Seven Psychopaths (Martin McDonagh, 2012)

[mfunk9786]

What we have here is a film that thankfully far exceeds its juvenile trailer and marketing and manages to be introspective, quiet, heartbreaking, and hilarious all at once. A film that takes actors who are known for playing particular roles and turns those archetypes on their ears, each with their own subtle bits of misdirection on the sorts of characters who have dominated their careers. None of this is showy, or blunt; or done with a gigantic, fluffy, mascara-smeared wink. It's done with outstanding writing, smart plotting, and an eye for the beauty and tragedy in life that few filmmakers are capable of handling so well. This film is such a pleasant surprise - an unexpected masterpiece.

Oh, we're not talking about Martin McDonagh's first film, In Bruges? Oh, we're talking about Seven Psychopaths? The film that takes everything that's great about the work that McDonagh did in his short film Six Shooter and his aforementioned first feature and pours a whole bunch of direct-to-video fourth-rate Tarantino rip-offery over it, and that can easily be mistaken for a sequel to Smoking Aces or Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels or some other garbage if you squint? Fuck, I really thought we were talking about In Bruges. Okay, okay - I'll keep going on about Seven Psychopaths if I have to. On so few occasions do I have the displeasure of spending time with a character like Sam Rockwell's in this film - poorly written, poorly conceived, built around a useless and baffling twist that is far more entertaining when it's introduced as a bit of a newspaper fable (this happens with another character in the film too - great little story early on in the film that suddenly loses all its energy by an insistence that it's an actual thing and we're actually supposed to believe it). Christopher Walken and Colin Farrell turn in pretty great performances, but to what end? We've got roadblocks all over this film - appearances by completely baffling, inscrutable characters (Tom Waits' is a particularly dreadful misfire), and inept villains (led by Woody Harrelson, who has finally found a way not to be engaging on screen) that never really click. There are decent lines here and there, but no one seems to really have their heads in the game or know exactly why they're saying them. The film is as baffling as its conceit - the old idea of a writer putting themselves into their script - but McDonagh has done this sort of line blurring work before for the stage and done it so much more effectively. This is just a dreadful synergy of a British lads film and Hollywood circle jerk that would have never gotten made with this cast or released as widely as it was were it not for McDonagh's [earned] cache. It's getting good reviews, and people will see it - so it won't hurt him, I suppose - which is great, because I want to see him make a hundred more movies. I just hope he hasn't lost sight of what made his quieter and sharper initial film work so tremendous.

[warren oates]

Mfunk, do you know McDonagh's work for the stage at all? I remember being completely blown away by the unexpected imagination and seriousness of The Pillowman, but pretty disappointed by a few of his other plays, which did strike me as Tarantino (or Sam Shepard) rip-offs for the stage. I'm agnostic about In Bruges, which was better than I thought it would be, but not something I've wanted to revisit. Sounds like the new one is more akin to many of the lesser plays that made him famous, which makes sense given that this script has been around forever.

[mfunk9786]

I read The Pillowman a few years ago when I first saw In Bruges, though I did so rather rushed and halfheartedly. I have not read nearly as many of his plays as I should have, as they're not available in any particular volume that makes it easy to snag them all inexpensively. But I plan on re-reading The Pillowman this week and then digging into other stuff that I haven't read yet at all. This film was a huge blind-side, I expected to enjoy it quite a bit.

[MichaelB]

Yes, I'd have gone like a shot based on Six Shooter and In Bruges, though the absence of Brendan Gleeson might be a warning sign, as he was one of the major reasons for the success of the earlier films.

[knives]

Christopher Walken and Tom waits seem like a fair trade off.

[mfunk9786]

You'd think.

[Matt]

I love McDonagh's "Leenane Trilogy" of plays, but am less enthusiastic about the rest of his work (with the exception of Six Shooter, which I thought kept the best qualities of those early plays: sustained menace and feeling of being trapped in a bad situation with extreme violence as the only escape). The more he moves away from his particular style of theatrical dialogue (the repetitions, mainly), the less unique he seems.

[oldsheperd]

What we have here is a film that thankfully far exceeds its juvenile trailer and marketing and manages to be introspective, quiet, heartbreaking, and hilarious all at once. A film that takes actors who are known for playing particular roles and turns those archetypes on their ears, each with their own subtle bits of misdirection on the sorts of characters who have dominated their careers. None of this is showy, or blunt; or done with a gigantic, fluffy, mascara-smeared wink. It's done with outstanding writing, smart plotting, and an eye for the beauty and tragedy in life that few filmmakers are capable of handling so well. This film is such a pleasant surprise - an unexpected masterpiece.

