Tes habilités de critique... C'est de la vraie merde ce qui est écrit ici.

Sicario is a snake pit. It will leave its mark on you, and it may not be appreciated. Its a deep dive on the drug war and its impact on people on both sides of the border. IMDB
Reader Rating230 Votes

Sicario is a gorgeously haunting movie that you sort of feel rather than see. Even the music was written to be felt and not seen. The whole of this movie is like an oil leak coming up through your bed or through your feet or something. Evil that is just emanating through the floor and you aren’t sure where you are what has brought this awful and dark story into your life. And it happens so quickly and with such alacrity that it’s surprising. The narration and the constant escalation of events and twists and turns can’t be turned away from.

And now you can read my Sicario: Day of the Soldado review – which can be found right here – if you want to venture even further down this amazing rabbit hole. And if you haven’t watch the original Sicario yet, consider watching it here, in order to help me keep putting out more discussion worthy posts like this one.

I stumbled into Sicario accidentally. It was more of a comedy of errors that sat me down to watch this movie, and I had no idea what I was getting into. I think I had seen one trailer for the movie months and months earlier, so I think I knew that it was about drugs – and I also knew that Emily Blunt was in it. I know I knew this because I was struck by how similarly the role was to her recent role in Edge of Tomorrow. But there was so much more to this movie than drugs and Emily. If you haven’t seen it, watch the trailer, read my overview and then come back again later. I will be delving into spoilers… but I’ll clearly demarcate them. Promise.

Sicario Overview
The movie opens on a terrible terrible scene that seems out of Hollywood, but is probably understated against what is really going on in Mexico. We find ourselves breaching a home that seems to be in the center of the drug storm with local authorities tracking a lead. When the local authorities and police begin discovering body after body in the walls of the house, as well as a booby trapped shed, the audience has a feeling that we aren’t in Kansas anymore.

It’s the rapidly increasing violence on the U.S. and Mexico border that propels this movie forward. But we are in lock step with Kate Macer (Emily Blunt) as she quickly spirals downwards from a fairly firm footing and quick responses to completely unclear vantage or perspective of what is going on all around her. At some times she wonders what team she is on, or what she is even doing involved in this chaos inducing rock tumbler of a situation.

sicario explained and reviewed

Kate begins to meet her new team, and starts to feel them all out for what is going on. Soon she meets the elusive character Alejandro, that is described by her team as a “sicario” which is Spanish for hitman. Matt (Josh Brolin), their team lead, doesn’t help to allay Kate’s fears, in fact he regularly works to fan them as their role in the local violence seems solely to continuously make matters worse, or stoke the local flames of violence all the more. Kate begins to have a crisis of identity as she tries to figure out what she is doing there. Is she making matters worse? Or is she helping?

Sicario Spoiler Zone

Alright, so that was about as far as the non-viewing passengers should go. From here on out I’ll be delving deeper into the storyline than I think virgin eyes should go. You’ve been warned. But you are definitely welcome back after you’ve had an opportunity to watch this amazingly powerful movie. You can rest assured, that my conclusion below will say that everyone will enjoy this movie, while also being repulsed by it. It’s worth a watch. So now… go.

Sicario Deeper Dive

To really understand Sicario, you have to understand that you are Kate. You have no real idea of what is really going on in this ‘war on drugs’. You don’t know the players. You don’t know the tactics. You don’t know anything besides the fact that you want to make a difference. Right? You want the war to stop. You want innocent civilians to stop being killed in the inner cities. You want the rapidly escalating wars between the cartels in Mexico and at the borders to stop. All you know is that you are all in for finally making a difference. But the larger question here is, do you really want to make a difference? Or do you just want to act like you want to make a difference?


As the movie opens, our Kate (or, our thinly veiled personal psyche on the screen) finds herself working with Matt Graver, who is all kinds of flip flop casual, and charming. He is unassuming, and confident, simultaneously. There is something else going on here with Matt… but we (Kate) can’t sort it all out. And as soon as we start to sort anything out at all, the playing field shifts again under our feet. Should we continue further down the rabbit hole? Or should we not continually upping the violence to meet the threat?

