I don't understand how anyone could rave over Mad Max Fury Road. It was hot garbage, unintelligible and just a string of ridiculous scenes strung together for the sole sake of creating faux mayhem. Little story, less exposition and just a lengthy parade of carnage for no reason. Bleh.
On to...
Sicario
This movie had some great components and some that were dreadful. As a result it lost the power it could have and hurt itself at the box office. It did fair largely due to some soft competition (Pan which flopped, Hotel Transylvania 2 which sucked even for kids, The Intern which further pussified Don Corleone). But it didn't resonate like it could have.
On the whole I enjoyed the movie. It kept me entertained and there were some extreme moments that really should have evoked shock or something. But the pacing struggled so that the "oh shit" events lacked that sting.
Let's start with the dreadful.
1) The Name. Sicario. It's not an automatic draw. It's a spanish word that means hitman. But you'd have to know that to look at movie listings and go "yeah, I want to watch that." So pffft on the name.
2) The story. There were gaps, there were holes, there were unexplained connections, unlikely actions and reactions. It needed to be cleaned up a little and tightened in places. For instance there was some alleged connection between Emily Blunt's character and her partner. It was never fleshed out and in the final denoument didn't matter. It was a waste and his character could have been omitted entirely without changing the film in any real way. He was extraneous and needed to be chopped. So too was this entire arc of a somewhat corrupt cop. I understand what it was supposed to represent, but it took up too much screen time.
3) Emily Blount. She's a cute thing, but does not have the gravitas or the acting chops to pull off the role of a hardened FBI assault team member turned task force semi-bad ass. Her response to the overwhelming nature of the role was reduced to making dour "I need to take a shit" faces, looking doe-eyed and confused, grimacing, moping, acting bitchy and talking without moving her mouth. She was terrible. I read recently that there are talks of a sequel and if there is one, she will not be a part of it. Good move. She was hideously bad here.
Now the good:
1) Cinematography was outstanding. The way shots were framed was fantastic. Excellent job making the film look and feel right. The way some of the transitions were filmed was creative and spot on. Really good job with the tone of the movie.
2) Benicio Del Toro. I'm not really a major fan of his work and think he's highly overrated for what he brings to the table, but here he was extremely good. The writers gave him a character who had no soul (or at least had it removed) and also provided him a scene that should have been a topic of much discussion and consternation. The fact that it wasn't speaks to the flat effect of the movie that was due in part to Blunt's dulling performance. De Toro's character had no remorse and displayed that in a way that should have been brutally shocking. I'm surprised I heard nobody mention that scene (or this movie) at all.
3) Josh Brolin. Pretty good as a loose-cannon CIA-type. Numerous other actors (Downey, McBongohey, Harrellson, etc.) would have fit the bill but Brolin held his own.
It's a shame that the name (in my opinion), Blunt's numbing performance and a wobbling story that kept the major plot points from having the impact they should derailed what could have been a truly outstanding film. Not that I didn't enjoy it, I did, but it just left me thinking how much better it could have been.
3579 Replies
770867 Views