|
Post by Nora on Jun 30, 2018 14:15:18 GMT
dont get your hopes up. there is literally no gore, and very limited violence apart from a few people being shot and only one from somewhat closer distance. its nowhere near the brutality and violence of the first one. Interesting. I wonder why so many people seem so repulsed by it? Anyway, how does it rank for you among the other movies this year? I honestly dont know. That one scene where you saw someone getting shot from a bit closer wasnt even that bad in a context of normal modern movies within this genre. I mean anybody that went to see a sequel of Sicario should have kinda expect some gritt and violence and shouldnt have been repulsed by any of this as it didnt go above the norm within its genre and style. I can see how bits and pieces could trigger negative response re wall building. but not violence. anyway, well if you dont count any of the oscar movies that i saw just after new years, and count only the true 2018 movies than this is for sure one of the better ones. the only movie that got a better score from me this year was Quiet Place, Black Panther, Death of Stalin and The Isle of Dogs, and all are from very different genres. so for me this movie is a success and worth going to see. Cant wait for the next installment.
|
|
maxwellperfect
Junior Member
@maxwellperfect
Posts: 3,966
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by maxwellperfect on Jun 30, 2018 14:51:31 GMT
Watched it last night. Good action, lots of suspense. Actually manages to be shocking at times. And yet it seems like not half the movie the original was. Dialogue at points seems like it was written by hack "tough guy talk" script doctors. Cliched superiors pounding on the desk and yelling at their out-of-control law enforcement subordinates. Story is all over the place and barely coherent at times. Improbable coincidence drives the suspense in the final act. Overall, lacks the interesting moral ambiguity and gritty realism of the original. I'm giving it a 6/10.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jun 30, 2018 21:44:48 GMT
Watched it last night. Good action, lots of suspense. Actually manages to be shocking at times. And yet it seems like not half the movie the original was. Dialogue at points seems like it was written by hack "tough guy talk" script doctors. Cliched superiors pounding on the desk and yelling at their out-of-control law enforcement subordinates. Story is all over the place and barely coherent at times. Improbable coincidence drives the suspense in the final act. Overall, lacks the interesting moral ambiguity and gritty realism of the original. I'm giving it a 6/10. what was shocking to you and which dialogues did you find as if written by hack script doctors? i agree on the improbable coincidence, that was odd to see in a Sheridan script. You thought it lacked moral ambiguity? Hm… we dont agree there. I just thought it was abandoned too quickly but saw it there. Agreed on the gritty realism.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jun 30, 2018 21:45:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by moviemanjackson on Jun 30, 2018 22:08:48 GMT
Still processing it. I like, but this lacked the...let's say "methodical cohesion" of the first movie in my opinion. Figured it was gonna hop around more, but going from the border to Mexico to DC to Texas early on felt very scattered. And maybe, things will get clearer if I watch again. I think, however, that the rumored rewrites played a part in this. It's a good script from Sheridan; not an airtight one, even without the rewrites. The tone is still dark and nihilistic, but I wish that we'd got more of the fight against the cartels and terrorism aspect that the first 20-30 minutes set up. Good direction and good score, but of course it's gonna be down in quality from legends in Denis and Johann (RIP). Brolin and Del Toro are awesome though. I could see them and their characters forever in these kind of movies. I'd say I'm disappointed but I still like.
|
|
|
Post by fartyfartsalot on Jun 30, 2018 22:16:33 GMT
Is it better than "Wind River"?
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jun 30, 2018 22:17:50 GMT
Still processing it. I like, but this lacked the...let's say "methodical cohesion" of the first movie in my opinion. Figured it was gonna hop around more, but going from the border to Mexico to DC to Texas early on felt very scattered. And maybe, things will get clearer if I watch again. I think, however, that the rumored rewrites played a part in this. It's a good script from Sheridan; not an airtight one, even without the rewrites. The tone is still dark and nihilistic, but I wish that we'd got more of the fight against the cartels and terrorism aspect that the first 20-30 minutes set up. Good direction and good score, but of course it's gonna be down in quality from legends in Denis and Johann (RIP). Brolin and Del Toro are awesome though. I could see them and their characters forever in these kind of movies. I'd say I'm disappointed but I still like. yeah the downgrade in music was especially visible (audible hehe) for me. RIP Johann, what a master. what a shame he had died. And I didnt even notice they had used the beast in Soldado only saw it credited. I agree I also really enjoyed the characters. Luckily: We will see them again
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jun 30, 2018 22:19:25 GMT
Is it better than "Wind River"? No way. In my eyes Wind River i 9/10, near perfection- this was a 7 to 7.5/10…. a quite good movie suffering mostly by comparison to its first installment.
