Sicario

Decuc500

This is a quite astonishing thriller from Denis Villeneuve about an FBI agent (Emily Blunt) joining a task force to eliminate a Mexican drug cartel boss. There’s so much impressive about it. The scenes of action are brilliantly realised and filled with tension. The cinematography is sometimes stunning. One shot alone near the end is enough to finally get Roger Deakins an Oscar. Benicio Del Toro gives an immense performance as a mysterious operative within the task force.

Villeneuve is quickly building up a filmography of intelligent and engrossing films. It looks like Bladerunner is in good hands.

titan18

Was really interested to see what people said about this. Seen all the reviews as good, but nice to see people's reaction is the same. Looking forward to seeing it tomorrow

TheDoc

Caught a trailer for this a while back and it definitely got on my radar. Additional trailers only peaked that interest. Early preview opinion seems to rate it very highly so looking forward to it.

phatkev

Saw it today, thought it was excellent!

Ipso

This looks interesting, I really enjoyed Prisoners.

Hande hoche!

Saw it yesterday and would definitely recommend it. Well shot and acted, in particular Benico Del Toro is superb. Blunt is also on top form. One aspect that stood out was the sense of dread throughout the film. Will probably pick it up on DVD.

Victor

Not a date movie!

Hande hoche! wrote: »

One aspect that stood out was the sense of dread throughout the film.

It's there, but in the end, I don't think it lived up to it. I think the scenes from the tunnel to the house shooting seemed a bit forced.

Mr E

I liked it a lot, but I'm torn about the ending. Emily Blunt was superb.

I'd say the Mexican tourist board LOVED it.

Hande hoche!

Mr E wrote: »

I liked it a lot, but I'm torn about the ending. Emily Blunt was superb.

I'd say the Mexican tourist board LOVED it.

Donald Trump's presidential campaign team were probably delighted.

nice_guy80

I was expecting more, after all the reviews

Still good movie though
8/10

johnny_ultimate

At times, Sicario is like standing in a room with somebody incessantly banging on drums even though you have a headache. I mean this in a nice way.

Villeneuve's direction and Deakins' cinematography are gleefully aggressive and physical. It's the sort of film where if a car goes over a speed-bump, the camera goes with it, and the audience by extension. It's raw, brutal, filthy filmmaking and it insists on keeping you in some state of general discomfort. Even the more overtly attractive compositions have a certain unease and peculiar balance to them - whether that's an eerily beautiful desert sunset, or a off-centre shadow of a plane in an aerial shot. Shots constantly transition and cut in unusual but exciting ways, and while there's less to write home about in the more dialogue heavy scenes, it is for the most part a film with immense visual depths.

Thankfully the soundtrack combines in a way that is equal parts harmonious and dissident - basically, just right for what's going on. Johannson has borrowed liberally from the modern Hans Zimmer playbook, but made his own through the use of the frighteningly antagonistic percussion. The persistent drone feels like a dance song that never quite reaches its climax, and that only helps amplify the general restlessness of the film.

As has become par for the course with Villeneuve's work, Sicario doesn't always have a script that can keep pace with the director's impressive stylisation skills. As a taut thriller with some heavy-handed thematic asides, it works well - it boasts exciting setpieces and a pleasingly unromantic narrative. But it comes across as a film that doesn't entirely engage with the deeper consequences, meanings and causes of the war against drugs. Even its primary attempt to directly address the more relateable consequences in Mexico seems haphazardly slotted in, a piece of foreshadowing that's admirable in its intentions but kinda clunky in execution. The characters too are painted in incredibly broad strokes, occasionally doing the talented players a disservice.

