Yes, Sicario is well-made — in the sense that it looks, feels and plays like a wholly competent professional piece of filmmaking. Yes, it is splendidly acted by its stars. No complaints so far, but it’s also quite possibly the most overrated film of the year. It is punishingly slow and obvious (which only accentuates the slowness). The idea that it has some kind of message to convey must be grounded in the overbearing humorlessness of director Denis Villeneuve. Just like his last attempt at a profound statement, Prisoners (2013), he takes what is basically a lurid thriller and insists you buy into a significance that simply isn’t there — and playing it without cracking a smile doesn’t change that. At least Prisoners offered a mystery and wasn’t obvious about where it was going. Apart from a deeply strange opening sequence (that promised a far more intriguing film than Sicario delivered), this is basically just another violent movie about drug trafficking. It’s efficient enough at what it does, but what it does is neither new nor significant.
Following the aforementioned opening (about which I am saying nothing, since it’s the movie’s most interesting scene) in which two FBI agents are killed, improbably naive agent Kate Macer (Emily Blunt) finds herself and her partner Reggie (Daniel Kaluuya) recruited to work with a shadowy agency (no prizes for guessing which one) to fight the Mexican drug cartel. No one seems to be even slightly inclined to tell her exactly who her new bosses — the flip-flop-wearing (the movie’s concession to quirkiness) Matt Graver (Josh Brolin) and his enigmatic partner Alejandro (Benicio Del Toro) — are or who they work for. It’s either very hush-hush or illegal — and probably both. She goes along with it because she’s idealistic (of course) and because she’d like to get revenge for the two dead agents. Plus, she has no real personal life, apart from being a secret smoker divorcee with sketchy hygiene. Partner Reggie goes along for reasons the movie is disinclined to make clear (except that he’s her partner), which is perhaps why he’s sidelined for lengthy stretches.
At this point, the movie turns full-on drug war stuff that feels ever so slightly like it’s playing on a kind of Donald Trump view of all-things-Mexican. As presented in the film, everything in Mexico — where bodies dangle from overpasses — is corrupt and no one can be trusted. But, for that matter, things don’t seem that much better stateside, and that, I suspect, is the supposed point of the film. We get to watch Kate’s idealistic naivete wear away as she watches everything she believes in get shunted to one side in pursuit of a course of action that makes us little better than the bad guys we’re after. Her realization that she’s really only there to fulfill a technical requirement seems to surprise her, but no one else. OK. This is not exactly an original idea, and there’s very little distinctive about it here.
Yet, there are occasional hints that there might have been more to it had the film actually explored the basic similarities between Kate and Alejandro — something Alejandro at least grasps. But, no, the film is more interested in a subplot about a Mexican family man who is also a corrupt policeman involved in the drug trade. This could have been interesting, but it goes nowhere and adds little to the proceedings — except running time that the film did not need. Mostly, however, what we end up with is a humorless, well-acted, violent and not particularly deep drug war movie. What was supposed to be serious art house fare is really just a Hollywood movie. How Hollywood? Well, they’ve already announced a sequel. Rated R for strong violence, grisly images and language.
You are so so wrong on this Mr. Hanke. An on the edge of your seat movie that will assuredly garner Benicio Del Toro an Oscar nomination.
I am from Asheville and am now supplanted in TX. I am commenting on this because I saw the Mtn Express attachment to Ken’s name on Rotten Tomatoes. I honestly think you, Ken, are trying too hard. Did the movie not incite emotion in you? If you feel that it was just bleh then I would say you are not being honest with your self. Just about the whole movie is thick with tension and the foreshadowing is very creative (ie the cop from Ciudad Juarez, just as soon as you think his little story is over it starts up again). Also, I think that for the general public, the visuals from this movie definitely make a statement on the current state of Ciudad Juarez and Mexico as a whole with the drug cartels. Seriously Mr. KenMcKennerson what sort of statement were you looking to find? I have a statement and it’s “Stop Trying So Hard To Make an Edgy Review Just To Stand Out From the Crowd”.
Well, you are entitled to your opinion. I should therefore be entitled to mine. Or is there a double standard here? And what of the commenters below? Are they trying too hard to be edgy by not thinking it was any great shakes?
Ken: Great review. I’m glad that someone has the insight to call it spot-on. I can’t believe the 90 something percent rating on “Rotten Tomatoes.” I thought the dialogue was forced and the plot flawed and unbelievable. In particular, the ending was as implausible and contrived as can be. Really? A pistol under the chin for the poor agent who won’t sign the paper that says they did it “by the book”? Come on. Thanks for being the voice of film reason.
And in addition to that, it truly was “punishing slow” . I can see how one can like parts of the movie; I am amazed that the slowness wasn’t obvious to everyone!
I think Ken is spot on with this review. The movie was enjoyable but left everything in a mess. The movie left me not relating to any of the main characters.
Thank you, Ken Hanke! Your review is exactly my point of view.
Totally agree with your review in every way. It’s a text-book rookie cop movie and though it was well done, there was nothing groundbreaking to see here.
I agree with you very much. I too found it waay overrated and to be honest a little boring at times. It was well made and well acted no doubt but I would say it is a one time watch when you have nothing better to do.
Hanke + thought process = fail.
I am crushed under the weight of your wit.
Why thank you.
Yes, well…
Just saw the movie and completely agree with your review. The movie had very little real tension and lots of slow spots.Two episodes of Breaking Bad has more twists and drama. Emile Blunt looked a bit lost, I believe she has never smoked a full cigarette in her life, Benicio Del Toro’s performance was the high point of the movie, he was very dark moody and dangerous.
You came to the wrong guy for an argument of course.
Del Toro is really the only reason I can see for watching this.
Punishing slow! Correct phrase! I slept and woke up and went back to sleep again and yet managed to understand the whole film. It’s herd mentality! The critics have given great reviews so it’s awesome! Use your own brains people!
*Punishingly
Not sure how you can call this move the same as any other drug trafficking movie. The CIA using hitmen doesn’t sound redundant to me. this filmmaker just had the courage to do it.
I don’t think it’s a surprise that the CIA uses his men… To most people at least.
I agree 100% with this review – slickly made movie with a fantastic cast, but not as tense or compelling as it’s made out to be. Overrated!
honest and to the point, Not having any follow up on such a curious opening leaves an unsatisfied itch. Female cop stumbling in perspective was refreshing at first,but cumbersome later on as the film held on to it religiously. If its an action movie, no shame in getting it going to pull the audience in. No need to mistake slow and heavy as good taste/ sometimes expensive wine fails to make the pallet sing..
So glad to see criticism of this hugely overrated movie. The key phrase is “insists you buy into a significance that simply isn’t there.” Exactly. Maybe it would have been significant if it actually pointed out the CIA’s massive and lucrative role in drug trafficking. But then the CIA never would have allowed the movie to be made. Ya wanna get rich? Tell lies the CIA likes. Ya wanna have your career destroyed like Gary Webb? Tell the truth. They’ll “Kill the Messenger.”
Mr Hanke is so right that it is obvious. There are directorial weaknesses galore. The motorcade sequences defy logic The tunnel sequences are hard work with no clear objective. The presence of the vulnerable and often less gun protected Emily is not adequately explained. Emily Blunt has great acting skill but here she was a passenger belying her character’s intelligence and only latterly got an explanation why she was part of this cranky mission. Her facials were wooden. The score was more expository than sympathetic and abrasive. I actually preferred the score to this entire ham fisted drug saga. Maybe a remake with Angelina Jolie and a Spanish guy?