|
|
maxwellperfect
Junior Member
@maxwellperfect
Posts: 3,966
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by maxwellperfect on Jul 1, 2018 20:14:14 GMT
Watched it last night. Good action, lots of suspense. Actually manages to be shocking at times. And yet it seems like not half the movie the original was. Dialogue at points seems like it was written by hack "tough guy talk" script doctors. Cliched superiors pounding on the desk and yelling at their out-of-control law enforcement subordinates. Story is all over the place and barely coherent at times. Improbable coincidence drives the suspense in the final act. Overall, lacks the interesting moral ambiguity and gritty realism of the original. I'm giving it a 6/10. what was shocking to you and which dialogues did you find as if written by hack script doctors? i agree on the improbable coincidence, that was odd to see in a Sheridan script. You thought it lacked moral ambiguity? Hm… we dont agree there. I just thought it was abandoned too quickly but saw it there. Agreed on the gritty realism. shocking: scene in the store early in the movie involving a woman and her child. Hack dialogue: also early in the movie; I think it involved the scene where Josh Brolin's character was talking to high ranking military/government people. As far as moral ambiguity, in the first movie you get a sense of "well, this seems wrong and is probably illegal, but shouldn't it be done?" In this movie, the actions taken by Brolin and company regarding the teenage girl seem pretty much unjustifiable. There's no ambiguity; It's just wrong. Which doesn't bother me, especially, but it makes for a less interesting tension than the original.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jul 1, 2018 21:54:11 GMT
what was shocking to you and which dialogues did you find as if written by hack script doctors? i agree on the improbable coincidence, that was odd to see in a Sheridan script. You thought it lacked moral ambiguity? Hm… we dont agree there. I just thought it was abandoned too quickly but saw it there. Agreed on the gritty realism. shocking: scene in the store early in the movie involving a woman and her child. Hack dialogue: also early in the movie; I think it involved the scene where Josh Brolin's character was talking to high ranking military/government people. As far as moral ambiguity, in the first movie you get a sense of "well, this seems wrong and is probably illegal, but shouldn't it be done?" In this movie, the actions taken by Brolin and company regarding the teenage girl seem pretty much unjustifiable. There's no ambiguity; It's just wrong. Which doesn't bother me, especially, but it makes for a less interesting tension than the original. you see the woman and a child scene to me was STUPID i have a really hard time believing any mother would do that. yes the teenage girl thing was awkward too much of a character change….
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jul 2, 2018 13:42:25 GMT
Stunned that it's the same writer, it's that bad. Why would Sheridan remake a watered down, clichéd version of the same movie? Sicario was both bold and subtle at the same time. The movie pulled you in while making you uncomfortable with the proceedings. It asked tough questions without spelling it out for the audience. The implications of the story were left to the audience to decide. The sequel decided it was necessary to fill scenes with trailer-moment bravado, no matter how redundant. "No rules this time. I'm turning you loose." "How loose?" I mean, he just said no rules this time. Sounds pretty loose. And I don't know how many rules there were last time when you were killing children. The difference being this time they don't need to bother with a justice dept. liaison, but still it's silly dialog. Ultimately, the story is hollow and doesn't make a ton of sense. Spoilers ahead. Why did they bother with the pretend smash and grab at the house when even a child could figure out what was going on as soon as they loaded her into the convoy? Why did Miguel jump out of the truck at the end? Why didn't they just stop? (The answer of course is his character couldn't be in the truck when it got lit up by Brolin's crew, but they couldn't find a better way around that? It's not like he had second thoughts, the next time we see him he's all tatted up and he's a full blown gangster. And why did Brolin save the girl? I can understand he just wanted to kill the guys that got Alejandro, but why bother saving the girl? Not only is that against orders, it's against his character. This guy has never once shown that he gives a shit about collateral damage and has happily killed family members of his enemies.
