Today's Mini-Review: The Counselor

The Counselor: ***/*****, or 6/10

According to Cormac McCarthy, acclaimed author of novels such as No Country for Old Men and The Road (and thus indirectly also responsible for two great cinematic adaptations of said works), hell hath no fury like a woman hungry. In his screenwriting debut, The Counselor, we learn a thing or two about women for sure. They can be the most scheming, conniving, ruthlessly intelligent and sexually uninhibited creatures imaginable, or they can be loving, charming wives-to-be instead, though the former eats the latter for lunch if left to her shady devices. McCarthy also means to inform his audience on a diverse range of other assorted topics with this film, including the make-up of diamonds, the dangers of speeding (which can lead to both incarceration and decapitation), the sexually stimulating nature of fast cars and the machinations of a deadly device called a bolito (which we will end up seeing in working order in much more detail than we would like to have seen before the film is over) but the exact workings of the film's main topic, a drug deal gone horribly awry, remain rather elusive by comparison. McCarthy proves he's as consistent in his job as a screen writer as he is a novelist, as he keeps dabbling in the cynical realm associated with man's darker, greedier nature, but coherency unfortunately is not his strong suit as evidenced here.

The Counselor features all the ingredients of a strong, effective film, including an intriguing premise, a top-notch director in the person of Sir Ridley Scott and a solid cast to match. The counselor in question is an otherwise nameless man (Michael Fassbender) who leads a seemingly happy life with his fiancé Laura (Penelope Cruz), but aspires to gain much more by better playing his card of being in a position of influence, which leads him to the decision of getting involved in a lucrative but risky drug deal. His associates, the flamboyant bon-vivant Reiner (Javier Bardem) and the cautionary Westray (Brad Pitt) tell him of the dangers of such deals in juicy details (most of which we will see come to bloody fruition in a grand case of cinematic parallelism), but the counselor accepts the job nonetheless. You know this charming man is gonna regret his choice well before he actually makes it, but you'll find him sympathetic enough to root for him to be successful in this venture. When the trafficker loses his head, someone at the top of the game loses a lot of money, patience and general goodwill towards man, which leads to everybody's necessity to bail out immediately or face grave, disturbing consequences. Reiner's girlfriend Malkina (Cameron Diaz), a woman as gorgeous as she is devious and greedy above all else, soon seems to be pulling all the strings and relentlessly hunts the money and those in her way. A killing spree erupts, in which a fair share of people, decent and not so decent alike, lose it all, during which the counselor must come to terms with the very bad call he made, one we always knew from the get-go would come to this conclusion. This film sounds very much like a thriller, which it wants to be, but the amount of thrills it offers comes up short. In fact, the first half of the movie is comprised of endless dialogue, some beautifully written, some less catchy, but much of it quite digressing and ultimately redundant. When the shit finally hits the fan, it does so with a vengeance in a bunch of short, brutal bursts, but by that time many spectators will have seized to care, or worse, failed to understand just what is going on and who is connected to who in the ultimate scheme of things considering the many players and their complicated and underdeveloped interrelations.

Nevertheless, what The Counselor lacks in terms of writing, Sir Ridley often makes up for to some extent in directing, as the film's best moments are largely cinematic in nature, including the drug dealer accidentally shot in the head and immediately robbed by local vagabonds before being devoured by his own cheetahs, as well as the already infamous scene displaying Malkina's inexplicable drive to copulate with a nice car (Cameron certainly goes for it!), an ecstatic moment of absurdity that ruins the ride for its bewildered owner. The Counselor has all the hallmarks of a flawed masterpiece, as everything is necessary to craft a grand, suspenseful film, but none of it is arranged in the correct order and the dominant overall tone of cynicism, McCarthy's overarching theme, makes it hard to behold as it schemes its way towards an unsettling climax.

Today's Mini-Review: Dial M for Murder 3D

Dial M for Murder 3D: ****/*****, or 8/10

If you think the contemporary 3D craze is a new phenomenon, think again. Though the current output of 3D movies far surpasses those of bygone eras, there have been two previous waves in cinema featuring the addition of a third dimension to draw audiences away from their television sets – first from the sets themselves, the second time from the choices offered by VCR technology: these days it's a combination of high quality television production, the relatively large size of the home cinema screen and the ease in digital technology for users to watch whatever they fancy that threatens audience attendance – the previous one during the Eighties, the very first one in the Fifties. Then, like today, some high profile directors, fascinated by the narrative and visual possibilities offered by the three-dimensional aspect, tinkered with the technology to see what it could accomplish and add to the overall viewing experience. During the short lived fad of the Fifties, the most notable director to explore the new dimension was Alfred Hitchcock, who used it only once, for his 1954 crime thriller Dial M for Murder. Though its 3D release was almost as brief as the interest in 3D technology itself in that decade, it cannot be denied the 3D version of this classic film still makes for a fascinating watch, both with regards to the use of the third dimension and the story itself. Thanks to the EYE Filmmuseum in Amsterdam, I got the opportunity to experience this film as Hitchcock shot it, in a beautifully restored print that utilizes the modern 3D techniques, which also benefits the vividly rich Fifties' colour palette that would have been absent in the original 3D print with its notorious red & green glasses.

