zester3
This is one of my best movies. It has an all-star cast and Ridley Scott directing. It looks great, it's novel, creative and entertaining. And beautifully written.I don't really understand the lukewarm reception unless viewers found the plot confusing. I have to say I've seen it more than once so it all seems clear now. Once you know whodunit it all falls into place. The scene where the counselor is talking to the cartel man is worth it alone. There's the sex, of course, but strangely I didn't find it off-putting. Normally I don't like sex in movies, they detract from the plot, but in this film it seems quite par for the course and appropriate to that world.It's also not as dumb as it looks. Once you know, all the clues are there. That's the sign of a well-written plot, where, despite the clues being given to you, still you're never quite sure till the end. So I like this film although it may ultimately be for the more discerning viewer. And that may well account for the mixed reception and low score.
Joel Newman
THE COUNSELOR might be worth comparing to the 1983 masterpiece Scarface; both are morality plays set in the drug world. But Scarface although dealing with at times horrible subject matter is genuinely moving, engaging, cinematic and unforgettable whereas The Counselor's kind of horrible, boring and forgettable; it's more like a play than a film. And it ends abruptly; what a cop out. Still, it captures a nightmarish scenario of a drug deal gone wrong and it's devastating consequences quite effectively.
KCfilm
This is not a synopsis, it is a reflection of my experience watching The Counsellor.I've just watched The Counsellor for the 3rd time, and for the 1st time decided that I like it.So if I didn't like it the 1st 2 times, why did I watch it for a 3rd time?Well, have you looked at the credits? I should probably start by saying that IMHO, P. Cruz is endlessly watchable, and Brad, Javier and Cameron run her pretty close. This is also a film from the guys who brought you Alien, Blade Runner, No Country for Old Men and The Road. There's a Fassbender involved.But... good movie making is notoriously ephemeral, just one moment can lose an audience irretrievably, and on first watch, this movie lost me. More than once.And yet... just a couple of great scenes can elevate a film, and this film has many brain- searing moments. Those sort of things stay with you, which is probably why I watched it the 2nd time. Maybe that time it became a little clearer, I could let the words worm their way in, and the images and cinematography wash over me without the anxiety that I was missing something. Wow, don't cheetahs loping out of a car and over a dead Bardem look cool? How brutal and breath catchingly denial-denying is that soliloquy from the cartel boss? How Shakespearean the story arc? But I still couldn't like it, because despite all of this, the story was still distant, the details unclear, scenes strewn like spare jigsaw pieces.Maybe this film's reputation will grow in the online future, where gaming shows the way, and the participant is consulting the online guide as they enjoy the experience. As soon as this film started to lose me on the 3rd watching, I consulted the Wikipedia Plot details, and yes, it's all there in the film. It's actually a fairly straightforward, dark, hard story, although I have to say, I think the editing decisions did not serve it well. Hitchcock used to talk about the need to engage an audience and play with their expectations, and I feel this is what is missing from this film. I would have preferred scenes that made it clearer that there was a connection between Diaz's character and the on-road shenanigans, and even on which side the male protagonists were when it came to the road warriors. The road scenes are fantastic as it happens, but they seem almost adrift from the main protagonists' plans. As impressively flexible as Cameron is, and as funny as Bardem's conversation with Pitt is, rather than the car humping and the confession scenes, find a way to expose Cameron's character while engaging with the story, whether that be to advance it or throw a curve ball. Another example, having Cameron allude to the importance of possessing 'the computer' is not sufficient to ratchet the tension that the build up to Pitt's demise deserved. We are still wondering what happened to the drugs, there is already a price on Pitt's head and we don't realise that Cameron is after his case. I suspect that there was a desire to have Cameron's involvement appear as a reveal of sorts, but there appears to be so much going on that by the end of the film, it is not even clear that it is a denouement, unless you've seen it before.To the filmmakers involved, the final cut probably seemed un-needing of further exposition. In that case, what harm could come from including a few of their favourite scenes? It seems to me that this film suffers from too many good scenes, and not enough empathy for an audience's moment by moment engagement. These are structural faults, which could have been addressed in the script or film edits. TBH, as much as I love Ridley Scott's films, this is a weakness which is not a complete surprise. It is just a shame that this flaw afflicted what could have been a D grade diamond of a film (I learnt from this film that D is a good grade for a diamond). It still shines, it's just a bit too much flash over structure. It feels like a film on the brink of greatness. After the 3rd watch.