How long was Alejandro going to lay in the dirt with non-fatal injuries? That scene legitimately confused me as much as his apparent death moments earlier. I couldn't believe they were going to kill off a major character in such anti-climactic fashion; but hey, I thought, maybe that's just a little of the original Sicario DNA showing through. Bold and bleak. But no, he eventually rises from the dead, shakes it off and continues his badassery in the closing moments, with a character exactly nobody in the audience gives a shit about. While Sicario felt raw it still felt natural. Its message about the drug war and what the audience is comfortable with our government doing to combat the cartels is an intriguing one. The sequel felt like a forced commentary about illegal immigration where Sheridan isn't sure what he wanted to say-- he just wanted to say something. Again, it's surprising coming from the guy who wrote Sicario and Wind River, two of my favorite films by far of the last five years at least. I'll say this, the performances were solid and the cinematography was quality, despite not reaching the levels of the original. It's always good to see Jeffrey Donavan, I've never been able to figure out why he isn't a bigger star. Had I stumbled upon this film without seeing the original, I probably would've thought it was a decent flick. The original simply sets the bar too high for a mediocre second effort to be passable.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jul 2, 2018 15:49:15 GMT
Stunned that it's the same writer, it's that bad. Why would Sheridan remake a watered down, clichéd version of the same movie? Sicario was both bold and subtle at the same time. The movie pulled you in while making you uncomfortable with the proceedings. It asked tough questions without spelling it out for the audience. The implications of the story were left to the audience to decide. The sequel decided it was necessary to fill scenes with trailer-moment bravado, no matter how redundant. "No rules this time. I'm turning you loose." "How loose?" I mean, he just said no rules this time. Sounds pretty loose. And I don't know how many rules there were last time when you were killing children. The difference being this time they don't need to bother with a justice dept. liaison, but still it's silly dialog. because I have (and you have probably too) seen other things Sheridan wrote I think I know the answer to that - enforced rewrites. We know he is a MUCH smarter writer than this. to you questions/concerns/complains: 1. the jumping out of the truck didnt really bother me, its not like you can easily make plans with criminals fo that sort and expect them to be ok when you change your mind. 2. the death and rise - I really think it was the directors fault that we viewed it as A) long time having gone by, B) long distance from the place to the truck - to me that was the biggest problem. Otherwise shot through your jaw certainly doesnt need to kill you and if you dont hit a major vain you wont even bleed to death. 3. I agree completelly on the character change. There was nothing in Del Toros character that we knew of that would justify his feelings toward the girl and reversing the decison. That was bad. 4. Agreed, the swap was shot oddly. I mean she could have also recognize them by smell. 5. The last scene I dont share your view - I think that character was very important for the entire movie and thats why I was invested in him and also I liked the twist at the end (Not del torro being alive but joining forces with this guy and passing the torch so to speak)
Had this been Sheridans first script I would be skeptical about his skills too. but we KNOW he is exceptionally smart writer. This must have been a result of outside forces mingling with his genius.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jul 2, 2018 16:25:00 GMT
Stunned that it's the same writer, it's that bad. Why would Sheridan remake a watered down, clichéd version of the same movie? Sicario was both bold and subtle at the same time. The movie pulled you in while making you uncomfortable with the proceedings. It asked tough questions without spelling it out for the audience. The implications of the story were left to the audience to decide. The sequel decided it was necessary to fill scenes with trailer-moment bravado, no matter how redundant. "No rules this time. I'm turning you loose." "How loose?" I mean, he just said no rules this time. Sounds pretty loose. And I don't know how many rules there were last time when you were killing children. The difference being this time they don't need to bother with a justice dept. liaison, but still it's silly dialog. because I have (and you have probably too) seen other things Sheridan wrote I think I know the answer to that - enforced rewrites. We know he is a MUCH smarter writer than this. to you questions/concerns/complains: 1. the jumping out of the truck didnt really bother me, its not like you can easily make plans with criminals fo that sort and expect them to be ok when you change your mind. 2. the death and rise - I really think it was the directors fault that we viewed it as A) long time having gone by, B) long distance from the place to the truck - to me that was the biggest problem. Otherwise shot through your jaw certainly doesnt need to kill you and if you dont hit a major vain you wont even bleed to death. 3. I agree completelly on the character change. There was nothing in Del Toros character that we knew of that would justify his feelings toward the girl and reversing the decison. That was bad. 4. Agreed, the swap was shot oddly. I mean she could have also recognize them by smell. 5. The last scene I dont share your view - I think that character was very important for the entire movie and thats why I was invested in him and also I liked the twist at the end (Not del torro being alive but joining forces with this guy and passing the torch so to speak)
Had this been Sheridans first script I would be skeptical about his skills too. but we KNOW he is exceptionally smart writer. This must have been a result of outside forces mingling with his genius.I hope that's the case, though it doesn't matter either way. What's done is done. It doesn't bode well for any potential sequels, and I'd be fine if this was the end of the story.
