The premise is stated in the last meeting between Alejandro and Kate; "this is the land of wolves now." The Sicarii were not legal entities, but were fighting a just war. There are no "illegal moves" in a street fight when your life is on the line. The same is true when facing an enemy who knows no rules. You either die fighting by the rules, or you overcome and survive.
Yeah, and then the question becomes: Are Matt and the agency actually fighting a just war? In this case, if it’s avenging Alejandro’s family, the answer is a probable “yes” (even though he murders women and children, which is going too far into an “eye for an eye”). BUT, if we’re talking about the agency taking down one cartel only to reinstate the Medellin Cartel… that gets a little dicier. Excellent point!
@@HowStoriesWork Good point... But as Matt says, "...until somebody finds a way to convince 20% of the population to stop snorting and smoking that shit, order's the best we can hope for." The US has not the political will to go to war with Mexico or those citizens who are the cause of the market. In the face of that, "order's the best we can hope for," and, to the majority of both American and Mexicans, order, instead of the chaos and death they currently face, is probably about as just a goal as can be hoped for.
100%. That’s what makes the film so powerful. The concept of how the individual perspective (Kate’s) can’t accept the need for this gray area, whereas the overall system must do something and the gray area is the “best” solution that can currently be found. Really great stuff!
I finally watched this movie last night. First, thank you for your explanation. Definitely cleared a lot of things up. Second, on the ending on the soccer field, I feel like that last scene (and this really bummed me out) signified that fact that even after they “destroyed” the cartel, it didn’t change a thing. No justice was served and no stability was actually put in place. Amazing film 10/10.
I heard another theory that Kate was actually considered the villian. Not on purpose, but she represents the 'by the book' approach to fighting crime which really does nothing to stop crime. The heroes are those who circumvent the rules and 'save everyone' despite the bureaucracy that consistently tries to stop them. I guess this film is true art and can be interpreted in many different ways.
That’s true. I would argue that the film’s intent is that Kate is not the villain, because she’s not in it for “global politics” (Matt) or a “personal vendetta” (Alejandro). She’s in it for justice (convicting the people who caused the incident in Act 1 in the home). Granted, the argument others might have is: “You have to be like Matt or America is at risk.” And that is an argument to be made, but I don’t think the film is suggesting that it’s the right conclusion. One thing I love about the film is it just presents the situation without forcing a narrative. Thanks for watching and commenting!
I saw that as well but I don't really buy it. It was laid out well but I wasn't convinced. I think Kate represents the idealism of beaurocracy and the belief that if you have a higher sense of reasoning and civility then you will prevail. Which of course is naive and proves harmful to pragmatism as her "red tape" thinking only gums up the gears of progress.
I agree. In a way Kate is the villain. If it was up to her , the HEROES that are trying to restore the original order , would be slowed up or stopped completely. I love the lack of music/score in this film. Kate was NEVER the main character in Sicario. The main character is Alejandro.. the cartel is more of a main character than Kate honestly. She just got more screen time.
@@UrbanMediaReview Agreed. While Kate does have an antagonistic role, she is the vehicle in which we get to watch the story unfold. Sort of like an NPC.
the movie was so well done. from casting to writing, cinematography to soundtrack. the whole thing is so engrossing. I've watched it multiple times and have never been bored once. del Toro and Brolin nail their roles. Blunt disappears into the character so well, i forget it's her half the time. complete masterpiece from front to back.
Thanks for your review and assessment of this film. As the film's story is written primarily from Kate's perspective, i think it's reasonable to say the main premise of the film is Kate's initial assumption that she is working within the law to deal with drug smuggling and decides to join Matt's team, to work more effectively by widening her knowledge, contacts and skills. She then realises that Matt does not follow the legal process, which troubles her but this is countered by his effectiveness and his insight into the corruption in the legal system in Mexico. Later she realises that cops in the US may also be corrupt, forcing her to question her trust in US law enforcement and undermining her belief in the system she has always worked in. When she realises the tunnel plot becomes the assassination of Gustavo, she tries to stop it but Alejandro shoots her, not to kill but to finish is mission. When she signs the legal certificate at the end, she has lost her naivety about the legal process but does not kill Alejandro, perhaps she respects him but also remembers that he chose not to kill her and that she has become embroiled in a war where there is no black and white, only shades of grey. Perhaps this is what the director wants the audience to realise as well.
