Sicario (Denis Villeneuve)

[DavidSeven]

Sicario

Director: Denis Villeneuve

IMDb

[DavidSeven]

This was really interesting in that it seems set up to fail from a dramatic standpoint, yet it works anyway and feels kind of refreshing to see a true Hollywood product spit in the face of convention. The story is straight forward, but seeing a protagonist be this ineffective and mostly useless to the overall story is bizarre and sort of fascinating because the drama still works so well. Blunt's character doesn't do much more than function as a pure audience surrogate, and under normal Scripting 101 principles, her character would never survive the first re-write. Protagonists don't really get more passive than this. But even with that and a lack of any obvious obstacles or dramatic "turning points," this is still one of the more engrossing Hollywood thrillers I've seen in some time. The film owes a lot to Blunt's humanizing performance, but I think it works in general because the tone is right, the set-pieces are superbly and tautly crafted, and the underlying mystery is enough to keep us mentally engaged.

I think Deakins is MVP, but there are no weak links here. A well-conceptualized thriller that departs greatly from familiar approaches.

[number8]

I found it getting increasingly duller the nastier it got. Villeneuve is terrific at creating and maintaining tension, but that seems to be all he can do, because every scene has that underlying sense of menace to it, and I'm not sure that's what the script was actually calling for in some of the scenes (the Mexican cop subplot comes to mind). After a while I felt like I was watching a director's resume rather than a story, and the dread actually got annoying to endure.

Speaking of rewrites, I read that the financial backers offered to up the budget by 30% if Sheridan would rewrite the script to have a male lead, but he and Villeneuve turned down the money because they insist that the character has to be a woman or it would change the film, and for the life of me I cannot figure out how. It doesn't seem to do anything thematically with the fact that she's the only woman there, unless we're supposed to associate it with the fact that she possesses a moral compass that gets in the way of the men's "real work."

[DavidSeven]

That's interesting. Watching it, I actually wondered if they ever got pressured to make the character male for financial reasons. Her presence does give the film some contrast since it is completely male dominated otherwise. That bar sequence would certainly play differently. But I could see why a money-man might feel the character could work just as easily as a male. My feeling, however, is the film wouldn't feel quite the same, and that the gender dynamics add to the overall tone.

That said, I think your point about this subtextual feeling that the male characters are painted as doing the "real work" (or some might say, evil work) is fair one and one that does come through by the end. I'm not convinced it was meant to be framed as a gender thing, but certainly something that crossed my mind as well.

[number8]

There is a slight sense of condescension in how Brolin and Benicio treat her, most strikingly when they wouldn't answer any of her repeated questions and then her male partner asks once and they do, but I don't think it's all that significant to the dynamic especially since [

Show Spoiler

it turns out the op was merely using the FBI for a technicality anyway

]. I think it was certainly a good thing that they wanted to insist on the opportunity to have a woman in this kind of muscular movie, and to shut down this gross perception that male leads sell more tickets. I'm just curious what it is that they saw as so important about her role as the woman in the midst, because it provided a good visual contrast (her lanky frame against the massive Delta Force guys in the briefing room, for instance) but not much else.

[Philip J. Fry]

As someone from Juarez, I cannot wait to watch this flick.

[number8]

WTF, they already greenlit a sequel. The premise is a bit of a spoiler, I think, so maybe don't click if you haven't seen the film:

[

Show Spoiler

Lionsgate is developing a sequel to “Sicario” that will center on Benicio Del Toro’s mysterious hitman.

The project is being overseen by Taylor Sheridan, the writer of the acclaimed thriller. Director Denis Villeneuve is also involved, although it’s early in the process and it’s not clear if he would come on board to direct. Black Label Media, which backed “Sicario,” is co-financing the development of a follow-up.

]

http://variety.com/2015/film/box-off...te-1201599035/

[Pop Trash]

I'm just curious what it is that they saw as so important about her role as the woman in the midst, because it provided a good visual contrast (her lanky frame against the massive Delta Force guys in the briefing room, for instance) but not much else.

Film is an inherently visual medium so the casting of a woman speaks vastly more than any didactic dialogue in a screenplay could. Similar to how this shot in Silence of the Lambs pretty much says it all.

[TGM]

This is yet another win from director Denis Villeneuve. Though I would say that both Prisoners and Enemy are ultimately better movies than it, this is still another very solid, strong outing, and consistently dark, bleak, and tense throughout. Awesomely shot, and great strong performances from Blunt, Del Toro, and Brolin (though, funnily enough, Brolin in many ways is almost playing the exact same character here as he did in Everest, which I saw only two days prior. :P ) Villenueve is quickly becoming a director whose work I highly anticipate.