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Jul 2, 2018 22:11:36 GMT
Stunned that it's the same writer, it's that bad. Why would Sheridan remake a watered down, clichéd version of the same movie? Sicario was both bold and subtle at the same time. The movie pulled you in while making you uncomfortable with the proceedings. It asked tough questions without spelling it out for the audience. The implications of the story were left to the audience to decide. The sequel decided it was necessary to fill scenes with trailer-moment bravado, no matter how redundant. "No rules this time. I'm turning you loose." "How loose?" I mean, he just said no rules this time. Sounds pretty loose. And I don't know how many rules there were last time when you were killing children. The difference being this time they don't need to bother with a justice dept. liaison, but still it's silly dialog. Ultimately, the story is hollow and doesn't make a ton of sense. Spoilers ahead. Why did they bother with the pretend smash and grab at the house when even a child could figure out what was going on as soon as they loaded her into the convoy? Why did Miguel jump out of the truck at the end? Why didn't they just stop? (The answer of course is his character couldn't be in the truck when it got lit up by Brolin's crew, but they couldn't find a better way around that? It's not like he had second thoughts, the next time we see him he's all tatted up and he's a full blown gangster. And why did Brolin save the girl? I can understand he just wanted to kill the guys that got Alejandro, but why bother saving the girl? Not only is that against orders, it's against his character. This guy has never once shown that he gives a shit about collateral damage and has happily killed family members of his enemies.
How long was Alejandro going to lay in the dirt with non-fatal injuries? That scene legitimately confused me as much as his apparent death moments earlier. I couldn't believe they were going to kill off a major character in such anti-climactic fashion; but hey, I thought, maybe that's just a little of the original Sicario DNA showing through. Bold and bleak. But no, he eventually rises from the dead, shakes it off and continues his badassery in the closing moments, with a character exactly nobody in the audience gives a shit about. While Sicario felt raw it still felt natural. Its message about the drug war and what the audience is comfortable with our government doing to combat the cartels is an intriguing one. The sequel felt like a forced commentary about illegal immigration where Sheridan isn't sure what he wanted to say-- he just wanted to say something. Again, it's surprising coming from the guy who wrote Sicario and Wind River, two of my favorite films by far of the last five years at least. I'll say this, the performances were solid and the cinematography was quality, despite not reaching the levels of the original. It's always good to see Jeffrey Donavan, I've never been able to figure out why he isn't a bigger star. Had I stumbled upon this film without seeing the original, I probably would've thought it was a decent flick. The original simply sets the bar too high for a mediocre second effort to be passable. The fact that Graver killed all the pimps in the car and truck with a terrifying look of pure hatred on his face makes me think that sparing the girl wasn't out of mercy or a sudden change of heart.