But maybe broad strokes are perfectly fine for a film that seems intent on bludgeoning the viewer throughout. It's not subtle, but as a sensory experience with a booming surround sound system and big screen it's a captivatingly unpleasant watch. Based on this and his previous work, Villeneuve hasn't yet delivered a total package - there's always something missing. But Sicario is his strongest effort yet, pulsating with formal ingenuity even if the filmmaking is more masterful than the writing.

titan18

Just back from it, quite liked it. Very good performances from Del Toro, Brolin and Blunt. I actually preferred Prisoners so wouldn't say it's Villeneuve's best but still quite good and definitely worth seeing in the cinema.

tunguska

Now that's a film..........I thought it was supreme. Way better than i expected. Dialogue is very tight, the acting is different class and the photography by Roger deakins is(I hate to use this word but.......)sublime. Emily blunt is very good but Benico deltoro is phenomenal. I reckon he gets at least a best supporting oscar nod. I think the film as a whole will get nominated.
9/10.

Victor

I thought there was a subtle, but interesting, contrast between Blunt's character fighting the drug war, but going back on the cigarettes.

jank

Saw this last week. Great film. Some great scenes in there especialy

the scene where they pick up the prisoner by going over the border. Tension was unbelievable. Great way to keep the audience involved to show whats its like to go into the belly of the beast.

Looper007

Excellent film that doesn't back off when it comes getting down and dirty. Emily Blunt was excellent but the film belongs to Benico Del Toro, who gives his best performance in a good few years. The scene

When he brutally shoots down the Mexican drug lord but before that his family at the dinner table shows a man long passed caring

and his chemistry with Josh Brolin (brilliant also). The opening drug bust and the scene in the traffic jam in Mexico really racked up the tension.

One of the best films of the year, wouldn't be surprised to see Roger Deakin's get a Oscar nod and Del Toro too. It's the best Michael Mann film that Mann never made.

Tomagotchye

Saw this today and it was brilliant. Helped that I knew very little about it bar the TV spots but it set its tone hard at the very start and didn't let up. Cast was very well used. I would say this has been my film of the year so far, which is good going.

Only thing I didn't like was the night-vision scenes. Felt it jarred going from black green of night vision to white-ish hue of what I can only image is thermal vision. It was cool but at times felt randomly placed.

Some of it was pretty tough watching actually.

Victor

Looper007 wrote: »

The opening drug bust and the scene in the traffic jam in Mexico really racked up the tension.

That was a hostage rescue operation, - just really late.

Tomagotchye wrote: »

Only thing I didn't like was the night-vision scenes. Felt it jarred going from black green of night vision to white-ish hue of what I can only image is thermal vision. It was cool but at times felt randomly placed.

Its mentioned in conversation, but they were using both infrared and thermal sights. One doesn't use active infrared when the bad guys might also be using infrared.

razorblunt

Wow, that second quote is unspoilered above, please amend to add the [/SPOILER] tag back in.

Mr E

The fact that there is a scene with night vision isn't really a spoiler.

Gamb!t

Probably the best movie Ive seen this year,no nonsense just kicked off from the go.
Del Toro was fantastic in it.

Wacthed this last week and thought it was great. Very tense, dark and real.
One question though

did Alejandro rape Guillermo in that interrogation scene? I thought it at the time and my friends said the same after it

LuckyLloyd

It's a brilliant piece of work in terms of creating tension and hitting home emotionally. Blunt's performance is excellent, really sells it as the well intentioned operative suddenly way out of her depth. The other characters lack depth but they bring a lot of charisma to the table. Brilliant setpieces. But the plot is paper thin and it certainly isn't a rigorous piece on the topic at hand ala Traffic. That's okay though, give me some brilliant elements than a consistently average effort.

Between this and Prisoners a ton of promise demonstrated thus far.

razorblunt

Mr E wrote: »

The fact that there is a scene with night vision isn't really a spoiler.

I didn't read the full spoiler, why would I when I saw a starting SPOILER tag?

It's within the quote that there's an issue with the tags not the reply, I've just read it through and he's misused the tag on a multi quote reply which makes it look like he's started a spoiler and not finished it.

Paranoid delusion is a bit much also, I came on here to gauge reaction and opinions on the movie, the last thing you'd want is to have certain parts spoiled.

