>hurr durr l'muricans are bad people too.
Tell me why you think this steamy shit was actually a good film.
French-Canadian director Denis Villeneuve’s personal moral fascination is what makes his movies’ political topics so greatly compelling. He brings moral seriousness, not topical attitudes, to Sicario’s war on drugs. The title, an arcane hitman-assassin reference, purposely alludes to a group of Jewish Zealots in the a.d. 70 Jewish–Roman war in the Holy Land, in order to broaden — and complicate — an issue that otherwise would be subject to political controversy.
As in his powerful 2010 film Incendies (about the effect of the war in Lebanon on later generations in North America), Villeneuve closely examines the motivations of his three main characters: local DEA agent Kate Macer (Emily Blunt), federal agent Matt (Josh Brolin), and covert agent Alejandro (Benicio Del Toro). Looking beyond their legal jurisdiction, Villeneuve depicts them as players in a grave human tragedy.
Villeneuve sees — almost smells — the bloodiness of their efforts. No filmmaker since Sam Peckinpah has handled violence so effectively. “Be alert. Be vigilant. Be aware,” an FBI commander tells his troops. And that’s how Villeneuve directs. His Southwestern landscapes are presented existentially: plane shadows over flesh-like terrain; the Big Earth seen from above, catching microscopic human movements. One extraordinary vista features a sign (Las Biblias es verdad) on a mountainside. It gives an almost numinous perspective on the characters’ vexing, mundane maneuvers. And on the ground, in tunnels, or in hide-outs, the action involves all one’s senses. Sicario is technically superb, with vibrant sound effects and imagery ranging from sun-bright clarity to spectral night-vision by cinematographer Roger Deakins.
Sicario always returns to human scale — to Kate, Matt, and spooky Alejandro’s political conflicts, which are also moral conflicts, as the film shows how their noblest intentions get thwarted by unforeseen realities. (Brolin’s jug-jawed certainty works on an immediate level, Del Toro’s quiet passion is deeply stirring, but British actress Blunt, alas, isn’t convincing at conveying American temperament.) Sicario recalls the profundity of John Ford’s most sagacious western, Two Rode Together (1961), where moral ambiguities met political exigencies — a complex vision lost in our current, self-absolving, bifurcated culture.
Most of our movies today trade complexity for partisanship and sensationalism, whether for liberal or conservative ends. But Villeneuve brings back hard thinking and emotional response — a conservative value, and a nearly lost art.
Shit meme. Sicario is far better.
The ongoing suspense (opening house scene, bridge scene, tunnel entry, hostage scenes), Del Toro's character development was interesting, the action scenes were great, the sound and cinematography was amazing. I think the ending was a bit lackluster, but all in all I was really glad I watched it.
I'll probably watch it again.
Just watched the trailer. Looks fucking terrible.
>WE NEED TO GET THE HACKER OUT OF JAIL
>HE'S THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN SOLVE THIS
>WHAT'S HIS ANGLE
>WE'RE PUTTING YOU DEEP UNDERCOVER
>THIS ISN'T ABOUT MONEY
>opening house scene, bridge scene
This should so much promise. The first 30 minutes or so were great, then it slid downhill from then on and concluded with a really boring and unimaginative ending.
>on point editing
When anyone shits on this movie they only mention certain scenes that they find illogical. That is just one flaw for many positives
>he fell for the Blackhat is good meme
Top kek, Blackhat is nothing more than a trite imitation of the Taken movies.
I agree, honestly. I thought it was a bit lame that the tunnel breach was just a distraction for insertion, though the CIA/Medellin angle was neat and believable, the lawyer turned assassin-ninja-badass was disappointing. The fact that he kills the cartel boss and gets out unscathed was so bad, especially since they hinted at it being a suicide mission over and over.
>I'll just go watch a full length movie I've never heard of because of something someone on /tv/ said
With Memesworth in it, nonetheless? While trailers are no indication of quality, it had so many ACTION MOVIE tropes in it that I don't think I'm missing much. Nice job selling me with your quality post.
>comic book characters
>too predictable for tension
People who claim Sciario is 'good' are the most naïve and ignorant in cinema terms.
spotted the low attention span pleb
Yeah the rest of the movie needed some explosions and epic twists yeah. Also the ending should wrap it up all nicely so I leave the theater happy ofcourse maybe with a second big epig twizt
It was nothing spectacular. Blunt's attempts at an American accent were distracting to say the least
Good how? It was bland and derivative.
As one would expect from Deakins
hurr durr you are not le wolf and this is le land of wolves now mumble mumble
>on point editing
I would agree
Which one? Le meme specky tache man?
Dull ominous tones and a rip-off of T Bone Burnett
This is what it failed at every time
Are you saying I can't make any presuppositions based on how they sell the movie in the trailer? Isn't that the fucking point of trailers?