I think he wants to use her against the cartel again. He obviously didn't want to be done with the drug war and what else did he have to continue it? The president was out, the Secretary of Defense was out, as far as he knew his greatest ally Alejandro was dead, and yet his faux war was going so well for awhile. I think he has some more vengeance on his mind for Part III, and she's the key to get it.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jul 2, 2018 22:58:54 GMT
Stunned that it's the same writer, it's that bad. Why would Sheridan remake a watered down, clichéd version of the same movie? Sicario was both bold and subtle at the same time. The movie pulled you in while making you uncomfortable with the proceedings. It asked tough questions without spelling it out for the audience. The implications of the story were left to the audience to decide. The sequel decided it was necessary to fill scenes with trailer-moment bravado, no matter how redundant. "No rules this time. I'm turning you loose." "How loose?" I mean, he just said no rules this time. Sounds pretty loose. And I don't know how many rules there were last time when you were killing children. The difference being this time they don't need to bother with a justice dept. liaison, but still it's silly dialog. Ultimately, the story is hollow and doesn't make a ton of sense. Spoilers ahead. Why did they bother with the pretend smash and grab at the house when even a child could figure out what was going on as soon as they loaded her into the convoy? Why did Miguel jump out of the truck at the end? Why didn't they just stop? (The answer of course is his character couldn't be in the truck when it got lit up by Brolin's crew, but they couldn't find a better way around that? It's not like he had second thoughts, the next time we see him he's all tatted up and he's a full blown gangster. And why did Brolin save the girl? I can understand he just wanted to kill the guys that got Alejandro, but why bother saving the girl? Not only is that against orders, it's against his character. This guy has never once shown that he gives a shit about collateral damage and has happily killed family members of his enemies.
How long was Alejandro going to lay in the dirt with non-fatal injuries? That scene legitimately confused me as much as his apparent death moments earlier. I couldn't believe they were going to kill off a major character in such anti-climactic fashion; but hey, I thought, maybe that's just a little of the original Sicario DNA showing through. Bold and bleak. But no, he eventually rises from the dead, shakes it off and continues his badassery in the closing moments, with a character exactly nobody in the audience gives a shit about. While Sicario felt raw it still felt natural. Its message about the drug war and what the audience is comfortable with our government doing to combat the cartels is an intriguing one. The sequel felt like a forced commentary about illegal immigration where Sheridan isn't sure what he wanted to say-- he just wanted to say something. Again, it's surprising coming from the guy who wrote Sicario and Wind River, two of my favorite films by far of the last five years at least. I'll say this, the performances were solid and the cinematography was quality, despite not reaching the levels of the original. It's always good to see Jeffrey Donavan, I've never been able to figure out why he isn't a bigger star. Had I stumbled upon this film without seeing the original, I probably would've thought it was a decent flick. The original simply sets the bar too high for a mediocre second effort to be passable. The fact that Graver killed all the pimps in the car and truck with a terrifying look of pure hatred on his face makes me think that sparing the girl wasn't out of mercy or a sudden change of heart.
I think he wants to use her against the cartel again. He obviously didn't want to be done with the drug war and what else did he have to continue it? The president was out, the Secretary of Defense was out, as far as he knew his greatest ally Alejandro was dead, and yet his faux war was going so well for awhile. I think he has some more vengeance on his mind for Part III, and she's the key to get it. i wish you were right i really do. i fear your are not but that would make the weakest part of the movie better.
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Jul 2, 2018 23:11:53 GMT
The fact that Graver killed all the pimps in the car and truck with a terrifying look of pure hatred on his face makes me think that sparing the girl wasn't out of mercy or a sudden change of heart.
I think he wants to use her against the cartel again. He obviously didn't want to be done with the drug war and what else did he have to continue it? The president was out, the Secretary of Defense was out, as far as he knew his greatest ally Alejandro was dead, and yet his faux war was going so well for awhile. I think he has some more vengeance on his mind for Part III, and she's the key to get it. i wish you were right i really do. i fear your are not but that would make the weakest part of the movie better. I think it could work really well (or some other scenario we haven't thought of) as long as Part III has a good director. I think Sollima did a fantastic job - much better than I thought he would - but I think they should bring in a new director.