To make matters worse, Kate and Alejandro have this crazy enigmatic connection that maybe sexual? No, that doesn’t feel right, it’s something else going on here. The Sicario is protective and threatening to Kate simultaneously. And as we find out, Kate reminds Alejandro of someone… but who? We don’t find out that it’s his daughter that Alejandro is reminded of. The daughter that was boiled alive in acid by the local drug lords. Which basically means, the namesake of our movie is a completely unhinged human being, ready and willing to do anything and everything to cut the head off of this particular snake. This inner boiling turmoil is the relentless engine that systematically powers this movie right off the cliff of reasonableness.

Do you remember the first really monumental foray across the boarder and the sprint back across the boarder? The gun battle out in the middle of the car congested highway? Kate ends up killing the last gun wielding lunatic… and she begins swearing at herself about killing him. She didn’t want to be involved, she didn’t want to kill anyone… she was in Mexico, illegally, killing Mexicans, and way way in over her head.

And there we are, holding on tight to Alejandro, the only one who really knows what is going on all around us. He is the only one with any sort of chance at our getting an explanation. Which, I shouldn’t have to tell you, is a truly bad logical conclusion to come to. But that is where Kate (we) finds herself (ourselves) after all the cards have been played. Which reminds me of a quote that Alejandro says to Kate when they detoured from El Paso to Mexico,  “Nothing will make sense to your American ears, and you will doubt everything we do but in the end, you will understand.”


Sicario and Vietnam

For me, this movie was a trip back to the Vietnamese war movies that I marinated in throughout my teen years. I couldn’t read enough books on the topic. Warfront supply chain efforts. Military police efforts. Tunnel rat experts. Helicopter pilot biographies. Macro war strategies. Vietnam politics in D.C. Everything. I couldn’t get enough about the war (engagement, conflict, whatever). But mainly I was interested in this idea that we didn’t actually want to win the war, and that we were bridled by politicians thousands of miles away. And since Vietnam, all of our global conflicts have been shaped by our failure in Vietnam (some more than others, unfortunately.) But this sentiment is similar to our “War on Drugs”… is this really a war we want to win?

Reminds me of a recent amazing documentary called Cartel Land, that I haven’t had the time to get around and talk about here. Local vigilantes arm up and patrol the border on their own. The escalation, in their mind, is all about fighting force with force. Which is the point here in Sicario. Should we bring in the Alejandros of this world, and stir the hornet’s nest in order to flush the drug lords out, and then, when they least expect it, should we drop our machetes on their necks?

Let’s be honest here… at the end of the day, Sicario is more a Vietnam movie than a movie about the war on drugs. There is no hope here. We are embroiled in a never ending battle for control of the border, and the substances that fuel an illicit economy. In Vietnam, it was an ideological battle that fueled the grenade launchers and napalm runs. And here too, we have an ideological battle playing out across the Southwest DMZ. We have two different escalating ideas, that have brought us to the brink of these terrible exchanges. And all the while, we (Kate) continue to ask ourselves… how the hell did we end up here? What wrong turn did we make to end up in this mess?


Sicario Conclusion 

The larger question asked in Sicario is simple enough. Our innocent rule following Kate, is totally flummoxed by her sudden plunge into dark savagery. But this is the question… is this brutality the only effective response to the war on drugs? Has the other side gone so completely overboard, so completely over the top, that the only really adequate chess move available to us is our own version of the darkness as well? Is insanity the only real response to insanity?

At the end of the movie, we realize what this movie is really all about. This movie isn’t about the War on Drugs at all. It isn’t about our need to escalate or deescalate. It isn’t about anything that we’ve been shown on the screen actually at all. Sicario is about ourselves, about our own internal struggle with evil. Kate is questioning her internal drivers and motivations and even her own culpability.

