The Counsellor (2013)

I actually hadn't heard of The Counselor before a friend invited me to see it, so I just quickly checked the one sentence synopsis at the top of the page on IMDb. Basically, I had no expectations or knowledge about what the movie was about or who was in it.

I honestly have very little understanding of what happened in this movie. It is one of the most confusing, disjointed films I have ever watched. From reading about it, you can see that it has a good cast and pretty original storyline, so what could go wrong? Believe me, what you actually see on the screen seems to defy logic.

The first 10 or 15 minutes make the most sense, relatively speaking, but it's all downhill from there. The movie jumps from scene to scene with little explanation or context as to what is happening or why. I kept patiently waiting for everything I was seeing to be tied together, but it never happens. You keep seeing the same actors in a new scene, but there's nothing telling you what it has to do with the scene you just watched before it.

I understand films do not necessarily need to follow a linear plot; plenty of other films have proved this to be true. However, if not following a linear plot, there should at least be SOMETHING that tells you how each scene is related, or at the very least a culmination at the end which explains all the previously unanswered questions. It just never happens. I left the theater more confused than ever, and the friend I was with felt the same way. I don't think we even cared that much about what happened anymore and were frankly just glad we didn't have to watch any more.

I don't know how anyone could really enjoy this movie unless they were looking for something with no action, no plot and dialog performed by actors who seem more bored than I was just watching the film. I wouldn't go so far as to say it was the worst or even one of the worst movies I've ever seen, because it very easily could have made for a decent watch, I just have absolutely no idea what the director was trying to do.

Fmovies: Apparently I am one of the few who came into this movie with no pre- conceived ideas of what it would actually be like. I saw it and got it as it was directed by Ridley Scott, written by a great author and had a decent cast list. I never saw any trailers or reviews and just had the briefest of description of the story. I'll tell ya, its the only way to go. On the other hand this can also backfire with some movies....a lot of movies...so it is not worth pursuing but for this particular movie it was one of the real pleasures of movie watching. The film is one of the best I have seen for a long, long, time. From the direction, to the story (Holy man what a script, absolutely brilliant) to the superb acting all round, it had everything...and in buckets. As an example each of the main characters gets a chance to make a speech and all do well (my favourite being Bruno Ganz's)and if people were left totally bemused by the film after watching the trailer then you need to stop watching trailers. I have not watched any for this and probably for the better. As for the points about the plot going nowhere are the story being disjointed I would say to these people ...... stop watching trailers! Everything is very well explained by the Mexican drug barron near the end and funnily enough probably at the beginning by Javier Bardem. If you want a movie about drug violence and explosions and murders and the rest there are plenty out there. This is sooo not the movie for you. Just to sum up this is a brilliant movie and worth seeing on the fly. All the actors give probably one of their best performances in their roles and Scott's direction is fantastic as always. But where the movie really stands out (and really how movies should be first judged) is in the script. Highly recommended. 10/10

Disguised as a suspense thriller ... and with a script to die for. Literally.

Oddly I was reminded of Claires Knee (1970) a film that was supposed to be about erotica but in fact, if you listened to the dialog, was also a morality play disguised as something else.

I will be honest -- I gave it a 9 and almost gave it a 10. That is because as a reviewer I look for flaws -- much the same same way one of the characters in this film first looks at a diamond.

And I found none. The cinematography, casting, acting, scripting, direction - all perfect.

That such a perfect film was created to tell an abstract story will be a loss to some viewers but a gain to others.

The script, pound for pound, almost has more memorable quotes than Godfather. I have seen a lot of films -- too many -- but will never forget the dialog about "coincidence" or "grief."

Highly recommended. A great film, but not an easy film.

And as good as Fassbinder is -- and he is -- Cameron Diaz steals the movie even with minimal screen time, using her eyes like a weapon, as far from her role in Charies Angels as the earth is from the moon.

The Counsellor fmovies. The Counselor is the work of a fantastic director, an incredible writer and an A+ cast but sadly it just wasn't put together well enough to be an effective movie. It was written by the talented Cormac McCarthy, this is his screenplay debut and his lack of experience shows, he seems to forget that he is writing the script of a modern film and not a novel or a play. Many of the scenes are lengthy, one on one exchanges between two characters who speak in long extended monologues. The dialog itself is sharp, cryptic and original, I loved hearing the characters' philosophical banter about death, religion, sex, acceptance etc. The simple yet tragic story however is muffled by the heavy abstract dialog, which seems to be trying to be as far from expository as possible. It's hard to make out the details of what's actually happening and you constantly find yourself asking, what's the point? I did however enjoy the writing, it was dark and beautiful and I'd love to see McCarthy return to this style in another, perhaps more illustrative script.

