The Counselor (2013)

[Goffe]

I still kind of want to see this. Can it be enjoyed as pulp, or is it really that bad?

I liked, it was very well directed and the acting was superb.

[CJohn]

Well

 

My mom really wanted to see this. So I went with her today. Safe to say I have no clue about WTF was going on in most of the time.

[lilmac]

I liked, it was very well directed and the acting was superb.

 

I totally agree.  The issue with the movie is the plot which left me wanting more.  Like others have said, I was always confused as to what was going on.  

 

This is a perfect example of why the Director gets too much credit/blame for a movie.  The director is just one cog in a vast machine.  Yes, he/she is one of the more influential as to how a movie turns out but there are factors at place.  I blame the writer more than Ridley Scott for this movie's failings.

[Deep Wang]

I totally agree. The issue with the movie is the plot which left me wanting more. Like others have said, I was always confused as to what was going on. This is a perfect example of why the Director gets too much credit/blame for a movie. The director is just one cog in a vast machine. Yes, he/she is one of the more influential as to how a movie turns out but there are factors at place. I blame the writer more than Ridley Scott for this movie's failings.

Please take no offense, but this means you don't really know how movies are really made. As someone who would love to be a screenwriter, I've done tons of research. A big name director like Scott is going to execute the movie to his liking. That's just how it goes. Also, by the time it gets to the director, it's passed through so many hands that aren't even credited. The only •real• way to blame the writer, is if it's a writer/director.

[lilmac]

Please take no offense, but this means you don't really know how movies are really made.As someone who would love to be a screenwriter, I've done tons of research. A big name director like Scott is going to execute the movie to his liking. That's just how it goes. Also, by the time it gets to the director, it's passed through so many hands that aren't even credited.The only •real• way to blame the writer, is if it's a writer/director.

 

You make a great about big-name directors having more sway.  However, even Martin Scorsese had to cut his running time for WoWS.  Auteurs like Spielberg, Peter Jackson, and Cameron don't have unlimited access to studio money.  There are limits.  

 

In the case of Counselor, my issues rest mostly with the writing.  The direction and cinematography was fantastic but the plot was atrocious (IMO).  Is it possible that Ridley and the studio system made massive rewrites to Cormac McCarthy's script and the end result was the mess thrown up on the big screen?  Certainly possible.  But notice that I said I blame "Cormac more than Ridley"  Unless Ridley had more to do with the final script than Cormac, I stand by what I said.

[Ozymandias]

You make a great about big-name directors having more sway.  However, even Martin Scorsese had to cut his running time for WoWS.  Auteurs like Spielberg, Peter Jackson, and Cameron don't have unlimited access to studio money.  There are limits.  

 

In the case of Counselor, my issues rest mostly with the writing.  The direction and cinematography was fantastic but the plot was atrocious (IMO).  Is it possible that Ridley and the studio system made massive rewrites to Cormac McCarthy's script and the end result was the mess thrown up on the big screen?  Certainly possible.  But notice that I said I blame "Cormac more than Ridley"  Unless Ridley had more to do with the final script than Cormac, I stand by what I said.

 

I skipped the movie in theaters because of the bad reviews it got and still haven't seen it, but I know the script is definitely 100% Cormac McCarthy.  Some stuff was apparently left out though because there is apparently a 21 minute unrated extended cut on the Blu-ray.  Have you seen that version? Does it make the film better?

[lilmac]

I skipped the movie in theaters because of the bad reviews it got and still haven't seen it, but I know the script is definitely 100% Cormac McCarthy.  Some stuff was apparently left out though because there is apparently a 21 minute unrated extended cut on the Blu-ray.  Have you seen that version? Does it make the film better?

 

 

No I have not.  If the script is 100% Cormac then that proves my point.

[Deep Wang]

You make a great about big-name directors having more sway.  However, even Martin Scorsese had to cut his running time for WoWS.  Auteurs like Spielberg, Peter Jackson, and Cameron don't have unlimited access to studio money.  There are limits.  

 

In the case of Counselor, my issues rest mostly with the writing.  The direction and cinematography was fantastic but the plot was atrocious (IMO).  Is it possible that Ridley and the studio system made massive rewrites to Cormac McCarthy's script and the end result was the mess thrown up on the big screen?  Certainly possible.  But notice that I said I blame "Cormac more than Ridley"  Unless Ridley had more to do with the final script than Cormac, I stand by what I said.

