Monday 10 December 2012

Film: 'SEVEN PSYCHOPATHS'

I had almost decided not to see this film, on the grounds that it featured the kidnapping of dogs in order to extract rewards from their owners. I was afraid we were going to be shown the depiction of animals in distress or suffering, even if they were not so in real life. In the event my concern was misplaced.

I was eventually drawn into going, not just by the high-quality cast list, but it also being director/writer Martin McDonagh's first film since the well-above-average 'In Bruges' of 2008.

Colin Farrell plays a heavy-drinking, Hollywood screenplay writer who already has the title of his next project, the name of this very film. All he's got to do now is to write a story to fit it. His live-in chum, Sam Rockwell, offers his own suggestions and more. They search out likely candidates to fit the bill - and unwittingly find themselves having got involved with the criminal underworld. Here the film deliberately (I assume) mixes fantasy with reality. We don't know if certain scenes, a lot of them extremely violent with bucketloads of gore (though none is lingered over), happen in reality or are part of his creative mind's invention.

I thought it all started splendidly and in highly original fashion. In fact for about the first hour it was, despite, the gruesomeness, very funny indeed, appealing to those who recognised its skewed sense of humour - which, I dare say, some will just not 'get' and may even find tasteless. But I liked it a lot.
    However, as the film progressed it got steadily heavier and more philosophical in tone, which I found a pity. By the final half hour it had all but shed the light and whimsical touch with which it had begun, descending into an unfocussed hodge-podge of ideas on death, vengeance and heaven knows what else. I don't know if this was the path the film maker wanted to take but that's the way it came over to this viewer. In a film shy of two hours length by just a few minutes some judicious editing, particularly in the second hour, could have paid dividends.

One particular issue troubled me - as it also did in 'In Bruges'. The homophobic use of language - the words 'fag', 'queer', 'homo',  even 'gay' - all applied as insults with the implication that the person being addressed will recognise them as hurtful epithets indicating inferiority. This was also the context of their use in 'In Bruges', my sole complaint about that particular film. However, they are not used here very often - maybe half a dozen times. (Just what is it with McDonagh that he feels the need to write these words into his scripts? )  Actually there is also in this latest film a pejorative single use of the 'n' word by the Woody Harrelson character - and the person he's addressing repeats it back to him, but with sarcasm.

Oh, and by the way, there was indeed a small number of dogs featured, though this is very much a lesser aspect of the tale. None of them were seen to be in any discomfort - and though one had a gun put to its head as a threat to its owner, it worked out okay - at least for the dog.

It's a film which starts out very well, and to which I thought I could be awarding a high mark. It certainly did have some marvellous comedic moments but which, unfortunately didn't sustain their initial frequency. As an entity, therefore, I really can't give it any more than a still reasonably respectable................6/10


9 comments:

  1. I have been reading your blog for a while now (found you via the adorable John Gray) and I haven't commented before. I just wanted to say how much I enjoy your reviews. I read Roger Ebert's review of this and it's interesting to hear your view. I too had reservations about seeing it because of the kidnapping thing (dognapping?) but you have reassured me. I feel obliged to go see any movie that Christopher Walken is in!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks very much for that, Judith. I'm flattered you think enough of my opinions to take time to read them. I try not to lay down my thoughts in stone as being 'the only right one', because not only is it a very personal perspective which others may not share but also because I'm aware that my OWN opinion about a particular film changes over time.
      Yes, please do go to see this - and let us all know what you think. I wouldn't warn anyone off from seeing it, unless they can't take some very violent images. I'd be especially interested to hear if you agree that the absolutely cracking opening and first half loses its momentum as the film goes on. (I was a bit concerned that my own fatigue at the time, for reasons unconnected with the film, might have jaundiced my viewing.)
      Although I don't quite share your admiration/fascination for Mr Walken I'll happily agree that he always has a compulsive presence. One of those who just takes over the screen.

      Delete
  2. I am adorable!
    anyhow.... I think I will give this one a miss
    heard the review on radio 4's FRONT ROW and thought I would not like it..... your review has saved me 6 quid!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know you're adorable!

      Delete
    2. Ultimately your choice, J.G. If I've said something that helps you make up your mind, perhaps by pointing out something you might have an aversion to seeing, then I'm pleased to have been of service.

      Delete
  3. How could a movie with that cast not be a hoot?
    I look forward to seeing it!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, as I say above, the cast was one of the two reasons which made me decide to make the effort, Ms Sparrow. And for that reason alone I don't think you'd be disappointed.

      Delete
  4. I have enough psychopaths without having to pay to see more of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice one, dr Spo. Actually, your own likely reaction was high in my consciousness when I wrote the above, so I'm not that surprised. :-)

      Delete