Opens in a few days on Friday 10/25/13 but no reviews yet.
Good pedigree, per promo material: "Legendary filmmaker Ridley Scott and Pulitzer Prize winning author Cormac McCarthy (No Country for Old Men) have joined forces in the motion picture thriller THE COUNSELOR, starring Michael Fassbender, Penélope Cruz, Cameron Diaz, Javier Bardem, and Brad Pitt."
But why sight unseen so close to its premiere?
Its that time of year where if something isn't getting great reviews, chances are it isn't going to get a huge media push. In the summer, its the blockbusters, in the fall its the Oscar bait.
I kind of want to see it. Ridley Scott rarely makes a bad movie, IMO and I like everyone in the cast.
Why did they change the name? The first trailer I saw for it was "Councillor."
I've been looking forward to this movie for a long time. A friend worked on it (very minor behind the scenes stuff) and from what he said it could be a pretty good movie. The talent is certainly there.
I'm definitely going to see this. It should be good just for the cast alone.
I sense pain... confusion... betrayal... feelings of abandonment.
Why isn't this movie about ME??
R4 Different UK/USA spellings?
Any reviews out yet? I will definitely be seeing this over the weekend because I love Michael Assbender.
The only review I've seen so far is Peter Travers' in Rolling Stone. He gave it two stars: "When an indisputably great author like Cormac McCarthy writes his first original screenplay, attention must be paid. When that screenplay turns out to be as clunky as The Counselor, "forgive and forget" are the words that come to mind."
Time pretty much trashed it
As of now it has 19 reviews on RT -- 10 fresh, 9 rotten, 53% fresh.
"I'm definitely going to see this. It should be good just for the cast alone."
Are all these "I'm going to see it" posts coming from the PR department? This movie looks silly, you can't even tell what it's about from the commercials. And Cameron Diaz sucks.
R1, I don't know what you mean by media push, but if you're referring to ads and commercials, I live in a major market - L.A.- and I've been seeing constant ads for it for at least two weeks.
It appears to be quite a dud though. The studio had an embargo on reviews until today - the day before it opens.
More embarrassing is that the new Jackass movie has 23 reviews and a fresh rating of 78%!
I guess I haven't seen or heard any commercials or trailers for it. But I rarely watch anything other than Netflix so I don't really see commercials very much.
Positive review in the NY Times - even made it a critics pick.
This had to have been written by a heterosexual - there is a virtuous woman and an evil woman in the cast!
I liked it...so many sexy looking people in one film, how can you lose?
Of course I liked Javier Bardem the best. I'm surprised that his hairstyle didn't turn me off. He's just so handsome and perfect. I wish he would be nominated. Fassbinder and Brad looked pretty good too. No one got naked, unfortunately.
I saw it and loved the cast, but have to admit I was totally confused by the plot. I think the Times even mentioned that you'll have no idea what's going on for the first hour.
All we heard about was how many A-list pictures were opening in such a short period for Oscar consideration that great films were going to be lost and not get their audience.
Well The Counselor and The Fifth Estate flopped. Naomi Watts as Diana was roasted by UK critics.
The Nicole Kidman - Grace Kelly biopic was shoved into 2014, as was the George Clooney/ Matt Damon World War II art heist film, which should have been superb but looks like complete crap in those trailers.
Blue Is The Warmest Color will NOT be getting any nominations in the fall.
So we will see what is left for November/December.
[quote]Blue Is The Warmest Color will NOT be getting any nominations in the fall.
I hardly think that's an Oscar bait film.
Many reviews of "The Counselor" mention Cameron as the standout in this. She seems to realize this is high concept camp from Ridley Scott. Javier seems to playing his superb "Turk" character in "No Country For Old Men" over and over again.
If you want a movie to flop make sure you cast Brad Pitt. Why does he still get roles?
He Is So 1995
Bad reviews by middlebrow critics and poor attendance don't necessarily mean a movie isn't good.