In the end we do understand though. As Kate is pointing the gun at Alejandro, we know she won’t pull the trigger. I even said it to myself before she raised the gun… “Don’t even bother.” Oh, she did it. Ok, then, put it down now. We get it. You are mad at yourself, and you don’t have the guts to do it.

I think the more interesting question that this movie brings up is whether or not we have the will or the fortitude to pull that trigger as a society. Will it actually change anything or make it worse? Which is another great question if we swivel a bit and think about larger wars as well. Are the beneficial, ultimately. Or do they only make matters worse in the long run.

I enjoyed this movie immensely and thought it was one hell of a ride. And if you just go along for the ride, then this whole entire review is going to seem superfluous.  Because for you, it was all about bigger and better explosions and gun battles. Which there were plenty of. But if you were even quasi-aware, you saw the themes and hints at a deeper story that should speak to the possibility of evil in all of us.

Or not.

Edited by: CY

Liked it? Take a second to support Taylor Holmes on Patreon!

51 Responses

  1. Kelly

    This is by far the best review/explanation available on the internet. It answered a lot of my questions i had after viewing. Other websites have incorrect details (themoviespoiler) but this answered everything I had questions about.

    • Dawntay

      I need somebody to explain to me the scene of the movie. Where the lady agent came out the end of the tunnel. And pulled her gun on the other agent. Please hurry

      • Evans

        The entire point of the tunnel operation was to get Del Toro’s character back across the border, using the firefight as a diversion. Once across the border, Alejandro (Del Toro) used the policeman (also caught up in the drug cartels) to pull over the target (using CIA intelligence) and eventually make his way to the drug lord. Blunt’s character was supposed to stay in the back, keep on her partner’s six (get his back) and not go down the tunnel to the warehouse. She didn’t follow orders and endangered the entire (secret) objective of the mission.

  2. Taylor

    Well awwwwwe shucks Kelly…
    Appreciate it! But mostly am glad it it was helpful. I adored this movie.


  3. Solo

    This is the first interpretation I read right after having watched the movie. I’m glad I wasnt the only one to have this interpretation. I work overseas in Kabul right now carrying a rifle in armored vehicles. For me it was gratifying to watch Kate subdued and handled so expertly. In most hollywood movies they would have made kate somehow able to get the upper hand or beat up Matt when he subdues her. This movie really showed the disdain the warrior class has for civilians and their naivete. I was surprised when Kate yelled “I’m not a soldier!” and Matt said “don’t sell yourself short”. He didn’t let her make the term sound derogatory as in a heartless killer. I think the CAG/Delta operators represent our military at large. It makes sense that they dont trust the viewer/sheep Kate represents to not shoot them in the back on accident while trying to do good. Such a good movie, who needs preworkout when you can just watch the freeway scene hahaha

  4. Matt DC

    Great movie. Great review. I like your insights. One thing that bugged me: why does Kate hold a gun on Alejandro when she comes out of the tunnel? She sees that he has shot one of the cartel and is restraining an obviously corrupt Mexican police officer. What is he doing wrong? I don’t get it. Your thoughts appreciated.

    • Taylor

      She pulled her gun because of how everything was going down. Remember, she was Lilly white, do things by the book, and make a difference. This new approach she was witnessing was more, burn the building down and see who runs out, then kill them or capture them. Very very different for her. It wasn’t what was done that she had a problem with… It was how it was done. No?

      • Dawntay

        Did she pull her gun on the agent because she thought he was leaving with the drugs ?

      • olivedev

        >>It wasn’t what was done that she had a problem with… It was how it was done. No?

        My thoughts exactly. To someone who is pure like Kait, this method might seem wrong.

    • Taylor Holmes

      No Dawntay,
      She pulled her gun on him because he was corrupt! You can do the stuff he did back there legally. He shot someone illegally. He was completely and totally over the top, in a foreign nation, where he has zero right to operate or even be, the guy was completely over the line. She pulled her gun on him because she knew that everything he was doing was against the law, and she had to stop him.