Re: Your concern about the twist at the end of the movie when Alejandro takes the script from Kate: Consider Kate an unwitting mule for Alejandro, and the revelation that it was Alejandro's mission all along comes into focus. The final (superficially incongruous) twist in development reveals Alejandro metaphorically emerging from the tunnel as the true Sicario. Everyone else on the US team was along for the ride. In conclusion, Kate's narrative arch was abandoned at the side of the road (hotel room) because her purpose had expired. Kate's expiration date matches the date on the contract Alejandro forced her to sign at the end. That was Kate handing Alejandro the baton. Her narrative arch was tamped out like her final cigarette on the hotel room balcony. It was always meant to be his victory. Only Matt and Alejandro knew the real purpose of the mission.
Great analysis of my favorite movie! 😃 I actually never caught that Guillermo Diaz was nothing but "a gift" to Alejandro from his friend - and that Matt never cared about his "potential intel" because they already had enough to go on and verify said intel - later. BUT that killing/torturing/imprisoning Guillermo Diaz -> Was PART of shaking Manuel Diaz's tree. = Like a "buy 2, get 1 free" special deal 😅😂 And I think Matt Graver would actually call it just that in his completely casual mood. - However I did THINK I caught you in a mistake as well: 12:45 - you call Fausto Alarcon the TOP DOG which it's said that he is not. Back at the first inter Agency meeting, they called him the number 3. guy (or believed to be) and in the second Sicario movie, the girl Reyes knew of "The grieving lawyer" from her father who was ranked higher than Alarcon. = I think I'm right on that one, but it IS a bit hard to remember everything exactly as it was said (or written) so I may still be wrong 😃
That makes sense. I feel like Matt calls him something like that in the meeting… but it’s been a while since I studied the film. Even knowing how the real cartels work, in that the guys at the top are SUPER undercover, it would make sense that Alarcon isn’t the apex. But maybe Matt and the inter-agency team are referring to him that way as he’s the target? I’d have to go back and verify that, though. Thanks for watching and commenting! I’ve been asked to do a video on Day of the Soldado, so stay tuned for that one!
@@HowStoriesWork No it was the guy looked like Bart Simpson had grown up who called him the 3rd guy 🙂 Irrelevant detail though. Uhh I'd love to see you do Day of the Soldado! So looking forward to it 😁
I enjoyed your video greatly. I consider the entire group of protagonists as yhe "sicario". In the film, we never actually see the cartels kill anyone. It is most definitely implied and we also see the victims but when it comes to the act of killing, only the US operatives and Alejandro kill anyone. (Not counting the shed bomb since it was actually the cops who activated the bomb by irresponsibly prying open a trap door). I feel that the 3 main characters represent emotions we all feel but at different times. Alejandro is vengeance. Matt is patience/logic and Kate is our sense of morality. The conflict lies in combing all 3 to accomplish a goal where really using only one is most effective and less chaotic. These are intense emotions and when we feel them, we often are blinded to what is happening around us and thats why I believe they have such a large amount of collateral damage without much concern.
Thanks for coming to the same conclusion as me as regards the message of the movie. A lot of commentators say the film leaves it up in the air about whether the means justify the ends, which I always thought missed the bigger picture concerning what the ends actually are. Matt's team are not really stopping drugs coming into the States but rather choosing who brings them in so that they feel they have some semblance of control, which is insane because I don't remember the dominance of the Medellin cartel ever being something the US was happy about at the time. In fact, they were the boogeyman. It's definitely about the US wanting the feeling that they are in control despite it not being true, at all. It's a very human reaction. We all kid ourselves all the time that we are in control of things we are not, it's just reduces anxiety, whether it's true or not.
Yeah, I think a lot of folks also try and take their own ideology and try to warp the film to fit that. But we’re definitely supposed to see all this through Kate’s eyes. And she is basically like: “I was in this for justice, but this isn’t justice.”
Yes! I need to. Another viewer also asked for one. I have two other ones coming out before then, but I’m definitely interested in doing one on Day of the Soldado!
