Lance C
While trying to give story to 7 different psychopaths, the actual plot seems to drift and loses you at times. The ending helps you find a different love for the film, but still doesn't lock you in.
Rated 2.5/5 Stars •
Rated 2.5 out of 5 stars
03/23/25
Full Review
r96 s
’Seven Psychopaths’ didn’t quite do it for me. It’s not far adrift from being a good movie, I just wasn’t able to connect to it in the end. It kinda has similar issues that I found with this director’s previous film, ’In Bruges’; it’s better than that one, mind. The comedy is lacklustre and the cast don’t feel at their best.
Colin Farrell, Sam Rockwell, Christopher Walken and Woody Harrelson being in the same flick is a recipe for success, so I am disappointed to say that I didn’t rate this one. The story has some solid moments and in summary is intriguing, though how it is all connected together with everything in-between and how it’s portrayed to us simply didn’t satisfy me unfortunately.
His early two films have surprisingly disappointed me, thankfully Martin McDonagh followed them up with two absolute crackers. I hope his upcoming fifth release follows suit.
Rated 2.5/5 Stars •
Rated 2.5 out of 5 stars
03/14/25
Full Review
Michael T
Martin McDanagh reels out another great movie, the guy is the new Tarantino. Marty, a screenwriter, with writers block is struggling to put together his next film, all he has is his title, until a friend lends a helping hand and lures Marty into a world he only thought existed in movies
Rated 4.5/5 Stars •
Rated 4.5 out of 5 stars
01/21/25
Full Review
Matt V
Very creative plot, but almost all of the characters are extremely unlikable. So the big ending was lost on me since I was indifferent. Only Walken's character was engaging.
Rated 2.5/5 Stars •
Rated 2.5 out of 5 stars
11/01/24
Full Review
Nathan W
Boy, I don't about that movie at all. It started out so promising, but ended up feeling like a poor man's attempt to mimic Tarantino's work. I did enjoy the story within a story thing it had going on, but I think they relied a little too heavily on the cut scenes, especially in the second and third acts, to provide interest for the viewers. I mean, the main plot wasn't bad or anything, they just gave up on it halfway through, and things got pretty boring after that. Spoilers, but we went from stealing dogs to collect the reward money, and accidentally taking one from a the wrong person who wants it back, to hanging out in the desert for an hour talking about random sh*t, while the previous story goes nowhere. We still had the "other" movie scenes here and there, which, don't get me wrong, were awesome, but there simply weren't enough of them to fill the time. I get that the whole thing is supposed to be very meta, and it was a pretty cool idea overall. Real life inspires the story, and the story inspires real life, and they both sort of blur together by the end. It just wasn't very exciting they way it turned out, and some of that has to do with the execution being off. There was an awful lot of big name talent in this movie, which, like I always say, sets the bar very high. I thought the plot and the script were really solid in the first act, but they both got thin as time went on, and my interest in what everyone was saying fell off steadily as well. The acting was uneven across the board in my opinion, and the deliveries certainly could have been better. The dialogue was also questionable at times, and most of the interactions felt off to me. (When all of those areas are lacking with such an esteemed group of actors, I have to question the direction as well). I would say that Sam Rockwell was the most consistent performer, but I still liked all of the characters well enough. Christopher Walken's was especially bizarre and amusing, which only got better after the peyote. (And I always like seeing Woody Harrelson as a bad guy, because I think that role works for him, but he only seems to get that part in movies where the writing isn't very good). I think this films fatal flaw, is having two main storylines, and not doing either of them particularly well. They did one for a while, then did the other, but then tried to go back to the first one, and it just came across as messy. There was too much filler, the ending was underwhelming and didn't make sense, and two-thirds of the plot was pretty slow. I still think that the overall story was solid, and it was a slightly above average attempt, but it was nowhere near as good as I expected it to be.
Rated 3/5 Stars •
Rated 3 out of 5 stars
07/05/24
Full Review
Tom S
Trying too hard to be edgy. I imagine the director with a beer in one hand & a cigarette in the other trying to convince people at a party that he is the greatest director in the history of cinema similar to Tarantino's view of himself. "Over the top" & edgy actually means what truly great directors would cut from their masterpieces.
Rated 0.5/5 Stars •
Rated 0.5 out of 5 stars
06/10/24
Full Review
Read all reviews
Continue with Google
>