      But then, she was at war with herself about “actually making a difference.” It’s a great moral question. Is it ok to sin in the event that you stop evil in the world? For example… Dietrich Bonhoeffer conspired to assassinate Hitler. Was that ok? Alright, so that’s alright. But is it ok to kill someone who looked like he was about to steal something… but hadn’t yet? No, of course not. These guys were way way over the line of the moral abyss. And that is why she pulled her gun. No? Why isn’t this obvious to everyone?

      • John

        Well, she was never sure whether he was CIA or simply related to the Columbian cartel working with the CIA, and since the CIA operates outside of the United States, he would be within bounds, or at least someone like Kate someone who works for a US agency governed by US laws would have no grounds to judge him as they were at that point outside of the US (or were they? He did kill some people inside the tunnel…) to do what he wanted, outside the judgement of some random US citizen.

      • Colin

        ‘She pulled her gun on him because she knew that everything he was doing was against the law, and she had to stop him.’
        My problem with this movie is that I as the viewer don’t know this. In most movies what happens here is fairly run of the mill and so I never felt the tension that Emily’s character does.

  5. Troy

    I thought the conclusion was that the CIA was ensuring that one specific cartel was in power by eliminating competitors. Until the end (when Matt is holding down Kate), you are lead to believe that the ultimate goal was to simply eradicate the transport of drugs. Right?

    • Devildog

      I had the same impression as Troy. Didn’t one of the characters (Alejandro or Matt) even say they were out to eliminate any Medellin competitors due to the war on drugs beings unwinnable, and it’s better to live with the reduced violence present with only one cartel in operation? BTW, the cinematography, music, acting, editing, etc. are all top notch and work in concert to give the moviegoer one hell of a ride. Loved it.

      • Skeeter

        This is what I took from it. I came away with the conclusion that Del Toro was a hitman for the medellin cartel and was working with the US government to eliminate the people that killed his family and hopefully de-escalate the violence being caused by the mexican cartels. The end goal was to put a boot on the throat of the one rabid dog because killing all dogs was an impossible solution.

      • MochaWarrior

        Thank you Devildog and Skeeter. That was the missing piece I was looking for…

  6. Jeriel Garcia

    What I got from the movie is that the war on drugs is a vicious cycle, and the last scene is an inkling or perhaps aforshadow of the continuous violence in the latter generations only spawned by violence itself. The boy of the police officer hears the gun shots from a not so distant area. Gun shots, mutliation, and poverty leaves only negative influence on the Mexican youth, especially if there isn’t a father figure to show the youth from right or wrong. Sure the mother will be of guidance, but the boys will seek guidance from violent and dominant men who are involved in the war of drugs. In the middle of the movie, the police officer tells his son to never touch the gun. Well whoop Dee doo. The police officer is dead, and the boy will have no father figure to stray him away from the war on drugs and violence in general. I think that’s the underlying theme in this movie, and the CIA and Benecio’s Del Toro’s character understand that because the war on drugs is a vicious cycle, you can’t stop it, you can only “restore order.”

    • Evans

      Well stated: we can’t solve the problem, but perhaps we can more easily control it if only one cartel is in charge. Matt(Brolin’)’s character puts forth an interesting theory.

      I think another key to the movie for me was when Alejandro (Del Toro) tells Kate (Blunt):

      “Nothing will make sense to your American ears, and you will doubt everything we do, but in the end, you will understand.”

      A thinly veiled message to the audience: You won’t understand the language, the culture, the violence, or our covert military response to it, but you will understand why we do what we do: trying to create a little more order in this sick-cycle carousel (cue that Lifehouse song…).

  7. Mary Carmen Morales

    Hi Taylor. I saw the movie two nights a go. I don’t understand the reason why she was there, that Matt explained in the hotel room. Can you elaborate please?

    • Taylor Holmes

      A few more details would be lovely. Are talking about the end when Alejandro snuck into Kate’s room to get her to sign the waiver? Oh, no, I think I understand.

