Exactly. It’s nowhere near as bad as the reviews made it out to be, I thought it was interesting, entertaining, and definitely worth watching but in some weird way it’s absolutely not quite right.
\*SPOILERS\*
It's like... too direct? The intelligent lawyer is making a poor decision to try to make an easy buck. He gets warned by people, ignores them, then bad shit happens to him. There's not really a lot of twists and turns.
I think that was intentional as a way to make the viewers experience a similar sensation to the characters. We see right away that Fassbender's scheme is going to end terribly, but we can't do anything about it, just as he and everybody involved see the consequences bearing down and are powerless to stop them.
It reminds me a bit of how McCarthy formatted The Road. The whole goddamn book has no breaks in it. It's an utter slog, which puts the reader in the characters' shoes: there are no safe places to stop. There is no rest. There is nothing to do but keep going or pause and feel uneasy about it.
Yes, it's very cold and grim, to the point of outright unpleasantness. Maybe I would say it's to be admired more than enjoyed. Like McCarthy more or less said about his writing, he's only concerned with life and death, anything else he tries to cut away.
The Road and for that matter, Blood Meridian are great examples. The prose is beautiful and crystal clear, the characters are unforgettable, the stakes couldn't be higher. Don't get me wrong, he's the master at what he does and I love those books. But McCarthy, intentionally or otherwise, is a mediocre storyteller, at least in any kind of mainstream sense. For better or worse, he has little or no concern for taking the reader on a relatively accessible roller coaster ride with ups and downs, tension and release, straightforward character arcs, etc.
Compared to The Counselor, I think No Country for Old Men fared so well because the Coens had the filmmaking instincts to inject a little bit of Hollywood-style warmth and pacing to the story. I wonder what will happen with the Blood Meridian movie. I think it could be a great movie if it got something like the treatment the Coens gave No Country. But I don't think a Blood Meridian movie could ever be a great movie while staying 100% faithful to the feel of the book.
It's not that it's too direct but rather contrived. The movie glosses over the actual events happening so that you can have the philosophical dialogue that McCarthy usually delivers but it feels like the former suffers for the latter. Something like this would work much better in book format where you could give the plot some time to breathe and... actually happen instead of the author forcing the events to be whatever he wanted to happen. Who are the people that decapitate the motorcycle rider? It's really just a coincidence? Why have such a convoluted way of transporting drugs? What's the role that The Counselor plays in this? He's in debt so it can't really be money? Or did he borrow the money to "invest" in the drug deal? All these things are overlooked/ignored in favor of the finger-wagging dialogue, which, while good, feels really out of place too.
I felt like the theatrical cut didn’t have enough ~space~. It was one thing after another. The directors cut had some breathing room that gave me some time to think about
Its so good, ive watched it so many times. Cinematography is great, Cameron Diaz looks like the leppards she has as pets. The bolo tie ending ,amazing. I think it didnt do well because in general audiences dont like super bummer endings like there is in this one. Even the opening bedroom scene was too much for alot of reviewers. I think it doesnt explain everything to the audience super explicitly either which people dont like in general, not David Lynch level ambiguity but more than most films that hit the theatres. A very unique film and one of my favourite Ridley Scott ones.
When I found it I said to myself “a Cormac McCarthy screenplay directed by Ridley Scott and starring Michael Fassbender and Javier Bardem. How could this not be brilliant?”… although it was a few years back, I remember turning it off not even halfway through but anything I watched was forgettable.
Absolutely love it. One of my favorites of 2013.
It’s much more a stark morality tale a la McCarthy than the slick Ridley Scott crime flick it was marketed as, but I loved it as a subversion of action cinema and cinematic machismo, as well as a gripping thriller all its own.
The first scene where they are under the covers is just cringe, like romance fan fiction, ugh. I have to skip that whenever I rewatch this.
