Seven Psychopaths

fruvai

New Martin McDonagh film:

Marty McFly

With that cast and Martin McDonagh's last film I have high hopes for this one.

Skinfull

Sam Rockwell, Colin Farrell, Christopher Walkin and Woody Harelson... Holy crap!
This looks really good.

Duggy747

"Put your hands up!"

Walken: "No!"

"But I've got a gun!"

Walken: "I down't care!"

:pac:

e_e

Skinfull wrote: »

Sam Rockwell, Colin Farrell, Christopher Walkin and Woody Harelson... Holy crap!
This looks really good.

You forgot Tom Waits!

Mickeroo

Skinfull wrote: »

Sam Rockwell, Colin Farrell, Christopher Walkin and Woody Harelson... Holy crap!
This looks really good.

Tom Waits too!

EDIT: Snap!!

krudler

That looks good, In Bruges was excellent.

Linvia

looks good but the trailer is not that attractive....

WatchWolf

Linvia wrote: »

looks good but the trailer is not that attractive....

In Bruges had a crap trailer too.

Hollywood studios pretty much always creates trailers to appeal to the lowest common denominator (i.e The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (2011), Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, In Bruges, etc)

don ramo

WatchWolf wrote: »

In Bruges had a crap trailer too.

Hollywood studios pretty much always creates trailers to appeal to the lowest common denominator (i.e The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (2011), Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, In Bruges, etc)

there are 2 types of trailers, very misleading trailers that seem to show a completely different film to the one you end up seeing, or the trailers that give away the whole film or the 3 best parts of the whole film, and when you see it the film is sh1te cause you've seen it 30 times already, case and point TED, there is a rare third type of film that grabs your interest and basically does the set-up of the first 10 odd minutes and peaks your interest, but as i said its very rare:D

duckysauce

looks great, love Sam Rockwell

JP Liz V1

Looks good when is it out over here?

don ramo

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Looks good when is it out over here?

no date yet for us, id expect it to be the same as the US which is October 12th,

Irish star and english director, they'd have to capitalize

fruvai

New trailer:

Sarxos

I added a page on Scannain for all of the trailers, clips, poster and images released for the film so far if you're interested.

don ramo

7th of December release date for over here according to IMDB, its out stateside next friday, so it will probably get leaked on-line here before its released, ridiculous like

corcaigh07

what do The Raid:Redemption and Seven Psychopaths got in common? They have both won the Toronto Film Festival people's choice award, the raid in 2011, this just a few weeks ago. high hopes, In Bruges was,by and large, brilliant.

Famoso

Anything with Christopher Walken in it is absolute WIN.

Anachrony

Linvia wrote: »

looks good but the trailer is not that attractive....

It's a very funny film and consistently takes unexpected turns. It's not the sort of film where everything is given away by the trailer.

El Horseboxo

Brilliant film. Loved it and lived up to my expectations given all those involved. Can't wait to watch again on dvd as I missed some of the one liners through laughter of the audience. Sam Rockwell was immense in this. Although I liked In Bruges a slight bit more I can see this reaching the same level of cult status.

pixelburp

Saw this opening night, only now got around to putting some thoughts together on it. Generally it’s enjoyable, but definitely rambles its way along, flagging by the end & simply running out of steam. Coming after In Bruges & also starring Colin Farrell, it’ll inevitably draw comparisons with McDonagh’s previous vehicle, but on that score his latest is the inferior film: as mentioned, the plot rambles and is generally unfocused and messy, with the script trying a bit too hard to be ‘meta’ and similar to those offbeat, ensemble pieces of indy cinema; the dialogue is patchy in places & not as witty / funny as it thinks it is.
Even the performances aren’t stretching things that much - Walken pretty much does a riff on peoples impression of him. Tom Waits as ever simply plays himself. Rockwell autopilots on that charming-creepy routine he does, although Farrell does well: I’ve never bought him as a leading man in serious roles, so tbh these kind of offbeat, slightly goofy roles suit him & he seems in his element.