The characters, who are portrayed by some of the most talented actors out there, are all ambiguous, intellectual, bad-asses. It's fun to see slick, eccentric characters like these, but there is no variety, everyone is simply a beautiful and sadistic human being and it becomes very boring to watch. Nobody is lovable, or realistic, or funny or imperfect. It is also impossible to become invested in the characters or the story line. Just a bunch of cool people wearing expensive sunglasses saying and doing cool things, which is enjoyable, but not for a solid two hours.

The cinematography is exceptional, each shot has the aesthetic quality of a well thought out photograph. There was clearly a lot of thought put into camera angles, and where characters and objects were placed within the frame. I was never bored admiring the exotic, luxurious locations captured with such skill.

All in all, the ambitious dialog, the beautiful cinematography and the very capable cast, coupled with a very intense soundtrack made for a film that successfully created a very dark, poignant tone. Unfortunately the story was unclear, despite being very basic. The characters did not contrast each other at all, and it was hard to give a damn about any of it. I'd recommend it to anyone interested in film since I did have a good time and I think there's a lot to take away from it. As a film maker, it's interesting to see a group of people who are all masters of their craft, sincerely try there best, and make something that is so completely ineffective.

The film may be judged upon different merits. Technically, it is a thing of great beauty in the style of super-crisp cinematography and high-level production values frequently seen in Scott's contemporary films such as American Gangster and Prometheus - there is nothing to be faulted in this area of the film's construction. I believe that the writing is that which has created the vast disparity in professional reviews. The New York Times (?) reviewer gave the film her highest marks whereas others viewed the film as being sub par or even disastrous. How could this be? Perhaps because of the origins of the script, from the hand of McCarthy, a literary master. I was recently watching a Tennessee Williams play adapted for the screen by Kazan, and I could feel the weight of its literary origins. This was how I felt watching TC. The plot, setting, and, more generally, the world, McCarthy creates are vehicles for the theme, that of the human condition, man's striving, reaching, cunning, and ultimately, his animal nature. This was the risk taken by Scott in allowing such a heavy-weight to pen the script, that the film would be driven by theme rather than plot, and that it would not quite fit in with today's banal, CGI-infected cinema culture, which, perhaps, it pretended to be by its glossy exterior. The "overly-long" dialog was especially trying for short attention spans but those who may have enjoyed the great cinematic classics over the past century will adore this creation. Through thematic contrivance is created a jungle filled with various inhabitants. Through a form of Darwinian selection, the weak are slowly exiled from this unforgiving world until only those with an appetite for blood and an intolerance for weakness are allowed to remain. There is enough blood and perversion to keep you smiling, but the weight of its humanity will grip your soul. Please ignore the critics, Mr. Scott, and continue allowing your cinematic muse to light your path, even if Hollywood keeps telling you that you must help pay the bills. (See Mr. Welles, not Mr. Spielberg.)

With a star studded cast, featuring the likes of Michael Fassbender, Penelope Cruz, Cameron Diaz, Javier Bardem and Brad Pitt, and directed by Ridley Scott, with a script from one of the greatest American novelists alive, Cormac McCarthy, obviously I went to see "The Counselor" on face value alone. Admittedly, aside from the fact that this is not a very cinematic endeavor, the first half of this film is pretty bad. That is to say the first act and a half is far too cryptic for its own good, with dialogue that is in love with its own double entendres and lines which sound as though they would be more at home in a novel than spoken aloud by human beings. But, if you're patient enough to stay with this film until the second hour, you will be rewarded by witnessing how McCarthy and Scott weave this almost action-less tale together, quietly guiding audiences into a brilliantly disturbing and hypnotic finale.

The performances (the standout coming from Bardem) are all fine here. These are all great actors, so what else would you expect? Same goes for the direction. The wildcard with "The Counselor" was always McCarthy's transition from novel to feature film scriptwriting; a transition that was a first act failure on the grounds of dialogue alone. In that same breath, his high caliber story of a lawyer who gets involved in drug trafficking and his masterful construction redeems him almost entirely by the time it's all said and done.

As I alluded to before, there is not much action here, which may give the illusion to some that sequences are occurring but nothing is progressing, which may also promote watch checking. But within this conversation based film, as much as I would have preferred the dialogue to have been handled with more subtlety, the subtext is always interesting, gaining its momentum from the converging stories within the second half.

Final Thought: "The Counselor" is the film equivalent of an artichoke. You either like it or you don't. And both are understandable. Maybe one day, once all of the critical heat dies down, history will look more kindly on this movie. But for now, there will be flaws within it that a majority of mainstream audiences just won't be able to forgive.

Written by Markus Robinson, Edited by Nicole I. Ashland