The Counselor

I have a love-hate relationship with author Cormac McCarthy. The highly respected author can flat out write, sometimes too well. His novels are very, VERY literary to the point I struggle to find a rhythm and even enjoy the stories. I'm a little late to the party, but McCarthy bypassed the novel and went right to the screenplay with his first such work, 2013's The Counselor. The reviews are mostly mixed to negative. Where did I fall?

A defense lawyer with a solid reputation but addressed only as 'Counselor' (Michael Fassbender) is joining the riskiest of business ventures against his better judgment. He has become involved with a business partner, Reiner (Javier Bardem), who he hopes to open a nightclub with but that's the far cleaner option. Dealing with some serious money issues, Counselor has gone in on a drug deal involving over 600 kilos of cocaine being transported, the end payday being potentially $20 million. The money is quite the incentive, but is the extreme risk even remotely worth it? The money is just too much to pass on even considering the risk, but even this talented, confident lawyer doesn't know what he's got into with the drug cartel involved. Bottom line is money, and anything that gets in the way is simply collateral damage.

I've read five McCarthy novels; No Country for Old Men, Blood Meridian, The Road, The Crossing and All the Pretty Horses. McCarthy is a bleak writer. These aren't stories of hope or faith or anything positive. They revolve around death, murder, and generally, a sense that the world is always nearing some sort of apocalypse, an end day. McCarthy is an extremely talented writer, no doubt about it. His books though, they can be difficult to get through because he is so talented. That bleakness, that readable difficulty, it is both positive and negative. I really have to be in the right frame of mind to read a McCarthy novel. If you finish it, you feel like you've truly accomplished something.

So how about McCarthy tackling a screenplay without the middle man of a published novel? That's 'Counselor.' The basic story of an outsider getting involved in a drug cartel is nothing new in films, TV and literature, but McCarthy does manage to put his own unique spin on it. There is NO hope in this world, only greed, death, betrayal and regret. 'Counselor' currently has a 34% rating at Rotten Tomatoes and a 5.4 at IMDB so it obviously didn't sit too well with viewers. I liked it -- as much as you're supposed to like a movie like this -- but my goodness, there are some amazingly obvious flaws. In its bleakness, it tries ridiculously hard in heavy-handed fashion to get that message across. We encounter one stilted, heavy conversation after another about death and life and evil and decent rights and horrific wrongs. In doses, these things work. But one after another? An already heavy, at times tedious story gets even heavier, even darker to the point it can be exhausting.

You know what I've forgotten by this fifth paragraph? 'Counselor' is directed by a talented director, Ridley Scott, who talented actors and actresses seemingly want to work with. Go figure. It's a great cast here, but the characters feel almost like cardboard cutouts. They're interesting because the cast goes for it -- sometimes too much -- but at no point does it feel like any of these people are real. Fassbender does an excellent job in the titular role, but that script, it pretentiously calls him 'Counselor' without ever giving him a real name. Yeah, heavy-handed literary devices! I was worried Bardem would ham it up too much as Reiner, but his part was fascinating just because of what drives the character, and that would be excess. Their scenes together are excellent as are Brad Pitt's scenes with Fassbender. Pitt plays Westray, the Counselor's middleman of sorts who continues to recommend his new partner bail and run before he's too deep into the deal.

Not that the fellas escape unscathed, but the female cast members are done no favor. Ripped straight out of a 1940s film noir and then injected with oozing sex and a general over the top quality, Cameron Diaz plays Malkina, Reiner's seemingly unhinged girlfriend. It's a scream watching Reiner's flashback about a sexual encounter they had in his car. Diaz commits, but the part feels overdone. Penelope Cruz on the other hand is the female goddess, there to represent beauty and love and all that good stuff. Her Laura character is the Counselor's girlfriend (and later fiance), mostly there as something that can be used against our intrepid lawyer should anything go wrong.

Without giving anything away in terms of character and some twists along the way, also look for Rosie Perez, Ruben Blades, Edgar Ramirez, Dean Norris, John Leguizamo, Toby Kebbell, Goran Visnjic, and Bruno Ganz in parts of varying importance and screentime.