You keep saying Kate breaks the law, but she never wants to, she is pretty much helpless. Even her boss (Andrews guy from Titanic) convinces her that the mission is okayed from higher authority.
I definitely agree that she doesn’t want to, but she still has agency and does choose to break the law. She joins the team despite her reservations. She goes along with the mission to Mexico despite her knowing it’s out of her jurisdiction. She even chooses not to kill Alejandro at the end. In fact, the film is very much about Kate realizing that law enforcement’s emphasis on justice doesn’t work in the context of how the American agencies work abroad.
The Medellin Cartel was the organisation created by none other than Pablo Escobar, considered to be the original cartel that everyone else that has come after(like Sinaloa) wants to emulate. Just a little info that helps viewers understand the weight behind the word "Medellin".
Well, if you haven’t seen the film, you’re not aware that he’s a mercenary (spoiler #1), and usually you’d describe a mercenary as “a person hired to fight for you.” For example, a soldier who’s paid to be a soldier is not a mercenary (a conscripted person.). But, an individual who is not under the employ of an entity, but is hired as a freelancer IS a mercenary. Hence, calling him a mercenary (or sicario) that early in the video would also reveal that, which is also a spoiler. 🤷🏻♂️
Kate the "Badass": A total liability every step of the way. Nervous wreck. Hasn't got the stones to keep up with the men. Can't defend herself against assault by male. Throws a punch at fellow agent, and gets demolished. Completely useless character, necessary only for a signature.
totally agree. i think she’s in the film to be hated and create tension for the audience. i don’t know anyone that’s ever seen this movie and rooted for her.
kate is one of my least favorite movie characters in film history lol. she’s so hate-able. even the way emily plays her with the slow belabored whisper talking the whole movie. she’s the worst lol.
Suspension of disbelief is completely trashed when an otherwise okay film does something stupid like introducing a great actor (Jon Bernhal), in a key role (Ted), with absolutely no reason for the characters to cross paths other than plot convenience (he just happens to be friends with her coworker, happens to be in the bar, and she happens to let her guard down to a guy who happens to be exactly the guy they didn't know that we're looking for...). Bad writing.
But it was not a coincidence. She meets Ted just after she got caught on camera in the bank. Why? Ted was specifically selected by the cartel to get close to Kate because he was a dirty cop on cartel payroll that was an acquaintance of her partner. He was at that bar at that time specifically to get close to her through her partner and to either find out what she knows or to eliminate her. She just got lucky by recognizing the rubber band.
Dude this is your opinion. A different opinion for anyone familiar with FBI and other Agencies. They don't like each other, and are each their own feifdom. Matt has different objectives and knows what works. Obviously you have no experience with military or agencies.
The premise is stated in the last meeting between Alejandro and Kate; "this is the land of wolves now." The Sicarii were not legal entities, but were fighting a just war. There are no "illegal moves" in a street fight when your life is on the line. The same is true when facing an enemy who knows no rules. You either die fighting by the rules, or you overcome and survive.
Yeah, and then the question becomes: Are Matt and the agency actually fighting a just war? In this case, if it’s avenging Alejandro’s family, the answer is a probable “yes” (even though he murders women and children, which is going too far into an “eye for an eye”). BUT, if we’re talking about the agency taking down one cartel only to reinstate the Medellin Cartel… that gets a little dicier. Excellent point!
@@HowStoriesWork Good point... But as Matt says, "...until somebody finds a way to convince 20% of the population to stop snorting and smoking that shit, order's the best we can hope for." The US has not the political will to go to war with Mexico or those citizens who are the cause of the market. In the face of that, "order's the best we can hope for," and, to the majority of both American and Mexicans, order, instead of the chaos and death they currently face, is probably about as just a goal as can be hoped for.
100%. That’s what makes the film so powerful. The concept of how the individual perspective (Kate’s) can’t accept the need for this gray area, whereas the overall system must do something and the gray area is the “best” solution that can currently be found. Really great stuff!
But still didn't answer why you kept in dark
I finally watched this movie last night. First, thank you for your explanation. Definitely cleared a lot of things up. Second, on the ending on the soccer field, I feel like that last scene (and this really bummed me out) signified that fact that even after they “destroyed” the cartel, it didn’t change a thing. No justice was served and no stability was actually put in place. Amazing film 10/10.