      The CIA doesn’t have the right, legally to act inside the US borders on it’s own authority. So they attached Kate from the FBI solely to give their efforts legitimacy. They were using her so they could do what they wanted.

      Make sense? Is that what you were asking?

      • Mary Carmen Morales

        Hi, Taylor, yes, that part. Thank you, when I saw the movie, I have to confess, my feelings were: why they choose her ( Kate ), why her (Emily Blunt), she looks so scared all the time for a trained woman. She looks lost, I’m a feminist, and for me it’s hard to say that in some moments I ask to myself “why this character is a woman”. I get distracted of the subtitles thinking about Jessica Chastain in Zero dark thirty. I thought “why she is so combative?” , she can learn, why not to kill with freedom. I’m Mexican you know, I live every day reading about abductions, executions, drugs and people been trafficked, corruption in every level of the government, tunnels, drug lords, etc. so when I read this, and you pointed out that “We are Kate” , in that moment, It made me realize, that this is about USA perspective. I’m still expecting a movie that explain to me what it’s going on with my country, in the way JFK or The Green Zone developed all that teories and blow my mind and imagination, in two hours. Taylor, for me, that “you are Kate” was brilliant. Do you have an opinion for “Ex Machina”?

  8. musadun

    just watch this movie. And make me feel emptiness. I dont know why. This is not just normal film. It is more than that. Great Sicario.

  9. Taylor

    Musadan – great word! Emptiness! Yeah it totally had that feeling to it, and I’m thinking it was on purpose that you felt that way! Great comment.


    • Kalana

      What happens in the end? does the drug war continue even after the drug lord is killed?? what is the connection with the first scene of the movie? what happened there at the hostage search mission??

      • Taylor Holmes

        Now that there is going to be a Sicario 2 – I guess we will need to wait and find out won’t we? And by the way, it sounds like Emily won’t be in the second movie… her arc has been completed apparently.


  10. Cheng Liu

    All my questions answered in this thread. Thank you! Needless to say it’s a great movie. However, I am still a little confounded by (disagree with) the plot that Kate had to go through a sharp change in mentality. As a female squad leader, she must have gone through a lot to become a trusted one among a group of men. A character like that should have strong nerve and unshakable will. Yet she acted like a child who knew nothing after years of combating the dark side of human kind. How could an idealist survive on a leadership role in the law enforcement?

  11. Martin

    I don’t understand what the meaning of the gunshot was in the end. Where the kids were playing soccer. Can you please explain ?

    • James

      I believed it was Kate committing suicide. Her realization of the way things really were in the world was too much for her to handle.

      • cristina

        James….. Noooooo. The story isn’t about Emily. In the end, they hear gun shots and keep playing like nothing happened, they already know what’s going on. It’s normal in Mexico. But if your kids were playing a soccer game here in the US and there were gun shots, everyone would go ape shit, news channel 3 and the whole swat team would be there. The war on drugs is a cycle that will never stop, the Mexican government is fucked and corrupt. And the way they live in Mexico make them have no other choice really but to do that or try like hell to get an education, which is hard if you don’t come from a rich family. Ok I’m getting off topic but no Emily didn’t kill herself lol

  12. RR

    The gun shots at the end of the film signify that the drug wars in Mexico continue, even after the kingpin has been murdered. The drug business is a deadly, competitive culture. Someone else is always waiting to take power. The kids continue to play soccer after they hear the gun shots because they are accustomed to it. It portrays a sad picture that kids and families are trapped in the middle of the violence.

    • isv

      My father said that the ending gun shoot was Benicio del Toro commiting suicide! ……. I think this movie is great, but I didn’t love it. I saw Arrival and it was a much better movie in any way. I loved Arrival. But, in the movie Sicario, I don’t know why, I heated Benicio del Toro’s character. Great review!!

      • Taylor Holmes

        That’s actually an interesting theory… but isn’t Del Toro slated for Sicario 2? Seriously.

