Movies  •  Critics  •  About
Existimatum  >  Movies  >  The Counselor  >  Reviews  >  New York Post

Lou Lumenick’s “Bad Investment” Is Exactly That

In response to Lou Lumenick’s 555‑word review of The Counselor on New York Post 

http://nypost.com/2013/10/24/stars-make-bad-investment-in-ridley-scotts-counselor/

By ,

Lou Lumenick may satisfy some with his latest work, “Stars make bad investment in Ridley Scott’s Counselor,” but there is much more description than actual critique. The lone mention of director Ridley Scott in the opening paragraph should give one a sense of what to expect.

Bad Investment hooks the reader with an intriguing introduction before readers will realize what a bait-and-switch Lumenick has created. Audiences may even petition Cormac McCarthy to pen a script on the horrific review experience with Michael Fassbender as “The Reviewer.”

Lumenick sprinkles Bad Investment with a small amount of insight, but the majority of the review only describes the film to the reader. One has little to take away from the critic’s work, other than the knowledge that a main character dies. One will find it frustrating when the critic decides to toss out a spoiler, as minor as it may be to him, with no regard for the reader’s experience. What’s the purpose?

There is nothing to learn about Ridley Scott’s direction in Bad Investment, because Lumenick says nothing about it. There is also little analysis on the lead character, and the critic might actually devote more time to Javier Bardem’s haircut. That’s the type of content Lumenick is giving to his readers.

The introduction and conclusion of Bad Investment are solid, but Lumenick cruises on auto-pilot in the middle like so many other poor reviews.    

Quality of Writing Quality of Argument Spoiler Avoidance Presentation