Talk:The Counselor

Crime and Criminal Biography: Organized crime Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Organized crime task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Film: British / Spanish / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Spanish cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Mexico Low‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Netherlands

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

Spain Low‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Negative reviews?[edit]

I think it would be more accurate to say that the reviews severely divided critics. Manohla Dargis offered a profoundly positive review, as did Richard Roeper. If those aren't heavy-weights in reviewing, I don't really know who are. Similarly, the Onion's A.V. Club (a perennially tough critic) offered a fairly strong review of the film.

My opinion here should be treated as somewhat unbiased because I personally didn't care for the picture. I found Cameron Diaz's performance integral to the picture and an utter failure of casting and direction. I thought Fassbender was poorly directed. I found the writing only occasionally coherent. I found the symbolism alternately fleeting and heavy handed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.246.117 (talk) 05:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decapitated body?[edit]

I watched carefully when the body was tossed into the landfill, and it did not appear to me that the body was missing its head. I thought it would be, and was surprised to see what looked like black hair on top of a head on top of the body. Jimstoic (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to the counselor's own death?[edit]

I did not understand the jefe to use the poem "to inform The Counselor of his own impending demise," a statement that, as written, is ambiguous (does "his own" mean the counselor's or the jefe's?). I understood the reference to be to the counselor continuing to live without his beloved, as the poet had been forced to live without his beloved--a fate that, in light of the counselor's willingness to die in the place of his wife, was worse than death. Jimstoic (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continental opinions censored[edit]

It is unbelievable that not a single commentary or critique from the European continent is allowed in here. We are watching this movie in original, no dubbing, and I find my addition worthwhile. I am sick and tired that this is consequently left out; fact of the matter is that continental Europeans are avid fans of American movies. We are not just watching the movies, we are looking for philosophical contents, as this is also reflected in the "die Zeit" critique. Why wouldn't this be honored? Now I am trying again. (84.73.158.170 (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, I reviewed the passage and do not think it is suitable for the article, written as it is. It makes a general claim, which is not appropriate per WP:WEASEL. We need to state that Andreas Busche (the film critic) said these things. In addition, my translation of the German-language article does not seem to show anything supporting the statement, "Despite the critique by the American audience, this movie was well received in Europe because of Ridley Scott's intelligent directing and perfect casting." Can you point it out, if I've missed it? Also pinging HesioneHushabye since they reverted the addition as well. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to concur. I just had a quick read-through the article, and while Die Zeit is a very notable newspaper, the critic, who in this article is merely giving the reader his very subjective review of the film, may not be. Also, as you established correctly, reviewing it is all he does; There is no mention about its actual success in Europe. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 15:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Twsx: Do you think it is worthwhile to quote the critic's thoughts on the film as long as we attribute properly, like we do with the other reviews? We could try to add a review from The Guardian or another non-American review to have a fuller paragraph. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Erik: I am not sure if the review is worth noting. Die Zeit is pretty big-time in D-A-CH, but to my knowledge they aren't particularly known for reviews on multimedia. Also, he spreads out his verdict through the article. Reading through it again, I had a hard time finding anything that could be quoted to reflect his overall opinion on the film. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 15:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the Euro reviews are needed or relevant on the page, sorry HesioneHushabye (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative spelling?[edit]

When searching for this film I chose to click on The Counsellor (film), which turned out to be a redirect to Counselor at Crime. While I was considering whether the redirect should point to the article here instead I realized that there was a spelling difference - the number of l's. And when I did a little googling I discovered that while the film poster uses a single l, most movie reviews refer to this film using a double-l. IMDb calls it The Counsellor (2013) but underneath that it says, "The Counselor (original title)". Does anybody have any idea what's going on here? nagual design 21:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Americans are trying to take sole credit for this British-American co-production as usual (made by a British director/producer and his company), by trying to force their Americanisms everywhere as usual.

There are also countless official posters, DVD covers, Blu-ray covers etc which use the more common British spelling, but some people try to remove that fact.

Danstarr69 (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]