True, but it does not mean the "middlebrow critics and poor attendance" translates into these films being the 2013-equivalent of Roberto Rossellini's 1950's film flops being recognized as Criterion Collection masterpieces.
Regarding "I hardly think that's an Oscar bait film.", TRUE- but the leading lady performances were touted as possible contenders.
I saw it, R27. I wasn't good.
*****Spoiler Alert***** from the review posted at R25:
[quote]In one of the last scenes, when the Counselor’s debasement is almost complete, he sits weeping in a car in Ciudad Juárez with a phone pressed to his ear, listening to a lengthy monologue delivered by Rubén Blades, playing some kind of Mexican drug lord. McCarthy really thinks he’s writing up a storm here; the speech goes on and on, signifying nothing beyond sorry dude, you’re screwed. Fassbender, here as throughout the film, stands in for the audience in his blankness, his pigheadedness, his lack of qualities. We were repeatedly told it was a bad idea to watch this movie but we went ahead and did it anyway, and now it can’t be undone. As Blades’ pseudo-Shakespearean soliloquy more or less puts it, whose fault is that?
Hilarious and so true to how I felt when the credits rolled.
I really liked the film, mainly because of the actors. How many drug films can we see with this similar plot? I don't know but the actors made it worth watching, loved them all.
A talent sea change is desperately needed in Hwood. This junk is proof.
The whole point is, we make choices and after that, you can't fix anything, you already made your choice and you live with it.
It's like Mom saying, you made your bed, now you have to sleep in it. Maybe they should have just had The Counselor's mother on the phone?
What world do you live in R26? Pitt just stunned the industry by having the incredibly problematic and expensive production of World War Z turn into a incredibly successful blockbuster.
[quote]Bad reviews by middlebrow critics and poor attendance don't necessarily mean a movie isn't good
If people don't like your movie, then it isn't good by any metric that matters. If film critics don't like it and audiences don't like by what measure can you still stand on to claim it is a good film?
R33, Your talking to people who will never like Pitt for whatever reason. His Plan B production company is doing very well. WWZ was supposed to be a flop, but turned into a hit. The critics were hoping for his failure, but it didn't happen...WWZ sequel may be in the works.
12 Years a Slave could clean up at the Oscars...again Pitt and his team made this movie happen. Pitt is doing very well in spite of the haters and critics.
Exactly. Pitt's movie Z made a lot of money, even though there was very little press. Pitt still has a lot of fans. If he plays the same character a lot, it's probably because his fans like that character.
Javier Bardem is sexy and gorgeous, even with that crazy hair. He's just a sexy guy.
I will see any movie with Michael Fassbender, but this one was painful to sit through. Such wasted potential.
What bothered you most about it, r37?
I actually liked it.
Fassbender is overrated, he plays the same type in every movie, he does not stretch even though the characters he plays give him an opportunity to do so. He is just the IT guy of the moment. I don't see him having a long career and I doubt he is planning on that since he seems to have a problem with alcohol and appears is too many movies in a short period.
OMG, that Salon review is hilarious--
About the movie and the all star cast of actors, director, and writer:
"This is more like having Alice Waters and Mario Batali labor in the kitchen for a while and then serve you a gray-green burger on Wonder Bread, with what looks like somebody’s pubic hair stuck to it. But surrounded with whimsical garnishes of fresh herbs."
As wonderful as it is to indulge in a savage review, it should be noted that Ridley Scott was in the middle of making this when Tony committed suicide.
One hopes the script was written before that time.
Sometimes I wonder if Tony's suicide had something to do with something besides just, depression?
R39, you're an idiot.
Say what you want about his personal life, Fassbender is - by any honest, reasonable measure - a great actor.
Doesn't stretch? Bitch, please.
Well, Manohla loved it!
[quote]It's like Mom saying, you made your bed, now you have to sleep in it. Maybe they should have just had The Counselor's mother on the phone?
Ha! So true and it would have been as interesting.
