The Counsellor (Ridley Scott / Cormac McCarthy)

McGrath5

I am going to go against the general consensus here and say that I really enjoyed this film, though from reading the post here before I saw it, my expectations were fairly low to begin with.

I thought the part

where Cameron Diaz was having sex with the car was hilarious!

fruvai

poundapunnet wrote: »

Cameron Diaz having sex with a car and being described as white Rihanna? I'm sold! Have heard clips though, and the script does sound wojus.

McCarthy must have stolen that from Pynchon

Ole Rodrigo

fruvai wrote: »

McCarthy must have stolen that from Pynchon

He'll readily admit Blood Meridian was based on Moby Dick, so maybe..:pac:

Dont be at yourself

I liked it! Wasn't a masterpiece, and it was certainly against the grain, but I was pretty much enthralled throughout.

Banjaxed82

There should have been more scenes with 2 people having a conversation in a room.

KERSPLAT!

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

There should have been more scenes with 2 people having a conversation in a room.

And more of the talking in riddles, I thoroughly enjoyed that!

BlutendeRabe

The script was leaked online and got very divisive comments. I reckon McCarthy probably wrote it to provide money for his family and his 14 year old son (the guy's 80 years old).

I'm going to see it because I am a fan of McCarthy's novels (Blood Meridian along with 2666 are both the strangest books I've read - in a good way) and also mainly because

I want to see Cameron Diaz dry hump a car

.

Banjaxed82

BlutendeRabe wrote: »

I want to see Cameron Diaz dry hump a car

.

It ain't dry.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Wasn't there a documentary on channel 4 once about people who have sex with cars?

fluke

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Wasn't there a documentary on channel 4 once about people who have sex with cars?

Transfenderbender

BlutendeRabe

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Wasn't there a documentary on channel 4 once about people who have sex with cars?

They made a movie about it. Ok it's car crashes, but its all mechanical baby.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crash_%281996_film%29

Fysh

I'm surprised at the bile this has generated, not least from critics. It was pretty much what I thought I'd get from a McCarthy original screenplay - the focus not so much on the actual violence as its causes and repercussions, and the nature of the people involved and the way in which they view themselves and the world around them (or, in some cases, are unable to view themselves and the world around them).

The cast was good and mostly gave great performances, although I felt that Cameron Diaz wasn't quite good enough to sell the role she was in. She put in a good effort, but there wasn't any nuance - compare her character with Katie Segal's Gemma Teller in Sons Of Anarchy and you'll see what I mean. Similarly, I felt that Brad Pitt was reasonably good but was basically doing a cover version of Woody Harrelson's character from No Country For Old Men. And Penelope Cruz was pretty much Penelope Cruz. On the other hand, Bardem and Fassbender did a lot with what they were given, and Toby Kebbell's cameo was impressive for all its brevity.

It felt a tad more obvious than NCFOM, but I think that's a result of being written directly for the screen by someone who normally writes longform prose (things like

the way the bolido or the snuff tape were introduced to allow for the later payoff

felt a bit on-the-nose).

What issues I have with it are minor, though, and didn't stop me enjoying the film.

Da Shins Kelly

It was terrible. I didn't care about any of the characters' motivations or what happened to any of them. Penelope Cruz's character seemed to serve little or no purpose other than

to be killed

. Cameron Diaz's character was mildly interesting, but not nearly developed enough, and she hammed it up to the max. Brad Pitt and Javier Bardem were probably the best in it, but even then the characters were poor enough. At times it sounded like the actors were struggling to even say the words with any kind of fluency. It just sounded ridiculous. I don't think I've ever heard more sophisticated drug dealings in all my life. One particularly laughable scene where Michael Fassbender's character is having a phone conversation with a Mexican guy sounds like something lifted from a philosophy essay.

Overall, hammy performances, clunky dialogue, a very weak plot and poor character development.

Funnily enough, I can completely imagine the movie making quite a good book, but on the screen it just doesn't work. Like with so much of McCarthy's work, the characters and dialogue and plots are better left to the imagination where they can really flourish and you can have an easier time making sense of it.