That_Guy

I enjoyed this for the most part. I really didn't like the trailer when I saw it but I gave it a chance and was pleasantly surprised. I felt I was given more than I thought I'd be offered.

Highlight:

Sam Rockwell's description of the shoot out in the graveyard.

Haven't laughed that much in the cinema since 21 Jump Street.

403 Forbidden

That_Guy wrote: »

I enjoyed this for the most part. I really didn't like the trailer when I saw it but I gave it a chance and was pleasantly surprised. I felt I was given more than I thought I'd be offered.

Highlight:

Sam Rockwell's description of the shoot out in the graveyard.

Haven't laughed that much in the cinema since 21 Jump Street.

Yea loved that bit - has to be the best bit of the whole film

martyoo

Went to see this the last day. Really enjoyed it.

I really enjoyed it despite being in the front row with some stupid skangers behind me talking about how the violence made it a "weird" movie and not getting any jokes to the point that they started doing ironic laughing when people laughed at the jokes. When they shut up I was able to really enjoy it. I did find it to flow quite nicely and I really like self deprecating stuff in movies. Haven't seen too much of Rockwell in the past so his performance felt very fresh to me and Farrell was pretty par for the course, likeable but nothing spectacular.

Alfred Borden

Looks very good, going to see it tonight so will let you know!

Oscorp

I adored this movie. Like a Tarantino film in the sense that the fantastically delivered exchanges of petty dialogue actually steals the show somewhat from the glorious and frequent violence.

krudler

Thought it was hilarious, little bit longer than it should have been but the dialogue is fantastic and everyone plays off each other really well.

Rockwell's version of how the movie should end had the whole cinema in tears, especially him impersonating Farrell

. Really like how the trailer doesnt give it all away, even though it seems like it does, Go see.

Alfred Borden

Loved the film, found it very similar to a Tarantino film

403 Forbidden

krudler wrote: »

Thought it was hilarious, little bit longer than it should have been but the dialogue is fantastic and everyone plays off each other really well.

Rockwell's version of how the movie should end had the whole cinema in tears, especially him impersonating Farrell

. Really like how the trailer doesnt give it all away, even though it seems like it does, Go see.

Sure it be Grand

e_e

Very enjoyable film, I loved the (sort of) Takeshi Kitano cameo too.

Hank Schrader

Famoso wrote: »

Anything with Christopher Walken in it is absolute WIN.

'Cough'....Waynes world 2.......splutter........Kangeroo Jack....Total barf...Balls of fury


Only saying like

DrumSteve

Rockwell does a better dub accent in it than farrell.

fisgon

Saw this today, thought it was a total mess. After In Bruges, I was expecting something a little helter skelter, but entertaining. In fact it was all over the place, and hardly made me smile.

The film obviously thought it was very clever, a film within a film, Seven Psychopaths the names of both films, Martin the names of both writers. Nice set up, and potential there. And it had a terrific cast. But God did it waste all this potential. It had no clear idea where it was going, the story felt like it was being made up as it they went along, the casual violence added nothing to the film, and the dialogue thought it was hilarious and was actually bland and cliched.

As Una Mullaly said in the Times yesterday, it commented on the treatment of women in film, and the undeveloped female characters, and then went on to do exactly as Walken's character criticised Martin for in his film, using women simply as the victims of violence. The casual racism was supposed to be a comment on just this very phenomenon, but the irony got lost and it ended up just sounding abusive.

To sum up, this film thinks that it is some kind of clever, Tarantino-esque, meta-film, full of irony and quirky characters, a film about film-making, with lots of sharp commentary on the nature of what it is to make a film. In fact it is a lazily-edited and scripted, unfunny mess of a movie with characters that are totally inconsistent and impossible to care about and a narrative that has no idea where it is going. The McDonagh brothers are massively overrated (by themselves, more than by anyone else, it seems, from this dog's dinner).

