Cartel

La cruauté sous une couche d’élégance dans un film qui oppose le monde ostensiblement vêtu d’un avocat véreux versé dans l’innocence féminine à l’enfer des cartels mexicains. La façon dont Ridley traite ce conflit ne se base pas sur l’action, mais plutôt sur les dialogues. Il ne joue pas sur l'émotion, mais plutôt sur l'intellect, voire le côté philosophique. Les motivations des personnages ne sont que suggérées, et ce sont l'anticipation des réactions – ambiguës – de ceux-ci et l'évolution des situations tendues qui sont les moteurs du film. L'aspect philosophique ne fonctionne pas vraiment, mais j'ai apprécié la grâce des acteurs et des visuels. Si l'intrigue avait été plus nettement structurée, je lui aurais mis quatre étoiles. La scène avec Cameron en grand écart faisant la ventouse sur le pare-brise est inoubliable. Un plaisir coupable dans la superficialité. (23/12/2013)

I will not stoop to commenting on the senility of Ridley Scott, because there are plenty of users aping similar big-mouthed statements from foreign reviews about last year's Prometheus. That said, it is still true that I am quite disappointed. Not that Ridley forgot how to direct – but that he is simply unrecognizable in The Counselor. It is all just Cormac McCarthy's self-absorbed screenplay, materialized into lazily rolling dialogues, framed by a pretty good side plot and very inconsistently cast. While Michael Fassbender and Brad Pitt carry everything, Cameron Diaz turns out to be a casting misstep unlike any I can remember. Every gesture or word feels forced and wooden, making all the smaller positives (the soundtrack, the action flashes) almost forgotten. Given the creative team, I can't believe I'm stooping so low, but when even I, who easily let myself be captivated by the story, can see through the random fragments to the very end, something is wrong. (27/11/2013)

Or: how the best living oversees writer and the best living British director didn’t really see eye to eye in matters of art. Each of them does their own thing regardless of the other. And so Cormac rolls out all the screenwriters’ tricks ignoring the purely symbolic metaphorical and existential level which is full of ambiguous characters, holding up mirrors, hidden motivations and declamations seemingly about nothing, but in reality about redemption, damnation, the (im)possibility to choose and predestination and its thriller storyline represents just a necessary (but smarter and more true to life than it might have seem), all connecting excuse. The other one concentrates on what makes sense from the genre film making point of view and so he doesn’t care about the characters, the message, let alone the symbolism of the movie. The result is so unique, peculiar and well casted (apart from that one exception that breaks the rule... Yes, I’m talking to you Cameron) that in some circles it’s on its way to becoming a cult movie and for rest it’s doomed to remain misunderstood, damned and heading the Razzies. (27/11/2013)

With this film, I had to watch the key scenes over again to catch on and make all the motivations, behind-the-scenes games, and alliances click for me. The key moments were not the shootouts or executions of the film characters, but the dialogues. Carefully crafted and sophisticated dialogues, like when I eagerly played the conversation between the lawyer and the cartel boss three times to savor the subtle play of a predator toying with its prey. The Counselor was made for a specific layer of educated and tuned-in viewers, definitely not a film for a broad audience, and I wouldn't hesitate to label it a cult film in the original sense of the word - not as a commercially successful film, but rather a film that captivates a small group of connoisseurs. While Scott's Prometheus was downright dumb, The Counselor is a smart film. It's smart to the point of being annoying and unsympathetic. It's like a cross between No Country for Old Men and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. It shares the same screenwriter and deals with the world of drug cartels and underworld characters, and it also has a narrative style that is difficult for the viewer to digest. The absence of characters to root for, for example, doesn't help. The only positive character who accidentally enters the world of dirty dealings is mercilessly crushed by events, and the rest of the twisted characters are simply competing to see how far they can go in their depravity. The screenwriter doses out information in small bits and keeps much to himself; you simply have to infer and process things where you would prefer to just consume. In any case, the final form of the film is much more influenced by Cormac McCarthy than Ridley Scott. I do have a few criticisms, for example, that the casting of the stereotypical actress Cameron Diaz wasn't reasonable, although thanks to the director's guidance, it didn't bother me too much. Scott knew what she was capable of as an actress and didn't burden her. Her sexual performance, which may be the icing on the cake for some viewers, felt unnecessary and cheap to me, and in a few other scenes, the crew wanted to play a little bit at being Tarantino. But from the originally intended four stars, I give it five because I won't hesitate to help a film that is so severely underrated. Overall impression: 90%. (08/04/2017)

Brad Pitt plays a bastard, Michael Fassbender plays a bastard, Javier Bardem is both a pervert and a bastard. Penelope Cruz is good, especially in the beginning, but on the other hand she is not there that much. Cameron Diaz plays such a bitch that it made me sick. Nevertheless, all the acting performances are great, I just don’t really know who to focus on in order for the movie to appear at least a little bit likeable. This way it is Ridley Scott’s most unpleasant movie for me, and it doesn’t matter that it has an interesting story when I’m not able to enjoy it with these actors. (21/06/2014)