 

I am not even talking about final cut and all that jazz.  I'm referring strictly to the writing process.  

 

When a director picks a script as his next film, the very first thing he does is start rewriting it.  Most of the time they don't get credited with writing, but they all do it.  That, or they have a team of writers that they give it to to start plugging away at it.  For big movies, the script will go through a handful or so writers.  One each for structure, or dialogue, or maybe to punch up the action.  

 

The Counselor is a tough read.  It is his very first credited screenplay, so I don't know how much clout he had.  Being a producer probably helped a bunch.  Even so, Scott is a veteran director so there is no way he didn't make changes he wanted to.  I mean, if you were a director would you want to touch a script that you couldn't touch in anyway?  

 

Then you have to think about the intangibles that many writers don't know about.  Experienced directors can read a script and know exactly what will work within a scene or not.  

[Jack Nevada]

Saw it a second time on Blu-Ray. I like the movie. It's one of the grimmest and least-commercial Hollywood pictures in years, and I can't help but admire that. Beautiful direction, too.

Edited May 18, 2014 by Jack The Edgemaster Nevada

[Michael Gary Scott]

Saw it a second time on Blu-Ray. I like the movie. It's one of the grimmest and least-commercial Hollywood pictures in years, and I can't help but admire that. Beautiful direction, too.

Its terrible in all aspects

[Jack Nevada]

Its terrible in all aspects

Naaaaaaah.

[Jake Gittes]

The direction, imo, might be the one thing that hurt this movie the most. Aside from a couple of setpieces (like the wire scene and Pitt's demise) it's incredibly bland. Unique and flashy screenplays like this need to be translated onto the screen accordingly, otherwise they  could easily overwhelm and sink the movie, which is kinda what happened here. Ridley didn't try to bring anything out of McCarthy's writing, it seemed like he just pointed the camera in the needed direction, called "action" and "cut" and that was it. The end result is very awkward, bland and way too serious. It's like if Sorkin's screenplay for The Social Network was shot by Bill Condon instead of Fincher - we'd get something much closer to The Fifth Estate than to the TSN we know. Or if Wentworth Miller's screenplay for Stoker (which is very silly and often nonsensical on its own) was shot not by Chan-wook Park, who made the best possible movie out of it, but by any bland and mediocre Hitchcock-wannabe. McCarthy's script for The Counselor needed, among other things, a much more imaginative director.

[Jack Nevada]

You're such an eloquent writer, Jake. 

[filmscholar]

I watched it last night.  The 1st hour really dragged, I was like "Where the hell is this going" but as the movie went on it played out so deep that it really did spark my thoughts about life, death, greed.  It just had a lot of themes.  Look, I can see why people thought it was a mess and all over the place.  But the "Deep" Dialog was definitely put there on purporse but to me it's what drove the movie.  I like how you don't have all the answer to the characters but they are all connected the the story is just going.  I thought everyone in the cast did great.  This is definitely not your typical "Drug Cartel" movie but that's what I liked about it.  I don't know I liked "Killing Me Softly" for this same reason.  

 

Everything doesn't have to be spelled out for me to like something.  I love the themes of "The Counselor" and how you can actually apply what was being said but different characters to real life.  I think this film takes mutiple views to understand it.  I definitely see this gainning cult status over the years, that seems to happen with a lot of Ridley's work.   The final thing I took from the film is that we are in control of our decisions until the decisions we make take control of our lives.  But I have to be honest.  I still don't know who or what Cameron character was.  Was she a cop? A Double Agent?  That's what I mean I really believe he wrote it this way purposfully.   I give it a B grade.

[Jack Nevada]

The direction, imo, might be the one thing that hurt this movie the most. Aside from a couple of setpieces (like the wire scene and Pitt's demise) it's incredibly bland. Unique and flashy screenplays like this need to be translated onto the screen accordingly, otherwise they  could easily overwhelm and sink the movie, which is kinda what happened here. Ridley didn't try to bring anything out of McCarthy's writing, it seemed like he just pointed the camera in the needed direction, called "action" and "cut" and that was it. The end result is very awkward, bland and way too serious. It's like if Sorkin's screenplay for The Social Network was shot by Bill Condon instead of Fincher - we'd get something much closer to The Fifth Estate than to the TSN we know. Or if Wentworth Miller's screenplay for Stoker (which is very silly and often nonsensical on its own) was shot not by Chan-wook Park, who made the best possible movie out of it, but by any bland and mediocre Hitchcock-wannabe. McCarthy's script for The Counselor needed, among other things, a much more imaginative director.