I totally agree. Nothing really will change. Another Cartel will just take over. Thanks for watching and commenting!
I heard another theory that Kate was actually considered the villian. Not on purpose, but she represents the 'by the book' approach to fighting crime which really does nothing to stop crime. The heroes are those who circumvent the rules and 'save everyone' despite the bureaucracy that consistently tries to stop them.
I guess this film is true art and can be interpreted in many different ways.
That’s true. I would argue that the film’s intent is that Kate is not the villain, because she’s not in it for “global politics” (Matt) or a “personal vendetta” (Alejandro). She’s in it for justice (convicting the people who caused the incident in Act 1 in the home). Granted, the argument others might have is: “You have to be like Matt or America is at risk.” And that is an argument to be made, but I don’t think the film is suggesting that it’s the right conclusion. One thing I love about the film is it just presents the situation without forcing a narrative. Thanks for watching and commenting!
I saw that as well but I don't really buy it. It was laid out well but I wasn't convinced. I think Kate represents the idealism of beaurocracy and the belief that if you have a higher sense of reasoning and civility then you will prevail. Which of course is naive and proves harmful to pragmatism as her "red tape" thinking only gums up the gears of progress.
@@HowStoriesWorkdoes Kate know who wrote the book she’s so obsessed with
I agree. In a way Kate is the villain. If it was up to her , the HEROES that are trying to restore the original order , would be slowed up or stopped completely.
I love the lack of music/score in this film.
Kate was NEVER the main character in Sicario. The main character is Alejandro.. the cartel is more of a main character than Kate honestly. She just got more screen time.
@@UrbanMediaReview Agreed. While Kate does have an antagonistic role, she is the vehicle in which we get to watch the story unfold. Sort of like an NPC.
the movie was so well done. from casting to writing, cinematography to soundtrack. the whole thing is so engrossing. I've watched it multiple times and have never been bored once. del Toro and Brolin nail their roles. Blunt disappears into the character so well, i forget it's her half the time. complete masterpiece from front to back.
Could not agree more. It's fantastic! Thanks for watching and commenting!
Thanks for your review and assessment of this film. As the film's story is written primarily from Kate's perspective, i think it's reasonable to say the main premise of the film is Kate's initial assumption that she is working within the law to deal with drug smuggling and decides to join Matt's team, to work more effectively by widening her knowledge, contacts and skills. She then realises that Matt does not follow the legal process, which troubles her but this is countered by his effectiveness and his insight into the corruption in the legal system in Mexico. Later she realises that cops in the US may also be corrupt, forcing her to question her trust in US law enforcement and undermining her belief in the system she has always worked in. When she realises the tunnel plot becomes the assassination of Gustavo, she tries to stop it but Alejandro shoots her, not to kill but to finish is mission. When she signs the legal certificate at the end, she has lost her naivety about the legal process but does not kill Alejandro, perhaps she respects him but also remembers that he chose not to kill her and that she has become embroiled in a war where there is no black and white, only shades of grey. Perhaps this is what the director wants the audience to realise as well.
10/10 explanation
Thank you! I appreciate the comment!
Love this!
Thanks, Joth! I enjoy doing these because it gives me a chance to really study the film in depth. Thanks for watching!
I love you for this. Thank you.
great video! thank you. Also your No Vacancy trailer looks great
Thank you so much for the comment! Can’t wait to release the entire film. I appreciate you taking the time to let me know!
It’ll be in theatres?
This was soo good. Thank you for explaining.
Of course! Thanks for watching and commenting!
Re: Your concern about the twist at the end of the movie when Alejandro takes the script from Kate: Consider Kate an unwitting mule for Alejandro, and the revelation that it was Alejandro's mission all along comes into focus. The final (superficially incongruous) twist in development reveals Alejandro metaphorically emerging from the tunnel as the true Sicario. Everyone else on the US team was along for the ride. In conclusion, Kate's narrative arch was abandoned at the side of the road (hotel room) because her purpose had expired. Kate's expiration date matches the date on the contract Alejandro forced her to sign at the end. That was Kate handing Alejandro the baton. Her narrative arch was tamped out like her final cigarette on the hotel room balcony. It was always meant to be his victory. Only Matt and Alejandro knew the real purpose of the mission.