An interesting tidbit I saw on IMDb is that Jeremy Saulnier was originally going to direct this movie (he directed Blue Ruin and Green Room), but had to back out due to conflicts with his new movie Hold the Dark (which sounds awesome btw). He should direct the third one with Sheridan coming back for one last story. That could be a great finish to a surprising trilogy.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jul 2, 2018 23:14:13 GMT
i wish you were right i really do. i fear your are not but that would make the weakest part of the movie better. I think it could work really well (or some other scenario we haven't thought of) as long as Part III has a good director. I think Sollima did a fantastic job - much better than I thought he would - but I think they should bring in a new director.
An interesting tidbit I saw on IMDb is that Jeremy Saulnier was originally going to direct this movie (he directed Blue Ruin and Green Room), but had to back out due to conflicts with his new movie Hold the Dark (which sounds awesome btw). He should direct the third one with Sheridan coming back for one last story. That could be a great finish to a surprising trilogy. yeah I Love Saulnier thats a good idea. Well lets see….
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Jul 3, 2018 11:57:35 GMT
Stunned that it's the same writer, it's that bad. Why would Sheridan remake a watered down, clichéd version of the same movie? Sicario was both bold and subtle at the same time. The movie pulled you in while making you uncomfortable with the proceedings. It asked tough questions without spelling it out for the audience. The implications of the story were left to the audience to decide. The sequel decided it was necessary to fill scenes with trailer-moment bravado, no matter how redundant. "No rules this time. I'm turning you loose." "How loose?" I mean, he just said no rules this time. Sounds pretty loose. And I don't know how many rules there were last time when you were killing children. The difference being this time they don't need to bother with a justice dept. liaison, but still it's silly dialog. Ultimately, the story is hollow and doesn't make a ton of sense. Spoilers ahead. Why did they bother with the pretend smash and grab at the house when even a child could figure out what was going on as soon as they loaded her into the convoy? Why did Miguel jump out of the truck at the end? Why didn't they just stop? (The answer of course is his character couldn't be in the truck when it got lit up by Brolin's crew, but they couldn't find a better way around that? It's not like he had second thoughts, the next time we see him he's all tatted up and he's a full blown gangster. And why did Brolin save the girl? I can understand he just wanted to kill the guys that got Alejandro, but why bother saving the girl? Not only is that against orders, it's against his character. This guy has never once shown that he gives a shit about collateral damage and has happily killed family members of his enemies.
How long was Alejandro going to lay in the dirt with non-fatal injuries? That scene legitimately confused me as much as his apparent death moments earlier. I couldn't believe they were going to kill off a major character in such anti-climactic fashion; but hey, I thought, maybe that's just a little of the original Sicario DNA showing through. Bold and bleak. But no, he eventually rises from the dead, shakes it off and continues his badassery in the closing moments, with a character exactly nobody in the audience gives a shit about. While Sicario felt raw it still felt natural. Its message about the drug war and what the audience is comfortable with our government doing to combat the cartels is an intriguing one. The sequel felt like a forced commentary about illegal immigration where Sheridan isn't sure what he wanted to say-- he just wanted to say something. Again, it's surprising coming from the guy who wrote Sicario and Wind River, two of my favorite films by far of the last five years at least. I'll say this, the performances were solid and the cinematography was quality, despite not reaching the levels of the original. It's always good to see Jeffrey Donavan, I've never been able to figure out why he isn't a bigger star. Had I stumbled upon this film without seeing the original, I probably would've thought it was a decent flick. The original simply sets the bar too high for a mediocre second effort to be passable. The fact that Graver killed all the pimps in the car and truck with a terrifying look of pure hatred on his face makes me think that sparing the girl wasn't out of mercy or a sudden change of heart.
I think he wants to use her against the cartel again. He obviously didn't want to be done with the drug war and what else did he have to continue it? The president was out, the Secretary of Defense was out, as far as he knew his greatest ally Alejandro was dead, and yet his faux war was going so well for awhile. I think he has some more vengeance on his mind for Part III, and she's the key to get it. That makes sense, I could see that. He says something about throwing her in witness protection, I suppose there's no reason he has to tell his superiors about it. The other thing that bothered me was the girl never seemed particularly anxious to get back. I was afraid they were going to rip off Leon the Professional but kudos to them for not going that route.
|
|