Review of The Counselor (2013) by Verne22 — 26 Jan 2015

First of all I didn't read the novel so I can't compare the film to the original story. I didn't know anything about this film before I saw it, so I had a pretty neutral view from the start.

I liked this film a lot actually, so I was shocked that the general score was only 5.5 at best. I started reading some reviews and it seems that most people didn't like it because it was to confusing and the fact that cameron diaz wasn't really the right choice for her role. While I can agree on the latter, I didn't really experience the movie as confusing, maybe some sequences can be a little vague but if you watch the movie a second time most of those vague points become clear and the gaps seem to be filled nicely as you already know the end and you can focus more on the details in the dialogue.

It's a pretty long movie but I think the pace and storytelling is pretty good. What I like most about the story is that it seems to give a fresh inside look on the world of justice, crime, the diamondbusiness, cocaine-export and international (semi)political intrigue. Especially for those people who still live in the 80's and think cocaine crimelords/dealers are some cool vigilante militia force to look up to, because let's be honest: they're not! So this is what I think that the movie does an excellent job at. The cinematography is very solid and the acting perfomances are also from average to very solid apart from cameron diaz's.

And sadly her character plays a substantial role in the plot, which is unfortunate because as i've said before, she didn't really do a good job at it. Maybe she didn't get it, maybe this form of acting wasn't really her cup of tea (i never had high regard for her skills, because I think she's more of a typecast than a method actor, but that's beside the point) and it really shows. So that's probably the main reason lots of people didn't like this movie.

Then we have the story and dialogue. I'm not a fan of these generic big budget hollywood flicks that rehash the same story over and over again, I also don't like the arthouse films very much because most of the time they are just boring experimental (and most of all pretentious) crap. This movie isn't either of those nor does it balance anywhere in between. This is in its true form a Ridley Scott picture, which means tragedy, some romance, suspense, awesome actors, the brutalness of reality... and that's exactly what you'll get. Some of the dialogue seems clumsy at times, and one or two times you'll have a scene that seems pretty pointless or disconnected from the plot, but I don't think it affects the movie in a way that it becomes annoying. And for the most part it ties up loose ends when you watch it a second time.

Now to the conclusion : Is it a great movie, is this Ridley Scott at his best? Hell no! Go watch alien or gladiator if that's what you're looking for! But... does this mean that it's a piece of crap that only deserves an average rating by users and critics of 5/10? No, not in my opinion anyway and that's pretty much the reason I posted this review because it's a solid movie that you have to see at least once. Then you can homage it or crap on it as much as you want. I just think, according to some reviews people didn't get it or they were expecting something closer to the novel. As I said I didn't read it so I have no opinion on that part, but to my experience fans of novel series will never be happy with the movie adaptations. I think it's a solid, pretty original movie and seeing as avatar got an average of 80%, and the pirates films got an overall of 70, while gems like (the original) dune only recieve an average of 60, it seems to me that a lot people immediately destroy a movie that appears to cryptic or doesn't follow the easy-to-understand hollywood formula and I just wanted to get it out there.