KrakityJones

Deleted User wrote: »

Wacthed this last week and thought it was great. Very tense, dark and real.
One question though

did Alejandro rape Guillermo in that interrogation scene? I thought it at the time and my friends said the same after it

Saw this last night, had high hopes going in and was not disappointed, I'd rate that up there with breaking bad - mainly due to the overall high quality of production - locations and cinematography, not plot (despite the whole drug thing), just had that same tension and unease that breaking bad did so well at times.

Bigboss my wife asked me the exact same thing after, and I'm not sure. That's one of the things I loved about the movie, some things weren't shown directly, they are left to your imagination to some extent. So maybe he did, kind of up to you to decide.

The scene in the tunnel was a bit like that, you see the special ops guys shooting, but you don't see at who. Personally I don't think it was a rape scene, he bought the big water bottle in with him to beat the bejaysus out of him I thought

vidor

razorblunt wrote: »

the last thing you'd want is to have certain parts spoiled.

The last thing I would do if I wanted to see a particular film would be to read a thread about that film on boards.ie.

Drumpot

Loved it.

The music from the start drained me and suggested something ominous was coming and it didn't dissapoint. It also helped crank up the tension.

Few films leave me feeling so much after the credits but this was a dark, entertaining and horrific piece of drama.

Did anybody else love some of the random flying shots when the music was cranked up? I thought this really helped bring the audience into the world we were exploring on the screen.

tunguska

KrakityJones wrote: »

Bigboss my wife asked me the exact same thing after, and I'm not sure. That's one of the things I loved about the movie, some things weren't shown directly, they are left to your imagination to some extent. So maybe he did, kind of up to you to decide.

The scene in the tunnel was a bit like that, you see the special ops guys shooting, but you don't see at who. Personally I don't think it was a rape scene, he bought the big water bottle in with him to beat the bejaysus out of him I thought

No he waterboarded him.

tunguska

tunguska wrote: »

No he waterboarded him.

That's what I assumed would happen but

when I thought about it I realized as the scene was ending the camera pointed at the drain in the room with no water going down and he was making some horrible grunting noises.

So I had in my head that Alejandro took the water bottle with him to make it look to the guy he spoke with outside that he was gonna water board Guillermo

Drumpot

Deleted User wrote: »

That's what I assumed would happen but

when I thought about it I realized as the scene was ending the camera pointed at the drain in the room with no water going down and he was making some horrible grunting noises.

So I had in my head that Alejandro took the water bottle with him to make it look to the guy he spoke with outside that he was gonna water board Guillermo

Exactly what I thought.

If you consider what they do to people in the world of Alejandro I don't think its completely unbelievable. And he is a man who has lost his family (daughter killed in acid!), so he is even more F**ked up then the average crazy drug cartel boss.

You can hear some noises similar to that of pulp fiction when Z is romancing Marsellas. Doesn't exactly sound like somebody being drowned.

I wouldn't put anything past Alejandro, so I don't think its that unbelievable that he would rape the guy.

charlie_says

Quite a sombre and grim experience, in a secret extra judicial paramilitary thriller kind of way.

I liked it a lot. I must check out Prisoners.

I went with a Mexican friend, he commented that the way the Mexicans reacted to gunfire in the distance is typical - you just get on with life. They are totally desensitised to violence around the border areas according to him. He also told me he has seen decapitated and mutilated bodies hanging from bridges. Scary.

Ipso

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Wacthed this last week and thought it was great. Very tense, dark and real.
One question though

did Alejandro rape Guillermo in that interrogation scene? I thought it at the time and my friends said the same after it

It crossed my mind, the interrogation definitely started out that way.

Irish Aris

well, that was really intense.
I think Johnny_Ultimate nailed it in his review.

I was watching it really on edge, but with a slight sense of discomfort at times.
I'd consider this a film that worth more viewings, although I would find it really difficult to watch it again.

