MovieChat Forums > The Counselor (2013) Discussion > Big plot holes

Big plot holes

posted 8 years ago by colin-117
5 replies | jump to latest

The more I thought about this movie the more it did not make
sense to me. What was the Counselor's involvement? It was not financing. Drug cartels don't acquire their product with promissory notes. Why did they need Reiner or Westray for anything? They had the product, they had the organization to get it across the border, the set up in Chicago to receive the goods, and a waiting buyer. As for Malkina, why would she risk everything she had, including her own life, to steal a load of dope that would be hard to sell without exposing her involvement? I don't think it was because she needed another Ferrari.

[–] rumbleinthejungle 8 years ago

The Counselor, Westray and Reiner are purchasing a quantity of cocaine to sell on. The Counselor alludes to having money troubles at one point ("my back is up against the wall") hence his involvement in the first place.
Malkina sees an oppurtunity to frame and implicate the 3 main players, plus The Counselor's fiancé, and inherit Reiner's and Westray's fortunes.
She does this because she is clearly evil and deranged and psychotic.

[–] partydjz (425) 3 years ago

EXACTLY, there is absolutely no reference to any back story, we don't get to know anyone in this piece of garbage. "My back is against the wall" oh I see, then sell one of those sports cars, get some new drug dealer clients. This trash makes zero sense and the dialogue simply sucks.

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

You’re not supposed to get to know them. You didn’t even hear the counselor’s name. Characters keep saying ‘Jesus’ amid all the philosophical and religious monologues. It’s a deliberately stylised film that focuses on very particular things and cuts out what it has no interest in.

[–] immattj (4042) 3 years ago

Forgive me if this was totally and completely obvious, but what I was never able to understand was:
1) why Rosie Perez blamed the counselor for her son getting killed, and
2) why the cartel blamed the counselor for stealing the load of drugs that I took it he was financing.
3) I didn't understand why the cartel thought that Brad Pitt was tied up in that either.

I even bought two copies of the screen play (I bought two because I was hoping one would not be a screen play) to see if I could clarify it for myself.

But that's okay. I loved the movie and grew to accept that I wasn't supposed to understand those details.

[–] Seperatrix (1348) a year ago

Been awhile since I've seen the film, so I may return one day to edit my response, but for now here goes . . .

1) she's shown to have a sort of psychic connection to her son (as mothers are often portrayed), and her feeling was justified when she would later learn that her son was killed right when she felt it while in her jail cell. She is wired into the crime grapevine enough to know that the Counselor was part of the drug deal and she didn't appear to care for him that much to begin with. So she made a rash conclusion and trusted her instincts, even if they were wrong, she wouldn't care.

2) & 3) Someone has to pay. Someone always has to pay. The Cartel had an image to maintain. They -- the Cartel -- were screwed (albeit momentarily) and people had to die.