Premise: From the writer/director of In Bruges (IMPORTANT TO NOTE), a struggling screenwriter (Colin Farrell) is working on a screenplay for a film that he only has the title for, called “Seven Psychopaths.” He may or may not be writing about his reality, as he sort of intertwines himself into a dog kidnapping scheme with his crazy buddy (Sam Rockwell), and encounters several real life psychopaths along the way.
-The cast wasn’t just spectacularly assembled for this film, they did a great job acting in it as well. Most notable was Sam Rockwell, who appeared to be having an extremely fun time being in this movie. Christopher Walken did a nice job being Christopher Walken. In recent years, he’s become something of a parody of himself, but in this film he basically transcends that and becomes a near mythical figure through his character. Like he’s a folk hero or something. Yeah, I’m going to go ahead and think of Christopher Walken as a folk hero from now on. On a side note: I think I’m one of the few people on Earth who has never attempted to perfect a Walken impression. I tried it once, sucked at it, and stopped right there. I’ll stick to my above-average Forrest Gump impression, thank you very much.
-It’s a cleverly written story; going in and out of literally visualizing the screenplay. Structurally, it’s pretty interesting. Or at least, it’s not standard.
-The dialogue is very fun, it’s probably a more comical movie than In Bruges (but not better than overall). It does a decent job of staying consistently funny, whether that’s through physical, witty, or dark comedy. All three of which it uses. DURR, IT FUNNY.
-The face Colin Farrell makes :49 seconds into the trailer.
-The entire conflict of the film is centered around a dopey looking Shih-Tzu. I approve of violent movies being centered around stupid looking dogs.
-Neat soundtrack. Not what I was expecting for this type of film. Very old sounding. Much better than Smashmouth.
-The film starts off with a great scene (Boardwalk Empire represent!), and ends with an even better one.
-Slows down in the middle.
-It reminded me of like a Snatch or Smokin’ Aces type film, where there are a whole bunch of small, super colorful characters all trying to get to the same point (The wacky gangster! The stoic gangster! The angry gangster who loves his shih-tzu! The one with the bunny rabbit! The drunk guy caught in the middle! Uh-oh!). The thing is, I don’t think it was trying to be that kind of movie. Does this poster not scream generic, wacky, crime caper film to you?
If I knew nothing about this movie, and you showed me that poster and asked me who directed this film; I would immediately say it’s a lost Guy Ritchie film from 2003. …unless… is Seven Psychopaths supposed to be a satire of those kind of movies? Then maybe it was actually brilliant?! YOU TELL ME.
-Didn’t Adaptation do this concept better? I don’t know if I was digging the struggling screenwriter angle. It feels like it was done before. And Seven Psychopaths didn’t exactly reinvent the wheel here.
-Wasn’t there a shitty episode of Entourage that took place entirely at the Joshua Tree? Sorry, but Entourage ruined that location for everybody else.
-Colin Farrell was good in In Bruges, but I didn’t care for him much in this movie. Not that he did a bad job, but he didn’t do anything to make the character his own. Anyone could have played that role. And the entire movie I wanted to tear off his stupid only-spiked-in-the-front haircut. And not to make everything about looks, but it’s a bit of stretch to think of someone who looks like Colin Farrell to be some clever screenwriter. Much like I wouldn’t expect Jonah Hill to be up for Farrell’s role in Alexander.
Final Thoughts: I liked it, and would recommend it to people for casual watching. But it’s nothing all that special. I hope it doesn’t stray into cult classic territory, because I don’t necessarily think it deserves that distinction. In Bruges, on the other hand, *does* deserve that distinction.
7 out of 10