I'm 26 and I have a 50 movie backlog. You have to be a bit selective with how you spend your evenings when you're gainfully employed.
>People who claim Sciario is 'good' are the most naïve and ignorant in cinema terms
if you genuinely mean this, you should commit suicide
Why do people here have only extreme opinions? There is no middle ground here, either it is a masterpiece or utter dogshit
Like this post right here, he doesn't like the movie, therefore he needs to hate on every single element of the movie. But if he likes it, he would defend every single thing about it
Every thread the same fuck this board nuke it
Were we supposed to empathise with Silvio? Is that why they kept taking us away from the main narrative and dipping into his mundane family life so when his inevitable death happened we'd feel bad?
I cannot remember the last time I watch a film where they tried to force a connection with a character and failed so hard as this.
it was just used to show you a different perspective. No you are not supposed to cry or anything, even the kid loses his father and doesn't cry and goes to play soccer like any other day.
Murders are a part of life there, it was shown earlier in the movie when they are in Juarez and those kids playing tennis or some shit like that and when the convoy passes them they don't even stop with their game, just normal.
I'm not trying to convince you I'm trying to tell you your opinion is trash and belongs there. Critiquing a movie without seeing the movie is the trait of a fucking retard. A trailer is not a movie. I know you think you've won this "internet argument" but you've embarrassed yourself quite a bit.
There's no excuse and no defense for the violence committed by drug cartels and gangs. But the honest truth is, all of that violence is caused by the American government. The problem with the War on Drugs is exactly the same problem as alcohol prohibition in the 1920s. The laws have pretty much no effect on the flow of supply and demand, they only succeed in forcing the creation of a black market. With the necessity to operate in total secrecy, and the inability to regulate free-market competition through legal channels, the industry inevitably turns violent.
This happened exactly the same way with the black-market alcohol industry in the 1920s. It quickly devolved into violent gangsterism, hostility and warlike attitudes between the police and the people, innocent witnesses caught up and killed because the gangsters don't want to go to jail. Except with alcohol prohibition, we recognized and corrected our mistake pretty quickly.
The War on Drugs has been going on for too long, and the black market for illegal drugs has snowballed out of control into a massive multi-billion-dollar-a-year industry. Everywhere this industry exists, it creates an endless clusterfuck of horrendous violence, militaristic police presence, and hedonistic excess on the part of the gangsters.
I'm not saying any of this to excuse the gangsters, or say they aren't that bad, or say "it's all the white man's fault" or whatever you guys are going to freak out about. The cartels, and the same types of gangs in our own inner cities, are greedy immoral violent parasitic scum. But if these drugs weren't illegal, those wouldn't be the types of people who succeed in the drug industry. It'd all end up in the hands of legitimate businessmen. Just look at the brewing industry today, there's not a whole lot of Al Capone shit going on anymore. It doesn't have to be like this.
>Tell me why you think this steamy shit was actually a good film
Movie needed about 99% less of Blunt's character, more of the task force's operations, and the Cartel. We barely saw anything in that movie but a bitch throwing temper tantrums for 2 hours.
There's no "legitimate drug business" unfortunately. You could only run a legit business over kek tier drugs like weed, but shit like heroin or meth need to be eradicated and cannot be used as part of a legitimate business. Even in the case of weed, there's no proper evidence saying whether users would crave more and more in the future or not.
I didn't call the movie shit, I just said the trailer made it look dumb, you snot-sucking mongoloid. It's a pretty reasonable fucking assessment.
>anonymous anime imageborad
>calling anyone a retard
What stinking cave do insipid subhumans like you crawl out of?
There are legal prescription drugs, commonly used today, that are pretty much chemically and physiologically identical to cocaine and opiate extracts like heroin. Cocaine and opiate extracts were once commonly used in medicine, and even household products like Coca-Cola. Obviously, these substances are not ideal and there are lots of harmful effects, and there's a reason they aren't a medical standard anymore. But the newer, better drugs aren't quite as different or harmless as you'd think.
My point is, there's no real line being drawn between "dangerous" and "non-dangerous" drugs, in terms of legality. It's honestly quite arbitrary. Alcohol is habit-forming and destructive, tobacco is habit-forming and destructive, Adderall, Xanax, Vicodin, etc etc etc.
But the main point is - we haven't kept drugs off the streets. We haven't protected people from addiction to harmful substances, meth addicts and heroin addicts and crack addicts can easily find the substances they want. We've failed, and we've gotten tons of people killed in the process. You can't beat supply and demand, and we can't allow these fucking off-the-grid warlord operations like the cartels to continue sucking up all this money, funding and protecting their awful business. All just so we can put up a big show, saying "These chemicals in particular are BAD, and we won't allow it." It's a joke. There is no result except violence, and the direct funding of violent immoral people who are willing to operate and profit outside the law.