--Kaiser--

I'm a huge McCarthy fanboy and think he can do no wrong.......he done wrong.

A lot of the scenes are painfully bad (the opening cringefest, for example) and it must have the worst dialogue that the man ever wrote....I mean every single line of dialogue I've read of his is so real and so clever, you can roll it around your tongue like a fine morsel of steak. He has such a tremendous ear for it, but this is not borne out in the film, it almost feels like it's badly translated ("Could I ask you if you have a rat in your pocket?" - Could you what?!?).

Some of the more philosophical dialogue (like the bit near the end with Fassbender on the phone) are good but this is the type of dialogue you'd read in his books but read over and over and digest. In a film you don't have the time for that so it's more bewildering than enlightening. The plot itself is lacklustre and the bit with the diamonds seems completely superfluous. The catfish scene....I have no words.

And good god, who cast Diaz? She has never been able to act but she sticks out like a sore thumb in such a stellar cast. Major disappointment but I don't regret seeing it

--Kaiser--

poundapunnet wrote: »

There's only ever been one adaptation of his work which did justice to it though* (No Country For Old Men), and that even skated a bit close to the line during some of the more talky scenes, fair play to the Coens for keeping it on the right side of pretentious. Then there was one terrible one (All The Pretty Horses), one fairly good one which lost so much of the impact of the book (The Road) and one that people have been trying to adapt since the dawn of cinema (Blood Meridian). In hindsight it mightn't have been a great idea to let this man who's very good at writing books that are hard to adapt for the screen write a feature script by himself.

*and then there's Child of God, if that ever gets any kind of distribution.

To be fair, No Country for Old Men was originally supposed to be a screenplay, it just ended up as a novel. The movie is a very faithful adaptation and as such your above criticism does not apply to this work

--Kaiser--

poundapunnet wrote: »

There's only ever been one adaptation of his work which did justice to it though* (No Country For Old Men), and that even skated a bit close to the line during some of the more talky scenes, fair play to the Coens for keeping it on the right side of pretentious. Then there was one terrible one (All The Pretty Horses), one fairly good one which lost so much of the impact of the book (The Road) and one that people have been trying to adapt since the dawn of cinema (Blood Meridian). In hindsight it mightn't have been a great idea to let this man who's very good at writing books that are hard to adapt for the screen write a feature script by himself.

*and then there's Child of God, if that ever gets any kind of distribution.

To be fair, No Country for Old Men was originally supposed to be a screenplay, it just ended up as a novel. The movie is a very faithful adaptation and as such your above criticism does not apply to this work, lus The Sunset Limited made for an incredible movie with little tweaking

poundapunnet

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

To be fair, No Country for Old Men was originally supposed to be a screenplay, it just ended up as a novel. The movie is a very faithful adaptation and as such your above criticism does not apply to this work

Eeh, doesn't it? My point is that dialogue that works on the page can easily come across badly when filmed. The screenplay for NCFOM was adapted by the Coens who seem to have a much better grasp of making McCarthy's words and ideas work on screen than either McCarthy himself or Ridley Scott. It's a faithful adaptation but novel writing and script writing can require very different skill sets. But I haven't seen The Counsellor so I'll shut up

e_e

What a bizarre movie this was. Still not sure if I loved or hated, was just in awe of its peculiarity. It was at least refreshing to watch something that's a big FU to those looking for shallow thrills and easy resolutions.

But it's like it was composed completely of cut scenarios that were considered too indulgent and obscure for his novels, sometimes interesting but also annoying and reaching for something that isn't there. The DVD-R scene was particularly ridiculous and only proves that he wasn't writing with the images in mind.

To see as great an actor as Fassbender sobbing while looking at a feckin' DVD is kinda hilarious.

cunnifferous

I have to say that I kind of liked the film. Not the best film I've ever seen but all the 1 star reviews I've read of it are definitely way too harsh imo. It's a bit disjointed, and the dialogue is quite labored but I still found it entertaining.

