MovieChat Forums > Seven Psychopaths (2012) Discussion > I'm not sure people understand...

I'm not sure people understand...

posted 11 years ago by tony-moulatsiotis
15 replies | jump to latest

So judging by some of the posts I have seen on this board I'm wondering if people are not interpreting this movie correctly?

Everything can be laid out by the last part of the movie.

Martin wakes up in BILLY's house, with a shih tzu dog which belonged to CHARLIE who was supposed to have been shot in the stomach, and taken off to jail.

When I saw this it made things pretty clear that the events of this movie were all in MARTY's head.

The only thing that throws it off is the credits scene where the serial killer killer calls him on the phone, saying he wants to kill him on Tuesday but then changes his mind. What is the purpose of this scene?

Thing that gives it away is that he changes his mind and doesn't feel like killing him. The other thing is that where he is calling from seems to be displaced in time. The cars around him are all super oldschool cars, the buildings, the street lights. It's like he's calling from the 1950's or 60's. Clearly this cannot be the case.

So there it is. This whole movie was MARTY dealing with all these characters in his head trying to write a book. None of it actually happened.

Oh and I gotta say the funniest scene in this entire movie was when Christopher Walken is out on the street and the guy grabs his shotgun and tells him to put his hands up and he denies them. I laughed so damn hard at this. When the guy is like...where are your friends? and he said I don't know and the other guy goes yes you do know!? He goes no I don't know...in a super soft voice. Oh man I lost it. It made me feel like two 5 year old arguing. Best scene ever. www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yHYAG01aaY

[–] Dobbsyisonfire 11 years ago

I, too, got the sense that what we were actually watching was the script that Marty wrote / went on to write...

Also, I noticed the cars etc in the final scene with Zach... strange!?

“They come. They fight. They destroy. They corrupt. It always ends the same.”

[–] oliver_ 11 years ago

I didn't even think of that it could be all in his head. If that is the case they should've made it more obvious.

And if that is true why does he have framed photos of Billy and Hans on his desk?

[–] jus_bite_me 11 years ago

Exactly, it wasn't all in his head, these were his real friends.

And when Zach called him, he wasn't even afraid of his threats anymore (Thus the "sounds like you've gone though a ringer" comment) after what he'd seen happen to Hans and Billy.

[–] ukshine 11 years ago

I never thought it was all in his head when watching it, I just assumed that he moved into that house because he had nowhere else to go and he kept the dog cause everyone else was dead or in jail. Also the burnt flag in the next door neighbours and the photos in the frames surely indicate it all actually happened?

[–] froofiedadawg 11 years ago

I'm with ukshine. What they show us in the movie makes more sense to me than this added layer of "it's all in his head" that so many people are trying to put on it. I just don't see anything in the movie to support that theory.

That said, I love the film.

[–] apw8933 11 years ago

I'm a bit tired of the "it was all in his head" cliche. It depends on how seriously you want to take it.

Martin could probably live in Billy's place for a bit until someone reads Billy's will, if he even had one. In either case the house would go to the bank. Even though Charlie is in jail, the dog is technically still his. There's no reason that the dog would be given to Martin. In either case the police are not going to take them away immediately.

Anyway, I was perfectly content believing that what happened was real. Unless there is some outside reason for the "it was all in his head", it just gets silly. Hell, they even give a relatively good example within the movie, with the Vietnamese guy. A man thinking over potential actions in his last moments, is much more reasonable and interesting than a movie about a man brainstorming a screenplay that never actually happened.

[–] er-usmani 10 years ago

no no, not another "all was in his head" cliche movie!!!!!

your name is lebowski, lebowski!; your life is funny

[–] flyingcowherder 10 years ago

It's definitely not 'all in his head'. Get out of here with that crap!

[–] normkerr123 10 years ago

guys, calm down, remember that this movie was FILLED with hilarious send ups of typical Hollywood cliches that were used to increase our enjoyment, not to piss us off

"He pulls a .44 from his pocket and checks if its loaded. I don't know why he checks, because surely he's the one who loaded it."

Adding on the "redux" during the end credits is just another one.

Schtick done campy is funny, if the delivery hits you the right way.

[–] thebe123-484-488327 10 years ago

I thought about that, especially with all the dream sequence reference that Hans talked about on his tape, but then I changed my mind after the call from Waits' character.

I'm going to have to watch it again. I remember focusing on the fact he was calling from a phone booth and public phones are in near extinction in these times. But you are right, now that I think back ... it was an old fashioney public phone in a phone booth. There is a public phone on a busy city street not far from me, but's not in a phone booth. I really haven't seen a phone booth like that since the seventies.

Can't wait to watch this movie again.

[–] ChrRome 10 years ago

"So judging by some of the posts I have seen on this board I'm wondering if people are not interpreting this movie correctly?"

It's funny that you assume your interpretation is correct, when there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that is was in his head. Sorry to break it to you, but I'm pretty sure you are the one interpreting it incorrectly

[–] elliotthudson25 10 years ago

I didn't get the sense that the actually movie was a dream Marty had or the actual script that he wrote. But I might watch it again and look for clues. Off the top of my head at the end when Marty walks out of Billy's house with the script you see the neighbors flag is actually still burnt which is why I didn't get the sense it was a dream.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mattmens1 9 years ago

I understand people hate everyone trying to make it seem like a whole movie didn't take place. The "all in their head" phrase is thrown out far too often, when that is not the case.
However, my take on this film suggests otherwise. I believe the only real scene in this movie is the scene at the party.

Colin Farrell's character is a screenwriter named Marty. The director of this film's name is Martin. I think the film is about him trying to make a follow up movie after In Bruges and the studio wanting him to make an action movie.

Colin Farrell is the only real character in this film (besides his gf) and the seven psychopaths are just manifestations of his demons. Sam Rockwell's character is the manifestation of his true feelings. Calling his gf a bitch, then Colin calling her one. Rockwell's diary being all about Colin, etc.

There are 6 basic emotions. All represented by individual psychopaths in the film. Colin Farrell is the 7th psychopath.

One of the coolest things about this film though is the guy with the rabbit. He symbolizes Colin's alcoholism...Rockwell tells Colin that his drinking will kill him someday. Rabbit man calls at the end saying he's going to kill him on Tuesday and that "you promised on your life, you know what that means?". Then he notices Colin sounds different than before. Colin's been through a lot, and has quit drinking. Rabbit man changes his mind about killing him. This film is full of deep meaning, much of which I've yet to fully grasp.

I do think it's clear that Colin Farrell's character is everyone though. At the end, we're shown Colin to be living in Rockwell's apartment with the dog. Why would he have the dog unless Rockwell was just part of his mind?

Also, if you think about it: None of the characters were truly "psychopaths." To be a psychopath is to act with absolutely no empathy. All of the characters are acting out of love.

Overall I thought this was an excellent follow up to In Bruges. Very creative, very meaningful. Still have a lot to figure out. Plot reminded me somewhat of Adaptation. Anyway, just some of my thoughts I gathered on the movie.