Fassbender was very underwhelming in that Freud/Jung movie, he was only OK in Fish Tank, Katie Jarvis was acting circles around him. There was nothing special about his performances in Hunger and Shame. Just because he takes on controversial roles and has no problem shoving his big penis in front of the camera he is not necessary a brave or interesting actor. He only does and goes short distances to create characters. He is far away from what I would call a character actor.
Thanks fr posting that r40! When I read that part of the review I laughed until I cried. I was going to pst it myself.
Sorry to be one of those people who bumps old threads because I'm a cheapskate who can't start new threads, but I just saw this movie for the first time on HBO. What absolute shit.
Every fucking thing out of Cameron Diaz's mouth sounded like Confucius with brain damage. Everyone in the movie was a God damned "philosopher." It was awful.
It just went off. It was on in the background, but I only watched bits and pieces. The signature Ridley Scott camerawork and direction was beautiful as usual, as was a long-haired Brad Pitt, but I was shocked to see that it only got one star in the cable guide. Was it really THAT bad?
Yes it was really THAT bad. It reminded me of that Oliver Stone shit mess a couple of years ago, called Savages, with Salma Hayek. This was almost unwatchable. I wanted to see it because the cast looked interesting, and I read that Edgar Ramirez and Natalie Dormer were also in it, so I decided to watch it. I mean, Brad Pitt, Fassbender, Javier Bardem, and Penelope Cruz is a pretty damned impressive cast, right? Totally unwatchable.
My impression was that it obnoxious, R50.
Most of the lines by almost every character was some attempt at deep bullshit.
it was obnoxious*
You inevitably get to a point where you give up on the story and say "Just STFU and show us your dick, Fassbender."
I just watched too. Cameron Diaz was a disaster (I read Angelina Jolie was their first choice, but she dropped out), she brings every scene she's in to screeching halt. Pitt and Javier Bardem tried to breathe some life into it, but it wasn't enough to overcome Diaz fucking the windshield of the car.
For a quiet Saturday night home watching cable it wasn't bad, but I would have been pissed if I had spent money to see it in a theater.
Did they even explain where the fuck Diaz's character comes from because I zoned out? Did they give any background on her? None of the characters was really fleshed out. We get no real understanding of any of them.
What I don't understand is that Diaz is supposed to be this mastermind pushing the pieces around the board. But when she's not doing that she's fucking the car, having an absolutely pointless and bizarre conversation with a priest and generally acting like Shia LaBeouf taking in a Broadway Show.
The other thing that bothered me was John Leguizamo and Dean Norris doing the drug deal. You see those two and you assume it's going somewhere, or it's an important plot point, or something interesting is about to happen, because, well, it's John Leguizamo and Dean Norris. It goes nowhere, the scene could have been done with extras for all it amounted to.
I completely forgot about those two, R57. You're so right. Even the explanation about the guy in the container was lacking. I'm sure Norris was thinking "When I'm normally on a set featuring dead people in containers, the dialogue is usually way better."
Does Fassbender get his dick out in this?
No, R59, that's why I was yelling it.
Bad No Country for Old Men wannabe with Fassbender repeating Brolin's role, Bardem repeating Harrelson's role, and a complete waste of the hunky and talented Edgar Ramirez.
I'll have this movie EJECTED into SPACE!!!
I liked it! It was very talky but it was interesting enough to hold my attention. It is a huge downer of a movie and I guess that's why people hated it.
I am just the opposite. I like nihilism.
I never understood what actually happened. Absolutely no background on any characters, and no coherent explanations.I'll tell you what I think happened and you correct me: SPOILERS:
Fassy's a criminal defense lawyer who needs money so he wants to do a drug deal. Bardem sets it up for him with a warning that it was a bad idea.
The there's Brad Pitt, who tries to school him along the way, and who has some involvement with the cartel, but we never get WTF he's doing.
And of course, after being warned that something could go wrong, some thing does go wrong. But what exactly? And yet everyone is chasing everyone.
Then there's Cameron who, for a minute I thought was some undercover DEA type, but she wasn't. Then there was Penelope Cruz who really served no function, as Fassy girlfriend. They loved each other very much.