Warper

This film has the most ludicrous dialogue i have heard in years. Some of the lines are just laughable - "truth has no temperature" etc etc. The film itself, while mildly entertaining, is ridiculous. It kinda falls into the its so bad, its kinda fun category. Cool death at the end though.

upstairs for coffee

The dialogue aimed to be sharp. It was convoluted, with each character trying to convey their philosophy but in a really roundabout long-winded way (much like this sentence).

The story itself, I found to be quite enjoyable. Not memorable but enjoyable.

Am I right in thinking that that Diaz Ferrari scene was symbolic of how materialistic she is?

5/10

Da Shins Kelly

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

The dialogue aimed to be sharp. It was convoluted, with each character trying to convey their philosophy but in a really roundabout long-winded way (much like this sentence).

The story itself, I found to be quite enjoyable. Not memorable but enjoyable.

Am I right in thinking that that Diaz Ferrari scene was symbolic of how materialistic she is?

5/10

I thought it was meant to be a statement on how she doesn't need a man for anything.

LuckyLloyd

Look, I liked it.

It's messy and clunky and the last 10 minutes feel like a box ticking exercise of tieing up loose ends. But the performances are fun and some of the individual scenes are riveting, particularly the Fassbender / Bardem and Fassbender / Pitt scenes. I also loved the climactic phone conversation, beautiful dialogue.

To those commenting on it featuring the 'most verbose drug dealers ever', you're right. It's not realistic, but I don't believe it's intended to be. The whole thing feels more like a parable than a gritty thriller. The characters are sketches or ideas of different sorts of humans rather than the real thing. Everything is a little cartoonish and off.

I do wonder if McCarthy had his tongue in cheek for some of it mind. The foreboding symbolism (

the leopards in early scenes; the explanation of the bandito weapon; initial conversations

) is matched by later events so obviously as to be almost funny. He seems like too good a writer for that to be his best effort, new medium or not.

Scott does a good job, the detail of costume and setting are very well done and the straighforward handling of the more violent scenes really works.

I wouldn't take the whole thing too seriously and just let it wash over you. With that approach, there are more than enough elements to enjoy.

Dermighty

Rubbish movie.

brevity

Watched the first 20 minutes or so and just couldn't get into it...might try to revisit it later. I dunno about the casting and direction on this one, it seems very off.

Was looking through the new on demand releases and saw that the extended cut of The Counsellor was available so I decided to give it a go. I had planned to head out for a few beers and watch it when I got home but when torrential rain started just as I was about to leave I thought I'd check out a few minutes of the film and hope it cleared up but instead found myself transfixed by what was unfolding before my eyes.


The Counsellor is one of the most critically derided and universally hated films of the past year and appeared on far more worst of lists than it did best of and honestly I'm struggling to understand why. Cormac McCarthy's first original screenplay is one of those rare films which manages to keep you enthralled throughout even though what is occurring onscreen can best be described as gibberish nonsense.

The film is a hypnotic and mesmerizing trip that is feels like something ripped directly from The Twilight Zone through some nightmarish barren, lifeless pulpy noir tale. It brings to mind the works of Jim Thompson and shares with his work a dream like quality. The set up could not be more simple, the counsellor enters into a drug deal while dismissing the warnings of his friends and associates and when things go wrong he ends up on the losing side.

There's really not a whole lot going on here though McCarthy hints at so much more through the layered dialogue and it's obvious that this is a film written by a man in love with the English language and all her mysteries. From the very start this is not a film that offers easy answers and with scene after scene existing free of any context and having little bearing on the overall plot it feels more like some drunks random drunken observations than it does a traditional narrative. There is literally nothing here that should work let alone make a bit of sense but by stripping the narrative to the bare bones, McCarthy and Scott have taken an number of risks with a film that prefers to tell than to show. It's a brave move and while it's not entirely successful it's certainly something a little different.

