refocusedmedia
Veteran
Latest from Ridley Scott, featuring an excellent cast.
The Counselor
- Thread starter refocusedmedia
- Start date
Allan Black
Veteran
Just saw it with a packed out theatre with 90% females to see Javier Bardem, presumably.
But they were just as perplexed as my wife and I were, 15 mins in, she asked me, 'what's it about?' Right, a few explanation/reshoots at the opening
to provide clearer clues for the plot would have amassed better ratings.
Ridley Scott shines as he helms with a pro supporting crew and the cast certainly earns their fee, but maybe the producers got carried away trying to fathom Cameron Diaz accent ... >>> http://gulfnews.com/arts-entertainm...nded-like-rihanna-on-the-counsellor-1.1252973
I enjoyed it from the production point of view, but most of the audience buzz after the credits didn't seem to notice it.
Cheers.
But they were just as perplexed as my wife and I were, 15 mins in, she asked me, 'what's it about?' Right, a few explanation/reshoots at the opening
to provide clearer clues for the plot would have amassed better ratings.
Ridley Scott shines as he helms with a pro supporting crew and the cast certainly earns their fee, but maybe the producers got carried away trying to fathom Cameron Diaz accent ... >>> http://gulfnews.com/arts-entertainm...nded-like-rihanna-on-the-counsellor-1.1252973
I enjoyed it from the production point of view, but most of the audience buzz after the credits didn't seem to notice it.
Cheers.
Last edited:
Eric Boellner
Well-known member
I didn't really have any trouble understanding it. The script was harder to follow, actually - McCarthy's wordplay usually is. But while I enjoyed it, and certainly loved seeing some of my favorite actors working together, along with McCarthy and Scott, I did feel at the end that it was all a little vainglorious. The story felt told for the sake of the telling, moreso than because there was something to be said of it, which is the exact opposite of McCarthy's better outings, like NCFOM and The Road. Taken as a sort of pulp narrative, the story certainly works, and its payoffs are satisfying. I think that's why I was still able to enjoy the film - along with some beautiful work from Wolski.
The most surprising thing here, I thought, was having read about 30 pages of the script before seeing the movie (only didn't finish cause I got caught up in Battlefield 4, heheh), it's interesting that Scott remained about 96% faithful in translating the script to the screen. There was one brief scene cut that I wished wasn't, because it had a brilliantly Tarantino-esque monologue about eating dog food, and a couple lines were dropped or tweaked in any given scene. The only reason this is surprising, though, is because of how badly Scott has f--ked up his last couple movies by abandoning the script that brought everyone together on those projects in the first place (ALIEN: Engineers became Prometheus, and Nottingham, one of the best received scripts in H-wood at the time, became the generic (if still acutely entertaining) Robin Hood).
SPOILERS!!!
The set-up and payoff of the bolito was absolutely perfect, and a really good example of how set-ups and payoffs should work in a film: set it up early, distract for 60 minutes, then come back with an abrupt, but inevitable in hindsight, payoff. Thinking about it, a lesser writer would have had the character who set up the bolito (Bardem) also be the one who falls to it, or maybe have the main character fall to it, or have the set-up character use it inevitably. But the way it works here, Bardem tells Fassbender about it, and then Diaz uses it (which further pays off the way that her relationship with Bardem works in the film - her character is like a parasite that takes everything from him and leaves him dry) on Pitt, illustrating the idea that this whole film kind of revolves around, which is that when you deal with the devil (cartel), nobody gets out clean.
In hindsight, I feel like if I watch this film again, or finish reading the script, I'll probably get even more out of it. It seems kind of obvious on first viewing, but as I was deconstructing it for this post, I feel like there was some subtlety to it that I missed the first time around.
The most surprising thing here, I thought, was having read about 30 pages of the script before seeing the movie (only didn't finish cause I got caught up in Battlefield 4, heheh), it's interesting that Scott remained about 96% faithful in translating the script to the screen. There was one brief scene cut that I wished wasn't, because it had a brilliantly Tarantino-esque monologue about eating dog food, and a couple lines were dropped or tweaked in any given scene. The only reason this is surprising, though, is because of how badly Scott has f--ked up his last couple movies by abandoning the script that brought everyone together on those projects in the first place (ALIEN: Engineers became Prometheus, and Nottingham, one of the best received scripts in H-wood at the time, became the generic (if still acutely entertaining) Robin Hood).
SPOILERS!!!
The set-up and payoff of the bolito was absolutely perfect, and a really good example of how set-ups and payoffs should work in a film: set it up early, distract for 60 minutes, then come back with an abrupt, but inevitable in hindsight, payoff. Thinking about it, a lesser writer would have had the character who set up the bolito (Bardem) also be the one who falls to it, or maybe have the main character fall to it, or have the set-up character use it inevitably. But the way it works here, Bardem tells Fassbender about it, and then Diaz uses it (which further pays off the way that her relationship with Bardem works in the film - her character is like a parasite that takes everything from him and leaves him dry) on Pitt, illustrating the idea that this whole film kind of revolves around, which is that when you deal with the devil (cartel), nobody gets out clean.
In hindsight, I feel like if I watch this film again, or finish reading the script, I'll probably get even more out of it. It seems kind of obvious on first viewing, but as I was deconstructing it for this post, I feel like there was some subtlety to it that I missed the first time around.
Allan Black
Veteran
If you liked 'No Country for Old Men' then you'll like this one. It has the same degree of nightmarish violence, but beautifully made.
For me it has some inconsistencies like, how did a decrepid night cart with Arizona plates driven by 2 Mexicans, and 625 kilos sealed in the drums,
make it all the way to Chicago without being stopped. (By the looks of it, the fuzz could smell it coming)
Eric said: In hindsight, I feel like if I watch this film again, I'll probably get even more out of it. I feel like there was some subtlety to it that I missed the first time around.
Yeah, I agree there's many subtleties.
Here's another film that ended without finalising the story, it looks like they're hoping for enough ratings to start another series.
Cheers.
Last edited:
lightstrum
Well-known member
Terrible vanity production for all involved. Competence at your craft does not in this case equal interesting results. Preaching should be left to Sunday morning Jesus is Lord guys.
Last edited:
Allan Black
Veteran
Here's an insight how Sir Ridley Scott works .. >>>
Cheers.
Cheers.
Allan Black
Veteran
One thing I did learn from this, if you do any work for the cartel, get paid on a daily basis.
Cheers.
Cheers.