Seven Psychopaths

[communicator]

This is why I have kept off livejournal, because once I start I can't stop posting. Damn. I haven't written one economically productive word this morning

Comments

[azdak]

Thank you for this! I was going to go and see it anyway because I Have Faith in Martin Mcdonagh, but the trailer was really uninspiring, so I'm glad to hear the film is good.

[communicator]

Hope you agree with my opinion! It made me laugh, and the camerawork was very seductive. It's better than the trailer.

[azdak]

I've seen it now and found it entertaining and marvellously acted(I agree with Shoard about Walken, I couldn't take my eyes off him) but, given what Mcdonagh's capable of, oddly shallow. It struck me as being very much what an influential theatre critic (wrongly) accused The Pillowman of being, namely storytelling for the sake of storytelling. In Bruges is about redemption and The Pillowman is about the moral function of art, but Seven Psychopaths isn't really about anything (thinking it over I wonder if maybe it was meant to be about love, given that Marty says that this is what he wants to write about, and that he and Billy end up saying that they love each other, but it remains just the outline sketch of a possiblilty with no substance to it, like the characters). I'd love to hear alternative views, though.

[nineveh_uk]

I think that Peter Bradshaw doesn't so much have a problem in spotting the gold in genre films (he gave Attack of the Clones rather too much credit...), as in spotting the gold in a film that he doesn't personally care for, or indeed the bad in one that he likes. Occasionally he overcomes this (for "Twilight"!), but it's definitely a Bradshaw thing.

[communicator]

Yes, I know what you mean. I suppose I think of his Achilles heel as 'genre' because I remember him getting Fellowship of the Ring wrong. I mean, it isn't the greatest film ever but I think it clearly had massive impact.

[nineveh_uk]

Oh yes, that Fellowship review... You're probably right that he's worse on 'genre' because there's more of it he doesn't understand, but he be wrong on anything. Actually, that makes your theory work, because 'genre' can be defined as "anything that isn't aimed a my sort of middle-aged man". He gave Mamma Mia one star. It's true that MM is not a great film, but there is a lot in it that many people enjoyed, a lot more to it than Bradshaw's review, and he couldn't see any of it. I have seen him give equivalent films aimed at men rather than women 3/4 stars.

[ninebelow]

Clever and charismatic but I couldn't get passed the dodgy bits. I had a persistent feeling throughout that McDonagh wanted a pat on the back for being aware of its problems without wanting to fully confront them. AS you say, Walken's line isn't a get out of jail free card. I'm much more in the Bradshaw camp (and thought Rockwell was miscast).

[communicator]

I do quite adore Sam Rockwell. I suppose the casting against type was to trick us. It certainly worked on me. But yeah, agreed that he needs to Try Harder on writing female characters who can tring two sentences together.

[ajr]

"Pete Bradshaw in the Guardian: wrong again about a genre film. He's a good critic..."

Is he, really? I can't say I've ever been terribly impressed by any of his film reviews. The one that stands out as being his nadir was when he absolutely slated Drive, but based his review around fundamentally misunderstanding a plot point. It was such an egregious error he had to post a follow-up on the Guardian website (I don't know if it appeared in the paper too) in which he admitted he made an error, but didn't actually revaluate the film from the corrected viewpoint. As a result, I now always find his judgment to be hugely suspect.

Still, at least he's no Christopher Tookey.

[communicator]

I just read up about that, and see what you mean about the error. I still put it down to genre-blindness, but I will put my sceptical hat on a bit more firmly.