MovieChat Forums > The Counselor (2013) Discussion > Why the hate?

Why the hate?

posted 9 years ago by stonekeeper_ever
15 replies | jump to latest

I read the critics before watching The counselor and my expectations were low, and I have to say I do not agree with the bashing comments on this movie. Of course it's no Smoking Aces or no Running Scared, but not so far behind. I liked the general ambiance of the movie, contrary to Killing them Softly. Cameron was not as bad as some people claim. Fassbender showed great emotion and the rest of the cast was nothing less then acceptable. For some reason I loved the septic truck. All the scenes including it were disgustingly beautiful. Now for all the people who claimed there was no link between many scenes, I don't know what you people were on when you watched the movie. I was a little high (as always when I watch a movie) when I watched it and to my memory there is not one scene that doesn't have a purpose to the plot. Obviously I have small deceptions, per example, the first hour of the film would have needed at least one action scene. Unfortunately they had us waiting more then half of the movie before there's violence. ***SPOILER*** Another thing is that when Reiner died and the cat come close to him they make us think its gonna eat him. Thats not the problem. The problem is after you realize the cheetah just takes a sniff at his body before running away, I was expecting/hoping that the cat would find the guys who killed him and avenge his master. Maybe I have a bit too much imagination...

All in all, not a bad movie. Good dialogues (better then Killing them softly) good feel to the whole thing. I don't like the score showing here so I give it a 7/10

[–] bmusler-1 9 years ago

This film requires A LOT from the viewer. First of all you have to listen very hard to what every character says whereas most of us are preconditioned to just WATCHING films about drug deals gone bust. So, inevitably, most people are just waiting for gun fights, explosions and torture. We do get two gun fights and two decapitations but this is not a caper film or an action/adventure flick. It is a rumination on the nature of evil with a very intricate plot...so it makes people impatient.

I can't really blame people for complaining that it seems stilted. I was occasionally frustrated the first time I saw it but after the second viewing I realized that every line had a purpose and the answers to my questions were all there...but films that require multiple viewings can only hope to become cult classics. To me this movie was a near miss. NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN was a hit with much the same material.

[–] stonekeeper_ever 9 years ago

True that, although i watched it once and I doubt i missed much. Nothing as confusing as a movies like Roulette or usual suspect. I'll definitly watch it again though.

[–] VVolfySnackrib 9 years ago

That you gotta pay attention to dialogue or you miss important details that will be relevant later isn't inherently good or bad movie making. Sometimes it's done really well and furthers the qualities of a good movie. This movie is an example of when they maximally botch it, come across as Quentin Tarantino wannabes, the ridiculously over analyzing in dialogue regarding events happening in the movie, especially at the end when The Counselor is talking to that guy on the phone who just rambles on and on pretentiously, that's a picture perfect example of how not to do it.

Also, someone tell me what's up with Hitler (Bruno Ganz) being a zionist at the beginning of the movie? It's almost as if just because he played Hitler, in spite of being the best movie Hitler of all time, burdoned with guilt, he feels the need to over the top praising the Jews to the point of absolute absurdity.

[–] bmusler-1 9 years ago

1) Yes, some of the scenes are awkward and clearly needed to be redone. Scott had to know but he also didn't have the time/budget which is why this comes off as so amateurish sometimes. But think about it. Is it likely that the director of Blade Runner and Alien has suddenly lost his judgement entirely?

2) This film has nothing to do with Quentin Tarantino in any way, shape or form. Part of the reason you are underestimating it -- and you mos def are -- is that you are looking at it through that lens. Try to forget QT, step back and watch the film again. It's not a great film, but it IS worth a second or even third look.

3) I agree the phone conversation comes across as a tedious, pedantic monologue...and that this film has big problems but (believe it or not) there is no "rambling" that scene. Actually, there isn't a wasted line in the script. Every sentence is there for a good reason -- for what is being implied about what's occurring off screen. You may not like that style of writing -- it's not very cinematic -- but the screenplay is tight...and worth going to the trouble of unraveling.

[–] VVolfySnackrib 9 years ago

I didn't say anything bad about Ridley Scott, and I don't think that I will ever directly discredit him. Even in the face of the complete chaotic disaster of Prometheus, I don't put any blame on him. I know the general job of the director, and he did his job. He made it visually impressive, and one thing that did carry over from the original Alien movie was the pacing in Prometheus. Those are the only two good things I have to say about the movie, and they derive from Ridley Scott's hard work. As for the script... oh, please just put a bullet in whoever botched it so badly.

[–] therefdotcom 9 years ago

ironically prometheus had more to say than this film, which is extremely simple actually.