It's the rare movie that doesn't have good and bad features. On top of its impeccable cast and time-transplanted film noir plot, 'Counselor' is dripping with tension, a feeling of foreboding and sense of doom, of something horrific to come. That's especially evident in a description of a horrific device used by the drug cartels to take out troublemakers. You hear about it early and then spend the rest of the film waiting to see it in horrifying action. This is one uncomfortable movie, and that's a good thing. Definitely a positive. That doom cloud hanging over the story though, it limits what the story can do. I never felt I had a read on the Counselor (the character). I would have liked some more exposition about the characters (all of them) and the set-up. No, not everything laid out on a silver platter, but a little something. As is the case at times when I've read McCarthy novels, it feels like he's trying to be the most literary person ever. That unfortunately is the feeling here.

Here we sit. Not a classic but not the complete dud so many made it out to be. Sometimes 'Counselor' gets too wrapped up in the sex and violence, but the guts of it is a disturbingly dark story that doesn't pull any punches. Know what you're getting into, but yikes, it is an interesting film experience for good and bad.

The Counselor (2013): ** 1/2 /**** 

Zero Dark Thirty

With her 2008 film The Hurt Locker, director Kathryn Bigelow created a film that was timely, moving, unsettling and in the end, especially memorable. She would have been hard-pressed to duplicate or improve on that formula, but her follow-up film tackled an even bigger topic, the decade-long hunt for terrorist Osama bin Laden, and tackled it well. Gaining the early buzz for a handful of Oscars is 2012's Zero Dark Thirty.

In the months following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the CIA takes a new mission on; tracking down and capturing Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda terrorist behind the attacks. Among the agents and operatives in the process is Maya (Jessica Chastain), a young agent who while highly intelligent is rightfully a little stunned and taken aback by the hunting process. Days to weeks, weeks to months and months to years, Maya and countless other agents work toward capturing bin Laden, but it is a tedious, monotonous process that entails pursuing countless leads and rumors. The terrorist seems to have receded back into the Earth, disappeared like he never existed. Maya continues the hunt, following a lead involving a possible courier, Abu Ahmed, who may have a link to bin Laden. Will the never-ending hunt amount to anything? Will Maya be pushed beyond the brink as the hunt becomes an obsession to her?

Tackling a movie detailing the decade-long hunt for Osama bin Laden is a mammoth, gargantuan task that had to be at least a tad bit intimidating for Bigelow in the director's chair. Somehow, she didn't even manage an Oscar nomination for her work. I didn't love the movie -- I don't think you're supposed to love it -- but Bigelow deserves credit where it's due. 'Zero' is far from conventional, and that's most definitely a huge positive. In a story that spans 10 full years, a ridiculous amount of information, names, places and people are thrown at the viewers. The development is linear, but it's almost episodic in execution. We see the developing hunt through ups and downs, theories, doubts and conspiracy theories, clues that result in nothing, others that lead to a dead end, and that one perfect little tidbit that will produce an actual lead.

Along with Bigelow's directing, the best thing going for 'Zero' is Jessica Chastain as Maya, a role that's earned her a Best Actress nomination (one I think she'll win). We're introduced to her as she arrives at a CIA Black Site as a veteran agent/interrogator, Dan (scene-stealing Jason Clarke), as he starts the long process of breaking down a detainee. Trained and intelligent, she's nonetheless surprised at first at what she sees. As her investigation continues though, we see Maya develop as a character, a driven, frustrated, even obsessed agent who will stop at nothing to catch bin Laden, even when everything and everyone around her doubts the effort. Chastain creates a great lead character, one that comes into her own as the hunt continues and the years pass. When she finally finds a clue, she's the only one who believes it will lead anywhere. Another impressive performance from an actress who keeps climbing onward and upward.