Then Edgar Ramirez who played a priest???? to no purpose. Then there was Rosie Perez who asks Fassy to get her son out of jail but that doesn't work out very well. Rosie is in jail at the time, too.
Then John Luguizamo, Norris, Ruben Blades as some big Drug Lord/Philosopher, and WTF happened to the cats? LOL! It looked like someone had a really vivid dream and wrote it down. Shame on Cormac McCarthy Ridley Scott, terrible.
[quote]The there's Brad Pitt, who tries to school him along the way, and who has some involvement with the cartel, but we never get WTF he's doing.
Right, explain that to me. Pitt is obviously connected to the inner circle of the cartel since he talks about what they're thinking and planning.
On the other hand, his only connection to the lawyer was to play Yoda and pass on some cryptic advice to keep the plot moving along.
So why did he feel the need to bolt? How was he at risk because they decided to kill the lawyer?
God, I had such hopes for this film. I love Fassy and Ridley Scott and it was unmitigated crap.
I get that the drug shipment got "sidetracked" for a minute, but WTF? Cryptic is a good word. Brad Pitt's character and Javier's character were so cryptic they spoke in riddles. Lonnnnng riddles in Javier's case. I never got why Fassy's character was in trouble. Was it because of the drug deal, was it because he was Rosie's lawyer? The whole thing was really stupid.
They explained NOTHING in this movie. Not one God damned thing about a single character.
Oh, but we find out Diaz's parents were thrown out of a helicopter. You don't need to know the details, just go with it.
You don't need to know why the priest was so nasty or who that guy was that Fass went to for help towards the end or the guy he speaks to on the phone. Details, details, who needs them? Toby Kebbler's character? You don't need to know shit. Details just waste your time. Move on.
A disc with the word "Hola!" on it. I was trying to think back. Was there any point that Pitt says they put "Hola!" on the snuff films? Was there any reference to discs and "Hola!" at any point in the movie? No, there wasn't.
This movie made me feel like I had ADD. It was all over the place.
"Oh my God. I'm back. I'm home. All the time, it was... We finally really did it ... You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!"
We are switching to the new platform for The DataLounge this weekend. All of our mobile users have been using it for over a week and all first time users have been using it for about a month - which adds up to well over one million users. So we're ready to end this phase of the testing and move everybody to the new site. (more)
And yes, we've changed the look and some of how it operates.
Yes, we know you just *hate* it in well in advance.
Yes, we know we suck.
Yes, we are the biggest suckers that ever sucked.
But it was time for a change and with the huge shift to mobile it was long overdue. We've taken this opportunity not only to update the look but also make major changes under the hood (or "bonnet" if you're either British or pretentious or both). And we have to prepare for 2016 - a presidential election year where we can normally expect to see a 60% jump in traffic (yes, we've seen 5 presidential elections so far…Christ we're old).
The site has a bunch - nay, plethora - of new features which will make the site more usable: better search, the ability to ignore posters and threads, see link previews, to pick up a thread where you left off, spam and malware filtering and more.
If you want you can go explore and see for yourself, Click here.
And while running the tests we've noticed two interesting reactions to the new system - people are spending more time on the site and more people that come stay around longer and look at more stuff. Both good things. Yay!
Possibly we've not slain all the dragons and there will be issues that come up during the switchover. There's a help button in the lower right hand corner of the page which you can use to send us bug reports.
Please include as much information about the hardware (PC, Mac, Tablet, Phone etc), operating system (Windows, Mac OS, Android, iOS etc) and browser (Chrome, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer etc) that you are using as possible to help us replicate and fix the problem.
Please note that complaints about colors, fonts, icons and the like are not "bugs" - they are design choices that we've made and we expect one or two cases of world-class bitching. But they won't actually cause headaches, scurvy, heart attacks, Restless Leg Syndrome, Morgellon's Disease or the vapors (but have your smelling salts at hand just in case).
Talking to DataLounge servers. Please wait a moment...