Amazing cinematography, and a brilliant cast - Benicio Del Toro is simply unreal!!

don ramo

seen it last night, great film, and top acting all round, i thought emily blunts character seemed very naive about what she thought she was doing, she obviously has high morals and all that, and was really the wrong choice for the task, but it was great for adding that extra bit of tension, that they werent all playing the same game, which is probably the point of the film, that these things are only gonna get worse, and the majority of people really arent ready if this kind of change happened within their society,

i had high hopes going in, and i was not disappointed, between the martian and this it should be the start of a nice bunch of brilliant films coming out over the next few months, the last 6 months have been pretty sporadic with decent films, hollywood has been driving me mad, all just becoming to bland and the films just blur together at this point,

Victor

I think the scene with the drain hole indicated the prisoner was waterboarded. Like several other scenes - the beating of hte corrupt cop, the stabbings and shootings in the tunnel - violence was cut out. One wonders whether this was done to allow the audience imagine the worst or if this was done to allow it get a 15s rating.

don ramo wrote: »

seen it last night, great film, and top acting all round, i thought emily blunts character seemed very naive about what she thought she was doing, she obviously has high morals and all that, and was really the wrong choice for the task, but it was great for adding that extra bit of tension, that they werent all playing the same game, which is probably the point of the film, that these things are only gonna get worse, and the majority of people really arent ready if this kind of change happened within their society,

She was a (FBI) police officer asked to sign-up for an 'inter-agency taskforce' to tackle drug lords, expecting it to be FBI, DEA, CBP, etc. Nobody told her the rest of the task force with CIA (paramilitary), Delta Force (military) and lone nutters (hitman). She was used to rubber stamp activities that would otherwise be illegal.

i had high hopes going in, and i was not disappointed, between the martian and this it should be the start of a nice bunch of brilliant films coming out over the next few months, the last 6 months have been pretty sporadic with decent films, hollywood has been driving me mad, all just becoming to bland and the films just blur together at this point,

Sadly, I agree. So many times over the last 6 months, I've said to my self "I'm not wasting money on that". I would normally go to the cinem 2-3 times a week, but sometimes it has been once a fortnight over the last 6 months.

PressRun

Loved this. Full of suspense and brilliant performances. A fantastic score and beautiful cinematography. Highly recommend.

Liam McPoyle

Went to see it tonight.

Good performances, looks gorgeous but I was left feeling a bit underwhelmed by it all.

Morte

I thought it was a fantastic film, I loved the use of sound throughout. It did suffer a bit from the best scenes being at the beginning. It gradually got less grounded as it went on.

don ramo wrote: »

i thought emily blunts character seemed very naive about what she thought she was doing, she obviously has high morals and all that, and was really the wrong choice for the task,

We gradually realise that the lengthy selection process was actually to find someone who wasn't suited to the task. She has spent her whole time kicking down doors with the assault team rather than investigating, a detective would be more perceptive and questioning as to what is happening around her. Also her rookie partner is rejected for being too inexperienced. But when he is brought on the case his law degree lets him quickly figure out how the CIA needs them to provide a legal cover up.

The second part of course is that Blunt's lack of knowledge lets other characters explain things to the audience by explaining it to her. I found it very jarring that she didn't know what the word Medellin might refer to.

thought this was similar in strengths and flaws to prisoners:

interesting premise
great cast, good performances
Villeneuve's eye/ear for ratcheting up tension is excellent

unfortunately:

characters turned into pretty dumb clichés making ridiculous decisions
some of the lines were so clunky-generic it took me right out of the movie
Villeneuve sets up an interesting situation but ends up making some real sophomore-level attempts at complexity that ultimately feels like a lazy exercise rather than service to a story or point

very disappointed.

boy did it look and sound great tho.

we'llallhavetea

Really loved this movie, probably the best movie I've seen in a very long time. Emily blunts character irritated me a little bit, however this maybe because I'm only off the fags a fortnight :P

e_e

Villeneuve is well on his way to becoming the next Nolan. A rare director making unique, ambitious and intelligent work in the mainstream. Never would have predicted that watching Incendies at JDIFF a few years back too.

El Horseboxo

I really liked it and kept me glued to the screen for the entire film. Some scenes with really good tension, some fine acting and chemistry between the actors, the scenery - especially the aerial shots in the beginning. I'm not overly a fan of that type of camera work but i liked it here. Felt quite personal in the early scenes.