Fassbender is the star here and outshines everyone else on screen. Given little to work with he manages to create a convincing descent into hell. Pitt and Bardem can do this type of material in their sleep and both prove adept at playing conniving yet likeable. Less successful are the female leads. Penelope Cruz has the thankless role of victim and it's hard to muster up much sympathy or feeling toward her. Diaz is the weak link in the film. Her femme fatale never really convinces and in her most important scene she seems complexity out of her depth delivering dialogue with all the emotion of a secretary ordering lunch. There is an argument to be made that her delivery is deliberate, as if her actions have left her an emotional vacuum but honestly it just stinks of an actress out of her depth. That said one of cinemas all time wtf? moments features her having sex with a car windscreen which is sure to haunt viewers for years.

The Counsellor hasn't so much divided audiences as had everyone gang up on it yet it's a far more satisfying film that the reviews let on. It's an absorbing thriller that repeatably defies genre conventions and features some of the most interesting and vivid characters imaginable. It's also one of those rare films that's jam packed with cameos from some of cinemas most interesting character actors meaning that even if you despise it, you're never more than a few minutes away from a "it's that guy" moment.

Robert2012

I have just finished watching The Counsellor, and immediately after I searched for a thread about it here.

It really has to up there on the list of worst movies I have ever seen..

I'm speechless really, so I will come back to this later, just wanted to mark the occasion by posting here.

Robert2012

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

It was terrible. I didn't care about any of the characters' motivations or what happened to any of them. Penelope Cruz's character seemed to serve little or no purpose other than

to be killed

. Cameron Diaz's character was mildly interesting, but not nearly developed enough, and she hammed it up to the max. Brad Pitt and Javier Bardem were probably the best in it, but even then the characters were poor enough. At times it sounded like the actors were struggling to even say the words with any kind of fluency. It just sounded ridiculous. I don't think I've ever heard more sophisticated drug dealings in all my life. One particularly laughable scene where Michael Fassbender's character is having a phone conversation with a Mexican guy sounds like something lifted from a philosophy essay.

Overall, hammy performances, clunky dialogue, a very weak plot and poor character development.


Funnily enough, I can completely imagine the movie making quite a good book, but on the screen it just doesn't work. Like with so much of McCarthy's work, the characters and dialogue and plots are better left to the imagination where they can really flourish and you can have an easier time making sense of it.

^ this

Robert2012

Deleted User wrote: »

Was looking through the new on demand releases and saw that the extended cut of The Counsellor was available so I decided to give it a go. I had planned to head out for a few beers and watch it when I got home but when torrential rain started just as I was about to leave I thought I'd check out a few minutes of the film and hope it cleared up but instead found myself transfixed by what was unfolding before my eyes.


The Counsellor is one of the most critically derided and universally hated films of the past year and appeared on far more worst of lists than it did best of and honestly I'm struggling to understand why. Cormac McCarthy's first original screenplay is one of those rare films which manages to keep you enthralled throughout even though what is occurring onscreen can best be described as gibberish nonsense.

The film is a hypnotic and mesmerizing trip that is feels like something ripped directly from The Twilight Zone through some nightmarish barren, lifeless pulpy noir tale. It brings to mind the works of Jim Thompson and shares with his work a dream like quality. The set up could not be more simple, the counsellor enters into a drug deal while dismissing the warnings of his friends and associates and when things go wrong he ends up on the losing side.

There's really not a whole lot going on here though McCarthy hints at so much more through the layered dialogue and it's obvious that this is a film written by a man in love with the English language and all her mysteries. From the very start this is not a film that offers easy answers and with scene after scene existing free of any context and having little bearing on the overall plot it feels more like some drunks random drunken observations than it does a traditional narrative. There is literally nothing here that should work let alone make a bit of sense but by stripping the narrative to the bare bones, McCarthy and Scott have taken an number of risks with a film that prefers to tell than to show. It's a brave move and while it's not entirely successful it's certainly something a little different.

