Essentially a Tarantino first draft from the trash can.

All the more baffling when you consider the excellent In Bruges.

This is messy, muddled and mundane.

I don't think I've seen a film which polarised critics and audiences a like as much as this did in a little while. Both 1 and 5 star reviews were common. A few people walked out mid-way through when I watched this, but then at the end, I heard the words "great" and "awesome" being thrown around with reckless abandon.

I, personally, really enjoyed it. I was probably a little biased going into it, as I loved In Bruges, as well as the theatrework that Martin McDonagh has done. I didn't think this was nearly as good as In Bruges though. Didn't have the humor nor anywhere near the emotional layers. Some of the characters were too caricaturistic (is that even a word?) for my liking, ie, Woody Harrelson's character, and the female characters were treated dreadfully in it. Yeah, sure, McDonagh makes a joke reference to that fact in the script, but still, but I would have liked for him to have then flipped this stereotype on its head. I found it a tad messy, with all the different strands, but not as messy as others. I guess, I went into it knowing what to expect (as I had read the script, about 2 years ago).

But I still found it ludicrously entertaining, despite these flaws.

I can see how it could be Marmite. Be interested to hear McDonagh's thoughts on the film - can't imagine he was too happy with it - especially when you sit it next to In Bruges.

I'm a big McDonagh fan, more through exposure of his stage work than In Bruge (which I liked).

For me, Seven Psychopaths, was pretty dull. It was a film that was trying to be too clever for it's own good and mainly self indulgent. The 'self fulling prophecy' storyline that the screenwriter character was a part of, was a little hard to take at times.

There were snippets of black humour that worked here and there, the 'compromise' scene at the end where the count was restarted at 5 was the one that I enjoyed best.

Overall, I found it more frustrating than entertaining.

I only went to see this because of Tom Waits.

I was one of the people who walked out of the theatre.  (After I made sure I saw Tom Waits, though.)  To be honest, it was my girlfriend who wanted to walk out because I could see she was bored in misery from this film.  If I was by myself, I would have stayed through til the end, and I might watch it all one day, but I didn't mind leaving early.  I agree with Andrew, that it was a pretty messy film.

And, previously, while I never hated nor really liked Colin Farrel, to me, this film proved that he can't be the driving force in a film.

I think I liked the original better, when it was called 'Adaptation'.

Quoted from rc1107 To be honest, it was my girlfriend who wanted to walk out because I could see she was bored in misery from this film.  If I was by myself, I would have stayed through til the end

You, my friend, are pussy-whipped  :P

Quoted from Asshole  :-) You, my friend, are pussy-whipped

We went and drank beer at Quaker Steak & Lube instead.  I prefer the term 'alcoholic'.  :-)

Quoted from Eoin It was a film that was trying to be too clever for it's own good and mainly self indulgent.

What he said.

Quoted from rc1107 I only went to see this because of Tom Waits. I was one of the people who walked out of the theatre.  (After I made sure I saw Tom Waits, though.)  To be honest, it was my girlfriend who wanted to walk out because I could see she was bored in misery from this film.  If I was by myself, I would have stayed through til the end, and I might watch it all one day, but I didn't mind leaving early.  I agree with Andrew, that it was a pretty messy film. And, previously, while I never hated nor really liked Colin Farrel, to me, this film proved that he can't be the driving force in a film. I think I liked the original better, when it was called 'Adaptation'.

Agreed re: Colin Farrell.

I've had this discussion before about CF. I think he's a great actor in less showy/supporting roles. Every time he's been the headline, the film has been pretty poor. Not all his fault, but something's missing - my hunch is that his heart is not in it when it's the 'big film'.

It pains me to see such talent fall prey to the sophomore slump.
I typically loathe movies that revolve around the film industry.
Unless they're telling a previously unknown tale of humanity.
The behind closed door kinda drama us underlings love to spy on.

Despite all that, I still liked this film, but only marginally.
I'm a huge fan of In Bruges.
And I'd trade of all this film's cleverness for another character study.

