Cinema Reviews

The Counsellor Review

• 13th Nov 2013

The Counsellor is a monologue lead film. Quite simply It’s a film about the words, the dialogue. It’s an interesting art project for some of Hollywood’s biggest hotshots. Ridley Scott directing (which he does well, if rather leisurely), The writer of No Country For Old Men (Cormac McCarthy) has made the leap to screenwriter status with this one – again making the dialogue, instead of the action, the focal point for the film. And a large cast headed up by Fassbender, Cruz, Barden, Diaz and Pitt largely does the words justice on screen.

Brad Pitt is clearly having far too much fun with his supporting role (which seemed to be primarily filmed in London), Barden is relishing his scenes, as well as a new wild hair cut that might make the lead singer of Muse proud, but Fassbender is charged with carrying the bulk of the emotional weight of the film and he cleans his plate with ease.

The film, although it does have events and motions being carried, is built like a stage play. Each scene will usually only have two characters talking with each other, musing on styles, choices, morality and life in general. Once you have bought into the beat of this rhythm it is an easy film to enjoy as it is for the performances by the actors on the Poster that the film is really being sold on.

There are a few cameos along the way that add to the fun. John Leguizamo fresh from his scene stealing role in kick-Ass 2 has a decent scene to play against Breaking Bad’s Dean Norris that livens things up a bit. There are also moments of onscreen action that break up the banter, but they are minimal – and often come without any dialogue which allows Scott’s visual department to take control.

The problem the film has is that despite the performances, the ideas and thoughts projected is that it makes the glaring error of not deciding whether to “Show” or “Tell” – instead doing both. In the many monologues the film has to offer the speaker will not just declare their thoughts and leave the passive member of the conversation (as well as the audience) to wonder on it. Instead they then recoil back and explain in further detail what it is they meant). For a film that wants to be an intellectual drama that gives you little direction to the actual physical actions that are taking part on screen, it’s a glaring error for them to spell out the actual words themselves that are being said. It comes off as the sing along version of stage drama with a bouncing ball for the kiddies at home to follow along with the words.

Overall this is the thinking person’s film that was undermined by an fool that didn’t understand their own content and felt the need to spell it out.

Steven Hurst