As a black comedy with lots of rambling conversations, hyper gangster violence and Christopher Walken, Seven Psychopaths has a distinct Quentin Tarantino flavour to it. While the offbeat tone and dumb, hard-to-like characters are also reminiscent of the Coen brothers, Tarantino’s shadow looms large throughout. The follow-up to writer-director Martin McDonagh’s well-received debut In Bruges, it’s liberally peppered with bursts of graphic brutality and yacking mobsters who like the sound of their own voice. As such, it will probably prove popular with anyone who’s nostalgic for the ’90s Indiewood scene. Or, perhaps more tellingly, if you’re the sort of person who’s likely to laugh at a head being shot completely off. To clarify, this writer is neither.
Revolving around a boozy screenwriter who’s (ironically) searching for a plot, McDonagh does have admirable ambitions. But while most of the movie’s deficiencies could be explained away as meta filmmaking (reality weaves into fantasy here as some scenes are described into life) you’re always aware that you’re watching a movie. Moreover, it’s always evident when Seven Psychopaths is trying to be unpredictable, cool or clever, as opposed to just being unpredictable, cool or clever. Some of the dialogue is well written, but in a self-conscious, wink-wink way. Colin Farrell, Sam Rockwell and Woody Harrelson are all fine, while Christopher Walken quietly comes out best. Even if it’s more like he’s doing a Christopher Walken impersonation than anything else.
What a terrible, incoherent set of criticisms… “Christopher Walken quietly comes out best. Even if it’s more like he’s doing a Christopher Walken impersonation than anything else.” What kind of pseudo-analytical bullshit is this?
Also, what the hell do you mean by? “Moreover, it’s always evident when Seven Psychopaths is trying to be unpredictable, cool or clever, as opposed to just being unpredictable, cool or clever.” Can you provide a specific example of this?
“But while most of the movie’s deficiencies could be explained away as meta filmmaking (reality weaves into fantasy here as some scenes are described into life) you’re always aware that you’re watching a movie.”
That was… kind of the entire point of the movie, at least from what I took from it. I loved the movie for it, I thought they pulled it off extremely well.
Orrin,
My criticisms aren’t incoherent at all, thank you very much.
Even though I don’t have to justify my reviews to anyone, I would have, had you not fired such a rude, hateful comment. You, in my opinion, are what is wrong with internet in general – as an angry, rude keyboard warrior.
Andy, I realise that this was the point of the movie, but it didn’t work for me at all. But thanks for offering into a debate in a polite and reasoned manner – unlike the person before you. Glad you enjoyed it!
I really didn’t ‘get’ the feedback left here about this review. I understood – and agreed – with all of it. Ultimately the meta filmmaking perspective imo was pointless, not an innovative contribution to the viewer’s experience. Or, to put it another way: it didn’t pay off. Nor did this movie.
When the end credits started to roll and the retro device of burning through the celluloid for an epilogue from one of the psychopaths it confirmed for me that this was of film developed from a compelling idea by a director with enough clout to attract a great cast but not enough critical taste to detect an under-developed script.
Negative respondents to your review seemed to have missed this.
And any self-respecting psychopath would be leaving death-threats, not ill-informed winges about your opinions.
Herewith a self-identity kit for ill-informed psychopaths: :~{
Thanks No 8, appreciate the reasonable and, crucially, non-hateful comment.
You also make some interesting points. Hope to see you here more often!