Why was this movie so good?
>Yes, the scene where you can see his daughters and wife's missing posters behind him was great.
Not to bring any Sup Forums issues in here but was the female character just used a plot device or actually a legitimate character who was treated like shit because she wasn't morally capable of doing the things that needed to be done?
Also, I'm tired of seeing the actor that played Shane in The Walking Dead being typecast as a bad guy.
Thoughts?
doubt it was a specific decision to cast a female but even if it was, it worked out really well. she was softer and smarter than typical trigger happy fat cop (hence swat but still was kinda shocked to see the bodies in the walls) but still did her job very well if it was justified and she clearly new that her potential targets are be bad guys with guns. everything changes rapidly in her head when she realizes that she is the only one who is officially there (not really there but close and on that case) and they are about to shoot a bunch of "civilians" in other freaking country etc etc
good kino senpai. need to rewatch it again
Very true.
She was so used to seeing the results of the cartels on the micro level; then she got her first look at the meta game.
I can see how that would mentally and emotionally wrek a person with good morals and a 'always do the right thing' mentality.
Just watched it last night and it was great.
Not even kino, mearly a flick. Generic US action flic
It was good, not great
I felt it was missing something, though. Cinematography was 10/10
I 100% agree; the two and a half major set pieces were decent but there was something that left me with a feeling that something was missing; pity because it could have made the movie great.
> that tunnel scene. Pure kino.
(you)
The operator scenes obviously.
And that scene where she gets chocked.
Got a screenshot?
Of what?
The green text?
Yeah gimme a few mins.
Why you made a thread for this shitty movie?
i really liked the movie. The switch they pulled was really well done, especially because their marketing was centered around Emily Blunt being a badass tough chick, especially with her coming off Edge of Tomorrow. Then she's literally just a plot device here. 8/10 movie
Here you go, mang.
Sad, isn't it?
Ever see "Tell No One"?
There's a character named Bruno who is the most based plot device of all time but he's such a badass you have to overlook that fact.
I had the exact same thought, I thought it worked pretty well - her being a woman actually bring something to the table, and emphasize on her innocence, even though she is clearly skilled.
This is why we don't need more women in cinema, because if there was more shitty actress, I feel like good performance might go unnoticed, because we would force them to act a certain way. Here, it was pretty much natural.
Good kino.
I'll have to check it out
Agreed.
The entire last scene about wolves should've given you that answer
emily blunt's character represents the outsider (more idealistic) view on the war. It's, in a way, a journey of an idealist through a realist world.
It's in French on currently on Netflix.
Besides based Burno, it's a good movie.
Made me cry like a little grill.
Im going to have to watch it again. I did enjoy the film, but I had a problem with the pacing.
I got that and the homage to the fact that he was in The Wolfman too.
But she won't move, she'll keep fighting on the micro level while knowing what she's doing isn't really having any real effect.
You treat the source, not the symptom.
She was just a 'door kicker' who wasn't going to ask questions until her lawyer partner started butting in.
I would have loved to see the torture scene but they made the right call; less is more, right?
Yeah, it did lull in some parts.
Mostly the scenes where they were gathering intel or the FBI sissies went crying to Daddy.
Also, the bank and bar scene could have been trimmed down a bit.
Nice.
THE THEORY I HEARD
was that our kind director likes his metaphorical casting & homage to the real world, & that emily is the audience. her reactions, within the bounds of her character, are just as dumbfounded as ours. she represents our discovery of the real reasons behind the actions seen.
now was i being put on?
I really liked the movie but they stole most of the plot from the Bridge.
>Why was this movie so good?
easy to follow, straightforward plot
action sequences are decent without relying on cgi explosion fests
decent tension
"war" movie that's not about middle east
fucking terrible movie. the writer seems to have skimmed an article on the drug trade then decided to write a movie. every scene was inauthentic. the idea that the government is using fascist tactics to fight the war on drugs is absurd. the government directly endorses the drug trade so long as cartels go through proper channels. then you hire emily blunt to play a character that contributes literally nothing to the plot, and and you hire roger deakins but the script is so boring he delivers the worst work of his career. this movie defines everything wrong with modern cinema. it is dumb, politically tone deaf, humorless and artless. truly pleb tier
Really good on first viewing but after picking it apart in my mind, it's a little worse.
Needed more substance.
lol
I hated it the second time around. Most of the dialogue was really bad.
Had one of the better operators in film history.
>DAT CROSSING THE BORDER BACK TO THE STATES SCENE
>STUCK IN TRAFFIC
MFW
Easily my favorite character in the movie.
>those ain't fireworks.
Saw it for the first time yesterday. The asshole in the front passenger seat of the border crossing scene had terrible dialogue
>killing one drug lord will give the power to Colombian cartels
>ignoring the fact that these group live on a constant powerful struggle between them
This movie felt like a kiddy fanfic from Sup Forums.
absolutely loved sicario. i can't believe it's getting a sequel though, seemed like that was the end, and that was that. definitely going to watch it, though
Literally killing Pablo and the Medellin/Columbians gave rise to Mexican cartels.
My problem with this movie was that every single thing in it, I've seen done better in other movies. Everything about Sicario just came off as incredibly weak and half-assed to me. The main character had no purpose whatsoever, Josh Brolin's character was an obnoxious cliche, and Del Toro's stuff was decent but it was like 10% of the movie.
So you liked the movie because of false advertising?
Alrighty then.
The main character served the most important purpose to the plot. None of that would've happened without an official Fed being there.
I agree with all of this. And if Rodger Deakins worked on this movie thats a true shame, he's a very talented guy but the movie looked like muddled shit.
You're ignoring the open US intervention in Colombia, retard
The super duper secret CIA interevention felt like a Sup Forums tinfoil fanfic.
President taft...
Government paperwork is not a compelling thing to create an entire protagonist around.
No it doesn't, retard.
Some Mexican cartels existed before that.
Then would it have killed them to make her not a literal emotionless manikin the entire movie with absolute no sense of agency or even basic reactionary thought? Easily the most boring protagonist ive seen in a movie in a while.
>he thinks emily blunt was the protagonist
it's bed time kiddos
>Sup Forums fanfic
I don't even know what that means.
It did give rise to Mexican cartels though, look at what has happened after Columbia. I never implied they didn't exist before dumbfuck.
You really know shit, retard.
Fuck off.
Fuck off beaner
>says the spic
EL OH EL