After watching "The Counselor (2013)" by Ridley Scott on Netflix, I couldn't help but searching online desperately for meaning. A blog post named "The Counselor: Frequently Asked Questions." struck my eyes with its first question:
The blogger went on to try her/his best to make sense of this film, like a kid trying to put together pieces of a broken porcelain vase. It was a nice try but it just doesn't hold up.
I agree with the blogger that the overwhelmingly negative reviews can be largely blamed on a bad advertising campaign, which sold this film for something it is not: an action thriller. When the audience find out in the end, they felt cheated and negative reviews ensured. However, I wasn't a victim of false expectation; I watched the film with little prior knowledge except for the short, cryptical synopsis on Netflix. All I knew was that it was a Ridley Scott movie starring a few good actors and actresses on Mexican drug trade; let's give it a try. The fact that even without false expectation I was profoundly disappointed reinforces my belief that this movie cannot be defended.
The blogger makes another suggestion of how we might find this movie slightly more digestible:
The blogger hypothesizes that maybe the filmmaker was trying to teach a moral lesson about "greed is bad". I don't get it, either. The only moral lesson I got was: No matter how good the director and the cast of a film may look like, check its IMDB score and reviews first! Or you'll waste 2 hours of your life that you can never get back.
Q: What the fuck did I just watch?Exactly! I felt so vindicated.
The blogger went on to try her/his best to make sense of this film, like a kid trying to put together pieces of a broken porcelain vase. It was a nice try but it just doesn't hold up.
I agree with the blogger that the overwhelmingly negative reviews can be largely blamed on a bad advertising campaign, which sold this film for something it is not: an action thriller. When the audience find out in the end, they felt cheated and negative reviews ensured. However, I wasn't a victim of false expectation; I watched the film with little prior knowledge except for the short, cryptical synopsis on Netflix. All I knew was that it was a Ridley Scott movie starring a few good actors and actresses on Mexican drug trade; let's give it a try. The fact that even without false expectation I was profoundly disappointed reinforces my belief that this movie cannot be defended.
The blogger makes another suggestion of how we might find this movie slightly more digestible:
Treat this movie like a 118 minute night terror - it's just a slow descent into horror that is meant to make you distinctly uneasy, rather than meant to make you understand it's real motive.Even for "a 118 minute night terror", this movie fails miserably. I didn't feel terrified at all. If slow-moving moody art film is your thing, I would heartily recommend the brilliant "La Haine (1995)", starring one of my favorite actors, Vincent Cassel. In fact, I start to get the feeling that this movie was originally trying to be a Hollywood version of "La Haine (1995)". If my hypothesis is true, the fact that it takes so much mental effort to even realize it would make it a failure instantly. I like many Ridley Scott movies and it would be sad to see him going down the road of Oliver Stone. I really hope he would realize that a film like "La Haine (1995)" is simply not his cup of tea.
The blogger hypothesizes that maybe the filmmaker was trying to teach a moral lesson about "greed is bad". I don't get it, either. The only moral lesson I got was: No matter how good the director and the cast of a film may look like, check its IMDB score and reviews first! Or you'll waste 2 hours of your life that you can never get back.
Comments