[Morris Schæffer]

I don't get a line early on. [

Show Spoiler

The Blunt character enters a house, she shoots another guy right after narrowly avoiding his shotgun blast and then says something along the lines of "why was he shooting? There was no one else in the house!" Don't get that because that guy was simply defending himself. No?

]

And moments after that there's the obligatory shot of our tough guys (and woman) standing outside puking, and then bending over again, which bordered on comical. Besides that, a very thrilling movie, especially the first hour. Somewhat dissapointed the intensity isn't maintained though, that it didn't become an all out battle, but, well, I suppose a story of [

Show Spoiler

revenge

]. And one that eventually felt all too easy come the ending. The thing with the Bernthal character seemed dubious plot-wise, felt like it came outta nowhere, but I could be wrong.

[Morris Schæffer]

Thinking about it some more, I wish this movie would have found a way to stay on the streets rather than going into dark, generic tunnels. What a character the city of Juarez was!

[transmogrifier]

This was excellent.

[Irish]

I liked this quite a bit. The opening act is tense in a way that few other films are. (I held my breath during that border crossing). The ending was a mixed bag. The movie is mostly a stone cold thriller, but still it can't resist classic Hollywood moralizing. That got on my nerves, because I never believed Blunt would be as squeamish as she's made out to be, nor did I buy into Del Toro's personal need for revenge and bureaucratic fussiness.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the movie is called "Hitman," not "FBI Agent." Blunt operates as the point of view character, but I'm not sure I could really call her the protagonist (if we define that term as "the person who drives the narrative"). One of the choices I thought was interesting is how often the camera rests on Del Toro, even when he's not the focus of the scene. Other times, he's the key driver (that first border crossing, the interrogation afters, etc). He's the principal during each of the act climaxes, too. This choice is subtle at first, but becomes more apparent as the movie plays out.

Casting Blunt at the center gives the writers a helluva lot more latitude, because the audience would never buy a male cop who was as vulnerable as she is here. You can also sidestep the chance that the audience will turn on her because of pre-conceptions. Neatly, this also works thematically, because as an FBI agent, the character also reflects domestic vulnerability to foreign threats.

[Philip J. Fry]

The following are some brief thoughts I'm having while watching Sicario. What is so special about them? I actually live in Juarez.

"I'm watching right now Sicario and there's a shot of the Cordova's bridge and all of a sudden I'm like OMG, I was crossing that bridge last week!!!
And also I'm like "I went to school there!!". Yes, there's a shot of the UACJ from a chopper. With Deakins' lenses.
This is a post."

"Now I'm like... Roger Deakins was probably on the very same city I live in (unless he sent an assistant with a crew or something) and I missed it! I am getting depressed. Please someone hold me."

"And I see all those big ass trucks trying to hopelessly evade all the holes on the streets and I'm like... that's the kind of shit I have to put up everyday!!
Although the score is great so far, I'm pretty sure that if they were riding on a truck from the ministerial, they'd probably be listening to rancheras, banda, duranguense or Julion Alvarez. I'm pretty sure Emily Blunt would be utterly miserable in there. Specially in summer. Summer blows here."

"Heh, they're now driving as if they were going to go to Puente Santa Fe and they end up at Puente Cordova. Oh Dennis, you tricky trickster."

"On one hand, I wanna say that, as great an actor as he is, Benicio del Toro doesn't sound like someone from Juarez, and yet, I've met people from Tegucigalpa here (a lot of people that cannot cross the border end up living here) so who am I to judge?"

[Ezee E]

The best made movie of the year that isn't very good?

High expectations here from the opening shot, which might be the best opening shot of the year, with Blunt going from being in a bed of light, to complete darkness, to being engulfed in light again. Enter into a scene of strong tension, quick violence, and the dread that this isn't anywhere close to being closed.

Repeat, again and again. That's basically the movie, with nothing really changing from the beginning compared to the end, except for some satisfaction for the hitman.

Alright.... Sure.

But at least it features some of the best cinematography of the year, and probably the best capture of Juarez I've seen on a movie.

I can imagine watching this again a few more times for the filmmaking alone, but it's certainly pretty empty on every other level.

[transmogrifier]

The best made movie of the year that isn't very good?

High expectations here from the opening shot, which might be the best opening shot of the year, with Blunt going from being in a bed of light, to complete darkness, to being engulfed in light again. Enter into a scene of strong tension, quick violence, and the dread that this isn't anywhere close to being closed.

Repeat, again and again. That's basically the movie, with nothing really changing from the beginning compared to the end, except for some satisfaction for the hitman.