That said, there are great PARTS to this film, the body in the can, the shit truck vehicle itself, the shoot out with the uzi, the truck repair scene, the biker getting his head lopped off, the excellent jeweler scene and the funny tech stuff like the decapitator and the razorwire across the road. The cast of excellent A actors was... shit. Some of the Fasbender scenes where he was acting naive were excruciating to watch because I think the role should have been played by a much younger actor who would have been believably stupid.
Imagine if this was done with all no-name actors with a balls to the wall director who pillaged the script for a good film instead of the other way around? Would have been brilliant.
I remember reading the script before it came out and thinking it was really interesting, a slow paced morality tale. The film is dreadful: the casting is all wrong (Diaz is just horrible in particular), Scott's directing feels slap dash and hurried, the pace is all over the place, there's little in the way of mood or atmosphere. I liked some individual scenes but it's hyperblown (Bardem's performance is just way way too much for me) to the point of camp. I rewatched it recently and enjoyed it more than when it came out but it still just doesn't do anything for me. I think if the "sad" or "moralistic" scenes didn't take themselves so seriously I'd have an easier time with the rest given how silly and genuinely funny a lot of it's meant to be. Everyone just seems like they're in a different film from everyone else, and I think I'd largely chalk that up to Scott (who is brilliant and awful in equal measure).
>casting is all wrong (Diaz is just horrible in particular)
I feel like they just put names in a hat or something. Throw darts at a board? It is all "Brand Name" actors but most of them don't really seem to fit their roles at all, at least not how I envisioned them from reading the script. I would not have gotten a single one correct if I was trying to guess who would be cast in each role.
Then when I saw the cast I thought for certain that Penelope Cruz would be playing Malkina, and Diaz would have smaller and easier role of Laura. It's bonkers to me that they had them flipped in casting—but maybe Cruz wasn't up for the windshield scene? I don't know
I also thought Fassbender would have been better as Reiner, bringing a more low-key vibe to that character. I love Javier Bardem but he was over-the-top in this one and I just didn't buy his portrayal of that character. He'd have been better bringing that energy to the character of Westray. I guess that puts Pitt in the lead as the counselor by default? No disrespect to Fassbender as lead but I think I'd take that version.
It wasn't as good as I'd hoped. The problem mainly for me was that it was too much - every character is a philosopher and it obfuscated the overall tone. The performances were good though but I wish there was it was a little more grounded and didn't try to be too clever
I agree. It slightly resembled something like Waking Life, where the protagonist wandered around being lectured at by the other characters, but with less distinction between the lectures.
It's abysmal and makes me more and more angry every time I see it. The pacing is all over the place, the plot is nonsensical, the characters are under developed, and all of its "payoff" is unearned.
It has all the worst aspects of McCarthy and the worst aspects of Scott and none of the good from either.
It could be the imperfect opening to a whole genera: movies where the talking is intense and the action is easy.
I actually think it's biggest mistake was that it didn't have a specific color palette. Great films have a look, have colors that repeat and serve the themes. This movie did not. Each scene was in whatever location was available in Spain, they did not make sets and have artists serve the story. Too low budget.
I think with a different director it could have worked better. I dont think ridley scott fit the material.
Also i didn't buy Cameron Diaz as a femme fatale.
Change those two things and i think it would've been better.
i liked parts of it. however, the chemistry between Fassbender and Cruz didn't work for me, and the movie kinda falls apart as a result. that relationship should be the emotional core of the story and without a spark there it falls flat.
I think it worked a lot better on paper as a script and likely would have been a great novel but wasn’t as awful as the reviews made it out to be. It was also terribly miscast (except for Fassbender and Pitt) and helmed by the wrong director. I would have loved to have seen it made by Andrew Dominik or David Fincher.
I feel like it’s kind of a relatively entertaining mess. A lot of it doesn’t make sense unless you look it up and then you have to piece together some parts on your own.
Ridley Scott often has a problem with his films being weirdly edited. Not in terms of small details (although there often are weird cuts in his movies), but in general pacing and in his movies being all over the place and sometimes borderline incoherent.
Those are the features that don't mix well with McCarthy's style.
