Seven Psychopaths (2012)

The review praises the film as a gloriously absurd satire of the writing process.

The critic praises McDonagh's dark humor and panache in navigating the film's chaotic narrative. Rockwell and Walken deliver standout performances that humanize the ensemble despite the violence and absurdity.

It's a fascinating, amusing, daring follow-up that deconstructs criticisms of In Bruges, though sometimes shock for shock's sake and directorially functional.

The critic praises McDonagh's follow-up to In Bruges as startling and funny, highlighting its meta take on Hollywood, violence, and storytelling through strong performances and black humour, though noting some repetitive moments.

The critic describes it as a funny, brutal, well-acted romp with a quality cast, enjoying the parody of crime capers and Walken's performance, while noting it is uneven and best not watched for the plot.

A fun, knockabout self-reflective film with sharp humor, energetic pacing, and fun performances from a stellar cast; violent, seedy farce.

The critic notes the film's meta touches and pleasures in performances and storytelling but finds some postmodern gestures game-like and the commentary on violence vague.

The critic calls it enormously entertaining, endlessly quotable, perfectly cast and packed with rich ensemble acting, while noting it is ever so slightly hollow with too much material and a plot that is basically a dance around the fact that there isn’t one.

The film has pulp sensibilities with witty dialogue and strong cast, a deliriously twisted tale that's a must-see cult film, though lacking solid structure of In Bruges.

The critic finds the film terrifically entertaining with killer dialogue and strong cast but notes it is not as tightly plotted or thematically rich as In Bruges, with more wit than weight.

The film is described as an unstable mess of lunatic invention that can lift one's mood despite its disorderly metafiction. It is praised for spontaneous elation and exaggeration of cinematic styles, though lacking the balanced tone of McDonagh's prior work.

The critic describes it as an engagingly off-centre sunbaked shaggy-dog story like Charlie Kaufman taking down Quentin Tarantino, praising the profane dialogue, the fun performances from Rockwell and Walken, and standout sequences while noting it is often closer to chaos than genius.

The critic finds the film far-fetched, relentlessly superficial and luridly violent but also very funny, praising McDonagh's flair for deadpan absurdist humour and slapstick along with the cast's enjoyment, especially Christopher Walken's emotional depth.

A darkly comic buddy movie that lampoons genre clichés but sometimes conforms to them; has Pulp Fiction flavor and charismatic Walken performance, with cult appeal.

The critic finds the film a self-reflexive, shaggy-dog story that tries to have its cake and eat it, with strong performances but lacking moral or emotional substance compared to In Bruges.

The critic finds the meta comedy sporadically funny but slight overall, with clever observations undercut by thudding jokes. Strong performances from Christopher Walken and Colin Farrell are singled out amid the ensemble.

The rambling narrative is a shaggy dog story that fails to cohere despite audacious riffs and engaging performances. Unlike 'In Bruges,' the outlandish elements remain disconnected and do not fully deliver on subverting genre expectations.

The critic praises the textures, jokes, performances and cinematic tricks but finds the film show-offy with a fuzzy core and troubling cake-and-eat-it-too approach to violence.

The critic notes that the film takes fun and games with killers to a new level but ultimately loses the plot, becoming so self-conscious, tricksy and parodic that it disappears up its own premise, wasting a great cast despite some witty dialogue.

The review calls the film a debacle and overly meta-smug, critiquing its derivative Tarantino-like style, weak female roles, and failure to improve on the clichés it mocks despite a strong cast.

The critic calls the film brash, brilliant, and wickedly fun, the best about screenwriting since Adaptation. They single out the wild, energetic performances from Sam Rockwell, Colin Farrell, and Christopher Walken as fueling McDonagh’s machine-gun script.

The critic finds it an unpredictable, funny and regularly excellent piece of cinema with strong moments and cast performances, though messier and less cohesive than In Bruges. It is still recommended as a treat.

The critic calls it a bloody hoot that mixes laughs and screams effectively, though it becomes too self-referential and distances the audience compared to McDonagh's prior work. They single out the brilliant ensemble cast, particularly Christopher Walken's standout performance, for keeping the film engaging.

McDonagh's follow-up delivers on its premise and cast but feels more sprawling and random than In Bruges, with a lower hit-to-miss ratio. Film buffs will enjoy the meta references and nods to genres and filmmaking itself.

The film is an undemanding but very entertaining shaggy dog black comedy following a screenwriter entangled with dognappers. It delivers enjoyable character interactions and a satisfactory conclusion, with Christopher Walken stealing the show.

The review describes the film as a hilarious, hare-brained, spastic ride built on snappy self-referential dialogue and a game cast. It praises the ensemble (especially Rockwell and Harrelson) and McDonagh’s love-hate take on Hollywood conventions and violence.

The critic notes the self-referential black comedy and witty dialogue but finds the plot messy and the film frustrating for those seeking straightforward thrills, though it remains funny and intriguing.