        Supporting actors Benicio Del Toro and Josh Brolin will both return for Sicario sequel Soldado, but not Emily Blunt, despite her having played protagonist Kate Macer in the original.

        But otherwise! Great theory. Maybe he attempted suicide?!? hahaha.

  13. Red

    This movie is like an eye opener not just to people in authority but to the public as well. Remember the first scene where they raid that house searching for hostages? Police thought its just another day in the office but when they discover the bodies on the wall, well.. and when they enter Juarez, not the border but the bridge where mutilated bodies are hanging like decors, Alejandro said welcome to juarez. War on Drugs is way beyond our perspective.

  14. Joyebird

    I stumbled upon Sicario while reading the book “The Sympathizer” and totally get your correlation to the Vietnam War. In describing his friend, a hitman, the Sympathizer says, “In our country, killing a man-or woman, or a child- was as easy as turning a page of the morning paper. One only needed an excuse and an instrument, and too many on all sides possessed both…..the need to defend God, country, honor, ideology, or comrades-even if, in the last instance, all he really is protecting is that most tender part of himself, the hidden, wrinkled purse carried by every man”. Prolific. Thanks for helping make the connection!

  15. Michelle

    The movie was entertaining enough, but not great. I found Kate’s character extremely annoying, naive, and frankly, unbelievable. I’m sorry, but a frail, underweight woman would never be placed in such a role for such an operation in real life. Emily Blunt is a below average actress at best and was miscast here. She just looked totally silly in this film. Del Toro and Brolin were excellent however.

    • Taylor Holmes

      I’m sorry, but you lost me at the sexism. hahahaha. Sure, you can opine anything you want about the acting. But I’d argue a bit differently about women in police type roles. Just saying.

    • Kyle

      I agree, I don’t think it was so much her acting, I think the problem was in the script. I’m not sure if a better actress could have done better. Maybe Michelle Rodriguez, or Milla Jovovich, but I don’t think they would have done any better with the script. I found it frustratingly difficult to figure out, why she was whining, and crying the whole movie. I would be more sympathetic if the movie would explain why she felt the way she did. But they don’t, and kind of leave it up to you, to figure out women. And if men could figure out women, their wouldn’t be any divorces.

      The whole scene where she picked up her partners friend at the bar, then thought that was her assassin, I didn’t get that. Then again I watched the movie in parts. I’m not sure how she figured out he was an assassin. Was it the bracelet?

      I think tactically FBI agents are more investigators, not really hands on, I know they invented swat teams, but I know women are the ones kicking down the door. So I can see how she could be on the team, but I think in real life, she’d be the one in the van, or the base, not on the front lines. But I’m glad you bring that up, but I did like how she was brave enough to punch Brolin in the face, and her partner was right there, to back him up, even though he knew he was outnumbered. Loyalty. I didn’t like how the spec ops team, was like I’m going to kill you, how are they going to explain that to the boss.

      I do understand, when you say how she looks naive, and unbelievably ignorant. The questions etc, she seems like a rookie, and this is her first year, not a veteran like she is in the movie. Also her temperament, shoot enough bullets, at anyone, and they will be itching for some payback, except for a minute few. So I’m not sure when she shoots people, etc, she regrets it. Maybe it’s because I’m a man, and I care about innocents, and any criminal, I think most deserve death.

      Fuck Alejandro at the end, I guess he was CIA, or was paid by the CIA, I wish she would have shot him, he deserved it. But she can reneg and change her testimony, and say she was threatened and assaulted. Just look at Snowden, and this was post Snowden, maybe not when it was filmed, or the script was written. But yeah.

      So in short I agree with what you said, maybe it was her acting, and your right she was frail and weak, I’m sure she could pass the PT test, but as far as carrying your weight, yeah I don’t think in reality she would be able to, etc, I didn’t think Brolin was anything special, Del Toro, seemed to be the only real character with any mustard.

      But I like your take on it, and hey at least I’m not accusing a woman of being sexist against her own sex, but then again who am I?