Chastain is the constant in the movie as the story moves from year to year and location to location. Bigelow's storytelling technique is almost documentary-like in its execution. We're taken from CIA Black Sites to CIA headquarters in Langley, isolated locales to crowded markets in countless Middle Eastern cities. The story highlights further terrorist attacks following 9/11, and it all leads to an ending that we all know, but is sickeningly interesting to watch develop. Through all the clues, leads and informants, Bigelow's best decision is a complete lack of opinion. It's a perfect choice. She presents the hunt, the name and the background, and that's it, reflecting that documentary-like storytelling. 'Zero' doesn't vilify bin Laden (it doesn't need to) or try to create a bigger picture of what's going on in the world. This is the hunt. This is what we need to see, and that's all Bigelow's film is trying to do.

The documentary/episodic story allows for some solid supporting parts around Maya's ever-continuing hunt and obsession. I especially liked Clarke as Dan, the underplayed CIA agent who shows in such subtle fasion how to interrogate/torture someone, always keeping them guessing and unsettled in a horrific way. Kyle Chandler plays the U.S. station chief in Pakistan, needing to complete objectives but the odds are against him with Jennifer Ehle and Harold Perrineau as two fellow in-country agents. Along with Clarke as a field agent, Edgar Ramirez is excellent as Larry, a CIA operative working to pursue a lead Maya has found while Mark Strong is also a scene-stealer as George, a CIA supervisor who has to work down the middle, working with his agents while also appeasing his own superiors. Also look for James Gandolfini as the CIA director and Stephen Dillane as the National Security Advisor.

If there is an issue with 'Zero,' I would say that at 157 minutes it feels long at times, especially early as the groundwork is set up for the second half of the story. Not dull, not boring, but a little sluggish maybe. Things pick up in a quick way when Maya's investigations lead to a heavily fortified compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The whole hunt is transfixing to watch, but upon the arrival of Seal Team 6 into the story (headlined by Joel Edgerton and Chris Pratt) goes up a notch or two. We don't see their training, just the night of the raid on the fortified compound that supposedly hides bin Laden inside. It is an incredible extended sequence as the SEALs fly into Pakistan, land near the compound (with one major issue) and then efficiently move into the compound. Intense doesn't begin to describe this true-to-life sequence. The nighttime raid is filmed with both night vision and shadowy, foggy darkness. You know where the scene is going, and it's still almost unbearable to watch.

'Zero' has its fair share of moments like that. It is a movie to watch and appreciate more than one you love and watch once or twice a year. It has taken some flak for any number of things -- a pro-torture stance, possible help from the Obama administration on some details -- but none of the issues are enough to detour an otherwise excellent movie. We get an excellent look into the intelligence underworld that feels authentic from beginning to end. Definitely worth checking out as award season goes into full swing.

Zero Dark Thirty (2012): ***/****

Che: Part One

Few historical figures stir up as much as controversy as revolutionary Ernesto 'Che' Guevara, an Argentinian man who fought with Fidel Castro in the Cuban revolution. Some look at him as an idealist revolutionary, someone to look up to for having fought oppression. Others look to him as a murderer, an individual one step above the dirt. Any movie about Che's life is then taking on quite a mission. Here's the review of the first half of director Steven Soderbergh's two-part movie about the infamous revolutionary, 2008's Che: Part One.

Working with fellow revolutionaries in 1956 Mexico, Ernesto Guevara (Benicio Del Toro), known as Che to his friends, has become fast friends with Fidel Castro (Demian Bichir), a Cuban national hoping to overthrow the oppressive Batista regime. With a group of just 80 followers, Castro and Guevara sail for Cuba, hoping to start a revolution from the ground up. The effort is slow and plodding, but they begin to see results. The cause grows and expands as more Cubans come to fight with the revolutionaries trying to overthrow not just the actual government, but the idea of what the government has become. Months and years pass, but the cause seemingly cannot be stopped with Havana and Batista as the end-game.

How do you start an argument online? Form an opinion, publish it in some way and let people immediately say 'No, you're wrong.' No movie about a divisive individual such as Che Guevara will please everyone. I've long been fascinated by the man without knowing much about him, but an IMDB poster of all people made an interesting point of all place (go figure). Some portray Che as good, others as bad. Wouldn't it make sense then that he was somewhere in between? Soderbergh leans more toward a positive portrayal (through Part 1 at least), but more than positive or negative, I think the objective was to show Guevara as a human being. He's not scum of the Earth, nor is he a perfect individual without flaws. He is a person if a somewhat idealistic individual.