Fassbender is the star here and outshines everyone else on screen. Given little to work with he manages to create a convincing descent into hell. Pitt and Bardem can do this type of material in their sleep and both prove adept at playing conniving yet likeable. Less successful are the female leads. Penelope Cruz has the thankless role of victim and it's hard to muster up much sympathy or feeling toward her. Diaz is the weak link in the film. Her femme fatale never really convinces and in her most important scene she seems complexity out of her depth delivering dialogue with all the emotion of a secretary ordering lunch. There is an argument to be made that her delivery is deliberate, as if her actions have left her an emotional vacuum but honestly it just stinks of an actress out of her depth. That said one of cinemas all time wtf? moments features her having sex with a car windscreen which is sure to haunt viewers for years.

The Counsellor hasn't so much divided audiences as had everyone gang up on it yet it's a far more satisfying film that the reviews let on. It's an absorbing thriller that repeatably defies genre conventions and features some of the most interesting and vivid characters imaginable. It's also one of those rare films that's jam packed with cameos from some of cinemas most interesting character actors meaning that even if you despise it, you're never more than a few minutes away from a "it's that guy" moment.

I really am reluctant to even comment on your excellent, balanced review of this movie, which in my opinion was sh1te, but perhaps you will forgive me as a newbie to this particular forum.

Never having seen Fassbender act before in anything other than a Guinness advertisement, I was left wondering what all the fuss about this person is. I have "12 years a slave" lined up here to watch, and perhaps my opinion will change after viewing that, but watching him in this particular movie reminded me why Irish people can't act, especially if they are trying to use American accents. But of course, Michael is German too, isn't he, so maybe it was all a bit over complicated. Nevertheless, I would say he has a potential future in Fair City, whenever the film work dries up, as inevitably it will, going by this performance.

As has already been mentioned here, Pitt and Bardem were by far the best things about this movie, albeit sleepwalking through their performances, and dare I say it, perhaps Matthew McConaughey would have been a better choice for the lead, given his new found acting ability. I won't even comment on the female "leads", other than to say that Diaz appears to be burning a bit of oil at this stage, at the tender age of 41.

GottaGetGatt

Robert2012 wrote: »

I really am reluctant to even comment on your excellent, balanced review of this movie, which in my opinion was sh1te, but perhaps you will forgive me as a newbie to this particular forum.

Never having seen Fassbender act before in anything other than a Guinness advertisement, I was left wondering what all the fuss about this person is. I have "12 years a slave" lined up here to watch, and perhaps my opinion will change after viewing that, but watching him in this particular movie reminded me why Irish people can't act, especially if they are trying to use American accents. But of course, Michael is German too, isn't he, so maybe it was all a bit over complicated. Nevertheless, I would say he has a potential future in Fair City, whenever the film work dries up, as inevitably it will, going by this performance.

As has already been mentioned here, Pitt and Bardem were by far the best things about this movie, albeit sleepwalking through their performances, and dare I say it, perhaps Matthew McConaughey would have been a better choice for the lead, given his new found acting ability. I won't even comment on the female "leads", other than to say that Diaz appears to be burning a bit of oil at this stage, at the tender age of 41.

You cant judge the ability of an Actor over one Movie,Watch 12 years a slave,Hunger and Shame.He's an amazing actor

Robert2012

GottaGetGatt wrote: »

You cant judge the ability of an Actor over one Movie,Watch 12 years a slave,Hunger and Shame.He's an amazing actor

Thanks for your advice, I thought I had acknowledged the fact that I hadn't seen this particular "Irishman" act in anything other than a beer commercial, in my previous post. See below...

Robert2012 wrote: »

Never having seen Fassbender act before in anything other than a Guinness advertisement, I was left wondering what all the fuss about this person is. I have "12 years a slave" lined up here to watch, and perhaps my opinion will change after viewing that, but watching him in this particular movie reminded me why Irish people can't act

I look forward to the Oscars.

