Morning after the night before, do I regret fraternising with fanboy agape (lit: the reciprocal human love for God) for Sam Rockwell in my previous-but-one post? Not even the slightest.
In that semi-coherent daubing, I posited a new Sam Rockwell Academy Award For Superb Awesomeness. Seven Psychopaths is shaping up to be in the reckoning for this award, along with much of its cast.
Nota bene: the Sam Rockwell Academy Award For Superb Awesomeness can apply to films and people equally.
Without much further ado about nothing, then, here are some reasons why Seven Psychopaths probably won’t be terrible:
1: In Bruges
Martin McDonagh made In Bruges. Ok, the film was only half as good as people said – Brendan Gleeson representing the good half – but it was a strong debut effort from McDonagh, an odd couple buddy movie and a crime caper that wasn’t anything like as stale as those tags suggest it absolutely should have been.
In Bruges was well-paced with decent flourishes of camera and script. McDonagh wisely relied on Brendan Gleeson to anchor the film as both elder statesman and moral core. He gave an assured and nuanced performance, far more effective than the more prosaic qualities of nominal lead, Colin Farrell.
2: The Cast
Sam Rockwell, Christopher Walken, Woody Harrelson. Three actors who can do funny, subtle, hammy scenery chewing and unsettling all at once. Potential or one time leading men who can do offbeat character performances aren’t all that common, but McDonagh’s found three. Then there’s Olga Kurylenko, who can act better in English than most former Bond girls can in their native tongues. It’s not a stretch to imagine her beating you up without much difficulty, and you’d still fancy her even after she broke your leg.
I’ve only seen Abbie Cornish in Sucker Punch, about which the less said the better.
All terribly watchable, especially:
3: Harry Dean Stanton
Yes Alien belongs to Sigourney Weaver and everyone remembers John Hurt’s serious xenomorph-based stomach problems and Ian Holm’s masterclass in stillness performance as creepy android, Ash. But Harry Dean Stanton perfectly captures the guy we’d all probably be, bitching about money then coming over all snivelling coward just ‘cos some ginormous extraterrestrial insect that bleeds acid wants to hump and/or eat everyone on board. Bet he regretted looking for that damned cat, too.
He also boasts a CV and address book most other actors would kill for. He was probably cast for the anecdotes alone.
4: Tom Waits
Tom Wait is said to be working with McDonagh on a stage musical, which is probably how he got the job on this film, but don’t let that fool you – Tom Waits is the rarest of rare beasts. There are loads of musicians who do films and vice versa. Think Britney Spears in Crossroads or Russell Crowe’s albums. Under no circumstances watch or listen to either. Waits stands apart – watch him in The Imaginarium Of Dr Parnassus, or Wristcutters: A Love Story.
5: The antagonist has a soft spot for his pet
It’s common enough – hard as nails, macho gangster has an unlikely weakness for something traditionally considered effeminate, in this instance the big softie misses his pet. And it’s not a manly pet like a bear-dog hybrid; it’s a fluffy little shih tzu. In order to compensate for being a bit of a girl, he’s got to have a complete overreaction meltdown. So it’ll play for both laughs and ultraviolence. Not a bad description of Woody Harrelson, that, either.
6: Mickey Rourke was lined up to play the role but dropped out
Yep, apparently he fell out with McDonagh. Now Rourke is a phenomenal actor when he really, really feels like it, but when he doesn’t, let’s just say you’d rather watch Justin Bieber on the loo.
Don’t believe me? Watch Passion Play.
And he was replaced by Woody Harrelson. I know who I’d rather see.
7: Sophomore Efforts That Weren’t By The Guy Who Did Donnie Darko
AKA: Pulp Fiction. Less flippant a comparison than you might think – McDonagh and Tarrantino were arguably primarily script men first whose debut features were ostensible genre pieces that had very little to do with their genres, instead focussing on meaty dialogue and relationships. And Christopher Walken was in Pulp Fiction. That’s science, that is.
In Bruges isn’t anything like as good as Reservoir Dogs, but it was a strong statement of intent and markedly superior to the majority of debuts. If McDonagh can build on what he achieved with In Bruges to anything like the extent that Tarrantino built on Reservoir Dogs, this film should be an all too rare treat.
And the reason why it will be terrible:
1: Colin Farrell
Gleeson is a heavyweight actor in both the sense of focused talent and imposing physical presence. His conflicted, subtle performance for In Bruges, riven as it was with dichotomies and unspoken emotions, was played against by…Colin Farrell, who played up the cartoonish elements and struggled with the emotional demands placed on him.
Farrell’s pretty and has charisma and charm, and he was excellently cast in Crazy Heart as the sanitised and somewhat superficial, populist singer with obvious star quality. But the last twenty minutes of Phone Booth alone revealed his limitations as an actor. Asking him to hold his own against not just Brendan Gleeson but also Ralph Fiennes was just cruel, even if our Ralph delivered a below par performance.
He’s none too convincing when it comes to action roles, although that was hopefully part of the point in casting him.
So, to be fair, he’ll only be a disaster if he’s required to bring some depth to his performance while running around with an AK-47.
So then, seven reasons why it probably won’t be terrible, three of which relate to the cast. It also won an award at the Toronto Film Festival if that helps.
And if it is totally kaka, the world’s due to end towards the end of December anyway, according to people who couldn’t tell you anything else about long-departed South American civilisations, so it won’t suck for that long.