Glenn Lovell’s “The Counselor” Is an Example of Not Doing Your Job.
By Rochus Pomponius, Adjunct Critic
Do you want to read a film summary? Glenn Lovell will provide that for you. Do you want an actual analysis of a film? Look elsewhere. Glenn Lovell is not interested in critiquing the film for his audience—he didn’t like it. So naturally, all that’s left to do is describe the film.
What exactly is one supposed to take away from The Counselor? “Hopelessly overwritten?” Is there anything else to offer the reader? It would have done Lovell some good to expand on his observations just a little bit, and make direct connections to the film being critiqued.
The problem with Lovell’s The Counselor is that Lovell writes about who is in the film without actually saying anything about them. He makes cryptic statements without communicating why the film is so bad. It’s the classic anti-critique. Very rare, but starting to see a comeback of late.
Glenn Lovell resorts to another film reference in the conclusion of his work, and says little about the film on its own. No Country For Old Men, Savages… the reader typically wants a critic to critique a film, not a whine about it.