Oct 13: Seven Psychopaths

"A struggling screenwriter inadvertently becomes entangled in the Los Angeles criminal underworld after his oddball friends kidnap a gangster's beloved Shih Tzu."

Directed by: Martin McDonagh, Rated: R, 109 minutes

Seven Psychopaths is a very smart film. The movie jumps around, teasing your emotions, blending genres, and going places you'd never expect. It's a movie that's fully aware of itself as a movie and in doing so, leaves you floored with what happens. I honestly can say I've never seen anything like it and have to contribute the success of the script to the incredible writer/director Martin McDonagh, who also made one of my favorite movies of all time, In Bruges. Seven Psychopaths is the perfect followup, just much bigger.

I'll always have a place in my heart for Ray and Ken, though. 

The film follows Marty (Colin Farrell), a troubled screenwriter that can't find inspiration for his newest screenplay. All he has is a title- Seven Psychopaths. He doesn't even know where to begin, so he starts making a list of the psychopaths not even knowing where the characters will go themselves. His best friend, Billy (Sam Rockwell), is an aspiring actor and part-time dog-napper. Him, along with Hans (Christopher Walken) steal dogs from people, only to return them once a reward has been posted. After they steal the shih tzu belonging to Charlie Costello (Woody Harrelson), things get very violent and deadly. Retreating to the deserts outside Los Angeles, the three work on the screenplay together while coming up with a plan to avoid Costello, his gang, and the wrath he'll bestow on those who took his beloved dog. 

These three are completely different from each other, but fit so damn well together. 

7Psychos is a movie you can't predict. It's ever-changing and, just when you think you have an idea of where it's going, it turns the tables and heads in the completely opposite direction. The pacing is just as unpredictable, as you'll have slower moments that are only accentuated soon after with something crazy or very dramatic. The plot makes you vulnerable and it's because of this that the film is such a surprise. The acting is also superb. Sam Rockwell easily steals the show as Billy, and I honestly believe he deserves a best supporting Actor nomination for his performance. He's crazy, off-the-wall, self-referencing, and so damn funny you can't help but love him even if some of what he does isn't what you'd usually cheer for. Christopher Walken gives his best performance in years, being his usual self while adding in good doses of both humor and tragedy, the latter being something more unexpected from the eerie legend. With Farrell, you'd assume he'd get lost in the shuffle but he holds his own. He's the alcoholic moral heart of the story and he's actually really believable as a writer, something I didn't see coming from the part-time actor, part-time stud. Of course, Woody Harrelson is amazing as Charlie. The role was made for him. He's a true psychopath who has a heart of gold for his little dog, and he'll do anything (ANYTHING) to get it back. 

Loves his pooch. Will murder you without hesitation. 

Seven Psychopaths is one of the best films of the year, and one of the smartest movies about the movie-making process since 2002's Adaptation. It's a hilarious ride through LA with an equally hilarious (and very colorful) cast of characters that all bring their own "uniqueness" to the film. I would highly recommend seeing this movie, buying it, referencing it, and loving it until the day you die. It's a rare movie that doesn't tailor to any specific genre or demographic and the surprises it packs are far from anything you'd expect. The casting is perfect and each actor does a superb part in each of their roles,   with all three going off in their own directions, but still coming together as a set of believable friends and a criminal chasing them down. Seven Psychopaths deserves to be seen. It's original, it's smart, it's hilarious, and it has more than enough heart to carry it to great places. I never thought McDonagh could top In Bruges but with Seven Psychopaths, he does it. Bravo, Marty. Bravo.

The Good:
a smart script that's completely aware of itself, blending all sorts of everything into one glorious little masterpiece
The Better:
never knowing where the movie is heading and being genuinely surprised with a large part of what plays out
The Best:
the performances from everyone involved but a big mention of Sam Rockwell, my favorite actor working today, delivering his best performance to date
The Oscar Chances:
- Best Original Screenplay, Marin McDonagh
- Best Supporting Actor, Sam Rockwell

Overall: 9.4/10

Trailer:

Seven Psychopaths Trailer

As you know, I usually include trailers in my The Trailer Park feature I run here and there. However, I feel this one particular trailer needs its own post. Not only is Seven Psychopaths director Martin McDonagh's follow-up to In Bruges, one of my favorite movies of all time, but the cast features pretty much every single one of my favorite underrated and under-used actors I mention on occasion. 