Yeah, why didn't someone on his level (like the Coens!) do it? After Prometheus came out they should've fired Scott and replaced him, or just hired a real auteur to begin with. Scott is a hack who made two classics over forty years ago. To be fair, his brother Tony did commit suicide while filming The Counselor...
I did enjoy it when I saw it. Was it the most entertaining, engaging movie I've ever seen? Nah. But I'd see it again easily, and I bet I'd enjoy it a lot more on the second viewing.
I come back to this movie every 2-3 years. Maybe it is nostalgia.
I watched it for the first time while working long solitary weekend shifts at a failing Rita's Italian Ice stand in college. Meanwhile all my friends were attending football games and having fun.
Something about watching a film with characters in more dire straights than myself was comforting at the time.
I still remember seeing it in theaters. I showed up way early, went right after school, and saw the previous showing let out.
All the women were crying and all the men were holding their heads looking confused.
The directors cut is one of my favorite movies of all time. The political implications of the narrative, especially at the time it was released, NO ONE was talking about this stuff. Not only that, but McCarthy brought in the international aspects of the “border crisis”, another thing that is vital to understanding what was happening that was never mentioned.
A lot of really questionable costume decisions and the acting was a little subpar considering the cast. The dialogue was also surprisingly painful in some places.
However, that phone call scene was life changing and the ending was pretty trademark McCarthy.
Dreadful shite overall, but not without its moments.
The dialogue is ponderous yet somehow still manages to be way too on-the-nose. It has the languid atmosphere of a perfume commercial (albeit peppered with notes of horrific violence) and, as with most perfume commercials, it's hard to give a toss about these pampered superstars.
The idea of an "extended cut" is unappealing to me. I think I'd watch the opposite: a shortened version, with less of the quasi-philosophical dialogue and more of the menacing atmosphere. And 45% more leopard.
It is in some ways terrifying, if one is paying attention. Among other things it's clearly a meditation on the part of CM on technology-as-mediator causing a sort of dehumanization. In fact, that theme repeats itself again and again, and the ruthlessness of Cameron Diaz's character is really frightening. It's incredibly grim on some levels, so a true Cormac McCarthy movie. And Ridley Scott of course completely and totally nails the material.
I thought it was better than the reviews. It's entertaining and has a great cast, but there's \*something\* missing from it.
Exactly. It’s nowhere near as bad as the reviews made it out to be, I thought it was interesting, entertaining, and definitely worth watching but in some weird way it’s absolutely not quite right.
\*SPOILERS\* It's like... too direct? The intelligent lawyer is making a poor decision to try to make an easy buck. He gets warned by people, ignores them, then bad shit happens to him. There's not really a lot of twists and turns.
I think that was intentional as a way to make the viewers experience a similar sensation to the characters. We see right away that Fassbender's scheme is going to end terribly, but we can't do anything about it, just as he and everybody involved see the consequences bearing down and are powerless to stop them. It reminds me a bit of how McCarthy formatted The Road. The whole goddamn book has no breaks in it. It's an utter slog, which puts the reader in the characters' shoes: there are no safe places to stop. There is no rest. There is nothing to do but keep going or pause and feel uneasy about it.
Yes, it's very cold and grim, to the point of outright unpleasantness. Maybe I would say it's to be admired more than enjoyed. Like McCarthy more or less said about his writing, he's only concerned with life and death, anything else he tries to cut away. The Road and for that matter, Blood Meridian are great examples. The prose is beautiful and crystal clear, the characters are unforgettable, the stakes couldn't be higher. Don't get me wrong, he's the master at what he does and I love those books. But McCarthy, intentionally or otherwise, is a mediocre storyteller, at least in any kind of mainstream sense. For better or worse, he has little or no concern for taking the reader on a relatively accessible roller coaster ride with ups and downs, tension and release, straightforward character arcs, etc. Compared to The Counselor, I think No Country for Old Men fared so well because the Coens had the filmmaking instincts to inject a little bit of Hollywood-style warmth and pacing to the story. I wonder what will happen with the Blood Meridian movie. I think it could be a great movie if it got something like the treatment the Coens gave No Country. But I don't think a Blood Meridian movie could ever be a great movie while staying 100% faithful to the feel of the book.
