Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

The Counselor -- anyone hear of it?

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?

by Anonymousreply 6806/29/2014

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.

by Anonymousreply 110/23/2013

I kind of want to see it. Ridley Scott rarely makes a bad movie, IMO and I like everyone in the cast.

by Anonymousreply 210/23/2013

Me. too.

by Anonymousreply 310/23/2013

Why did they change the name? The first trailer I saw for it was "Councillor."

by Anonymousreply 410/23/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 510/23/2013

I'm definitely going to see this. It should be good just for the cast alone.

by Anonymousreply 610/23/2013

I sense pain... confusion... betrayal... feelings of abandonment.

Why isn't this movie about ME??

by Anonymousreply 710/23/2013

R4 Different UK/USA spellings?

by Anonymousreply 810/23/2013

Any reviews out yet? I will definitely be seeing this over the weekend because I love Michael Assbender.

by Anonymousreply 910/24/2013

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."

by Anonymousreply 1010/24/2013

Time pretty much trashed it

by Anonymousreply 1110/24/2013

As of now it has 19 reviews on RT -- 10 fresh, 9 rotten, 53% fresh.

by Anonymousreply 1210/24/2013

"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.

by Anonymousreply 1310/24/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 1510/24/2013

Positive review in the NY Times - even made it a critics pick.

by Anonymousreply 1610/25/2013

This had to have been written by a heterosexual - there is a virtuous woman and an evil woman in the cast!

by Anonymousreply 1710/25/2013

I liked 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.

by Anonymousreply 1810/25/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 1910/25/2013

It's a flop.

by Anonymousreply 2010/26/2013

Opens with only 7.5 million and "D" Cinemascore - probably won't even clear $20 million domestically.

by Anonymousreply 2110/27/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 2210/27/2013

[quote]Blue Is The Warmest Color will NOT be getting any nominations in the fall.

I hardly think that's an Oscar bait film.

by Anonymousreply 2310/27/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 2410/27/2013

Hilariously scathing review

by Anonymousreply 2510/27/2013

If you want a movie to flop make sure you cast Brad Pitt. Why does he still get roles?

by Anonymousreply 2610/27/2013

Bad reviews by middlebrow critics and poor attendance don't necessarily mean a movie isn't good.

by Anonymousreply 2710/27/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 2810/27/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 2910/27/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 3010/27/2013

A talent sea change is desperately needed in Hwood. This junk is proof.

by Anonymousreply 3110/27/2013

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?

by Anonymousreply 3210/27/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 3310/27/2013

[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?

by Anonymousreply 3410/27/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 3510/27/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 3610/27/2013

I will see any movie with Michael Fassbender, but this one was painful to sit through. Such wasted potential.

by Anonymousreply 3710/27/2013

What bothered you most about it, r37?

I actually liked it.

by Anonymousreply 3810/27/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 3910/27/2013

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."

by Anonymousreply 4010/28/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 4110/28/2013

One hopes the script was written before that time.

by Anonymousreply 4210/28/2013

Sometimes I wonder if Tony's suicide had something to do with something besides just, depression?

by Anonymousreply 4310/28/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 4410/28/2013

Well, Manohla loved it!

by Anonymousreply 4510/28/2013

[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.

by Anonymousreply 4610/29/2013


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.

by Anonymousreply 4710/29/2013

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.

by Anonymousreply 4803/01/2014

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.

by Anonymousreply 4906/29/2014

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?

by Anonymousreply 5006/29/2014

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.

by Anonymousreply 5106/29/2014

My impression was that it obnoxious, R50.

Most of the lines by almost every character was some attempt at deep bullshit.

by Anonymousreply 5206/29/2014

it was obnoxious*

by Anonymousreply 5306/29/2014

You inevitably get to a point where you give up on the story and say "Just STFU and show us your dick, Fassbender."

by Anonymousreply 5406/29/2014

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.

by Anonymousreply 5506/29/2014

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.

by Anonymousreply 5606/29/2014

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.

by Anonymousreply 5706/29/2014

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."

by Anonymousreply 5806/29/2014

Does Fassbender get his dick out in this?

by Anonymousreply 5906/29/2014

No, R59, that's why I was yelling it.

by Anonymousreply 6006/29/2014

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.

by Anonymousreply 6106/29/2014

I'll have this movie EJECTED into SPACE!!!

by Anonymousreply 6206/29/2014

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.

by Anonymousreply 6306/29/2014

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.

by Anonymousreply 6406/29/2014

[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?

by Anonymousreply 6506/29/2014

God, I had such hopes for this film. I love Fassy and Ridley Scott and it was unmitigated crap.

by Anonymousreply 6606/29/2014

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.

by Anonymousreply 6706/29/2014

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.

by Anonymousreply 6806/29/2014
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!