As far as actors currently working in Hollywood go, I'm hard pressed to come up with too many that are better than Benicio Del Toro. His performance -- like the film itself -- as Che is a veritable minefield. There is no way to play this man without stirring up emotions, both positive and negative, among moviegoers. Soderbergh's film (through the 1st part at least) didn't seem too interested in taking a judgmental stance one way or another so Del Toro just gets to play the man. He is intelligent, well-spoken, a quiet but highly effective leader, and a man obsessed with revolution (and it doesn't hurt that Del Toro physically is a spot-on match for Che). In the process he performs actions that even now are controversial. It's an effective part if not a great part. Again, I come back to the movie on the whole, not just his performance.

Soderbergh's intention doesn't seem to be vilifying or making Guevara a hero. That's good. On the other hand, it doesn't take much of a stance at all. It feels instead like a fly on the wall documentary. Brief snippets/asides try to illustrate the bigger picture -- Castro, Cuba, Batista, the U.S. involvement -- but it is handled so quickly that it doesn't leave an impression at all. At 136 minutes, the movie is sometimes tedious and repetitious. It is a story about the growing Cuban revolution, and what do we see? Lots of jungle scenes, lots of walking through jungle scenes, lots of Che and his fellow officers addressing revolutionaries about their effort. Maybe Soderbergh just wanted to bring to life the revolution without trying to shove a message down our throats, but having no message at all doesn't work as well as it could have been.

Now those are all issues that I had with the movie, but there were positives, including Del Toro's performance. Soderbergh is a talented director to begin with, and when I think of his movies I think of style. A real-life style, a flair. 'Che' uses a framing device of Guevara visiting New York City and delivering a speech at the United Nations in 1964, the story bouncing between the visit and the fighting in Cuba between 1956-1959. The NYC scenes are shot in a grainy black and white, the Cuban jungle in vivid colors. Title cards introduce locations and times, and Soderbergh's camera always makes it a visually interesting movie to watch if not necessarily a story-driven interesting. Composer Albeto Iglesias' score is a gem, covering multiple genres and types of music that fit the story perfectly. Stylistically, 'Che' is an unquestioned winner.

Because of the almost free-flowing, story-less plot, the characters drift in and out, limiting their effectiveness. Bichir as Castro is a high point, more fiery and outwardly emotional in his revolutionary methods (if equally driven) as Che is. Catalina Sandino Moreno plays Aleida, a young revolutionary who joins the fighting as a guide for Che as the fighting nears Cuba's major cities. Rodrigo Santoro, Edgar Ramirez, and Santiago Cabrera play some of Che's fellow officers and revolutionaries, all with the potential for cool characters, but they end up being interchangeable. Also look for Julia Ormond as an American journalist interviewing Che during his NYC visit. This is definitely Del Toro's movie though.

Certain moments are highly effective, much of them coming late as Batista's regime starts to crumble. A half-hour plus is spent on the vicious street fighting in Santa Clara, and these battle sequences are effective in their reality. Cases of handfuls of revolutionaries fighting handfuls of army soldiers in the empty streets is tense and uncomfortable. The movie on the whole though is hit or miss with its fair share of flaws that I hope Part II fixes some. Review to come in a day or so.

Che: Part One <---trailer (2008): ** 1/2 /****

Wrath of the Titans

Released in 2010, Clash of the Titans was your pretty standard big budget, CGI-filled blockbuster with a huge if wasted cast. Read my review from last fall HERE if curious. It was entertaining enough in a generic blockbuster sort of way, interesting in the moment but fairly forgettable after that. If that's not a recipe for success, I don't know what it is. Enter stage left, the unnecessary sequel, 2012's Wrath of the Titans.

