Talking Movies

December 4, 2012

Seven Psychopaths

Martin McDonagh suffers from difficult second film syndrome as his unfocused follow-up to In Bruges falls between the stools of straightforward black comedy and meta-meditation.


Marty (Colin Farrell) is a drunken Irish screenwriter living in Los Angeles and wrestling with his high-concept film about the nature of love and evil, Seven Psychopaths. His long-suffering girlfriend (Abbie Cornish) is reaching the end of her tether putting up with Marty, not helped by constant visits from his deranged friend Billy (Sam Rockwell); an actor with a penchant for blowing auditions by punching people and ‘helping’ Marty with research on psychopaths. Billy also has a sideline of kidnapping purebred dogs and letting his dog-loving friend Hans Kieslowksi (Christopher Walken) look after them and then return them and collect the reward which they split. But when Billy makes the mistake of kidnapping a dog belonging to mobster Charlie (Woody Harrelson) all hell breaks loose. Charlie quickly identifies the dognappers, and so Marty, Billy, and Hans run for the hills.

It’s tempting to say that the best scene in this movie is the opening scene, because it’s such pure undiluted McDonagh. Michael Pitt and fellow Boardwalk Empire star Michael Stuhlbarg are jumpy hit-men waiting for their target who get into a furious and dementedly logical argument about the marksmanship that killed Dillinger. Tempting, but there are scenes of that calibre scattered throughout the movie. A Gandhi aphorism is dismantled for being illogical, Billy imitates Marty’s Irish accent with truly atrocious results, Marty freaks out when his drinking is condemned as problematic by a character high on peyote, and there is a sublime moment of paralysis involving the great Zeljko Ivanek (rocking a truly terrible moustache as Charlie’s mob lieutenant) when someone refuses to put up their hands because they don’t want to; leaving Ivanek holding a gun and feeling foolish.

But this is a scattershot movie. Marty’s screenplay keeps the film shooting off on tangents, about Quaker stalkers and homicidal Buddhists, which add little. Tom Waits, as a Dexter of the 1960s adds an amazingly gruesome thread of sadistic violence, even by Dexter standards. Abbie Cornish is pointlessly underused, as are Olga Kurylenko and Gabourey Sidibe; something referenced in criticism of Marty’s inability to write decent female characters. But surely writing a complex heroine, which McDonagh has done in his plays, would be a better tactic? McDonagh as playwright can generate unease like Pinter, comedy like Orton, and heightened language like Synge. But, bar a fraught scene with Charlie in a hospital waiting for Hans, this script fails to generate suspense. The desert finale is visually interesting, but the self-referential scripting can’t escape structural convention.

McDonagh has some interesting ideas, and even self-critique, in this script; but as a movie it wants to have its cake and eat it too, and so it never hits the heights it could.



  1. You make some really good points! Apart from the ‘never being able to write a good woman’ alluding to the actual women in the film, I never realised how self-referential the script is until you just mentioned it. I agree the opening scene is the best – a lot of thanks to Tarrentino I think!

    I think I was always going to be really biased about this film because it has an ensemble cast consisting of my all time favourite actors, but I also really enjoyed the bizarre tangents around Marty’s book. Makes it a little more visually stimulating.

    My predictions is that this has cult classic written all over it and will be appreciated much more in ten years time! Have a little read of my review if you like.

    Comment by charlieharman23 — December 4, 2012 @ 3:17 pm | Reply

    • Hi Charlie,

      Thanks for the comment 🙂

      One of the first descriptions pegged on McDonagh was indeed that his plays resembled JM Synge rewritten by Quentin Tarantino.

      I also really like a lot of the actors involved, and I treasure some of the sequences, but having read your review I think I probably just need to accept that it’s not another In Bruges, and then re-watch it to appreciate it for what it is rather than be disappointed at what it’s not, before I can love it as a cult classic.


      Comment by Fergal Casey — December 5, 2012 @ 4:09 pm | Reply

  2. Hey!

    Thats really interesting re. Tarantino!

    I don’t think you should force yourself to love it yet.. don’t think about it, come back to it in a year and I think you will be surprised!

    Thanks for reading my review! 🙂


    Comment by charlieharman23 — December 18, 2012 @ 9:45 am | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: