View Full Version : Sicario Review
Similar to No Country For Old Men this movie looks at the darkest corners of the drug trade and cartels. It's tight and taught, and very well acted and directed. It's visually impressive, with a cast who keeps the movie from being another mindless action sequence. It's easily the best movie of 2015, one of the best movies in the genre I can remember. Think Clear and Present Danger meets No Country For Old Men. It's unflinching, and pulls no punches on one possible scenario of what happens when the US takes the gloves off to combat narco traffickers. There's a few scenes that require a suspension of disbelief, but the are few and far between in this movie. A-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR0SDT2GeFg
Averageman
01-11-16, 09:01
I saw this yesterday, I watched it like 2 1/2 times to get some of the details that are rather nuanced in the dialog and action.
Great Movie.
I saw this yesterday, I watched it like 2 1/2 times to get some of the details that are rather nuanced in the dialog and action.
Great Movie.
And when was the last time you saw a movie that was that good in the genre? I honestly can't even remember it's been so long.
It's in my iTunes queue. Looking forward to firing it up.
I thought it was good, but idk about A+. Maybe an A-/B+.
I thought it was good, but idk about A+. Maybe an A-/B+.
I can see that. There were a few flaws that had eye rolling potential, but part of my enthusiasm is likely due to how good it was compared to what's been offered in the genre for so long and one disappointing movie after another. A- would be a fair assessment to, but no lower in my view. Blunt was a questionable choice but pulled it off all things considered I thought. She looks a little silly in the tac gear :cool:
Wife and I both loved it. One of the better movies I've seen in quite some time...
brickboy240
01-11-16, 10:16
Thanks for the review. I too want to see this soon.
How does it stack up versus movies in this genre, like "Traffic" or "Blow?"
Averageman
01-11-16, 10:17
And when was the last time you saw a movie that was that good in the genre? I honestly can't even remember it's been so long.
It's been since "No Country For Old Men." however, I'm hoping 13 Hours beats them both.
I can see that. There were a few flaws that had eye rolling potential, but part of my enthusiasm is likely due to how good it was compared to what's been offered in the genre for so long and one disappointing movie after another. A- would be a fair assessment to, but no lower in my view. Blunt was a questionable choice but pulled it off all things considered I thought. She looks a little silly in the tac gear :cool:
The thing is, it would be an above average 3-4 episode story arc in Strike Back. That's why I wasn't super super impressed. Well made, no obvious huge flaws, but also not above and beyond imo.
It's been since "No Country For Old Men." however, I'm hoping 13 Hours beats them both.
I hear they tried to case Shrillary in 13 hours but couldn't find anyone who could drool and snore like that...
I have been wanting to see this movie. I'll have to make the time to do so. I find that the movie recommendations from people on this site are usually more accurate than the recommendations made by film critics.
The idea of this movie makes me wonder just how much our government is doing to directly combat the drug cartels. I am reminded of the old Tom Clancy Clear and Present Danger book.
black22rifle
01-11-16, 11:19
I agree it was a great movie.
I really liked the implied water boarding scene.
I really liked the implied water boarding scene.
Oh is that what that was? I thought they were doing a different form of torture.
Serpico1985
01-11-16, 11:50
I enjoyed it as well. The movie really created tension very well.
black22rifle
01-11-16, 11:53
Oh is that what that was? I thought they were doing a different form of torture.
That's what I thought it was,
Oh is that what that was? I thought they were doing a different form of torture.
Unknown and one of various strengths of that movie. Just implied physical violence (by the noises heard while the camera focuses on the drain) and a big jug O water. Hence, it's left to the viewers imagination to fill in the ugly details. The info they didn't supply visually or verbally was much worse and left it open.
We only see the after effects of what he did to the cop, and that too was more effective as what it implied vs what we got to see.
Very well done I thought.
I'll have to watch it again, I saw it in the thetere and left wanting more.
How did the ex lawyer for the Columbia cartel turn into a one man high speed "Sicario". It would seem he was given a great deal of respect by the company man and delta. Deltas interaction with blunts character was hilarious.
How did the ex lawyer for the Columbia cartel turn into a one man high speed "Sicario".
Please, nobody post a spoiler. Watch the movie. It is good, and on my short list of best modern action movies.
I'll have to watch it again, I saw it in the thetere and left wanting more.
How did the ex lawyer for the Columbia cartel turn into a one man high speed "Sicario".
Warning: mild spoilers for those who have not seen it:
He'd been Mexican prosecutor whose wife and kid were killed by the Columbia cartels, hence that final lone mission on the Mexican side of the tunnel. How he got all HSLD I don't know and that part of the movie was a big stretch for me in an otherwise solid movie.
It would seem he was given a great deal of respect by the company man and delta. Deltas interaction with blunts character was hilarious.
I'd say he was seen as a tool for a needed end result (removal of top cartel member with plausible deniability it was not by Gringo mil or LE) and a man who had BTDT in the world they were working in and the goals of the mission. Clearly, they had history working together and he'd earned the respect due to high level of knowledge of the cartels. Seemed to me there was very little direct interaction between the Sicario and the D boys and and he was part of the crew and accepted due to working with CIA/DOD "consultant" who really did the interacting with the trigger pullers.
Averageman
01-11-16, 12:59
I'd say he was seen as a tool for a needed end result (removal of top cartel member with plausible deniability it was not by Gringo mil or LE) and a man who had BTDT in the world they were working in and the goals of the mission. Clearly, they had history working together and he'd earned the respect due to high level of knowledge of the cartels. Seemed to me there was very little direct interaction between the Sicario and the D boys and and he was part of the crew and accepted due to working with CIA/DOD "consultant" who really did the interacting with the trigger pullers.
The perfect tool, he just needed the training, you saw the level of his dedication and motivation once you understood his background and purpose.
The perfect tool, he just needed the training, you saw the level of his dedication and motivation once you understood his background and purpose.
Exactly, and they they dropped his background slowly as needed vs just dumping it on the viewer per usual lazy movie making for modern audiences with attention span of humming birds.
MountainRaven
01-11-16, 13:29
SPOILERS AHEAD
I thought the movie started fairly solid but lost its way in the last act.
I could totally see the US - particularly American SOF/JSOC veterans of the GWOT - going Operation: Reciprocity (that's a Clear and Present Danger reference) on the cartels. But I don't see the US operating directly alongside the cartels (something we don't actually see any evidence of, anyway) to decapitate one particularly violent cartel... more I would see it as basically the US trying to wipe out as much of the cartel as possible (like in Clear and Present Danger) and then playing whack-a-mole with the other cartels until they decide that it isn't worth kidnapping Americans, killing American police, and blowing up American buildings.
Frankly, decapitating just one cartel seems like a gross misallocation of resources. Decapitating all the cartels (or most of them)? Sure. Completely wiping out one cartel? Why not? But decapitating one cartel is going to achieve nothing. Which I suppose was supposed to be part of the point that the movie was trying to make, but it seemed rather sloppy about it.
I'll have to watch it again, I saw it in the thetere and left wanting more.
How did the ex lawyer for the Columbia cartel turn into a one man high speed "Sicario". It would seem he was given a great deal of respect by the company man and delta. Deltas interaction with blunts character was hilarious.
Warning: mild spoilers for those who have not seen it:
He'd been Mexican prosecutor whose wife and kid were killed by the Columbia cartels, hence that final lone mission on the Mexican side of the tunnel. How he got all HSLD I don't know and that part of the movie was a big stretch for me in an otherwise solid movie.
He wasn't born a lawyer.
He may very easily have gone to college, joined the Mexican army, gone SOF, gotten a medical discharge (maybe he broke his leg fast-roping out of a chopper, maybe he got shot or blown up during an OP - and the respect might be that he may have once led a successful OP against the cartels after everything went to shit on the ground, maybe alongside some of the D-Boys senior leadership when they were assaulters - or maybe the respect comes from having been completely broken in a helicopter crash and then making a nearly complete recovery), and then gone to law school. Sort of like Jack Ryan.
In any case, he is basically El Castigador - the Hispanic Punisher. Alejandro's real name is probably Francisco Castillo.
I'd say he was seen as a tool for a needed end result (removal of top cartel member with plausible deniability it was not by Gringo mil or LE) and a man who had BTDT in the world they were working in and the goals of the mission. Clearly, they had history working together and he'd earned the respect due to high level of knowledge of the cartels. Seemed to me there was very little direct interaction between the Sicario and the D boys and and he was part of the crew and accepted due to working with CIA/DOD "consultant" who really did the interacting with the trigger pullers.
One thing I thought was missing from the final scene between El Castigador and El Jefe was after being told that he was being used as a tool by the gringos and the other cartels, he should have said, "No, they're not using me. I'm using them."
And then we could have the tales of the ongoing adventures of Alejandro, the Hispanic Punisher, as he kills his way through the cartels.
Averageman
01-11-16, 13:45
SPOILERS AHEAD
I thought the movie started fairly solid but lost its way in the last act.
I could totally see the US - particularly American SOF/JSOC veterans of the GWOT - going Operation: Reciprocity (that's a Clear and Present Danger reference) on the cartels. But I don't see the US operating directly alongside the cartels (something we don't actually see any evidence of, anyway) to decapitate one particularly violent cartel... more I would see it as basically the US trying to wipe out as much of the cartel as possible (like in Clear and Present Danger) and then playing whack-a-mole with the other cartels until they decide that it isn't worth kidnapping Americans, killing American police, and blowing up American buildings.
Frankly, decapitating just one cartel seems like a gross misallocation of resources. Decapitating all the cartels (or most of them)? Sure. Completely wiping out one cartel? Why not? But decapitating one cartel is going to achieve nothing. Which I suppose was supposed to be part of the point that the movie was trying to make, but it seemed rather sloppy about it.
I think the point was to create a power vacuum and the resulting grab for the market share the previous El Jefe had would kill more of them than they could. They wanted to disrupt a corrupt system and then watch it tear itself apart until it could be stabilized again, then rinse and repeat.
SPOILERS AHEAD
This ^^^^
I thought the movie started fairly solid but lost its way in the last act.
I could totally see the US - particularly American SOF/JSOC veterans of the GWOT - going Operation: Reciprocity (that's a Clear and Present Danger reference) on the cartels. But I don't see the US operating directly alongside the cartels (something we don't actually see any evidence of, anyway) to decapitate one particularly violent cartel... more I would see it as basically the US trying to wipe out as much of the cartel as possible (like in Clear and Present Danger) and then playing whack-a-mole with the other cartels until they decide that it isn't worth kidnapping Americans, killing American police, and blowing up American buildings.
I didn't take away they were working alongside any specific cartel per se. but throwing a serious monkey wrench into the works that would cause them to implode into power vacuums,
Frankly, decapitating just one cartel seems like a gross misallocation of resources. Decapitating all the cartels (or most of them)? Sure. Completely wiping out one cartel? Why not? But decapitating one cartel is going to achieve nothing. Which I suppose was supposed to be part of the point that the movie was trying to make, but it seemed rather sloppy about it.
He wasn't born a lawyer.
That was not my issue. Bad wording on my end. No issues with his background (very plausible background you developed for example below is all good) but the fact he went off Lone Ranger Rambo and takes out a stronghold of a major cartel member alone. That was a bit over the top and stretched the suspension of disbelief for me. Your mileage may vary.
He may very easily have gone to college, joined the Mexican army, gone SOF, gotten a medical discharge (maybe he broke his leg fast-roping out of a chopper, maybe he got shot or blown up during an OP - and the respect might be that he may have once led a successful OP against the cartels after everything went to shit on the ground, maybe alongside some of the D-Boys senior leadership when they were assaulters - or maybe the respect comes from having been completely broken in a helicopter crash and then making a nearly complete recovery), and then gone to law school. Sort of like Jack Ryan.
In any case, he is basically El Castigador - the Hispanic Punisher. Alejandro's real name is probably Francisco Castillo.
One thing I thought was missing from the final scene between El Castigador and El Jefe was after being told that he was being used as a tool by the gringos and the other cartels, he should have said, "No, they're not using me. I'm using them."
It was implied. Ha!
That was a bit over the top and stretched the suspension of disbelief for me. Your mileage may vary.
My mileage did vary. I was cheering loudly! Hey, its a movie.
It was implied. Ha! Agree, that is how I saw it also.
My mileage did vary. I was cheering loudly! Hey, its a movie.
Hey, movies is serious bidness!
Hey, movies is serious bidness!
And I wish it were real!
WickedWillis
01-11-16, 14:54
I watched this on Saturday evening, and I really enjoyed it. Good twists, great suspense.
Running it again now.. The highway shootout was fantastic. The chic is annoying though.
That was not my issue. Bad wording on my end. No issues with his background (very plausible background you developed for example below is all good) but the fact he went off Lone Ranger Rambo and takes out a stronghold of a major cartel member alone. That was a bit over the top and stretched the suspension of disbelief for me. Your mileage may vary.
Eric Haney in his novel about life as A Delta operator discussed the necessity of operating solo on some missions (direct action), specifically boarding an airliner and neutralizing terrorists by himself because there wasn't sufficient room in the aisle.
I don't find it implausible that one trained man, coupled with the element of surprise, could kill 6 guards. It doesn't hurt to have over-watch aircraft with FLIR calling out target locations.
In regards to 'Alejandro's' character background, Matt (Brolin) refers to him as his bird dog when they are boarding the Lear jet in Texas. I took that statement as his being a CIA asset, likely trained by the Company.
I've seen the movie 4 times and really enjoyed the film. Benefit Del Toro and Josh Brolin are two of my favorite actors.
Eric Haney in his novel about life as A Delta operator discussed the necessity of operating solo on some missions (direct action), specifically boarding an airliner and neutralizing terrorists by himself because there wasn't sufficient room in the aisle.
I don't find it implausible that one trained man, coupled with the element of surprise, could kill 6 guards. It doesn't hurt to have over-watch aircraft with FLIR calling out target locations.
In regards to 'Alejandro's' character background, Matt (Brolin) refers to him as his bird dog when they are boarding the Lear jet in Texas. I took that statement as his being a CIA asset, likely trained by the Company.
I've seen the movie 4 times and really enjoyed the film. Benefit Del Toro and Josh Brolin are two of my favorite actors.
Impossible no, but starting to stretch the willing suspension of disbelief for me, yes.
Benefit Del Toro
Benicio not Benefit
And IMO he was the star of the show.
Mauser KAR98K
01-11-16, 17:19
Running it again now.. The highway shootout was fantastic. The chic is annoying though.
Kate needed to shut-up, shoot druggies, and sign the damn paper.
Kate needed to shut-up, shoot druggies, and sign the damn paper.
Weakest character in the movie, but it was written that way.
Since Blunt looked weak in the role, I guess she did her job.
Can't say I agree with the overall opinion here that this is a great film. Also didn't find it realistic at all....you'll need to suspend your disbelief the entire movie imho. It starts out with a female leading a FBI SWAT stack:cool:
I'm pretty sure the Coen brothers are crying having their epic classic being compared to a summer action film. I see no similarities b/t the two. If you want something that feels very much like No Country for Old Men....watch season 2 of Fargo.
At best 6/10. I did however make it through the whole movie fwiw.
MountainRaven
01-11-16, 18:50
Weakest character in the movie, but it was written that way.
Since Blunt looked weak in the role, I guess she did her job.
I feel like this is an on-going issue with some writers in Hollywood: A movie that's otherwise pretty good, ruined by the injection of a bland Marisoo-esque "everyman". I think it's especially atrocious when they try to make the character the moral center of the story.
The most notable movie I can think of that walked this same path was Kingdom of Heaven: A good movie (at least in the director's cut) held back by an annoying, stupid, weak protagonist. It doesn't help that the real Balian of Ibelin was a much more interesting character than Orlando Bloom's Balian.
I thought it was kinda silly, not sure where to start.
Realistically the FBI agent selected would have been more "on-board" then her.
CIA guys says they need to be attached to a domestic agency to work in USA (not exactly true), but all the real action took place in Mexico anyway.
An FBI agent trying to make an arrest in Mexico without the assistance of Federales.
Walking Dead guy just happens to know which bar FBI agent will show up in that night and will of course be easily seduced, except he pulls out rubber band instead of condom in front of her. I always get those confused too.
Still not sure what FBI agent objected to wrt to shooting on bridge. They had guns. It was a good shoot.
gonna stop before my head explodes again
eta
best line of movie - I tried to have sex with my hitman.
ramairthree
01-11-16, 21:30
Yeah,
She drove me nuts.
Well made, well acted movie.
But in reality plenty of FBI guys have tons of OBJs with the same crews under their belts overseas, a significant portion of which already have SOF backgrounds prior to joining the FBI,
And would not have made such a weak, conflicted main character.
Running it again now.. The highway shootout was fantastic. The chic is annoying though.
+1 on the highway "shootout," where the hunters quickly became the hunted.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
01-11-16, 22:30
Havent bought a movie in 10 years, but I bought this one. I enjoyed it and I was able to see past the silliness of the female lead.
militarymoron
01-15-16, 21:02
I enjoyed it. yeah, you have to suspend belief in some parts as in other movies, but it's a movie. i take it for what it's worth and it was good entertainment. i liked how it kept you wondering 'who is this guy' about del toro's character.
SPOILER ALERT: The border shootout scene was great, but i did have to watch it a couple of times because del toro's MP5 made me double-take. it switched from a railed, externally suppressed MP5A3 (in the car and when he was shooting) to an integrally suppressed SD3 after the shootout when he walks backwards towards the SUV then back to the railed MP5. since i don't know anything about tactics, i tend to focus on guns LOL.
Another thing that really worked well for me in the movie to keep the tension up was the soundtrack.
MountainRaven
01-16-16, 00:12
Moar spoilers!
I didn't take away they were working alongside any specific cartel per se. but throwing a serious monkey wrench into the works that would cause them to implode into power vacuums
Watching the movie again, and what makes me think that it's working with a cartel is that Alejandro tells Kate that he goes where he's sent and he was sent by Cartagena. And then virtually every cartel man he runs into asks if he's Medellin. Even El Jefe at the end says, in response to El Castigador's accusations of cruelty, referring to the people who sent him, "Who do you think we learned it from?"
It seems to me that El Castigador could very easily be a sort of liaison between a rising, old school cartel in Colombia and the CIA: In essence the cartels of South America teaming up with the US government to crush the Mexican cartels between them.
(Although I still think it is better established outside the movie that El Castigador is the Mexican Punisher, using and being used to kill his way to the top of the cartel that butchered his family.)
I enjoyed the movie. One of the better movies of 2015, but not nearly a best.
Walking Dead guy just happens to know which bar FBI agent will show up in that night and will of course be easily seduced, except he pulls out rubber band instead of condom in front of her. I always get those confused too.
He was friends with her partner, that is how he knew and that is why she let her guard down with him.
MountainRaven
01-18-16, 22:30
So total not-operator question regarding the shoot out on the bridge back to the US:
Is there a reason why they rolled down their windows - windows on the opposite sides of the car - when they spotted the hostiles trailing them?
So total not-operator question regarding the shoot out on the bridge back to the US:
Is there a reason why they rolled down their windows - windows on the opposite sides of the car - when they spotted the hostiles trailing them?
I will have to watch that scene again but I would assume to stop glass from flying in their face if they got engaged while still mounted.
You can hear, see, and engage better with the windows down. No secondary missiles or shattered glass that blocks your vision is nice too.
Dennis.
Also if they were bullet proof, it's very unlikely the windows could have been rolled down at all.
I finally watched it. I thought it was well-acted, and overall a pretty good movie. No clue if there's any accuracy to it but it wouldn't surprise me there was.
KalashniKEV
01-22-16, 22:42
Realistically the FBI agent selected would have been more "on-board" then her.
Obviously.
All you would need to do is select any male go-getter type G-man and tell him he gets to work with the military... even FORSCOM units... and he would be fapping in a toilet stall 5 minutes later.
Every Fed LEO wishes he was in the military.
I would have recast the ugly girl's role with Michelle Rodriguez.
She could have been a Mexican-American GWOT vet, female NCO, ultra perfectionist and super straight shooter. Then she could have been all conflicted between her motivation to take down the narcos and her commitment to doing the right thing.
But I don't see the US operating directly alongside the cartels (something we don't actually see any evidence of, anyway) to decapitate one particularly violent cartel...
You kind of missed the vocab word- Medellin.
Medellin describes the state of Pablo-era Narco Trafficking.
One organization controlled the drug trade and the bloodletting that took place was between them and the government that opposed them- when they opposed them.
The state of affairs in Old Mexico is that the government puts on a show like they oppose the cartels, but the massive bloodletting taking place between rival organizations is hurting more than just those in the game.
The Sinaloa Cartel is/was the United State's chosen victor in the cartel wars against los Zetas/ Knights Templar/ Gulf Cartel/ etc... that's why they get the guns, the impunity, the immunity, etc...
F&F was more than just a scheme to artificially create the link between US commercial gun sales and cartel violence- F&F was part of a deal to arm Sinaloa to kill off their rivals, while at the same time paying them for intel to take down their rivals, AND giving them immunity from prosecution.
If you want to know more, check out what was revealed in El Vicentillo's trial.
It's not just the Republicans that pine for the Reagan years...
;)
Finally saw this today.
As noted BOTH the FBI agent and her partner are weak and almost pointless, and there are some big flaws in the film. It is also slow at times, usually as it tries to establish Emily Blunt as more significant.
Another "could have been great if only" film, overall not as well made as "Clear and Present Danger" but does have the advantage of more realistic engagements like "Act of Valor." Too bad they didn't have a credible actress to pull off the main character.
Finally saw this today.
As noted BOTH the FBI agent and her partner are weak and almost pointless, and there are some big flaws in the film. It is also slow at times, usually as it tries to establish Emily Blunt as more significant.
Another "could have been great if only" film, overall not as well made as "Clear and Present Danger" but does have the advantage of more realistic engagements like "Act of Valor." Too bad they didn't have a credible actress to pull off the main character.
i didn't vomit during the initial viewing of the movie, but I found this movie repulsive. they made the main character such a cry baby.
there were also plot elements that just made no sense. why would you bring a Mexican national into the united states with a convoy of people from the united states? additionally, why would you bring someone to the united states to torture them or use enhanced interrogation techniques? this is the opposite of extraordinary rendition. stupid.
all the allusions to the CIA backing the drug trade, stupid. it could be said that situation happened once, with one person/operation, freeway Rick Ross and that was generations ago. Hollywood wants to ride that narrative into generalization for the rest of forever. stupid.
SPOILERS AHEAD
Frankly, decapitating just one cartel seems like a gross misallocation of resources. Decapitating all the cartels (or most of them)? Sure. Completely wiping out one cartel? Why not? But decapitating one cartel is going to achieve nothing. Which I suppose was supposed to be part of the point that the movie was trying to make, but it seemed rather sloppy about it.
this seems to be coming from the wrong perspective. it's actually pointless to decapitate any of the cartels. as we have learned from the global war on terror, as you crush cellular groups, you end up with atomization of cells. as cells atomize they can actually be led and operated with minimal formal heirachy or structure. operations of the nefarious organizations never ceases. money to be made, established means to do so already exist. it just requires another warm body to filter into the vacancies.
what movies like this try to illustrate (this sentiment is better illustrated in narcos during the historical narrative of Kiki Camerena) is that the narcos are allowed to do whatever the hell they want in their own country and to their own people. but if you step over the line and stack bodies in the united states or you kill an American in Mexico, the long arm of united states might will come and crush you. this may or may not truly exist in reality, but it sure is romantic.
MountainRaven
02-15-16, 21:04
this seems to be coming from the wrong perspective. it's actually pointless to decapitate any of the cartels. as we have learned from the global war on terror, as you crush cellular groups, you end up with atomization of cells. as cells atomize they can actually be led and operated with minimal formal heirachy or structure. operations of the nefarious organizations never ceases. money to be made, established means to do so already exist. it just requires another warm body to filter into the vacancies.
what movies like this try to illustrate (this sentiment is better illustrated in narcos during the historical narrative of Kiki Camerena) is that the narcos are allowed to do whatever the hell they want in their own country and to their own people. but if you step over the line and stack bodies in the united states or you kill an American in Mexico, the long arm of united states might will come and crush you. this may or may not truly exist in reality, but it sure is romantic.
The narco trade isn't terrorism, though.
You can lead a terror organization in which you rely on individuals to randomly grab whatever weapons come to hand and use them against the infidel. All you need is a bullhorn to transmit your message and exhort the true believers to take up jihad.
You simply cannot do likewise with narcotics. You need to have people who trust other people and you need people who can be trusted by other people. You need to have people who can grow or synthesize the narcotic in question, who can then refine and process the narcotic into a useable form, you need to have people who can transport it from the refiners across the border to the dealers, and you need to have dealers. You need to have organizations, relationships with other people. And organizations can be dismantled and destroyed - once the trust underlying such organizations is gone, the organizations rapidly evaporate (the Medellín are gone, for instance, crushed by the governments of the US and Colombia). Of course, so long as the demand exists, there will be those willing and able to supply it, so when one organization falls, another will rise in its place.
One is random violence and one is commerce.
The narco trade isn't terrorism, though.
You can lead a terror organization in which you rely on individuals to randomly grab whatever weapons come to hand and use them against the infidel. All you need is a bullhorn to transmit your message and exhort the true believers to take up jihad.
You simply cannot do likewise with narcotics. You need to have people who trust other people and you need people who can be trusted by other people. You need to have people who can grow or synthesize the narcotic in question, who can then refine and process the narcotic into a useable form, you need to have people who can transport it from the refiners across the border to the dealers, and you need to have dealers. You need to have organizations, relationships with other people. And organizations can be dismantled and destroyed - once the trust underlying such organizations is gone, the organizations rapidly evaporate (the Medellín are gone, for instance, crushed by the governments of the US and Colombia). Of course, so long as the demand exists, there will be those willing and able to supply it, so when one organization falls, another will rise in its place.
One is random violence and one is commerce.
I'm going to have to disagree on this. I would say there's a lot more trust and organization required for extremism, a lot more heart and idealism required for insurgency. there's a lot more life and death for individual participants in war than in commerce. that means higher stakes, higher trust.
Commerce will always function as long as the money flows. terrorist raise money, that requires dedication. drug trafficking just requires money. as long as the money and the prospect for more money exists, more people will fill in the vacancies. if Coca-Cola disappeared tomorrow, Pepsi would take over for a few years and a new player would emerge to compete for market share. if Coca-Cola loses 20 employees... they find more. if they lose their head chemist, they have the recipe and they hire another chemist. if they lost a shipping contractor, they find another one. none of this relies on trust, it relies on people's need for money and that's much easier to find than idealism to death.
I think it strange that you would say the united states or governments have crushed any of the cartels. all enforcement has done is rebranded different organizations. you think the people in these organizations even know what brand they're working for? if they even care? the guy that drives the car, he drives the car. the guy that packs the money packs the money. the guy that seals the bags seals the bags. they just want to get paid.
to suggest that drug traffickers are trustworthy or that such a nefarious industry has trustworthy or reliable operatives is just not the real situation.
Finally saw this today.
As noted BOTH the FBI agent and her partner are weak and almost pointless, and there are some big flaws in the film. It is also slow at times, usually as it tries to establish Emily Blunt as more significant.
Another "could have been great if only" film, overall not as well made as "Clear and Present Danger" but does have the advantage of more realistic engagements like "Act of Valor." Too bad they didn't have a credible actress to pull off the main character.
The FBI hires about 500 people per year (roughly) and more than 50,000 people apply. The hiring process takes at least a year and most people who apply have significant LEO and/or MIL background in addition to at least a Bachelor Degree - many have graduate degrees. Agents who get hired under the Tactical Recruiting Program and make it to the Hostage Rescue Team fulfill these requirements AND list units like the 75th Ranger Regiment, SF Groups, SEAL Teams, MARSOC, NYPD ESU, LAPD SWAT, etc. on their resume. They are meat eaters who spend most of their time pulling triggers just like their colleagues in Tier 1 military units. I agree, the character development in that movie was laughable.
HRT is a pretty small portion of the FBI though.
HRT is a pretty small portion of the FBI though.
Yes, but the protagonist was supposed to be the leader of the FBI's "special hostage rescue team." That was how the movie described her. They should have cast someone other than a pasty, anorexic chick in that role. I'm thinking Gerard Butler or Jeremy Renner would have been better.
BTW, there are between 200-400 agents assigned to HRT (actual number is not published for obvious reasons) and roughly 10,000 SAs.
....................., but I found this movie repulsive. they made the main character such a cry baby.
I disagree with you that she was the main character. Benicio del Toro was, IMO.
oh I actually didn't catch that part. that makes her character even worse and even more unbelievable. I thought she was just a regular FBI agent that was either on FBI swat or in an immigration task force that dealt with kidnappings.
400 out of 10000 is a small portion and rightfully so. they're the ones living the dream of being on a full time team. paid to train until they get a call out.
MountainRaven
02-15-16, 22:59
I thought she was the leader of a kidnapping task force, not a hostage rescue team/the HRT. But I've only seen the movie twice and haven't rewatched it in the last week or two and haven't gotten it back yet from a co-worker who I loaned it to. When I get it back, I'll pay special attention to what her job is supposed to be.
Perhaps I got is wrong having seen it once in the theater. However, the only FBI SWAT team that specializes in kidnapping rescue is the HRT. The SWAT teams at each FO are not fulltime and most of their call outs are high risk warrants, threat protection, etc.
Regardless, casting skeleton girl and butterball as the 2 FBI agents was a mistake.
However, the only FBI SWAT team that specializes in kidnapping rescue is the HRT.
This ^ considering they are "Hostage Rescue Team".
FromMyColdDeadHand
02-16-16, 08:11
After the good reviews here and a high Rotten Tomato rating, I watched it with my wife. It wasn't a bad movie, but it wasn't awesome. Once again, one of these modern tales of govt corruption, conspiracy and torture. Good action scenes, but her I thought she was too disillusioned from the start and was throwing flags way too early.
Like I said, not a bad movie, but no Collateral, Heat, Way of the Gun or Ronin.
Rmplstlskn
02-16-16, 08:37
After being subjected to The 5th Wave for "family" movie time, and the "whack-a-mole" glowing skulls shooting gallery, Sicario was just what Daddy ordered... Some very cool IR and NV first person, gun fights, seedy underbelly of society, and a decently hot chick who can fight and shoot... :-)
Rmpl
Perhaps I got is wrong having seen it once in the theater. However, the only FBI SWAT team that specializes in kidnapping rescue is the HRT. The SWAT teams at each FO are not fulltime and most of their call outs are high risk warrants, threat protection, etc.
Regardless, casting skeleton girl and butterball as the 2 FBI agents was a mistake.
...but...diversity...
/s
:sarcastic:
Perhaps I got is wrong having seen it once in the theater. However, the only FBI SWAT team that specializes in kidnapping rescue is the HRT. The SWAT teams at each FO are not fulltime and most of their call outs are high risk warrants, threat protection, etc.
Regardless, casting skeleton girl and butterball as the 2 FBI agents was a mistake.
but skeleton and butter ball are actually really realistic
but skeleton and butter ball are actually really realistic
Be even more realistic if she took a face full of shotgun shell during the ambush scene in the beginning of the movie. She fully entered the room enough for the shotgun to pattern behind her head and rather than immediately engage the threat she does some half as "stiff fall" onto her support side forcing her to reacquire the target from a really crappy shooting position.
In the time it took to accomplish that ninja move, anyone with any experience with a shotgun could have probably tagged her as many as three times. It's not like she wasn't fully committed to falling in a predictable direction.
This thread has solidified my afternoon plans. Gun cleaning and Sicario. Thanks guys.
Be even more realistic if she took a face full of shotgun shell during the ambush scene in the beginning of the movie. She fully entered the room enough for the shotgun to pattern behind her head and rather than immediately engage the threat she does some half as "stiff fall" onto her support side forcing her to reacquire the target from a really crappy shooting position.
In the time it took to accomplish that ninja move, anyone with any experience with a shotgun could have probably tagged her as many as three times. It's not like she wasn't fully committed to falling in a predictable direction.
The movie did get off to a rocky start with that opening scene and with a few minors mods, could have been a far better scene. I was in eye rolling mode at that point, but for me, it improved rapidly after that oddball set up. She looked silly in the tac gear and there really was no reason for her to be in it. I'll put her not being blasted with a load to the face (no pun intended) to luck and nerves of the shooter, etc. but it could have been a much better start to and otherwise good movie.
I think the entire point of her character was the fact she was a boy scout type who'd be easy to manipulate until it was too late, which her bosses and pal tried to warn her about several ways. That is, she was their huckleberry. Would a experienced BTDT agent allow himself to be sheep dipped without his knowledge and essentially used as she was? I'm guessing no. That's how I viewed it.
But, would a small cute huckleberry type of an agent be leading up a FBI rescue team? Some suspension of disbelief needed there and the rest of the movie made sure to keep her from ever appearing like some type of bad ass and essentially told to shut up and stay in the back as her presence was simply one of legality for their mission vs any need or want of her pe se.
The movie did get off to a rocky start with that opening scene and with a few minors mods, could have been a far better scene. I was in eye rolling mode at that point, but for me, it improved rapidly after that oddball set up. She looked silly in the tac gear and there really was no reason for her to be in it. I'll put her not being blasted with a load to the face (no pun intended) to luck and nerves of the shooter, etc. but it could have been a much better start to and otherwise good movie.
I think the entire point of her character was the fact she was a boy scout type who'd be easy to manipulate until it was too late, which her bosses and pal tried to warn her about several ways. That is, she was their huckleberry. Would a experienced BTDT agent allow himself to be sheep dipped without his knowledge and essentially used as she was? I'm guessing no. That's how I viewed it.
But, would a small cute huckleberry type of an agent be leading up a FBI rescue team? Some suspension of disbelief needed there and the rest of the movie made sure to keep her from ever appearing like some type of bad ass and essentially told to shut up and stay in the back as her presence was simply one of legality for their mission vs any need or want of her pe se.
Well if we are going to throw a novice into the mix. A better opening scene would have been of Emily getting scratched of the list with a face full of 00 buck. Would have reinforced the necessity of action to go along with the IED that got the other two cops.
At this point we could have had some other actress, and here I'd like to nominate Tereza Srbova, step up to the vacant position.
For the Sicario fans, some lighthearted humor:
DREAMY STEVE on YouTube (https://youtu.be/OXK48e0JmDY)
(music short, possibly NSFW - gun violence)
The real purpose of my reply was to point out that the ‘sequel’ is apparently completed with a 2018 release planned. No Emily Blunt, however Josh Brolin and Benicia DelToro and Dreamy Steve (Jeffrey Donovan) all are to be in SOLDADO (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5052474/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1).
Someone above mentioned a list of good action/gunplay films. Included Heat, Collateral, and my favorite - The Way Of The Gun. I can’t say enough about WOTG, I think it was highly underrated for story, dialogue, sets/backgrounds, grittiness, gunplay, character/actor matching, and humor. Check it out. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0202677/?ref_=nv_sr_3)
Don’t forget about The Kingdom, Miami Vice, and True Lies...any other suggestions?
Well if we are going to throw a novice into the mix. A better opening scene would have been of Emily getting scratched of the list with a face full of 00 buck. Would have reinforced the necessity of action to go along with the IED that got the other two cops.
At this point we could have had some other actress, and here I'd like to nominate Tereza Srbova, step up to the vacant position.
I thought the opening scene the weakest of the movie and thought it was gonna be a suck movie from that early impression. If they had a less goofy opening scene, and a few tweaks I think it could have been a classic of the genre.
5.56 Bonded SP
11-05-17, 16:46
I liked the movie, and actually enjoyed the opening scene.
May not have been perfect, but it was sure as hell much better than anything else Hollywood has been putting out.
sundance435
11-05-17, 20:17
This thread popped up, so I watched "Sicario" again. Agree that the female lead is kind of weak. I love del Toro's and Brolin's characters, though.
I know it's a movie, but I can't fathom why they would use a vehicle convoy to move the guy from Juarez to the U.S - and send 8 gangbangers to rescue him?
Loved this movie. The only thing I found annoying about it was that the sound went from I can barely hear it to holy crap that's loud. I'm a little gun shy with the surround sound since the cops showed up when the wife and I were watching The Dark Knight lol
MountainRaven
11-05-17, 22:02
This thread popped up, so I watched "Sicario" again. Agree that the female lead is kind of weak. I love del Toro's and Brolin's characters, though.
I know it's a movie, but I can't fathom why they would use a vehicle convoy to move the guy from Juarez to the U.S - and send 8 gangbangers to rescue him?
Rescue? Or kill?
sundance435
11-06-17, 10:24
Rescue? Or kill?
True - probably kill. Still, a weak attempt.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.