criterionforum.org

Cormac McCarthy submitted a spec script that no one knew he was writing to his agents two months ago. In what must be the fastest turnaround in history, production is scheduled to start May 1, reportedly with Michael Fassbender in the lead. Ridley Scott directing. Theoretically could be done this year. Crazy.

I think Corman has that fastest turnaround record of about a week if that.

Scott never really struck me as a director in tune with McCarthy's sensibilities, but I'm really excited about this none the less. An unusual move on McCarthy's part, but I guess after seeing the process and success of two recent film adaptations gave him a taste for the medium.

Jeff wrote:Cormac McCarthy submitted a spec script that no one knew he was writing to his agents two months ago. In what must be the fastest turnaround in history, production is scheduled to start May 1, reportedly with Michael Fassbender in the lead. Ridley Scott directing. Theoretically could be done this year. Crazy.

Wow. Brad Pitt and Javier Bardem have officially joined the cast. Maybe Angelina Jolie too. Filming is now scheduled to start in June.

On the face of it, it sounds like the kind of film Tony Scott should be doing, but interesting nonetheless.

First look at Ridley Scott/Cormac McCarthy's The Counselor.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:First look at Ridley Scott/Cormac McCarthy's The Counselor.

Apparently it's the final installment in the Get a Load of Javier Bardem's Crazy Hair! Trilogy.

I'm disappointed. None of it looks especially interesting to me.

Only Scott could make Cormac McCarthy and that cast seem this dull. Not that it should be surprising; can anyone make a genuine case in favour of any of his movies post-Blade Runner?

I can make a case that they all aren't terrible. Do they rise to the standard of Blade Runner? No, but not many films do in my estimation. Black Rain, Thelma & Louise, Gladiator, Hannibal, Black Hawk Down, Matchstick Men, American Gangster and Prometheus are all ones I like and don't mind saying that I do. They're all flawed in their own ways but it doesn't deter them from being any less enjoyable.

Matchstick Men made me admire and appreciate a post-Moonstruck performance by Nic Cage, which is really saying something. Black Hawk Down is quite good (though I give credit to the editing and cinematography over the direction), and Hannibal would have been a great black comedy if someone had let Julianne Moore in on the joke.

I'd even say that Body of Lies and Kingdom of Heaven (the director's cut especially) are very underrated. White Squall has one great scene that's better than most other movies. And Gladiator's not the whorishly crowd pleasing travesty of cinema some folks around here make it out to be.

warren oates wrote:And Gladiator's not the whorishly crowd pleasing travesty of cinema some folks around here make it out to be.

Exactly. I can't imagine any crowd that could be pleased by that overlong, tedious mess.

The best thing he's done since Blade Runner was hiring Charles de Lauzirika to handle the home video releases of his movies.

Ridley Scott's visual style seems too sleek and polished for a McCarthy story. The latter's stories always benefit from a gritty, weathered feel (such as in No Country and The Road).

The screenplay will be available for purchase October 8th

Interesting! Obviously McCarthy's pedigree allowed for this happen, but I'd like it if more screenplays were published alongside the filmed versions.

med wrote:The screenplay will be available for purchase October 8th

Interesting! Obviously McCarthy's pedigree allowed for this happen, but I'd like it if more screenplays were published alongside the filmed versions.

There was a time in the mid-to-late 90s when screenplays were published for tons of films, including pretty much every Miramax release, through there Miramax Books imprint. This was when bookstores themselves weren't a novelty.

flyonthewall2983 wrote:I can make a case that they all aren't terrible. Do they rise to the standard of Blade Runner? No, but not many films do in my estimation. Black Rain, Thelma & Louise, Gladiator, Hannibal, Black Hawk Down, Matchstick Men, American Gangster and Prometheus are all ones I like and don't mind saying that I do. They're all flawed in their own ways but it doesn't deter them from being any less enjoyable.

I agree. I think Scott takes a drubbing because he hasn't lived up to being the kind of auteur that fans had expected after his first three features. For me, he is a brilliant art director who also happens to be a competent, intermittently inspired director. I'm seldom thrilled by his work, but he rarely makes me regret the time spent watching one of his films. THE COUNSELOR seems to provide more invigorating source material than he's had in a while; I'm looking forward to it.

Matt wrote:Matchstick Men made me admire and appreciate a post-Moonstruck performance by Nic Cage, which is really saying something.

I still think Matchstick Men is one of the most entertaining movies of the 00s. It's impressive that its engaging while also being able to convey nearly every aspect of baby-boomer anxiety. It's especially unusual considering the same subject matter is generally executed incredibly poorly by most other projects that are fascinated with the topic.

I think what makes it work, besides the cast, is that Scott frankly doesn't seem to care about many of the aspects to the script including what you are pointing at which gives them a certain levity of expectation that they are rarely afforded. Scott's tendencies toward mis-en-scene focus really benefits him for once (though I say that feeling almost identical about A Good Year which I understand is generally treated as his worst film).

As a long time lurker and reader of the forum who has finally decided to sign-up and post, may I offer a defence of Ridley Scott's work post-Blade Runner (1982) as well? I feel Scot has sometimes been unfairly criticised for being a filmmaker he is not; instead of trying to take him to task using auteur theory, he should be regarded, like Steven Spielberg, like a modern day Cecil B. deMill, only with a finer visual sense. He makes films usually of a consistent quality and tone, always with a mind as to what will work with the paying, viewing audience. In a sense then, he is a consummate populist director that can deliver more than action and explosions.

Finally, a trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ML50I0mVHY) that appears closer to what the movie might actually feel like. I was always optimistic, but this UK trailer makes me feel a lot better about looking forward to this.

If the trailer didn't already have echoes of "Breaking Bad", they had to throw in Dean Norris for good measure (whether it's half measures or full measures remains to be seen).

it looks really...digital.

it's weird, i've never had a problem with the Red Epic before, in fact, i've liked the way the movies looked that i've seen shot with it. but i've seen the The Counselor stuff online and the trailer in the theater and every time my eyes seem slightly put off by the clean, sterile sharpness of it all. maybe the somewhat drab/cool color palette and the fairly by-the-numbers compositions are just accentuating my problems with it, i dunno. the car hood scene looks cool, tho.

i'll see this for Cormac's involvement, if nothing else.