However there are a few points that i felt detracted from me liking it even more. Especially when they could have easily avoided them to make the plot more realistic. It just failed to hit on the realism at times.

1. I don't really get why they were hiding the bodies in the house behind the dry-lined wall when the drug cartels just publicly dump bodies. Which was depicted in a few scenes later in the film. Like were they going to rent out the house and hope nobody notices the smell? Also what was the point of the explosion in the beginning? Why was it bobby trapped? And why was the assumption that every drug house in Arizona would now be like that?

2. Also with the extraction which was illegal and supposed to be a black/covert op, why did they use such a highly visible convoy? And since they were anticipating an attack near the border, why did they not keep a lane clear like they did for the way down. The broken down car wasn't really a valid reason for them being stuck in traffic. They could have also extracted by air. Just seemed they went out of their way to create the scene on the friendship bridge.

3. Also felt they tried to force the human/family side of the crooked state cop in Mexico with random shots of him at home. Also the crooked US cop didn't really work. He's her partners friend who spontaneously brings her to some bar
but yet at the same time he's the guy that was to follow up on her because she showed her face in the bank. A little too convenient for him.

4. And Emily Blunts character was just so flawed. For somebody who has been 'kicking doors since day 1' she seems too ethical and appears shell shocked at everything she's seeing. It was just so annoying to watch her and flip flopping from wanting to be all in to catch who caused the explosion to be wanting out to being back in at the drop of a hat. I work in a similar role to her (different department) and just her lack of knowledge of how brutal the cartel can be for an agent working close to the border is totally unbelievable. Everybody know what happens down here.

Victor

El Horseboxo wrote: »

Also what was the point of the explosion in the beginning? Why was it bobby trapped? And why was the assumption that every drug house in Arizona would now be like that?

Bobby trapping it 'discourages' searches.

El Horseboxo wrote: »

2. Also with the extraction which was illegal and supposed to be a black/covert op,

Was it?

El Horseboxo wrote: »

why did they use such a highly visible convoy?

8 machine guns, perhaps 52 rifles and shotguns and as many pistols. Nobody is going to mess with that ... and those that tried, failed.

And since they were anticipating an attack near the border, why did they not keep a lane clear like they did for the way down. The broken down car wasn't really a valid reason for them being stuck in traffic.

It was meant to be kept clear. In the dialogue they mention that someone messed-up

They could have also extracted by air. Just seemed they went out of their way to create the scene on the friendship bridge.

They wanted an over-reaction. And the movie director wanted a shoot-out.

El Horseboxo wrote: »

3. Also felt they tried to force the human/family side of the crooked state cop in Mexico with random shots of him at home.

But people are human. But we didn't know if he was going to be hero, villain or victim.

El Horseboxo wrote: »

Also the crooked US cop didn't really work. He's her partners friend

I think he meant 'friend' in the loose sense - someone he knew, not someone close.

El Horseboxo wrote: »

who spontaneously brings her to some bar but yet at the same time he's the guy that was to follow up on her because she showed her face in the bank. A little too convenient for him.

The suggestion was that he could have been one of any number of corrupt cops.

El Horseboxo wrote: »

4. And Emily Blunts character was just so flawed. For somebody who has been 'kicking doors since day 1' she seems too ethical and appears shell shocked at everything she's seeing.

She's a cop in a hostage rescue team, not involved in the drug war.

El Horseboxo

Victor wrote: »

Bobby trapping it 'discourages' searches.

It just changes the method of searches. They wouldn't be abandoned, just carried out a little differently.

Victor wrote: »

Was it?

Victor wrote: »

By it's very nature. Yes. How could it not be? That is not the legal method for extradition of a Mexican citizen to the United States. The risk of such an extraction would not be given a chance to be exposed so publically.

Victor wrote: »

8 machine guns, perhaps 52 rifles and shotguns and as many pistols. Nobody is going to mess with that ... and those that tried, failed.

A rocket launcher could easily expose the operation. It was unnecessary risk and in this game that is avoided. Well in reality it is avoided.