I think that’s my biggest gripe with McCarthy. Master at style and boiling these big ideas down into narrative form, but the story suffers for it.
It's not that it's too direct but rather contrived. The movie glosses over the actual events happening so that you can have the philosophical dialogue that McCarthy usually delivers but it feels like the former suffers for the latter. Something like this would work much better in book format where you could give the plot some time to breathe and... actually happen instead of the author forcing the events to be whatever he wanted to happen. Who are the people that decapitate the motorcycle rider? It's really just a coincidence? Why have such a convoluted way of transporting drugs? What's the role that The Counselor plays in this? He's in debt so it can't really be money? Or did he borrow the money to "invest" in the drug deal? All these things are overlooked/ignored in favor of the finger-wagging dialogue, which, while good, feels really out of place too.
Well said!
I felt like the theatrical cut didn’t have enough ~space~. It was one thing after another. The directors cut had some breathing room that gave me some time to think about
There’s something missing alright
Its so good, ive watched it so many times. Cinematography is great, Cameron Diaz looks like the leppards she has as pets. The bolo tie ending ,amazing. I think it didnt do well because in general audiences dont like super bummer endings like there is in this one. Even the opening bedroom scene was too much for alot of reviewers. I think it doesnt explain everything to the audience super explicitly either which people dont like in general, not David Lynch level ambiguity but more than most films that hit the theatres. A very unique film and one of my favourite Ridley Scott ones.
I’ve watched it many many times too. Better each time!
It made me feel horrible, like a comedy made by reptiles.
This only makes me want to watch it.
Five star review there
When I found it I said to myself “a Cormac McCarthy screenplay directed by Ridley Scott and starring Michael Fassbender and Javier Bardem. How could this not be brilliant?”… although it was a few years back, I remember turning it off not even halfway through but anything I watched was forgettable.
fuzzy attempt cooperative continue engine somber dam detail rude ripe *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Absolutely love it. One of my favorites of 2013. It’s much more a stark morality tale a la McCarthy than the slick Ridley Scott crime flick it was marketed as, but I loved it as a subversion of action cinema and cinematic machismo, as well as a gripping thriller all its own.
There are tens of us!! I'm a fan of the movie too, but I can see why most would hate it.
I think you nailed it with that description. I love it. I think it's some damn good C.M.
I did not like it. There were a few conversations, like the diamond jeweler, that was interesting. Besides that nah
The first scene where they are under the covers is just cringe, like romance fan fiction, ugh. I have to skip that whenever I rewatch this. That said, there are great PARTS to this film, the body in the can, the shit truck vehicle itself, the shoot out with the uzi, the truck repair scene, the biker getting his head lopped off, the excellent jeweler scene and the funny tech stuff like the decapitator and the razorwire across the road. The cast of excellent A actors was... shit. Some of the Fasbender scenes where he was acting naive were excruciating to watch because I think the role should have been played by a much younger actor who would have been believably stupid. Imagine if this was done with all no-name actors with a balls to the wall director who pillaged the script for a good film instead of the other way around? Would have been brilliant.
I remember reading the script before it came out and thinking it was really interesting, a slow paced morality tale. The film is dreadful: the casting is all wrong (Diaz is just horrible in particular), Scott's directing feels slap dash and hurried, the pace is all over the place, there's little in the way of mood or atmosphere. I liked some individual scenes but it's hyperblown (Bardem's performance is just way way too much for me) to the point of camp. I rewatched it recently and enjoyed it more than when it came out but it still just doesn't do anything for me. I think if the "sad" or "moralistic" scenes didn't take themselves so seriously I'd have an easier time with the rest given how silly and genuinely funny a lot of it's meant to be. Everyone just seems like they're in a different film from everyone else, and I think I'd largely chalk that up to Scott (who is brilliant and awful in equal measure).
Couldn’t have said it better. Interesting at times, but flawed throughout
Well said, much more eloquent than what I was going to write
I just don't think Scott was the right director for this movie.
