Why I Saw It: Credentials don't come much higher than Ridley Scott (directing), Cormac McCarthy (writing), Michael Fassbender (acting), and
Cast: This is one of those wonderfully eclectic casts with only a few that I imagined were on set more than a couple days. Michael Fassbender continues to be one of the best actors for anyone who is paying attention and the "where have I seen him before" guy for general audiences. Javier Bardem is on the verge of playing too big in movies after his characters in Skyfall and this. Hopefully he trends away from that soon. Cameron Diaz plays a bad guy. That's her complete depth. She's having fun with it though and I think there. Penolope Cruz is less of a character and more of a symbol...I think. Brad Pitt is like Fassbender's crime world consultant and seems to exist solely to help the audience know what is going on. The rest of the casts are a sprinkle of cameos by people such as Natalie Dormer (playing an American even though we meet her in London. WTF!?) and Dean Norris.
Plot: The reason that no one has any idea what the plot is from the trailers is because the movie isn't so much concerned with details. The story follows the approach of "we'll tell you what you need to know and nothing more" which sounds great until you experience it. This all has to do with a drug transport gone wrong. The counselor (Fassbender), almost through coincidence (I think) is involved in it due to some unspecified job he did for Bardem. I'm certain that if I watch it again, there's layers, depth, and structure there. If anything, the movie is a victim of being too smart for its own good. I like movies that are complex or tough the first time you watch them, but I like there to be something surface level to enjoy and there wasn't much.
Elephant in the Room: This is Cormac McCarthy's first original screenplay. It would be stupid of me to question McCarthy's talent. Even if it is political or whatever, a Pulitzer puts that to rest. I have to say though, if this is what I am getting from a McCarthy screenplay, I'd prefer if someone else just adapt one from his books for him. There two things that bothered me watching the movie that link back to him: 1) As I've mentioned before, he's so damn vague about everything. Even the Counselor doesn't get a name. There's some moments (namely one at the end, involving a package sent to the counselor) that work great by not spelling everything out. A lot of other times though, I found myself distracted by how they were talking around things just so they didn't have to put a name on it. 2) Who talks like that all the time? A friend defended this as modernly Shakespearean which is a completely fair assessment. I found it exceedingly distracting though. For a movie that already looks more like a Tony Scott movie than a Ridley Scott one, I continually found myself wishing someone, anyone would say a line that didn't sound like someone spent five minutes coming up with.
To Sum Things Up:
I didn't hate it. I wish I could say a lot more. It didn't get the most out of any of the actors which is a shame because there is a lot of potential talent there. The story is needlessly unspecific and has little or no pulse. There's enough here that I don't regret seeing it instead of, say, Bad Grandpa, but there's little here for me to recommend it to anyone.
Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend
No comments:
Post a Comment