>My point is, there's no real line being drawn between "dangerous" and "non-dangerous" drugs, in terms of legality. It's honestly quite arbitrary. Alcohol is habit-forming and destructive, tobacco is habit-forming and destructive, Adderall, Xanax, Vicodin, etc etc etc.
I agree with that. Well, medical use drugs are a somewhat different matter, I rather had in mind people who'd think using things like heroin would be good just for lels.
Agreeing with the rest of what you say too, and let's not forget that within America the government was most probably (pretty much proven at this point) planting drugs everywhere (feeding the machinery that would become the one we have today by supporting various shady paramilitary groups in one way or the other) while at the same time clamoring about a "war on drugs" and danger of drugs.
Since we're on this subject, let me recommend the documentary Cocaine Cowboys to all those that haven't seen it.
>People who claim Sciario is 'good' are the most naïve and ignorant in cinema terms.
Fuck off, a billion critics have praised it. Even fucking Armond White has praised it. I bet you haven't even studied film yet you think you're right and the professionals are wrong, you narcissistic cunt.
The plot was awful, there is no character development, and the idea that the drug war can be solved like that is laughable.
I liked the movie but mostly for the few scenes that have more to do with music and cinematography than a script. It's not a good film period.
Daniel Villevenue has the shittiest scripts, the guy can craft great individual scenes of tension and conflict but completely falls apart when he has to tie them together. I loved the border scene, I loved the tunnel scene, I loved the corrupt cop scenes, I loved the dinner scene.
Everything else just made me want to fall asleep, there just isn't a drive for the audience to know the next scene because they don't really leave you wanting more.
Fucking hell, this board is beyond redemption. Sicario is all about suspense and Villeneuve does a perfect job of building suspense. It's a good film period.
>he thinks using the mildest of insults is being edgy
Why the fuck are you on 4chan?
Films can be appreciated and criticized on more than one level. It's not ONLY about visual style, film basically combines several different art forms. It's possible to say that the director did a very good job, but the writer did not. People aren't "wrong" because they dislike a poorly written film
It's a borderline shit movie that peaks at pure mediocrity for couple of minutes and then you can close it without wasting 2 hours with it. Not a single redeeming or interesting thing in the entire run time.
>only posting maymays
>never ever engaging in intelligent discussion
You're the one that belongs on reddit. This board used to have actual discussion before you meme loving reddit normies invaded.
>movie was in theater
>people praising it
>movie out on torrent site with quality rip
>/tv/ shitting on it hardcore and say it wasn't anything special
literally every fucking time
You are just as cancerous as anyone praising newest Marvel oatmeal shit, this wasn't any different movie, just as fucking contrived and stupid in all fronts, just as shallow too.
Watch more movies, pleb.
he's semi-right there used to be some discussion about films, before it turned into shitposting central, but the same can literally be said about every other board, I blame 15 year olds.
/tv/ has been worthless board since 2009 but what would a newfag know, hlel you think Sicario is good so you are just as bad as capeshittards, just different breed vouching for a different breed of idiotic movies.
>this wasn't any different movie, just as fucking contrived and stupid in all fronts, just as shallow too.
I see you're never going to post some real criticisms.
>Watch more movies
Pseudo-patrician cop out.
Keep to your /v/ movies kid, real films are too much for you.
It wasn't a cop out, it was friendly honest advice since I doubt you've watched many movies if you thought Sicario was well rounded and thought out movie.
Acquire some critical thinking skills (high school philosophy 101 should cover this for you) and you'll laugh at this trash in no time.
>original, well made thrillers are comparable to capeshit
I could keep pointing out that you aren't posting actual criticisms but that will get me nowhere so instead I'm gonna shift the conversation to film critics. Armond White has been a film critic for decades, he has seen thousands of films and he praised Sicario. Your argument that only cinema novices like Sicario is objectively wrong.
Well I guess brain dead morons also like this as evidenced by this thread.
and please, at least 'cinema novices' pretend to like Tarkovsky and Kubrick, this was just pure /v/eddit sensiblity trash
Not everyone is here to impress other people with their "superior" taste. I like to think most people don't PRETEND to like a movie just because they think it'll boost their credibility somehow. That's absurd and sad.
>thousands of films like Sicario
so it wasn't that original as you sicariofags claimed here? >>65039110
I think you Sicariofags are even more retarded than capeshitters at this point.
muh /operbardoorxd bawass aksuun/
Saying something doesn't make it true or accurate.
>How was the acting lazy?
>How was the story "shit?" By what standard is that being judged?
>How was the dialogue "inane?"
>How was it "over edited?"
>How were any of them "comic book characters?"
>If the "sound" is being mentioned, it obviously isn't too forgettable.
>What exactly was it "too predictable for tension?" How exactly is your subjective feelings of "tension" such a constant maymay complaint on /tv/. I found the film tense as fuck.
>People who claim Sciario is 'good' are the most naïve and ignorant in cinema terms.
>ignorant in cinema terms.
>in cinema terms.