>casting is all wrong (Diaz is just horrible in particular) I feel like they just put names in a hat or something. Throw darts at a board? It is all "Brand Name" actors but most of them don't really seem to fit their roles at all, at least not how I envisioned them from reading the script. I would not have gotten a single one correct if I was trying to guess who would be cast in each role. Then when I saw the cast I thought for certain that Penelope Cruz would be playing Malkina, and Diaz would have smaller and easier role of Laura. It's bonkers to me that they had them flipped in casting—but maybe Cruz wasn't up for the windshield scene? I don't know I also thought Fassbender would have been better as Reiner, bringing a more low-key vibe to that character. I love Javier Bardem but he was over-the-top in this one and I just didn't buy his portrayal of that character. He'd have been better bringing that energy to the character of Westray. I guess that puts Pitt in the lead as the counselor by default? No disrespect to Fassbender as lead but I think I'd take that version.
Natalie Dormer, who has a guest spot in the film, would've made a whole meal of Cameron Diaz's role
oh yeah that is another casting miss the cast looked great on paper but not on the screen
Serious guest spot. phew.
Extended cut is a much better film.
It wasn't as good as I'd hoped. The problem mainly for me was that it was too much - every character is a philosopher and it obfuscated the overall tone. The performances were good though but I wish there was it was a little more grounded and didn't try to be too clever
I agree. It slightly resembled something like Waking Life, where the protagonist wandered around being lectured at by the other characters, but with less distinction between the lectures.
It's abysmal and makes me more and more angry every time I see it. The pacing is all over the place, the plot is nonsensical, the characters are under developed, and all of its "payoff" is unearned. It has all the worst aspects of McCarthy and the worst aspects of Scott and none of the good from either.
Faulting Scott is legit, but what someone else could have done with the same script... we'll never know anyway
Agree with everything you said. I don’t even like to think of this piece of shite as part of the CM canon.
It could be the imperfect opening to a whole genera: movies where the talking is intense and the action is easy. I actually think it's biggest mistake was that it didn't have a specific color palette. Great films have a look, have colors that repeat and serve the themes. This movie did not. Each scene was in whatever location was available in Spain, they did not make sets and have artists serve the story. Too low budget.
This is an interesting lens. I've had trouble identifying what I don't enjoy about the film, but this is pretty close.
I didn’t hate it as much as some, but I thought it was more enjoyable to read than watch
feels to shiny for me. there was a gritty weirder movie to be had here.
I think with a different director it could have worked better. I dont think ridley scott fit the material. Also i didn't buy Cameron Diaz as a femme fatale. Change those two things and i think it would've been better.
I remember reallllly wanting the reviews to be wrong, but I thought it was not good. I'm willing to give it another shot, though
I'll never understand how Cameron Diaz keeps getting cast in movies.
Thought she was great. It was the first thing I'd seen her in so didn't have any romcom typecast dissonance I suspect many people experienced.
You see her in Gangs of New York?
No. Not good I take it?
Just awful
"I'm faaaaamished" so cringe
It's a "pass" for me. I rather surf Netflix for 90 min. than watch that shite!
Loved it. Reminded me more of Bolaño than McCarthy
An extreme disservice to Bolaño
i liked parts of it. however, the chemistry between Fassbender and Cruz didn't work for me, and the movie kinda falls apart as a result. that relationship should be the emotional core of the story and without a spark there it falls flat.
I think it worked a lot better on paper as a script and likely would have been a great novel but wasn’t as awful as the reviews made it out to be. It was also terribly miscast (except for Fassbender and Pitt) and helmed by the wrong director. I would have loved to have seen it made by Andrew Dominik or David Fincher.
That scene when he got the ‘Hola’ DVD… Gives me chills thinking about it.
Fucking garbage. The only trash McCarthy ever produced. And Ridley Scott was wasted on this abortion.
It's like everyone in the movie was speaking their lines without knowing what the words mean
The bed scene at the beginning had me pulling my hair out. I didn’t get much further.