  16. Liz

    I enjoyed reading your analysis. While I agree WE’d be bewildered and overwhelmed if WE were Kate, she is supposed to be an experienced FBI fficer yet appears to display zero grit. Her character’s weakness is confusing for the viewer. Yes, this mission is outside of her regular duties…and crazy/intense as heck, but we saw her lead the raid at the beginning of the movie and smoke a guy without hesitation. The cinematography blew me away but my overall impression of the movie is negative because of her character.

    • Taylor Holmes

      I didn’t see it as a gender or weakness thing really at all. But more a moral wrangling question. As she began to question the legitimacy of their actions she became less and less capable… doubtful. Which speaks to character growth, which I found fantastic. Until the very end, when she is pulling her gun on the good guy’s now… not only is she having difficulty, but her gun is going the OTHeR way.

      But I see what you are saying. I saw her character as an amazing mirror or her soul. It was fantastic acting. Imho.


  17. ohad

    The thing that bothered me the most was that these guys knew they needed an agent who was cooperative, and they seemed to have connections so it was kind of stupid of them to pick someone with her excellent resume instead of someone they knew or at least seemed less tight and bound to ethics.
    It seems the script fell short here and for me it is a plot hole.

  18. Tarzan

    Yes, I too wondered why the FBI agent had to be painted that way. At once she is vulnerable to cupids arrow but constantly sabotaging the effort she volunteered for and was told/asked repeatedly that she didn’t have to participate OR interfere.
    Then I thought it was just a miscast actress. I can imagine a sympathetic FBI
    agent going along on the ride to the final scenes. Well, we will just have to wait until the next part comes out in the summer.
    This movie had a sort of satisfactory ending and we are all kind of glad Kate didn’t sealed in a 50 gallon drum. Producers need to get a comic book version of a movie out there so viewers can help with the story line.

  19. Chris Spray

    I realise that the movie was more of a meditation than simple narrative device, but I’m puzzled about the need for a tunnel. Why both creating a diversion using the tunnel when the CIA could easily ship Alejandro over in a helicopter? Also why have Alejandro walk into the drug lord’s house in terminator fashion, when the CIA could have supplied a sniper team to deal with the guards?

  20. Mike Harris

    Did anyone else still find themselves strangely still attached to Alejandro even after he killed the kids? I’ve just watched the film and sat afterwards thinking why kill the kids? especially after his daughter was killed in such cruel circumstances, but after a short while thinking it almost felt irrelevant. Maybe in some way this echoes the low value of life in the real drug wars? The fact that it was a shock, but only for a short time (probably how the people living in these areas react to seeing a dead body). I questioned for a while how Alejandro could do that, then remembered he is Sicario, and not any old hitman either but a cartel hitman – he’s probably done similar evil things to the those that murdered his family – oh the irony.

  21. Karen

    I think Alejandro killing the kids was payback for how his wife and daughter were killed. He wanted the drug lord to see his family die before his eyes ( he is visibly shocked ), before he is killed last. The ultimate revenge. Brilliant film!

  22. Michael

    After reading this review I am now even more confused. I will look elsewhere for a better understanding of this movie I just watched.

  23. Collins

    In reference to the prisoner swap and ensuing bridge shootout scene, how was Kate “in Mexico, illegally,”?

    It was a prisoner swap. Ok, where do you want to do it? Right at the line? By Star Trek teleported? I think it’s reasonable to infer that Kate and the entire US contingent were legally invited by the legitimate authorities of Juarez, Mexico, etc.

    Also, how is the fact that she was “killing Mexicans,” while there on the bridge relevant? Wasn’t she killing them in self defense? By the way, I only counted her as killing one, but I’ll agree she was willingly part of a group that killed several Mexicans. But, again, if all the killings were in self defense —and, based on the radio talk about rules of procedure, probably pursuant to parameters agreed to and delegated by the relevant Mexican authorities to the Americans for the limited purpose of the prisoner pickup, what’s the problem?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.