Robert2012

GottaGetGatt wrote: »

You cant judge the ability of an Actor over one Movie,Watch 12 years a slave,Hunger and Shame.He's an amazing actor

Oh, and by the way, the title of this particular thread is " The Counsellor (Ridley Scott / Cormac McCarthy) ", not "Is Michael Fassbender a better actor in movies other than "The Counsellor ?"

Because he is embarrassingly sh**e in this one.

Robert2012

Robert2012 wrote: »

Oh, and by the way, the title of this particular thread is " The Counsellor (Ridley Scott / Cormac McCarthy) ", not "Is Michael Fassbender a better actor in movies other than "The Counsellor ?"

Because he is embarrassingly sh**e in this one.

You are in the minority in saying that he was bad in this film. One thing that pretty much every review agreed upon was that Fassbender was the best thing here. You state that Irish people can't act which is utter nonsense. Peter O'Toole, Michael Gambon, Cillian Murphy, Colin Farrell, Brendon Gleeson, Gabriel Byrne, Liam Neeson, Ciaran Hinds, Kenneth Branagh, Jamie Dornan, Aidan Turner, Andrew Scott, Ray Stevenson, Colin O'Donoghue. Richard Harris, Jason O'Mara, Aidan Gillen, Sam Neill, Liam Cunningham, Daniel Day Lewis, Maureen O’Hara, A.J. Buckley and a few dozen others shows just how wrong you are.

Robert2012

Deleted User wrote: »

You are in the minority in saying that he was bad in this film. One thing that pretty much every review agreed upon was that Fassbender was the best thing here. You state that Irish people can't act which is utter nonsense. Peter O'Toole, Michael Gambon, Cillian Murphy, Colin Farrell, Brendon Gleeson, Gabriel Byrne, Liam Neeson, Ciaran Hinds, Kenneth Branagh, Jamie Dornan, Aidan Turner, Andrew Scott, Ray Stevenson, Colin O'Donoghue. Richard Harris, Jason O'Mara, Aidan Gillen, Sam Neill, Liam Cunningham, Daniel Day Lewis, Maureen O’Hara, A.J. Buckley and a few dozen others shows just how wrong you are.

Sorry, I didn't realise minority opinions weren't welcome on this forum, I mistakenly thought it was somewhere that I could air an opinion on a movie, and/or anyone involved in said movie, in this case The Counsellor.

So pretty much every review agreed that Fassbender was the best thing about this movie? Gosh, I must be wrong.

With regard to your laughable list of "Irish" actors, a large percentage of which wouldn't thank you for being called Irish in the first place, or aren't actually Irish at all, the remaining "real" "Irish" actors that you mention are the very ones who make me cringe and go out of my way to avoid, if I happen to see their name appear on the cast-list.

Gabriel Byrne?..lmao

Andrew Scott is pretty good though

(by the way, once again I apologise for intruding on your forum with an opinion that you don't like)

Robert2012

Robert2012 wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't realise minority opinions weren't welcome on this forum, I mistakenly thought it was somewhere that I could air an opinion on a movie, and/or anyone involved in said movie, in this case The Counsellor.

So pretty much every review agreed that Fassbender was the best thing about this movie? Gosh, I must be wrong.

With regard to your laughable list of "Irish" actors, a large percentage of which wouldn't thank you for being called Irish in the first place, or aren't actually Irish at all, the remaining "real" "Irish" actors that you mention are the very ones who make me cringe and go out of my way to avoid, if I happen to see their name appear on the cast-list.

Gabriel Byrne?..lmao

Andrew Scott is pretty good though

(by the way, once again I apologise for intruding on your forum with an opinion that you don't like)

This is a site driven by discussion, if you don't want to engage in it them why bother posting? I'm all for differing opinions but you can't make a statement and then imply that everyone who doesnt agree is wrong. You seem to have a very dim view of Irish actors and while many if those I listed were born in Northern Ireland or left the country years back that were still born on this island and as such, can bbw covsidered Irish.


You can diss Gabriel Byrne all you want but the man is incrediably talented. He has a diverse filmography and like all actors there's a few duds but his performance in Millar's Crossing is one of the best.