Alright.... Sure.

But at least it features some of the best cinematography of the year, and probably the best capture of Juarez I've seen on a movie.

I can imagine watching this again a few more times for the filmmaking alone, but it's certainly pretty empty on every other level.

Wrong in pretty much all ways.

[Izzy Black]

A few points about the importance of Emily Blunt and the role, and why I loved that they turned down that offer.

I think both number8 and DavidSeven are spot on about her character serving as a contrast, at times even a foil, for "the evil that men do" as it were. The only difference is I think that this figures heavily into the theme of the movie, rather being a merely incidental feature, and for this reason, I understand completely Sheridan's refusal to change the gender of the character. I think it's evidenced throughout. The condescension that number8 points out is a nice example, but this condescension is more pervasive than rudeness, and extends to an oppressive and totalizing disarming of Kate. As Alejandro says to her, she's not prepared to be a "wolf," and says, both condescendingly and as a threat, she should go find a small town somewhere where there still exists a rule a law.

This requires a very delicate balance for the film to strike, then, because it needs to establish a level of gender inequality in the film without undermining the strength and resolve of Blunt's character, and I thought she did a fantastic job at this. As Sheridan has said, he wanted to present a character that was constantly victimized without herself being a victim, in a sense. The reason I think the film does such a good job at doing this, and in particular, why Emily Blunt's performance is so great in this regard, is because she clearly has an inner resolve, strength, and obvious expertise at her job. The problem is that she's not in a position to do her job because they are playing by different rules. The complexity is brought to bear in that Kate, although often victimized, is ultimately disarmed by her moral compass and unwillingness to play by these rules. [

Show Spoiler

She did, after all, have the drop on Alejandro in the end.

] In other words, her moral strength and moral autonomy comes at the expense of physical autonomy and active control of the world around her.

It's worth pointing out that Emily Blunt modeled her character on actual female FBI agents, and one in particular.

I also want to echo DavidSeven's points about the narrative mechanics and her function as protagonist. It's somewhat subversive, but not so much when read as a straight noir, which is what it is (and western). That's much of what I loved about the film. It's my film of the year so far.

[Mal]

A bit too by-the-numbers for me story-wise to find it amazing or anything, but damn is this a good looking movie with a solid cast. I wouldn't turn it off if it was on cable.

[Dukefrukem]

THis was so good. But yeh, why cast Emily Blunt for this role?

That traffic jam scene was perfect. Also, dat music! This was better than traffic.

[Dukefrukem]

I don't get a line early on. [

Show Spoiler

The Blunt character enters a house, she shoots another guy right after narrowly avoiding his shotgun blast and then says something along the lines of "why was he shooting? There was no one else in the house!" Don't get that because that guy was simply defending himself. No?

]

And moments after that there's the obligatory shot of our tough guys (and woman) standing outside puking, and then bending over again, which bordered on comical. Besides that, a very thrilling movie, especially the first hour. Somewhat dissapointed the intensity isn't maintained though, that it didn't become an all out battle, but, well, I suppose a story of [

Show Spoiler

revenge

]. And one that eventually felt all too easy come the ending. The thing with the Bernthal character seemed dubious plot-wise, felt like it came outta nowhere, but I could be wrong.

I think she was referring to the fact that there was no one else in the house worth defending. No big bosses, not big piles of money, etc etc. So why risk your life defending an empty house.

[Yxklyx]

This was pretty good. Loved the music. I didn't understand Blunt's character - just couldn't understand why she was doing what she was doing and didn't think her role worked in story. It felt like she was a viewer projected into the film.

[Morris Schæffer]

I think she was referring to the fact that there was no one else in the house worth defending. No big bosses, not big piles of money, etc etc. So why risk your life defending an empty house.

Ah yes that makes sense!

[Grouchy]

This was really interesting in that it seems set up to fail from a dramatic standpoint, yet it works anyway and feels kind of refreshing to see a true Hollywood product spit in the face of convention. The story is straight forward, but seeing a protagonist be this ineffective and mostly useless to the overall story is bizarre and sort of fascinating because the drama still works so well. Blunt's character doesn't do much more than function as a pure audience surrogate, and under normal Scripting 101 principles, her character would never survive the first re-write. Protagonists don't really get more passive than this.

This was what I was thinking for most of the film. It's rare having a protagonist who's out of the loop for the entire movie and yet it works here for that same reason.

Anyway, this was fantastic. Villeneuve is my favorite new director to follow.

[TGM]

[StanleyK]

My first Villeneuve movie. I wasn't blown away but it is very solid - his direction in particular is quite good. My favorite scene was the tunnel raid at the end.