Seedy Arling

Thought it was average enough. It's the sort of movie that knows it's being clever. The cast were nearly winking at the camera to show how smart they were being.

pixelburp

fisgon wrote: »

[...]

As Una Mullaly said in the Times yesterday, it commented on the treatment of women in film, and the undeveloped female characters, and then went on to do exactly as Walken's character criticised Martin for in his film, using women simply as the victims of violence. The casual racism was supposed to be a comment on just this very phenomenon, but the irony got lost and it ended up just sounding abusive. [...].

Well Mark Kermode, who I know isn't everyone's cup of tea, also remarked on the female characters, but it was less about their treatment & more about the idea of where the line between self-reference & bad-writing was. I don't think there was anything negative about the writing of the female characters, it just seemed like bad scripting, masked as post-modern commentary.

I presume the casual racism you're referring to is around Farrell's character, which to be fair didn't strike me as racist at all, just repeated, lazy clichés about writers being drunken alcoholics.

fisgon

pixelburp wrote: »

I presume the casual racism you're referring to is around Farrell's character, which to be fair didn't strike me as racist at all, just repeated, lazy clichés about writers being drunken alcoholics.

Nah, not just Marty, Colin Farrell's character, but Rockwell too, and especially Woody Harrelson -

"So the Polack married a N*****.",he says to Chris Walken's wife, before blowing her brains out.

It's not a major point, but it was part of a pattern of attempting to satirise these kinds of unthinkingly offensive characters while missing the point completely, and being neither funny, daring or clever. It was the same thing with the way that they referred to Gabrielle Sidibe, who was totally wasted in this film as the dog walker, who no-one in the film could refer to without calling her "fat". Did we need to be told over and over that she was "fat"? Was this ironic? Or was it just lazy and stupid?

A film full of half-thought out ideas that were abandoned or simply forgotten about. I think the two main terms I would use about Seven Psychopaths are lazy, and half-assed.

Fysh

I thought there were some interesting ideas in the film, and some scenes with good dialogue, but as a whole it didn't hang together well enough to get away with its weaknesses. The characters weren't strongly defined enough to get away with the way the plot limps to a halt, and at several points I got the distinct feeling that the 4th wall breaking metanarrative aspect was being used to cover a problem that McDonagh couldn't solve with the plot or characters. (Eg

the Vietnamese psychopath had a good setup, but if the only decent payoff that could be offered for him involved Walken's overcompensating-Mary-Sue-of-a-female-character then you need a different setup

).

It's fun, and an entertaining watch, but I don't think it'll become the classic that In Bruges is.

Bluefoam

fisgon wrote: »

Nah, not just Marty, Colin Farrell's character, but Rockwell too, and especially Woody Harrelson - "So the Polack married a N*****.",he says to Chris Walken's wife, before blowing her brains out.

It's not a major point, but it was part of a pattern of attempting to satirise these kinds of unthinkingly offensive characters while missing the point completely, and being neither funny, daring or clever. It was the same thing with the way that they referred to Gabrielle Sidibe, who was totally wasted in this film as the dog walker, who no-one in the film could refer to without calling her "fat". Did we need to be told over and over that she was "fat"? Was this ironic? Or was it just lazy and stupid?

A film full of half-thought out ideas that were abandoned or simply forgotten about. I think the two main terms I would use about Seven Psychopaths are lazy, and half-assed.

How about a spoiler alert...?

spiritcrusher

Thought the first half of the film was a bit of a mess, a lot of just shoehorning in some psychopaths and characters that seemed a little irrelevant to the overall story. I was certain I'd be coming out of the cinema disappointed.
However, when they got to the desert I really started to enjoy it, I thought the film seemed to settle and was much clearer, wittier and sharper. Rockwell's little speech about "the final shootout" was hilarious, although he might as well have just addressed the audience directly. Harrelson, Rockwell and Walken steal the show but overall the acting was pretty good, although I was expecting a bit better from Farrell as I think he's actually quite a good actor when he wants to be.