It's clear upon watching the film Hitchcock made ample use of the added layers of depth 3D offered, as we get a clear sense of persons and objects in the foreground, the middle and the background of the frame, the depth perception shifting as another person or object moves into frame prominently on a closer layer. Considering most of this Kammerspiel type film takes place in a single room, 3D actually comes in quite handy to make the environment feel more alive and diverse than it otherwise would have felt. Especially notable is the scene where two characters are in mid-conversation and a vase enters the shot, basically right in our faces as we see the two men continue to talk behind it, though separated (both visually and in terms of their narrative interests) by the vase which is positioned in the middle of the shot composition. Of course, a few more typical in-your-face shots are also present, and these work far better than the ones we have grown used to, outstretched arms feeling almost tangible as they seem to hover right in front of us. Also charming to behold is the blue matte lines that appear around characters as they are in motion: the modern 'high frame rate' technology might have been of benefit to avoid such visual oddities, but in this case it makes the movie feel even more historically intriguing from a technological viewpoint. Nevertheless, after the first hour it seems Hitchcock was running out of ideas as no particularly noteworthy new use of 3D is witnessed and the novelty of its sensations wears off. Until that point, this film makes some of the finest use of 3D to this day. The incomparable Grace Kelly never looked more beautiful than she does in all three dimensions in this remastered 3D print.

In terms of story Dial M for Murder is simply a little outdated, through no fault of its own. The problem is it has been emulated, copied and parodied for almost sixty years. Though Hitchcock's famous mastery of suspense and the delivery and timing of his actors' dialogue is still of the highest order, it cannot help but make the movie feel like its dragging its feet just a little too long. The moment police inspector Hubbard (John Williams; not that one) enters the crime scene and displays just how brilliantly deductive the mind of a British inspector works as he spends the next 30 minutes explaining the details of the murder attempt for longer than we care to hear it (we got the point!), while occasionally touching his moustache in every conceivable clichéd manner, the movie drones on a little too much. Until that time though, the exciting plot offered by a man (Ray Milland) who means to murder his wife (Kelly) by blackmailing a former schoolmate who has fallen on hard times (Anthony Dawson), only to have the assassination gone horribly awry, makes for s striking crime drama of the highest order, good for many a scene of emotional tension like only Hitchcock managed to deliver. 1954 proved a good year for Hitchcock, as the celebrated director released his even more highly acclaimed (and superior) suspense masterpiece Rear Window – also starring Grace Kelly – only a few months later.

Today's News: turns out there are more horrible bosses out there

Here's some more MS news from mine own hand:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/150434/horrible_bosses_krijgt_vervolg

Apparently Horrible Bosses was so successful a sequel was warranted. I get why it made money, it was a fun comedy flick. Does it need a sequel, or does the audience want one? Not at all. But that doesn't stop Hollywood from ramming it down our throats, in the hopes of capitalizing on a name that makes us fondly remember one of the few worthwhile comedies in recent years that have come out of the studio system. It's The Hangover all over again. We get a good comedy and we award it by paying to see it. Afterwards the studio suits think we want more of exactly the same and they present us with one or more sequels that follow the precise same formula of the first movie ad nauseam, thus giving that good first film a sour aftertaste. Not every fine film ought to be turned into a franchise, but franchises are what keeps Hollywood alive these days. As for Horrible Bosses 2, though no official plot information has been released, so far it seems to be an exact carbon copy of the predecessor. The three oppressed employees are back (including, unfortunately, that terribly obnoxious Charlie Day, who ruined every attempt at comic relief in Pacific Rim) and so is the incompetent hitman offering them bad advice on how to terminate their employers. But who are the latter in this case? I'm hoping the writers will add some originality and turn the threesome of former wage slaves into bad bosses themselves as a nice little role reversal. But most likely some new employers will be found to terrorize our heroes, and they'll be played by equally surprising bits of casting (so not Colin Farrell again, but like him someone you wouldn't have expected to see in that particular role either). Though that too is to be expected now, as we're in all-familiar territory.

Horrible Bosses 2 is gonna happen, whether we want it to or not. If we're lucky, it turns out to be a pleasant experience after all. But don't count on that. If it is gonna end up a dud, best thing we can do is not spend our money on it in theaters so this would-be trilogy dies a quick death on its second attempt, sending a clear signal to Hollywood that this blatant enfranchisement needs to stop somewhere. And we ought to do the same thing when Bridesmaids 2, We're the Millers 2 or The Hangover Part IV hit theaters in the future.