[–] flickfix 9 years ago

come across as Quentin Tarantino wannabes, the ridiculously over analyzing in dialogue regarding events happening in the movie

What? What does this film have anything to do with Quentin Tarantino? The dialogue never analyzed the events.

Also, someone tell me what's up with Hitler (Bruno Ganz) being a zionist at the beginning of the movie? It's almost as if just because he played Hitler, in spite of being the best movie Hitler of all time, burdoned with guilt, he feels the need to over the top praising the Jews to the point of absolute absurdity.

You definitely missed the movie. What, again, does this film have anything to do with Hitler and Jew? The opening was a warning. Life is fragile, take good care of it, don't take what you have for granted. The counselor's life was in bliss. He thought he could dip his toe in a different world and come out unaffected. This film is saying that's unrealistic and outright impossible. The opening scene was his last warning. Of course the jeweler won't have known. But this isn't a narrative film, it's a motif-driven film.

Its dialogue were never specific but more abstract because, for the rest of us, who's in involved with the cartels? So, who cares? But this film is saying this applies to anything in our lives. Why The Counselor took up the offer was deliberately omitted, because it doesn't matter, and it would only distract, because audience would be going, well, if he had not done this or that, than that won't have happened. And it was also why everything hinged on a stupid speeding ticket. It's going to happen, something small and irrelevant would trigger it, it's just a matter of time. The ending scene which mirrored the opening bed scene also confirmed this. Even if everything went as planned, he already stepped into a world where kids gone missing. So, even if their lives continue as is, he and Laura had a family, their kids will be murdered for something irrelevant. It's only a matter of time.

There's also this idea that what is valuable in one world, has no value in another. If you look at Wolf of Wall Street, keeping family together has very little value in that world. And for those who value traditional family life, their lifestyle of excess indulgence in drugs and money laundering, holds very little value. And the two worlds do not mix. I'm not saying that's what Wolf of Wall Street was about. I am illustrating how this film's motif applies to real life scenarios, and not specifically to just dealing with cartels.

[–] fastguy45 9 years ago

I enjoyed it a lot. It was a morality play, not an action or drama.

[–] rjc1996 9 years ago

I also went in with low expectations (due to critics) but found myself enjoying it considerably. I do agree that the story is rather simple and doesn't have much new material and, without spoiling it, the ending isn't amazing but, the violent action scenes featured in it are done well. Especially the piano wire across the road and the lorry hijacking. Overall the movie is a gruesome look on the world, much like No Country for Old Men. Cormac McCarthy obviously doesn't hold much hope for the human race.

[–] bmusler-1 9 years ago

Cormac McCarthy is known for doing deep research before he sets pen to paper. He's too much the perfectionist to let the wires show however so people miss it. I'm almost certain for example that he didn't invent the piano wire scene -- he found it in his research. I think he might argue based on history there is no more or less hope than there ever was for mankind. IMO the plot is simple but the film is not.

[–] Thought_Criminal_J62377 9 years ago

I loved this movie but I love philosophical dialogue. The "descent into hell" motif is fascinating also. Great movie!

Political Correctness Is Paralyzing Us From The Brain Down...🇺🇸

[–] Degree7 9 years ago

I never went to the cinemas to see this because I thought it looked like crap. I based this entirely on some TV spots and the movie poster (it made the movie look bland, a bit like Oliver Stone's Savages).

Little did I know until later, the movie was a thematic, nihilistic character study, with no happy ending. I think many people went to see this movie based upon the marketing strategy that advertised it as some action thriller involving the Cartel. And were thoroughly disappointed.

If the film had been more accurately shown as a mystery/noir in the trailer and poster, I think it would have faired from better word of mouth and reached the right audience.

~ That's much too vulgar a display of power, Karras.

[–] rockyjm 8 years ago

People have been conditioned into accepting instant gratification as the norm and anything that requires attention and patience is met with negativity.

Unfortunately, this now gives Hollywood the excuse to cease production on more artistic works and focus on pumping out mediocre, poorly-written explosionfests such as Star Wars: The Force Awakens which the audience laps up without question while throwing works such as The Tree of Life and The New World in the dumpster.

[–] stonekeeper_ever 8 years ago

I actually bought the New World recently and it's next on my watchlist. The tree of life is a movie that is really divisive and strangely, I'm in te middle. I love the lot of scenes in it and overall it was good But some scenes with the little boy were too gloomy/eerie. And I often enjoy some gloomy/eerie stuff but this was a strange feeling. As in, let's say, Requiem for a Dream, the gloominess brought me a positive reaction. Tree of life, not as much.

[–] assassinatestevebannon 8 years ago

/\

Found the hipster douchebag snob!

"Many" doesn't mean "most." - kinch "dopey" Telemachus 