See, I disagree. It's a cold, calculated script. It didn't need more flash. 

 

I'm so bad at explaining my own opinions. I just think it's a flawed but a really interesting movie with some terrific stuff in it. 

[Webslinger]

With the weight of expectations from its talented cast and behind-the-scenes players having been removed thanks to the terrible reviews and the disastrous box office performance, The Counselor registers as a somewhat interesting mess. It would be easy to wonder how a project with so much talent attached to it could go wrong, but the reasons really aren't that difficult to pinpoint. The characters aren't particularly interesting, and are almost never worth investing emotion in. These characters are also quite verbose, but their conversations feel empty and petulant; even when they're supposed to be discussing extremely important existential matters of life and death, their words feel as though they carry very little weight. And finally, while the film certainly succeeds in maintaining its nihilism until the bitter end, it doesn't pack anywhere near the same punch as McCarthy's No Country for Old Men because it lacks the nuance of both the novel and the film. And yet, despite all of these problems, it's still pretty to look at, and it's so bizarre in its setup and delivery that it's half-intriguing to see where the action goes next. It's such an oddball that it's more fascinating than it should be with the dull direction and acting.

 

C

 

But let's be honest: the only thing that 99% of viewers are going to remember about this movie in the long run is the scene in which Cameron Diaz has sex with a car. It's the kind of out-of-leftfield thing that has to be seen to be believed.

[mattmav45]

This was awful.

 

I get the feeling that what was attempted here was a sprawling meditative epic on the drug trade.  Such was not the case.  There's nothing worse than a director insulting his audience.  I'm just going to be blunt here and say Scott comes across as a complete hack here.  

 

It makes sense to start with the acting when you have a cast such as what is on display here.  Unfortunately the most impressive aspect of the acting comes with the fact that everyone here is pretty much terrible.  Javier Bardem is the one I thought somewhat embraced the somewhat pulpy nature of the material, but perhaps that is simply because the guy looked like a fucking hedgehog in the film.  Words cannot even begin to describe just how bad Cameron Diaz is here.  Her delivery of the lines was downright pathetic.  In a film full  of terrible performances she was the undisputed stand-out.  Damn impressive.

 

I'm not even sure where to begin regarding the story.  I have no problem with idea-driven films.  The problem lies in the fact that this not driven by either ideas or story.  Instead, it is filled with nonsensical filler to make you think you're watching something important.  I can't stand films like this.  I'm pretty 15 solid minutes were spent talking about how dangerous drug cartels are.  Good thing, because otherwise I wouldn't have any idea.  Brutal.

 

Perhaps the best way to convey my opinion of this film would be to simply list random points in the film in which I was reduced to laughter.  The moments are as follows:

 

      1.  The first occured when Barden was shot and killed.  Naturally,

           the dude was driving around with two cheetahs in the back of 

           his SUV.  Upon his death, we have kids rummaging through 

           clothes followed by the cheetahs standing around.  

      2.  Fassbender calls some bartender for help and inevitably 

           there sprouts a random philosophical conversation about 

           death.  Enough said.

      3.  Fassbender breaks down crying.  In what is clearly meant to 

           be the emotional climax of the film, I'm sitting there laughing

           my ass off.  Not a good sign.

      4.  Diaz's last monologue to end the film.  The guy at the table 

           responds "I think you've told me more than I need to know."

           Truer words have never been spoken.

 

The film is akin to someone talking out of their ass for two hours.  Simply fucking brutal.

[baumer]

Most of your posts I find I am diametric in opinion, Matt.  This one, however, I agree with 100%.

[The Stingray]

Dug the hell out of this. Definitely not deserving of all the hate it received.

8/10
 

[Goffe]

I know, the story makes little sense and dialogue is highly unrealistic, but I find this good, ver good if it was a couple minutes shorter. 70/100