The cast features Colin Farrell, Sam Rockwell, Woodly Harrelson, Christopher Walken, Tom Waits, among other familiar faces. That alone should sell you on the film but then knowing it's made by the guy behind In Bruges makes this movie a must watch already.

The plot synopsis, per IMDB reads:
"The comedy Seven Psychopaths follows a struggling screenwriter (Colin Farrell) who inadvertently becomes entangled in the Los Angeles criminal underworld after his oddball friends (Christopher Walken and Sam Rockwell) kidnap a gangster's (Woody Harrelson) beloved Shih Tzu."

Here's the trailer and enjoy the hell out of it like I did. October can't come soon enough. 

Aug 10: Rampart

"Set in 1999 Los Angeles, veteran police officer Dave Brown, the last of the renegade cops, works to take care of his family, and struggles for his own survival."

Directed by: Oren Moverman, Rated: R, 108 minutes

"Bear in mind that I am not a racist. Fact is, I hate all people equally." sums up Rampart's main character, Dave Brown (Woody Harrelson) perfectly. He hates everyone and everything and does whatever the hell he wants. Of course, this leads to a rather unlikable "hero" and turns Rampart into a series of hate filled events as opposed to a compelling crime drama. The film clearly tries to channel Training Day, even having moments where Dave is teaching new recruits the way of the street cop. Unfortunately, Rampart lacks the intensity (and the script) that makes Training Day so good.

Denzel's a bigger, badder motherf**ker.

Dave Brown is an LA cop who has been working the streets for the last 24 years. He's tough, rough, racist, sexist, and absolutely obsessed with drugs, alcohol and women. He's a bad man with a dirty heart and incredibly hard to like. When he's not working (or drinking and getting high), Dave struggles to keep up with the relationships he has with his two daughters. As the two girls grow older, they become more aware of the kind of man their father is and Dave finds connecting with them even harder. After a very public beating of a man that crashes into his patrol car is recorded and put on the news, Dave's career and methods go under fire and his life is investigated. He's given a hard warning but after a convenience story robbery ends with the murder of one of the thieves (at the hands of Dave), everything spirals out of control and Dave faces termination and criminal charges. Rampart follows the man on his patrols and his interactions with drug dealers and informants, as well as his two ex-wives played by Cynthia Nixon and Anne Heche. 

Simply put, Woody plays a dick. Yeah, I went there.

The film really lacks any solid plot and the story that unfolds is more or less the slow demise of a horrible man. However, Harrelson gives one hell of a performance as Dave Brown and his intensity and fleeting moments of emotion make Rampart watchable. Harrelson is gaunt and disheveled as Brown and his dedication to the role strengthens the notion that Brown is really a man falling part in front of us. He's a man who's used to be in charge, by any means necessary, and when his power is threatened and his life-style put at risk, he squirms like the worm he is. In a weird way, it's intriguing to watch, and while the filmmakers tried very hard to make him likable, it's too difficult to sympathize with the man. 

When a guy's nickname is "Daterape", you know you're going to have a bad time. 

Rampart is worth a recommendation for Harrelson's performance alone. Although the man he plays is so disgustingly unlikable, you can't deny the talent behind the role. Harrelson is a very underrated actor and Rampart does a fine job showcasing his abilities that many people believe he doesn't have. Harrelson is not the only great actor in Rampart, however, as Ben Foster (who plays a handicapped war-vet-junkie), Brie Larson (Dave's daughter, Helen), Robin Wright ("love interest", Linda), and Ned Beatty deliver solid performances. The film is worth a watch but is not anything you should go out of your way to track down. 

The Good:

Woody Harrelson in one of his best performances to date

The Bad:

a script that never comes together with any clear story and is unsure of where to go with itself

The Ugly:

a main character that's way too unlikable to give a damn about 

Overall: 6.0/10

Trailer:

April 6: The Hunger Games

"Set in a future where the Capitol selects a boy and girl from the twelve districts to fight to the death on live television, Katniss Everdeen volunteers to take her younger sister's place for the latest match."

   Let me make it clear that I have not read The Hunger Games book, nor do I really care to do so. The story is set in a dystopian society, where every year 24 boys and girls are selected to partake in a battle to the death, all for entertainment purposes. The film follows Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) and her attempt to survive and win the games in place of her younger sister. Along with Katniss, a boy named Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) is selected from her district and the two become close as the games continue. The movie is good, but could have been so much more. I am strictly reviewing the film as a film, and not an rip-off of Battle Royale adaption of the book. 

I see what you did there...

