In Bruges (in terms of content) isn't really a worthwhile exercise. What can however be compared is whether both achieve what they set out to do.

In Bruges worked extremely well as a self-contained crime comedy with touches of melancholy. For me, Seven Psychopaths doesn't work at all because structurally it's all over the shop, whilst the concept of satirising screen-writing or depicting serial killers in cinema is a useless process when the film itself indulges in the clichés & absurdities it mocks. It aims to do what the likes of Barton Fink, Adaptation & to a lesser extent the Cabin In The Woods achieved, but it's nowhere near as successful unfortunately.

Furthermore, it's just not funny enough. There are scenes & individual moments which are amusing (the opening scene, Rockwell's utterly dreadful pitch of a final shoot-out), but far too often the scenes just fall flat - both in a comedic & dramatic sense. As a result, they amount to an experience where the suspension of disbelief is not achieved whatsoever. It's also a soulless venture, something which could never be accused of In Bruges.

McDonagh clearly is a talent, there are good ideas in here & over the course of time he will come up with a great film again. This however isn't it. In my eyes, it's a failed experiment.

2/5




Hood_Man -> RE: RE: (9/12/2012 9:11:47 PM)

I liked it. I sometimes didn't think it was quite funny enough in the funny moments, or serious enough in the others, but still a lot of fun. Quite touching too, especially during the "Film within a film" scenes.

I still prefer In Bruges (which I really want to watch now!), but this is still a highlight for me [:)]




Whistler -> RE: Thank God for Rockwell (11/12/2012 8:59:35 PM)

I liked it, but I didn't love it. It felt like it was always on the brink of becoming hilarious, but it just never quite made it. (The opening two characters were an awesome surprise, though [:D])




Magenta -> RE: messy (18/12/2012 7:26:14 PM)

Bargain bin stuff ?? come on ..in a year sadly lacking in anything to be joyous about I'd say this placed a glimmer of yeah finally something to bring a wry smile..
Walken's character I just warmed to but Mr Rockwell was just superb,but then I knew he'd steal the show. Farrell played his part with gusto and I loved the whole story,scenario and the best bit ..epic shoot out in Billy's world[:D]
I went to a small indi cinema to see it which was packed and have to say much hilaraity ensued, for my money it's certainly a 4*




snazzy_sophie -> RE: messy (20/12/2012 6:49:44 AM)

Thought overall it was a mess but it did have its moments. Liked the discussion of the lack of female characters in the screenplay, as this was something I'd been thinking about the film up until then. This however could have just been a clever disguise to try and make up for the actual film's similar shortcomings.

Well acted and looked great, can understand the Tarantino comparisons as this was exactly what I thought when it started, but overall the jokes fell flat and scenes seemed to follow each other with little relevance.

Also, why were some of the psychopaths real and others fictional?

3/5




Phubbs -> RE: messy (20/1/2013 7:18:33 AM)

Seven Psychopaths (2012)

A British black comedy but you wouldn't really think it, this could almost be another Tarantino cauldron of tales all mixed together. Hell even the films poster has a Guy Ritchie look n feel to it, this could easily of been another cockney crime comedy with the usual suspects cast, in other words more of the same over used cockneys. Instead we have a Pacific coast take that normally wouldn't make me batter an eyelid but the cast is terrific.

The films kicks off with a typical Tarantino-ish in your face sequence (yes I promise not to try and use Tarantino anymore). Its simply two hitmen having a chat about killing folk in a quirky manner, your average day for some hitmen, just your average Tarant...oh shit!. Now this isn't really a spoiler as it doesn't effect the film sooooo...some hooded bloke walks up behind these guys and shoots them both in the head at point blank range. Now this is a close up moment and doesn't beat around the bush. BANG! we're off to a cracking start and I'm whimpering from the gore.

Talking of gore, this film has it, a little torture gore, but mainly outfight blowing people away gore with nice bloody squibs. Yet despite this there isn't a huge amount of violence, unlike a certain gore hooked director whose initials are QT. The film actually limits the blood n gore but gives you just enough, just enough to keep you happy but not disgust you (almost).

The plot is fairly straight forward but with some clever tiny twists and surprises, but nothing overly outstanding. Farrell's character is writing a movie screenplay called 'Seven Psychopaths' and is using his friends to help him along the way. His friends being Rockwell and Walken, the latter seems to be playing a parody of himself to a degree, and the criminal/underground world from which we know him in his career.

The story concept Farrell's character is trying to create seems to unfold before him in reality unexpectedly, this leads to much more in depth 'research' on killers than he would have liked. From this we get a nice sub plot about another psycho played by Waits whose character flits in and out of the main story but adds a nice charm if I can say that. The whole film is more or less a parody of your typical Hollywood twisted crime thrillers, almost a homage to Tarantino (argh!), Ritchie or Matthew Vaughn even, whilst slightly mocking them at the same time.

What I like about this film is how each psycho is brought to your attention throughout the film. Its not too hard to work out what's gonna happen as characters reveal themselves and the unpredictable gangster boss played by Harrelson takes pursuit. The story does tend to drift somewhat from the midway point as we near the finale, it does get a bit more cartoony and loses its edge.

The story is somewhat cliched and an average crime thriller but the characters do save the day luckily. The film isn't as funny as it would like to think it is and the violence can seem a touch uncomfortable as it swings back and forth with emotional moments. The more I think about it this film isn't quite as clever as Mr Director would have you believe but it does amuse thanks to a nice cast.




philshepp -> Funny and clever(ish) (21/5/2013 6:37:53 PM)

While lacking the depth of In Bruges, and not always as clever as it thinks it is, this is still lots of postmodern, quotable fun with great acting and a zippy pace.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.078125