Victor wrote: »

It was meant to be kept clear. In the dialogue they mention that someone messed-up

Didn't they use the excuse of the car broken down? And the aerial shots showed that no lane was clear. The car just broke down.

Victor wrote: »

They wanted an over-reaction. And the movie director wanted a shoot-out.

They wanted an over-reaction in one of the later scenes when they said they wanted to make noise. But I don't recall anything being said about that for the extraction. And that was my point. The director wanted a shoot out. But one realistically wouldn't be given a chance to occur there.

Victor wrote: »

But people are human. But we didn't know if he was going to be hero, villain or victim.

I'm not questioning whether people are human or not. I'm talking about why have him in it at all? What did he add to it? The cop at the end could have been anyone. To me it didn't add anything and seemed very forced to just have a person in the film portray the family side just to add more emotion to his death.

Victor wrote: »

I think he meant 'friend' in the loose sense - someone he knew, not someone close.

Whether he was an acquaintance or best bud wasn't my point. Just meant that it was very convenient for somebody that was to be watching her to randomly have her delivered to his presence by her partner.

Victor wrote: »

The suggestion was that he could have been one of any number of corrupt cops.

Fair enough. Just felt very forced and hammed up.

Victor wrote: »

She's a cop in a hostage rescue team, not involved in the drug war.

I personally know how a similar team operates. Any agent being shell shocked and startled by that won't be doing that job. I'm close enough to the Mexican border and the drug war spills over here. I'm not directly involved in that but nothing would shock or surprise me. She just seemed oblivious to the type of stuff that occurs.

PressRun

On Emily Blunt's character,

I think it's one thing to be aware of what goes on in a city like Juarez and entirely another thing to actually be thrown into the middle of what is essentially a war zone, especially if it's not your area of expertise. They also state that they only brought her along because they needed her presence to make the operation legal, not because she was the kind of drug-war saavy person they needed on the job.

Victor

Blunt's character is the writer's / directors way of explaining things to the audience.

castletownman

Went to see this last Sunday on a first date (what was I thinking ) and thought it was superb. Drug/narcotics criminal world themed films never really tickle my fancy but this stood out as just being a damn fine film. Benicio Del Torro's performance was probably the best I have seen since Christopher Waltz in Django (from films I have seen in the cinema).

And my date loved it as well so happy days.

spurious

Really enjoyed this too. Edge of the seat stuff all the way and you never knew which way any of the characters were going to go. Not a bad performance in it.

.ak

Just home from seeing it. Wow. Just wow. I kind of told myself it would be just another thriller that you'd forget quickly enough, but for me it was the best movie of the year. It's absolutely visceral in it's approach, raw and relentless in it's manner of building tension. Art and medium is always very subjective, so opinion is everything, but for me it was 10/10. It felt short and sharp and concise, I was surprised to learn how long it actually was, but it starts at 100mph and never slows down really. All the characters are brilliant. The female lead is surprisingly refreshing, so different from the usual heroin - which helps make everything far more believable.

Del Torro though... Cementing himself as legendary once again, stole the show.

RDM_83 again

Very good but seems to be lacking something in the finally Third/Half, I did expect Blunts character to be a bit tougher considering her previous job but as Victor points out I can see thats her role in the film.
There's an amazing feeling of dread/tension throughout and it felt more like a sci-fi or horror film to me (in a good way) rather than a crime/action thriller.
Its refreshing to see a film that doesn't hold back from being nasty without falling into the this film is "dark" clichés, for example the

shooting the drug lords kids first and the implied rape during the interrogation without falling into the predicable trap of killing of side characters to "shock" the audience, the standard thing to do would for Blunts partner to be killed as he is relatable, has morals, is a sidekick and is a Black dude

It was really nicely shot with the scene at sunset

where the characters slowly disappear into the darkness at the bottom 1/3rd of the screen evoking feelings of entering another world before the film switches to the well done nightvision/thermal tunnel scenes really sticking in my mind

.ak

Yeah I particular thought the sunset scene was a really nice piece. So much tension.