Does /tv/ just have shit taste or what? I just marathoned Sicario and it was fucking awesome from beginning to end. How come /tv/'s reaction to this film was so mixed when it came out?
It wasn't mixed. Everyone liked it. It was one of the rare films that everyone here said good things about.
It short; you are mistaken. Deeply mistaken and wrong.
>>67195642
HOW DOES ONE MARATHON A SINGLE FILM PEOPLE KEEP SAYING THIS I FEEL LIKE I'M HAVING A STROKE
>>67197434
FUCKING THIS.
>>67197434
>>67197912
it's a meme you dip
>>67195642
Good overall in its tone and its look at cartels/US Border
It suffered through Emily Blunt's character. We had to have this outsider join this inner group to be a moral conscience rather than just jump in to the rest of the special forces
Also Del Toro's background/twist really just came too late without any foreshadowing. It turned a story about the drug war into a personal issue.
Trying to explain my doubts without spoilers.
>>67197964
That's a good one.
>>67197407
this. You probably only see negative things from the vocal contrarians, the film is loved here
>>67197434
>>67197912
Tries to eat it's cake and have it too
Goes for the whole bleak portrayal of bureaucratized vengeance mangling the lives of everyone it's supposedly acting in defense of while desperately avoiding the awkward truth—that what they're doing, worse than being damaging, is completely ineffectual.
It does this by matching Zero Dark Thirty almost beat-for-beat, but then it cops out at the last second (during the climax) and instead of underscoring the point it's been making for the entire running length of the movie, it completely undercuts it by deciding to give Del Toro an absurd Hollywood revenge payoff speech.
Then tries to pretend like nothing happened and switches back over to serious mode.
Movie would literally have been improved ten fold if during the infiltration it just showed the scene where his silhouette was creeping up on the family at dinner, black, then the scene at ground level where you could see the child's arm
>>67198165
wat? some faggot keeps making threads about it and it keeps getting replies saying it was average and over rated.
>>67198414
people don't make positive threads about movies that aren't bait
look for one in the catalog
you just need to lurk more to understand our culture, how things work. You can't take it at face value when people complain about the goose in the Drive for example. If you were here a few months ago you'd understand better.
I thought it was good but the problem was in the twist ending. I was ok with the CIA simply aiming to restore order in Mexico in the most pragmatic (but also illegal) way possible. The whole Colombian shit was retarded.
>>67195642
we liked it but then edgy contrarians came out
>>67198102
I found those to be features, not bugs. I didn't need yet another drug war sermon. A personal story about one of the people caught up in the conflict? Sure.
And I didn't see Blunt's character as the moral conscience. Rather, she was the naive witness. She *thought* she was the moral conscience, and found too late that everybody else was playing in the deep end while she was thinking she was still in the kiddie pool.
>>67195642
I liked it. What cemented this film in stone for me was one line.
>He's getting a boner.
Good shit.
>>67195642
>that night op sequence
best part desu
>>67198315
>that what they're doing, worse than being damaging, is completely ineffectual
That's the whole point of the kids playing soccer at the end.