With such immense talent involved, it's easy to expect more.
The cast wasn't lazy in the slightest. It just didn't quite gel for me.
But there was enough stand alone style vignettes to keep me watching.

E.D.

This has been in my Netflix que for some time.  Finally moved it up to the top last week and it arrived Friday.  Watched it last night and decided to call it quits about midway through.

Sure, there were parts that I liked. Parts that were cool.  Parts that were trying oh so hard to be cool and hip, but overall, it was fucking slow, floundering, going here and there and back again, and I said "Fuck it".

Very rarely do i not watch a movie in its entirety when I have the actual Blu Ray or DVD. I just didn't even care what was going to happen.

For me, on top of the story being a mess, the tone was instrument of death here.  Black humor and over the top violence and dialogue just don't work for me.  Just couldn't buy into it.

I agree with alot of the comments on this thread.  I can see where some will love it and others will hate it.

The talent was definitely on display, but IMO, not all the stars really delivered.  Rockwell's character didn't work for me, or his performance didn't work. Not sure which, as I struggled to engage.

I actually liked this film. And I think it should hold particular interest for writers, at least that's why I enjoyed it anyway. The whole thing is very much in inside joke.

Colin Farrel's character is trying to write a script called Seven Psychopaths, and he can't get past the title page. What's interesting is why, and we should sympathize as writers. The problem is that every character has been done before. With practically every character one creates there will be some trope trooper film critic or script reader complaining they've "seen it before". This demand that characters be in no way "familiar" has reached levels of absurdity. So that's where this film takes things: to complete absurdity.

They do so by creating characters that are completely unrealistic. The Amish father psycho, the Vietnamese Catholic priest psycho...and so on.

I don't really see this as Tarantino style. Tarantino films have fun while they are trying to be serious, at least on the level of dramatic tension. Seven Psychos is really never serious.

Problem is that it's not all that funny either. It's more clever than funny, though not clever in some profound way, just in a way that is meant to be mildly thought provoking.

It's certainly not a great movie and will be quickly forgotten. But it has something to offer. Hopefully some of the trope troopers out there obsessing over the idea that everything has to be completely original and never seen before will get the message, which is that raising that bar too high leaves absurdity as the only option.

Quoted from KevinLenihan I actually liked this film. And I think it should hold particular interest for writers, at least that's why I enjoyed it anyway. The whole thing is very much in inside joke. Colin Farrel's character is trying to write a script called Seven Psychopaths, and he can't get past the title page. What's interesting is why, and we should sympathize as writers. The problem is that every character has been done before. With practically every character one creates there will be some trope trooper film critic or script reader complaining they've "seen it before". This demand that characters be in no way "familiar" has reached levels of absurdity. So that's where this film takes things: to complete absurdity. They do so by creating characters that are completely unrealistic. The Amish father psycho, the Vietnamese Catholic priest psycho...and so on. I don't really see this as Tarantino style. Tarantino films have fun while they are trying to be serious, at least on the level of dramatic tension. Seven Psychos is really never serious. Problem is that it's not all that funny either. It's more clever than funny, though not clever in some profound way, just in a way that is meant to be mildly thought provoking. It's certainly not a great movie and will be quickly forgotten. But it has something to offer. Hopefully some of the trope troopers out there obsessing over the idea that everything has to be completely original and never seen before will get the message, which is that raising that bar too high leaves absurdity as the only option.

That's an interesting interpretation. My first instinct is to say you're reading too much into it but I don't think that's the case. Rather, I'd say I'm skeptical as to how conscious McDonagh was of incorporating these ideas. But I think they emerge, regardless, as do many current quandaries related to contemporary screenwriting.

That said, I felt like McDonagh was just having a bit of fun, which is fine. I admit a bit of fun was had by me and I counted this among my top films of last year. But I also think it was a classic case of trying to have your cake and eat it too.

The biggest problem with the film for me was that it was a HUGE step down from In Bruges. I do my best to judge every film on its own terms but for the life of me, I just can't separate the two. The Guard was a much worthier follow-up, even though it was made by the director's brother.

Didn't this share the exact same central concept of a group of idiot peeps stealing dogs as that horrific Killing me Softly?