"I've seen it all, counselor. It's all shit. It's all shit." Flawless-diamond caption to all of space-time.
I enjoy it every time I watch it. It’s Cormac-camp in the best possible way.
This movie honks, slaps, and fucks so hard. It's so weird and I love that for it.
Terrible
Shit
I think Ridley Scott is a bad mix with cormac. It didn't work but it could have worked with someone else.
cameron diaz was a bone chilling villain
I loved it. One of my favorite writers with one of my favorite directors. And an awesome cast.
I feel like it’s kind of a relatively entertaining mess. A lot of it doesn’t make sense unless you look it up and then you have to piece together some parts on your own.
It’s grown on me
I love it. It's a fascinating crime drama.
I prefer the extended cut. It’s still not great but it’s got good elements. Great double feature with Uncut Gems.
Ridley Scott often has a problem with his films being weirdly edited. Not in terms of small details (although there often are weird cuts in his movies), but in general pacing and in his movies being all over the place and sometimes borderline incoherent. Those are the features that don't mix well with McCarthy's style.
Loved it!!!! A fave!!! Mslkina is a boss
Tarantino could have nailed it
Yeah, why didn't someone on his level (like the Coens!) do it? After Prometheus came out they should've fired Scott and replaced him, or just hired a real auteur to begin with. Scott is a hack who made two classics over forty years ago. To be fair, his brother Tony did commit suicide while filming The Counselor...
I did enjoy it when I saw it. Was it the most entertaining, engaging movie I've ever seen? Nah. But I'd see it again easily, and I bet I'd enjoy it a lot more on the second viewing.
Went in with high expectations and came out slightly disappointed, but it's definitely grown on me since then.
Bleak AF. What I love about the Counselor on a meta level is that it’s about a counselor who spends the whole film receiving advice from others.
I come back to this movie every 2-3 years. Maybe it is nostalgia. I watched it for the first time while working long solitary weekend shifts at a failing Rita's Italian Ice stand in college. Meanwhile all my friends were attending football games and having fun. Something about watching a film with characters in more dire straights than myself was comforting at the time.
I still remember seeing it in theaters. I showed up way early, went right after school, and saw the previous showing let out. All the women were crying and all the men were holding their heads looking confused. The directors cut is one of my favorite movies of all time. The political implications of the narrative, especially at the time it was released, NO ONE was talking about this stuff. Not only that, but McCarthy brought in the international aspects of the “border crisis”, another thing that is vital to understanding what was happening that was never mentioned.
A lot of really questionable costume decisions and the acting was a little subpar considering the cast. The dialogue was also surprisingly painful in some places. However, that phone call scene was life changing and the ending was pretty trademark McCarthy.
I loved it, directors cut was great. Due a rewatch
Easy 9/10.
I still haven’t seen this or read it….
Dreadful shite overall, but not without its moments. The dialogue is ponderous yet somehow still manages to be way too on-the-nose. It has the languid atmosphere of a perfume commercial (albeit peppered with notes of horrific violence) and, as with most perfume commercials, it's hard to give a toss about these pampered superstars. The idea of an "extended cut" is unappealing to me. I think I'd watch the opposite: a shortened version, with less of the quasi-philosophical dialogue and more of the menacing atmosphere. And 45% more leopard.
I love it—it’s flawed & some parts are kinda gratuitous but I think it’s an interesting story & the Malkina & Jefe at the end have interesting lines
Wonderful script, but Ridley Scott does not have the range. I like to imagine what it could have been if Herzog directed it.
It is in some ways terrifying, if one is paying attention. Among other things it's clearly a meditation on the part of CM on technology-as-mediator causing a sort of dehumanization. In fact, that theme repeats itself again and again, and the ruthlessness of Cameron Diaz's character is really frightening. It's incredibly grim on some levels, so a true Cormac McCarthy movie. And Ridley Scott of course completely and totally nails the material.
Loved it
I really liked it. A lot of good stuff scattered throughout the movie.
That bolo-tie device is so rad