You obviously have an issue with actors simply because of where they were born which is incrediably sad and narrow-minded.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Go home, Robert2012. You're drunk.

Dermighty

The movie was crap.

Michael fassbender is not a bad actor, this movie was crap.

Your Airbag

I watched this last week.

After my first viewing I thought wtf? but it stuck with me and kept calling me back. Thats always a good sign of any media for me, you don't quite know why like but you just do. It reveals itself to you the more you watch or think about it.

I have watched it twice since and think its a Masterpiece. Peoples difficulty comes with the fact its not your standard formulaic movie. Plus it contains lots of scenes where it felt like McCarthy felt obliged to throw them in to appeal to the pulp fiction movie going crowd, such as the between the sheets opening, but the main thread of the story and the counselors journey are classic McCarthy and given a great visual representation by Scott.

I think its almost as good as No Country for old men once you strip of all the needless "lets throw in some cool stuff" scenes such as the car sex.

I was thinking of writing up some impressions but given how disliked it is I'd be only talking to myself

Dempsey

Underwhelming film tbh. Some good scenes but not enough to save it.

The conversation between Jefe & The Counsellor was just ridiculous for me, Jefe was a mary sue character with a glorified play with matches and you'll get burnt speech for anyone that is taken in by greed. Does anyone really believe that a Mexican Cartel member could speak with such intellect when they believe that someone has stole $20m from them? Nope, they would be foaming at the mouth at a minimum!

e_e

For some reason I kinda want to see this film again. When I went to see it I was always in a state of weird amazement at it. It's almost avant-garde in how the film seems to head in a certain direction before stopping completely, as if every scene is a bizarre dead end of a plot-line. Not a completely successful film, but I was never bored.

LuckyLloyd

Dempsey wrote: »

Underwhelming film tbh. Some good scenes but not enough to save it.

The conversation between Jefe & The Counsellor was just ridiculous for me, Jefe was a mary sue character with a glorified play with matches and you'll get burnt speech for anyone that is taken in by greed. Does anyone really believe that a Mexican Cartel member could speak with such intellect when they believe that someone has stole $20m from them? Nope, they would be foaming at the mouth at a minimum!

I don't think anyone involved in making the movie really believes so either - or if they do it isn't the point anyway. This is not intended to be a gritty and realistic crime thriller. Jefe and The Counsellor aren't real people, they are rolled up ideas of real people.

Ole Rodrigo

Dempsey wrote: »

The conversation between Jefe & The Counsellor was just ridiculous for me, Jefe was a mary sue character with a glorified play with matches and you'll get burnt speech for anyone that is taken in by greed. Does anyone really believe that a Mexican Cartel member could speak with such intellect when they believe that someone has stole $20m from them? Nope, they would be foaming at the mouth at a minimum!

McCarthy's bad guy characters tend to be vehicles for a broader moral point, or allegories of an undefined power - like the Judge in Blood Meridian ( which was borrowed from Moby Dick ) - rather than rooted in real life. I find the idea of a polite, articulate and reasonable killer more unnerving than one foaming at the mouth.

Psychedelic

Strange film, but not really in a good way. Some of it was pure ridiculous like the opening scene and the

sex with the windscreen scene

. Some good individual scenes but overall it was a mess. I think it's just about worth watching just for how peculiar it is, to the film's credit at least it's trying to do something different.

Dempsey

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I don't think anyone involved in making the movie really believes so either - or if they do it isn't the point anyway. This is not intended to be a gritty and realistic crime thriller. Jefe and The Counsellor aren't real people, they are rolled up ideas of real people.

Nonsence. Alot of aspects of dealing with Mexican Cartel were shown to be gritty & realistic. Jefe was a Mary Sue.

ror_74 wrote: »

McCarthy's bad guy characters tend to be vehicles for a broader moral point, or allegories of an undefined power - like the Judge in Blood Meridian ( which was borrowed from Moby Dick ) - rather than rooted in real life. I find the idea of a polite, articulate and reasonable killer more unnerving than one foaming at the mouth.