The plane didn't fly to Juarez, it flew to Fort Bliss in El Paso where the DEA intelligence center is located...where they hold the briefing
Great analysis of my favorite movie! 😃 I actually never caught that Guillermo Diaz was nothing but "a gift" to Alejandro from his friend - and that Matt never cared about his "potential intel" because they already had enough to go on and verify said intel - later. BUT that killing/torturing/imprisoning Guillermo Diaz -> Was PART of shaking Manuel Diaz's tree.
= Like a "buy 2, get 1 free" special deal 😅😂 And I think Matt Graver would actually call it just that in his completely casual mood.
- However I did THINK I caught you in a mistake as well: 12:45 - you call Fausto Alarcon the TOP DOG which it's said that he is not. Back at the first inter Agency meeting, they called him the number 3. guy (or believed to be) and in the second Sicario movie, the girl Reyes knew of "The grieving lawyer" from her father who was ranked higher than Alarcon.
= I think I'm right on that one, but it IS a bit hard to remember everything exactly as it was said (or written) so I may still be wrong 😃
That makes sense. I feel like Matt calls him something like that in the meeting… but it’s been a while since I studied the film. Even knowing how the real cartels work, in that the guys at the top are SUPER undercover, it would make sense that Alarcon isn’t the apex. But maybe Matt and the inter-agency team are referring to him that way as he’s the target? I’d have to go back and verify that, though.
Thanks for watching and commenting! I’ve been asked to do a video on Day of the Soldado, so stay tuned for that one!
@@HowStoriesWork No it was the guy looked like Bart Simpson had grown up who called him the 3rd guy 🙂 Irrelevant detail though.
Uhh I'd love to see you do Day of the Soldado! So looking forward to it 😁
I enjoyed your video greatly. I consider the entire group of protagonists as yhe "sicario". In the film, we never actually see the cartels kill anyone. It is most definitely implied and we also see the victims but when it comes to the act of killing, only the US operatives and Alejandro kill anyone. (Not counting the shed bomb since it was actually the cops who activated the bomb by irresponsibly prying open a trap door). I feel that the 3 main characters represent emotions we all feel but at different times. Alejandro is vengeance. Matt is patience/logic and Kate is our sense of morality. The conflict lies in combing all 3 to accomplish a goal where really using only one is most effective and less chaotic. These are intense emotions and when we feel them, we often are blinded to what is happening around us and thats why I believe they have such a large amount of collateral damage without much concern.
Your complaint is one of the things that I liked the most about the movie. That was genius!
LOL! I’m glad it worked for you!
5:16 that's what I love and appreciate about the first sicario.
I'm glad Emily Blunt's character wasn't in sicario day of the soldado
Awesome breakdown!
Thank you! Thanks for watching and commenting!
Great video sir!
Thanks, William! I appreciate you watching and commenting!
Thanks for coming to the same conclusion as me as regards the message of the movie. A lot of commentators say the film leaves it up in the air about whether the means justify the ends, which I always thought missed the bigger picture concerning what the ends actually are. Matt's team are not really stopping drugs coming into the States but rather choosing who brings them in so that they feel they have some semblance of control, which is insane because I don't remember the dominance of the Medellin cartel ever being something the US was happy about at the time. In fact, they were the boogeyman. It's definitely about the US wanting the feeling that they are in control despite it not being true, at all. It's a very human reaction. We all kid ourselves all the time that we are in control of things we are not, it's just reduces anxiety, whether it's true or not.
Yeah, I think a lot of folks also try and take their own ideology and try to warp the film to fit that. But we’re definitely supposed to see all this through Kate’s eyes. And she is basically like: “I was in this for justice, but this isn’t justice.”
Solid video. Explained things I missed like the rubber band.
I unfortunately couldnt fully pay attention to the movie so this analysis was SOOO helpful and makes me want to rewatch it
Awesome! Glad you enjoyed it. Thanks for watching!
Can you do the 2nd film ?
“We have to play it by the book.” Said by every loser of any conflict in history.
This is an excellent point. And a sad, but true one. Which is so wild. Thanks for watching and commenting!