Oh, we're not talking about Martin McDonagh's first film, In Bruges? Oh, we're talking about Seven Psychopaths? The film that takes everything that's great about the work that McDonagh did in his short film Six Shooter and his aforementioned first feature and pours a whole bunch of direct-to-video fourth-rate Tarantino rip-offery over it, and that can easily be mistaken for a sequel to Smoking Aces or Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels or some other garbage if you squint? Fuck, I really thought we were talking about In Bruges. Okay, okay - I'll keep going on about Seven Psychopaths if I have to. On so few occasions do I have the displeasure of spending time with a character like Sam Rockwell's in this film - poorly written, poorly conceived, built around a useless and baffling twist that is far more entertaining when it's introduced as a bit of a newspaper fable (this happens with another character in the film too - great little story early on in the film that suddenly loses all its energy by an insistence that it's an actual thing and we're actually supposed to believe it). Christopher Walken and Colin Farrell turn in pretty great performances, but to what end? We've got roadblocks all over this film - appearances by completely baffling, inscrutable characters (Tom Waits' is a particularly dreadful misfire), and inept villains (led by Woody Harrelson, who has finally found a way not to be engaging on screen) that never really click. There are decent lines here and there, but no one seems to really have their heads in the game or know exactly why they're saying them. The film is as baffling as its conceit - the old idea of a writer putting themselves into their script - but McDonagh has done this sort of line blurring work before for the stage and done it so much more effectively. This is just a dreadful synergy of a British lads film and Hollywood circle jerk that would have never gotten made with this cast or released as widely as it was were it not for McDonagh's [earned] cache. It's getting good reviews, and people will see it - so it won't hurt him, I suppose - which is great, because I want to see him make a hundred more movies. I just hope he hasn't lost sight of what made his quieter and sharper initial film work so tremendous.

So you're saying the film isn't any good?

[Cold Bishop]

I liked it. Step down from In Bruges? Sure. Is it as good as the play that clearly served as its launching point (The Lieutenant of Irishmore)? Certainly not. But it was fun!

What you have here is the patented messy, self-indulgent, slightly-pretentious sophomore film which directors are prone to make... but if McDonagh had to go down that route, then I feel glad that the end-product is as light and entertaining as this. Perhaps too light... despite the constant self-reflexivity, the whole thing feels a little hollow. But it's a film a lot better than the trailer would lead you believe (deja-vu after his first film). The whole thing reminded me of Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, if not nearly as sharp and tightly written. That's not bad company for a film like this.

Sam Rockwell's great in this (why isn't that guy headlining Hollywood comedies? I mean, I'm glad he's not slumming it, but the recognition would be nice); Tom Waits isn't bad at all, if completely overshadowed by Harry Dean Stanton. I'll cut Harrelson some slack for being a last-minute replacement (and the role was clearly tailored to Mickey Rourke).

The film could have been restructured, tightened up and allowed for a little more subtlety... and if McDonagh is going to move away from his focus on dialogue, he'd be well served adopting a more cinematic eye... but it doesn't leave me worrying about McDonagh's future at all.

This is just a dreadful synergy of a British lads film and Hollywood circle jerk that would have never gotten made with this cast or released as widely as it was were it not for McDonagh's [earned] cache

I actually think this has the potential to be one of the big sleeper hits of the year; if not for the prevailing prudishness and its accompanying stigma against the R-rating, I'd say it'd be a sure thing. The suburban mall audience I saw it with (certainly not a demographic who gives a damn about critics or most of the cast) loved it, and it's the sort of vaguely "trippy" film that has legs in this country.

[flyonthewall2983]

I saw it with my brother who likely has a more pedestrian taste in movies than I do, and he loved it. I loved it too and laughed in spots no one else did (wasn't a very packed audience however). Rockwell is far and away the MVP, bringing an energy that is always, but always on the border between psychopathy and pure unadulterated joy.

In Bruges wins out between the two, but this one has a life of it's own. I hope it does well.

[TheDudeAbides]

I just watched Seven Psychopaths last night, and I have to say I thought it may have been better than In Bruges, which is a huge statement IMO. I found it to be far deeper of a film than it appeared to be on the surface, and just like with In Bruges, I've found myself constantly revisiting the themes and elements in this film. McDonagh has definitely done it again, blending epic violence and sadness with laugh out loud humour.

Walken, as usual, was incredible; he has this comedic pacing and timing that you can't write in, he just has it. Even the way he kept calling Sam Rockwell Billy had me laughing, its just purely him, the guy is a genius. Speaking of Rockwell, he continues to impress me; he's a phenomenal actor who gives a very deep and layered performance, plus was also hilarious. He may wind up becoming the next Deniro, he's such an amazing actor. Farrell continues to prove me wrong after I said he was shit after watching The Recruit; any doubts I ever had about Colin's ability as an actor are long gone and he continues to show why he is one of the best actors around. Also Woody Harrelson is as awesome as ever, a true Jack of all trades who can play just about any role, he continues to impress me; I think I've decided that I will see any film no matter what subject matter as long as Woody Harrelson is in it.

If you are an In Bruges fan, you'll probably find something to enjoy in this film. But watch it twice or three times before deciding you like In Bruges better.

[mfunk9786]

TheDudeAbides disliked The Recruit so much that it is thrown into a sentence without even a consideration given to capitalization

[TheDudeAbides]

TheDudeAbides disliked The Recruit so much that it is thrown into a sentence without even a consideration given to capitalization

lmfao I didn't even realize that, but that is definitely true lol

[Matt]

Hey Dude, if you have to laugh your fucking ass off and then laugh out loud, please spell it out and use adequate capitalization and punctuation. Yes, I realize we're on the internet, but we try to be one step above its usual standards. Thanks.

[mfunk9786]

rotflmao Matt brb I wanna lol some more but cya 4 now

[zedz]

Hey Dude, if you have to laugh your fucking ass off and then laugh out loud, please spell it out and use adequate capitalization and punctuation. Yes, I realize we're on the internet, but we try to be one step above its usual standards. Thanks.

But if he spelt all that out, he'd sound like an idiot.

Ah, I see.