Did anyone get to watch The Counselor yet? I plan to go this week. Richard suggested a few and this is the one that fell closest to his week so there you have it. Go to the theatre and return with feedback. I know I can't wait.
I really want to see this, but I've heard so many awful things about it, and the trailer didn't really repel or attract me. I'm at an impasse. Want somebody to see it to tell me if it really does suck or not! I may just take the chance on it and go. I need to see something for my film class anyway, and I've still never read Ender's Game. I'm always loath to see the film first.
Oooohhhh Lord. Despite all the miserable reviews, a gave it a watch. It's bad to the core but not in the ways many people will tell you. My review, up on Sound's fantastic Pantheon Mag, tells the whole story:
Nice writeup, I missed that. Damn. I guess that means it's all true.
SON OF A BITCH. I don't know what to go see now. Once upon a time I might have gone in and snuck a flask in with me, just for the terribleness, to witness the spectacle. Sadly, even that solace is removed from me now, and I don't have the spare cabbage to make it worthwhile. You guys will have to enjoy this one without me. At least until DVD.
It's not a bad movie, but lots of people don't like it. I think expectations were based on prior McCarthy-based films. I won't argue that it's a masterpiece, but I found it more interesting than many current flims.
It starts kind of slow and it never really "picks up" in the standard movie sense. The action moves along inevitably, which is not how one "ratchets up the tension" or whatever. It's not a typical crime film. It's not a typical film of any sort. You don't root for anybody, nor does it seem you're supposed to or expected to by the filmmaker. Nor does it feel like you're meant to sit in judgment of them. You're an observer. If you're not okay with that, if you want to be emotionally "swept up", then maybe don't watch the film.
People have compared it to 'mumblecore' in a bad way, as though it were accidental. Maybe it wasn't, maybe it was. I haven't heard Scott say anything about what he was going for. Why did he leave in a flub? I don't know. Why do other filmmakers leave in flubs? Five monster actors in a $25mil budget flick. It probably was done quickly, but did Scott not know what he was doing? How would I know?
I do think I've liked his last few more than most people. Maybe I'm just on a different page.
Even with the bad reviews, this movie looks cool.
@JYH: Maybe I'm more of a traditionalist when it comes to filmmaking but even if a movie has "nobody to root for" or gives the audience a fly on the wall perspective, you still have to care about something. Even a movie filled with evil, asshole people has to have some hook for you to dedicate two hours to watching it.
For me, The Counselor lacked visual flair, had a rambling, theme smacking script, hollow characters and the worst female performance of the year, so far. Maybe the review was a little harsher than normal because I was really excited for it! Both Scott and McCarthy are great at what they do but this combination just fell flat on every conceivable level.
Again, just my opinion, and while I wouldn't recommend spending money to see it, I'd say give it a watch on DVD simply to get in on the conversation about it!
haven't gotten out to see it yet, but planning on this week.
@BT --- "Care" is hard to pin down. I think I get what you're saying, but I also think there's at least as much to care about in the film as there is in basically any other film.
I'm not a traditionalist.
A movie does not have to "hook" you. 2001 has no hook. It has a computer with a red eye that talks and goes awry. That, in itself, is no more of a "hook" than the plot to this film. (Maybe you don't like 2001 but I'm using it.) So either any plot is a "hook," or not all films must have "hooks."
All I took from this film was catfish.
@JYH - I think you're misinterpreting my term hook, which I'll admit, is probably not being used properly. I'm not referring to some wacky plot feint or set piece action sequence to keep an audience interested. I'm talking about keeping an audience interested by telling an effective story. In different types of films, this is done differently but the goal is the same.
As for 2001, the film is full of suspense and intrigue. The patient camera work, the ballet of the visuals, one of the best villains ever put to screen, etc. In my opinion, The Counselor had none of that whatsoever. If you dug it, awesome! I just don't want you to think I'm an action hungry hack who has to be dazzled by gun battles to like a movie. The other McCarthy adaptations were great. No Country For Old Men is one my favorite films of the last 10 years. The Counselor just didn't work for me.
@BT --- NCfOM was great. I thought The Road was far more boring than The Counselor. I haven't seen All the Pretty Horses.
I think we all know judgments of a piece of art are relative. In talking about "hooks", I'm not trying to call you a thoughtless spectacle-seeker or anything. I'm simply trying to get at what the actual differences are between a slow film you like vs a slow film you don't like. You point out the visuals in 2001, and I agree they are excellent. (Which goes along with my point that films do not require "hooks" or even "plots" to be interesting.) I won't say it's up to Kubrck-level standards, but I disagree that the camera work in The Couselor was bad. The conversations were pretty straightforward, but I thought the action was well-done. By "action" I mean to include everything from the actual fights to scene like the one in which the guy sets up the highway trap-line.
Do you like Eraserhead? It barely has a plot. (If I watched it again, I might even say it has no real plot. It's been a while.) Does it tell an "effective story?" Hardly a story at all, yet it is interesting to me, yet lots of people would not find it so. I think The Counselor (along with Only God Forgives) are in a sort of uncanny valley between "normal" genre flicks and art films. (OGF being a little further back up the slope towards the art side.)
[I just reread that. Sloppy.]
All The Pretty Horses was actually pretty good. Not anymore boring than the book. It was dark and sad and it captured the book really well. The Road failed because of the atmosphere of the movie. Everything was too pretty and Hollywood-y, they didn't capture the burned up Earth that was in the book. The whole movie had this bluish color to it. But yeah. AtPH was good.
@JYH: I actually agree in 2001 isn't Kubrick's best work. Groundbreaking to be sure but it's a bit bloated in the runtime and pacing. Clockwork Orange As far as Eraserhead goes, it's one of those I respect more than enjoy for alot of the reasons you put forward. I'm not a huge David Lynch fan but I respect the hell out of him as a director and an artist. He does some interesting work, but he's not a director I "enjoy".
The line between interesting and enjoy is a really good distinction. Maybe my expectations of The Counselor didn't allow me to really enjoy it and who knows, it may be one of those films I see 10 years from now and find it more interesting than I did. Just didn't work for me in my screening!
Oh and I didn't see Only God Forgives but I'm familiar with Refn's other work and I'm again not the biggest fan, including Drive. He's a phenomenal technical filmmaker but his story telling and characters never connect with me. I'll admit, I'm a story guy and I like filmmakers who can make me feel something, whether it's joy, regret, anger or hatred. When a movie doesn't do that, it can still be interesting from a technical perspective but it's usually not something I would go back to. There are exceptions to this but that's just how I'm wired as a film fan!
@BT --- Nothing wrong with preferring a traditional story.
I see The Counselor as being not wholly out of line with traditional storytelling, but it is atypical. Basically, the entire film is devoted to the denouement of a situation the audience isn't really privy to. It's either a brave attempt, or a big ol' fuck-it-why-not. And while I can platonically understand why people find it unfulfilling, I enjoyed it for its unconventional approach. It's like watching a mushroom cloud in slow-mo.
Only God Forgives was pretty and it had a demented charm to it but yes, the story was lacking. That's a lot coming from me because i usually don't care too much about plot.