Good to know, I'll avoid his other work.

I think you should look up how the Mexican Cartel's actually operate. Polite, articulate and reasonable are traits they dont have

Ole Rodrigo

Dempsey wrote: »

Nonsence. Alot of aspects of dealing with Mexican Cartel were shown to be gritty & realistic. Jefe was a Mary Sue.

Good to know, I'll avoid his other work.

I think you should look up how the Mexican Cartel's actually operate. Polite, articulate and reasonable are traits they dont have

Well sir, you would be doing yourself a disservice there. Aside from The Road and No Country for Old Men, Child of God looks to be an interesting adaptation at least. He writes good books and is well versed in the conflict that has plagued the US/Mexico border area for centuries, if anyone understands the cartels, and the broader culture of violence they have descended from, he does.

Playboy

Dempsey wrote: »

Nonsence. Alot of aspects of dealing with Mexican Cartel were shown to be gritty & realistic. Jefe was a Mary Sue.



Good to know, I'll avoid his other work.

I think you should look up how the Mexican Cartel's actually operate. Polite, articulate and reasonable are traits they dont have

How do you look up something like that? The cartels may be brutal especially at the lower ranks but who is to say how some of the senior (obviously intelligent) ranking members would behave in certain situations. Don't presume to know more that you actually do.

Ole Rodrigo

Also, it would a mistake to judge McCarthy based on The Counsellor. Something was lost in translation during the film making process, I think. Whether that resulted in a good or bad film is a matter of personal taste.

I've seen a number of people complain about the portrayal of the cartel boss and how he's far to intellectual and educated. It's a criticism I find ridicolous, these men run billion dollar empires and are far from idiots. They're highly intelligent individuals and its nice to see then portrayed as something other than barbaric animals. The exchange after the kidnapping is a little odd but at the same time it could be a case the by taking his fiancé the cartel are satisfied and honestly, I doubt they really believed that the counsellor was the man who ripped then off. They wanted to send him a message and they did so.

Dempsey

Playboy wrote: »

How do you look up something like that? The cartels may be brutal especially at the lower ranks but who is to say how some of the senior (obviously intelligent) ranking members would behave in certain situations. Don't presume to know more that you actually do.

How do you think they became senior players in the cartel? Attended university and submitted an application? These people would have to kill alot of people to get their authority & respect and too much looking over their shoulders to be literature experts!

Deleted User wrote: »

I've seen a number of people complain about the portrayal of the cartel boss and how he's far to intellectual and educated. It's a criticism I find ridicolous, these men run billion dollar empires and are far from idiots. They're highly intelligent individuals and its nice to see then portrayed as something other than barbaric animals. The exchange after the kidnapping is a little odd but at the same time it could be a case the by taking his fiancé the cartel are satisfied and honestly, I doubt they really believed that the counsellor was the man who ripped then off. They wanted to send him a message and they did so.

Never said they should be portrayed as idiots, you have to be barbaric to rise anywhere near to the top, especially were the Mexican Cartels are concerned.

Imagine being perceived to have stolen $20m from any of these people

http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/the-current-state-of-mexicos-many-drug-cartels

I doubt they would be on the phone talking to you about poetry.

Dempsey

Dempsey wrote: »

How do you think they became senior players in the cartel? Attended university and submitted an application? These people would have to kill alot of people to get their authority & respect and too much looking over their shoulders to be literature experts!



Never said they should be portrayed as idiots, you have to be barbaric to rise anywhere near to the top, especially were the Mexican Cartels are concerned.

Imagine being perceived to have stolen $20m from any of these people

http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/the-current-state-of-mexicos-many-drug-cartels

I doubt they would be on the phone talking to you about poetry.

Just because you're job involves taking a lot of lives doesn't mean that you can't be educated. There are plenty of blood thirst dictators throughout history who were highly educated and enjoyed the finer things in life. Cartel members can easily have attended college and graduated.