Seven Psychopaths, 2012.
Written and Directed by Martin McDonagh.
Starring Colin Farrell, Sam Rockwell, Woody Harrelson, Christopher Walken, Tom Waits, Abbie Cornish, Olga Kurylenko, Željko Ivanek, Gabourey Sidibe, Kevin Corrigan, Michael Pitt, Michael Stuhlbarg and Harry Dean Stanton.
SYNOPSIS:
Reality and ideas collide, as a Hollywood screenwriter must contend with his two psychopathic friends who have stolen a psychopathic mob boss’ dog, all while trying to finish his screenplay about seven psychopaths.
To say I was a little biased about Seven Psychopaths would be an understatement. It was, with no hyperbole, the reason I decided I’d quite fancy this film festival lark. Get to see a movie for free (well, with about twenty quid spent on travel) that hasn’t even been released yet (okay, some of them are out already) and then write about it? Yes please. So here I am. On your Internet viewing device. Imploring you to see Seven Psychopaths.
I can’t think of a way to describe it without being biased, so I’ll just say that if you enjoyed the likes of Quentin Tarantino or Shane Black, and of course enjoyed In Bruges, Martin McDonagh’s previous feature, you’ll absolutely fall in love with Seven Psychopaths from the very first shot.
Right, now the pandering and rear kissing is out of the way; I’ll get on to actually talking about the movie properly. A Hollywood screenwriter Marty (Farrell) is attempting to keep up with the flow and finish his screenplay, of which he only has the title. As he tries to grow his cast of characters, these seven psychopaths, his best friend Billy (Rockwell) comes along to help out, bringing ‘fresh’ ideas from his past experiences to help flesh everything out.
Unfortunately Billy, as well as Hans (Walken), are in the dog napping business and have taken the Shih Tzu of mob boss Charlie (Harrelson). What follows is a movie that knows it’s a movie that also involves the writing of a movie (which happens to be the very movie we’re watching). To say reality blends with fiction is perhaps a confusing understatement. I mean, is it any coincidence that the main character has the same name as the writer of the film?
Like a film by Tarantino (who is probably McDonagh’s biggest influence here), the cast have to be pitch perfect to make the material work. The one-liners and cod-philosophical ideas concerning being a mobster and the clichés that come with being a character in one of these films works that much better because the cast is pitch perfect.
Farrell does well to take his time in the spotlight but step back when appropriate to let the other, more show-off performances work. Walken displays the ability to shine at both dramatic beats and oddball comedy, shining in every scene he’s involved with, with so many stand out moments in my head right now I can’t give just one as an example. Rockwell plays perhaps the most psychopathic of the bunch, all bug-eyed lunacy and strange ideas that only really work once they’ve been explained by someone as crazy as him. And it’s these three that make the movie work, ultimately, as the chemistry on display unites the characters and the audience to really get involved with the craziness at hand.
As with one of these types of movies, elements that at first seem like a negative can be glossed over or, hopefully, wittily explained as in this movie. The female characters are underwritten and lack depth, but that in itself seems more of a comment on these gangster movies and the involvement of women in this genre. Harrelson does well in the least developed male role, especially when given the chance to display his wide-eyed rage and barely contained anger at some grievance or slight.
This is, as mentioned earlier, a gunfight movie about gunfight movies, even talking about the final shootout. The scene where Rockwell’s character describes one of the funniest sequences I’ve seen committed to film, a final shootout in a graveyard that displays all the self control you can come to expect of a character that steals dogs off people on the street, is obviously a stand out moment. All the clichés that come from this genre are on display, but McDonagh seems to channel himself through Farrell and explain he doesn’t want things to be this way, ultimately resorting to the clichés but putting a little twist on them to make them seem fresher.
Character development and growth are, as in most of these types of movies, glossed over a tad in favour of sequences and scenes that are designed to entertain the audience and nothing more. There’s not the emotional connect with the characters you see in In Bruges. Still, you do root for all the characters to get what they want (even a little for Harrelson’s character to get his dog back), despite the frankly cold way they sometimes act. These are psychopaths, after all, and the first two deaths you’ll see are a perfect example of how murder is handled throughout. It’s quick, merciless and hilarious.
To further develop what I see as the elephant in the room is the comparisons with one Quentin Tarantino. The soundtrack is full of tracks wanting to be in a Tarantino movie but are, fortunately in my opinion, different enough from the usual QT fair that means the movie can’t be compared unfavourably with the likes of Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs.
While this might be a movie you could see Tarantino making, the characters are unmistakably McDonagh ones. The dialogue is rat-a-tat in the Tarantino fashion, but there’s a deeper, more emotional connection with Marty, Billy et al than there is with the likes of Jules Winnfield or Aldo Raine. Tarantino’s your cool buddy who brings over the best drinks and tunes for the party. McDonagh’s the one you actually hang out with.
However, one aspect of this genre where Tarantino sits way above McDonagh is tension. While probably due to the fact that they explain what would make a good ending, the final scenes involving Marty and Billy don’t have the tension you’d expect to find in this genre. There’s none of the edge of your seat, white-knuckle moments you’d find in a Tarantino or Chris Nolan film.
That’s the one negative aspect I can think of, though, and the movie is almost perfectly made up with a combination of snappy dialogue, great characters and of course the references to pop culture we’ve all come to know and love since the mid-90s.
It’s been four years since In Bruges forced it’s way onto screens and for the same reasons Seven Psychopaths is (nearly) its equal. Colin Farrell seems to have found a director that gets the best out of him, along with everyone else on screen, meaning the fantastic script gets the chance it deserved to shine.
I could go on, but I won’t. I mean, if I’ve just spent over a thousand words telling you how superb and well made this movie is and I’ve only mentioned four of the seven psychopaths, how great will it be once you see the whole thing?
Flickering Myth Rating – Film: ★ ★ ★ ★ / Movie: ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
Matt Smith