Certainly nowhere near In Bruges' quality, but the desert scenes make it worth seeing.

fisgon

Bluefoam wrote: »

How about a spoiler alert...?

Apologies

Bluefoam

spiritcrusher wrote: »

Thought the first half of the film was a bit of a mess, a lot of just shoehorning in some psychopaths and characters that seemed a little irrelevant to the overall story. I was certain I'd be coming out of the cinema disappointed.
However, when they got to the desert I really started to enjoy it, I thought the film seemed to settle and was much clearer, wittier and sharper. Rockwell's little speech about "the final shootout" was hilarious, although he might as well have just addressed the audience directly. Harrelson, Rockwell and Walken steal the show but overall the acting was pretty good, although I was expecting a bit better from Farrell as I think he's actually quite a good actor when he wants to be.
Certainly nowhere near In Bruges' quality, but the desert scenes make it worth seeing.

****ing spoilers people!!!

...unsubscribe

homerun_homer

Very disappointed in this also. It's a mess of a movie with great potential. It still made me laugh in parts but not anywhere near as funny as I'd hoped. Colin Farrell's character trying to write a script based on a title was possibly the most meta part of the whole movie. I couldn't help but think McDonagh had this problem and just threw a lot of ideas and half arsed characters at the page and thought it would work but pushing through on a script that isn't there, like Farrell in the movie feels very much like square peg/round hole situation. When you've an idea that isn't all there, there's nothing wrong with throwing it away or putting it aside until inspiration hits you. That's what both Martin's needed to do here.

I also should note that I was not a fan of In Bruge but didn't let this affect the appeal of this film.

AnonoBoy

I found it funny in parts (thanks mostly to Sam Rockwell being great) but overall a mess.

The dialogue in the opening scene was so terribly bad I was convinced it was going to

pull out of the scene and show Farrell frustrated at a typewriter giving out about his sh*t writing. But no, it was 'real' dialogue from the film's world. I know McDonagh might have been deliberately doing this as some sort of riff on the 'gangster-conversations' that have sprung up post-Tarantino but it stank really badly to me. It sounded like something lifted from the god awful 'Thursday' film with Thomas Jane.

handsomecake

One of the worst films I've ever seen. ****ing horrendous

Mocha Joe

handsomecake wrote: »

One of the worst films I've ever seen. ****ing horrendous

You must not have seen many films so...

Iwannahurl

I haven't seen this film, but on the basis of In Bruges I don't think I'll bother.

That whole smart-arse "meta" detached irony affectation is very tedious, IMO.

Still, at least Martin McDonagh himself had the good grace to admit that he's having his cake and eating it even though his fans mightn't agree.

I don't like the results, though, in the same way that McDonagh influence Quentin Tarantino began to pall for me a long time ago.

Mickeroo

Saw this on friday night. Found it very enjoyable. Probably the most I've laughed in the cinema in a long time. I really liked all the "meta" stuff too. Sure, overall the film is a bit messy but I actually thought McDonagh did a good job of making the more serious parts hit home (

Hans' recording for Martin about the Vietcong for example

) without feeling out of place with the absurd humour of the rest.

Linguo

Dying to see this!

i71jskz5xu42pb

Saw this last night, did little for me, spent the second half wondering when it was going to end. Trying to hard to be funny, a bit juvenile and not as clever as it thinks it is.

Got a few laughs in the cinema so I guess some people liked it.

I've been trying to build up the interest to go see this but so far I've failed. The trailer did absolutely nothing for me, it just seemed like the film was trying too hard to sell its self as hip and trendy. Add in the fact that last time I saw it I was with a friend who seemed to think it was the funniest thing ever made and pretty much fell out of his chair laughing and I'm thinking its a film made for those people go think Tarantino is God's gift to cinema. Far as my friend is concerned and this is from his Facebook "Seven Psychopaths and Django Unchained are the best films of 2012". The fact that he has seen neither doesn't enter into it.