It has been 10 years since half-God, half-man Perseus (Sam Worthington) helped save the world from the warring gods, defeating the Kraken and preserving peace. But now the gods are at it again, all sorts of hellish creatures and demons escaping from the underworld. Now Perseus lives with his son, Helius (John Bell), and wants nothing to do with the situation, even when Perseus' father, Zeus (Liam Neeson), asks him for his help in defeating the enemy. When Zeus is betrayed by his own brother, Hades (Ralph Fiennes), and his son, Ares (Edgar Ramirez), god of war, only then does Perseus join the fight. Even the half-god, half-man has no idea what awaits him this second time around.

Here's my problem both with this movie and the movie industry in general. Yes, this will sound stupid, naive and did I say 'stupid'? Novel concept, but basically movie's are based off the $ they generate, right? The 2010 Titans was a pretty solid, self-contained story with ridiculous amounts of CGI, some halfway decent characters, and a solid cast. Not to say it was a classic -- it most definitely was not -- but it was enjoyable enough. Generic, a little dull at times, but good in that inoffensive sort of way. I'm doing a hell of a job selling it, aren't I? There were no unsolved stories, no real mystery so why make a sequel? You guessed it. 'Clash' made almost $500 million worldwide. So away we go with a sequel, and yes, I realize I'm shooting my theory in the foot because I'm admitting I paid to see it. I like movies. Sue me.

'Wrath' is basically the same exact movie as 'Clash' except with a few new characters, new love interest, and a wide assortment of weird, cool and odd mythological characters. My hope writing the review of 'Clash' was that with a sequel, characters would get to develop some and a possibly longer run-time would allow the movie and story to develop and breathe...a lot. No such luck, the sequel actually clocking in at seven minutes less (99 to 106) and still somehow managing to feel longer. Go figure....anyways, it's the same formula. Video game-like action, cardboard cutouts of characters, far too much reliance on CGI, and no real interest in a story. It's all disappointing because just like 'Clash,' 'Wrath' certainly has the potential to be really good. It's there. It just needed to be worked with even a little.

Getting little to no help from a script, the cast does their best to work things out. I still believe Worthington is a budding HUGE star just waiting for the right role. He's a bright spot again as Perseus, the hero fighting for his father and son, willing to throw it all on the line. It could have used more of his subtle humor in an otherwise deathly serious movie. A little campy humor couldn't have hurt. Neeson again is awesome as Zeus, Fiennes excellent as the sneering, waffling Hades, and Danny Huston plays Poseidon, the three most powerful Greek gods. Rosamund Pike steps into the love interest part, playing Andromeda, a female general and kick-ass fighter while Bill Nighy gets to be quirky and eccentric as Hephaestus, the scientist/creator of the weapons of the gods.

The best thing going for 'Wrath' is the casting of a quasi-sidekick for Perseus, Toby Kebbell playing Agenor, son of Poseidon so another half-God, half-man roaming the countryside looking for trouble. He injects some much needed energy into a sometimes surprisingly slow-moving story as the roguish anti-hero. Kebbell has some fun with the part, not playing it so straight-laced and button-down. It doesn't have to be physical humor, but something to lighten the mood up a bit, and Kebbell does it well. His exchanges with Worthington's Perseus provide some of the movie's better highlights. Can't say I'm excited for a third Titans movie, but if it's on the horizon, I hope Kebbell returns.

The shame of it all is that 'Wrath' has a chance to be good. We get creature fights with a fire-breathing, two-headed hell-dog straight from Hades, a trio of Cyclops warriors, a running fight with a Minotaur through catacombs and labyrinths that all look alike, and an epic showdown with Kronos, one of the first God/Titans who's been imprisoned for years. Now he's released as a gigantic, immense creature made of rock and spewing lava. Pretty cool finale with him facing Perseus. There's nothing to tie it all together though. The CGI looks good, but gets tedious quickly. The story drifts from episode to episode, and the characters aren't particularly interesting. Gotta go with the same rating as 'Clash.' Lots of wasted potential, but you can certainly do worse.

Wrath of the Titans <---trailer (2012): ** 1/2 /****