   The Hunger Games has a lot going for it and a lot going against it. The cast is excellent, especially Lawrence, who brings depth, courage, and strength to a performance that could have easily faded into the forgettable (*cough Kristen Stewart*). Woody Harrelson and Stanley Tucci, of course, are both excellent in nearly everything they do and add a lot of charm and much needed comic relief to a film with such a dramatically dark story. All of the supporting characters have their moments as well, but there is very little back-story and depth to anyone that's not Katniss. This is troublesome, as each death comes with very little emotional impact, because you just don't really care. From the start you know it's all about Katniss, and with two more movies on the way, you know she's the one to survive, eliminating even more suspense. Not to mention that the film is obviously tailored to the teenage audience, and the toning down of the violence and bloodshed takes away a lot from the story. It's almost as if the film is already edited for TV and all the good, gory, bloody chunks have been removed. 

Yippee Kai Yay, Mr. Falcon

   Another complaint of The Hunger Games is the camerawork. It's constantly shaking or zooming in and out, as though a kid's playing with a new expensive toy his daddy bought him. It's especially bad during the action sequences, and one can't help but think it's another way to hide the violence. It's insanely distracting and once you notice it, you can't ignore it. Along with the jittery camerawork, the visuals could use much work. The dystopian buildings and large sets scream green screen, and the contrast with the natural wooded setting of the Games makes it all look even worse. 

A lot of it looks like a straight-to-DVD cheesy sci-fi flick

   Overall, I would recommend The Hunger Games strictly on the fact that I think you should see it in theaters, or not at all. I feel if I were at home watching the movie from the comfort of my couch, I would be even more frustrated with the flaws of the film, and nitpick it even more. The film is entertaining and does have its moments, but you can't stop thinking about how much better it all could be. It desperately needs more violence and character development, and can't rely on all of us already knowing about the characters from reading the books. Also, I am a huge fan of the Japanese film, Battle Royale, and after seeing The Hunger Games, I am insanely upset at how much was blatantly stolen from the film. The games, the fact it's all filmed, and even the ending and lead up to a second film is just too similar to the Battle Royale films to not call it a rip-off. I don't care what any fans of the books will say, The Hunger Games is not an original story and needed a hell of a lot more depth if it wanted to be seen on its own. 

The Good:

the cast, led by Jennifer Lawrence 

The Bad:

a PG-13 take on an R-rated story that takes a lot of the badass-ness out of it

The Ugly:

horrible, distracting camerawork and at times, awful special effects

Overall: 5.8/10

Trailer:

Jan 2: Bunraku

"The story of a a young man who has spent his life searching for revenge only to find himself up against a bigger challenge than he originally bargained for."


   Bunraku is one hell of a mess, but still very entertaining. This movie is what would happen if Sin City, West Side Story, and Kung Fu Panda had a three-way and popped out a baby, with the romantic lighting of Legends of the Hidden Temple.
   The film follows the over-used idea where two strangers wander into town and team up to fight a common evil. This time, it's a "cowboy without a gun, and a samurai without a sword". 
   The fight scenes in Bunraku are very interesting, and at times well done, and at others, completely lackluster and boring. It's almost as though the fight choreographer had certain days off, and the rest of the crew put the scenes together. I do however have to give Josh Hartnett some credit for kicking quite the handful of ass. He almost channels Jack Sparrow with his  creepy and comical permanent drunkenness. 
   The samurai in the story is played by Gackt, a former Japanese boy band singer. His imdb page picture however, tells me he is some militant, punk-rock lesbian.

Why..

   One scene that stands out is where Hartnett fights through dozens of guards into a prison, all filmed in one take and using a set with multiple levels. It is very well done and if the rest of the film was shot just the same, the whole movie would be much better. Throw in Woody Harrleson, Demi Moore (who looks awful as some crime lord's "trophy wife") and the massive Ron Perlman (with dreads, or long dirty hair, or something) and you get a grab bag of a movie. I do not recommend watching this alone, at least not sober. 


Sight: The film has insanely elaborate sets with a style like that of old school musicals (but with blood!).
Sound: It has an underwhelming score, with hilarious, yet, very cheesy sound effects.
Skill: Not much acting is needed, just fists and feet do the talking. 
Script: There is an interesting voice-over narration but the script is severely lacking and the story is unoriginal and cliche.

Score: 5.5/10

Best Quote:
The Drifter: "That's pretty optimistic of you; worrying about your mustache when you should be worried about your head"