"By the book" = NOT get the job done.
Can u do a day of soldado video just like this?
Yes! I need to. Another viewer also asked for one. I have two other ones coming out before then, but I’m definitely interested in doing one on Day of the Soldado!
@HowStoriesWork Ok, thanks!!
You keep saying Kate breaks the law, but she never wants to, she is pretty much helpless. Even her boss (Andrews guy from Titanic) convinces her that the mission is okayed from higher authority.
I definitely agree that she doesn’t want to, but she still has agency and does choose to break the law. She joins the team despite her reservations. She goes along with the mission to Mexico despite her knowing it’s out of her jurisdiction. She even chooses not to kill Alejandro at the end. In fact, the film is very much about Kate realizing that law enforcement’s emphasis on justice doesn’t work in the context of how the American agencies work abroad.
The Medellin Cartel was the organisation created by none other than Pablo Escobar, considered to be the original cartel that everyone else that has come after(like Sinaloa) wants to emulate.
Just a little info that helps viewers understand the weight behind the word "Medellin".
Facts. Thanks for the comment!
In a 26 minute video why are we only seeing you?
You left out the part where the Collector & Thanos torture Frank Castle for information.
🤣🤣🤣
That wasn't a spoiler, that's a given. A mercenary is a sicario.
Well, if you haven’t seen the film, you’re not aware that he’s a mercenary (spoiler #1), and usually you’d describe a mercenary as “a person hired to fight for you.” For example, a soldier who’s paid to be a soldier is not a mercenary (a conscripted person.). But, an individual who is not under the employ of an entity, but is hired as a freelancer IS a mercenary. Hence, calling him a mercenary (or sicario) that early in the video would also reveal that, which is also a spoiler. 🤷🏻♂️
Do the new one please thanks
I definitely need to revisit that one! Thanks for the suggestion!
It’s about narcos, sicarios, special forces and government
Kate the "Badass": A total liability every step of the way. Nervous wreck. Hasn't got the stones to keep up with the men. Can't defend herself against assault by male. Throws a punch at fellow agent, and gets demolished. Completely useless character, necessary only for a signature.
totally agree. i think she’s in the film to be hated and create tension for the audience. i don’t know anyone that’s ever seen this movie and rooted for her.
@@above-us-only-sky Yup. Just didn't have what it took to hang in with the boys. She couldn't play their game.
Yeh, her character never had an arc. She was the same nervous & judgemental person from start - finish.
I wouls have pointed out that Alejandro forced Kate to sign the statement at gunpoint. She's not a wolf.
Definitely not a wolf!
Do people really need this explained?
kate is one of my least favorite movie characters in film history lol. she’s so hate-able. even the way emily plays her with the slow belabored whisper talking the whole movie. she’s the worst lol.
This movie wasnt too hard to follow to be honest
“Whar-Ez”
“HUAREEZ”
Suspension of disbelief is completely trashed when an otherwise okay film does something stupid like introducing a great actor (Jon Bernhal), in a key role (Ted), with absolutely no reason for the characters to cross paths other than plot convenience (he just happens to be friends with her coworker, happens to be in the bar, and she happens to let her guard down to a guy who happens to be exactly the guy they didn't know that we're looking for...).
Bad writing.
Actually, that’s set up a lot better (though it’s not perfect) in the script. So, I don’t think it’s the writing as much as it’s maybe the editing.
@@HowStoriesWork of one must go back to read the script after watching the movie, there's a problem...
But it was not a coincidence. She meets Ted just after she got caught on camera in the bank. Why?
Ted was specifically selected by the cartel to get close to Kate because he was a dirty cop on cartel payroll that was an acquaintance of her partner. He was at that bar at that time specifically to get close to her through her partner and to either find out what she knows or to eliminate her. She just got lucky by recognizing the rubber band.
Dude this is your opinion. A different opinion for anyone familiar with FBI and other Agencies. They don't like each other, and are each their own feifdom. Matt has different objectives and knows what works. Obviously you have no experience with military or agencies.
"anyone familiar with the FBI"
People like Epstein, Maxwell & the ADL, you mean?
How old is this film? 2015, your not giving any new information
You’re asking how a watch works. For now just focus on the time
Such a great line