Sicario: El día del soldado

Film starts really well. Gritty, violent, miltaristic. Relevant and exciting. Cool photography and sound. Interesting plot line. Seems like a solid follow-up to the excellent original. Helicopters, machine guns, explosions, mercenaries and black ops. But about halfway through it comes to a screeching halt that it never recovers from, even as there are some scenes that give you hope that the pace will resume.

But the film commits itself to going with a train of events that are not engaging or exciting. It never follows up with what could have been supremely interesting, the cartel war that the planned and executed event was supposed to trigger. Instead it undoes itself with the embarassingly obvious attempt to set that stage for another sequel. We get a lot of wasted time on the way, with story decisons that make no sense, and a convoluted and boring backward human-smuggling idea with political motivations.

The other major annoyance is the young gangster character. He does not act, at all, and his one-expression face alone is extremely unpleasant, not in a menacing way, but punchworthy. Highly ineffective and off-putting. Really bad casting.

First half was great. Second half was a joke.

The first Sicario film was a surprise to me, and I enjoyed it for its slick thrills but also its darkness and twists and turns; like many I looked forward to the sequel - or rather, the next film, since this isn't really a sequel so much as a film with the same characters. The film places the characters into an unofficial war with the cartels where US forces try to engineer wars between the cartels to make them weaken and distract each other. This action is started due to terrorists being brought into the US as part of human smuggling run by the cartels - which gives the film an opening few minutes that matches the first film for impact.

From this very topical and heated place, the film actually plays out a fairly pedestrian plot that gets progressively smaller after a certain point. It delivers quite a few solid and slick sequences along the way, and mostly the impact of these carries the film. It isn't as good as it appears though, and the plotting doesn't really build - and it is disrupted by some very lazy writing where convenience keeps things going, no matter how unlikely it is. Such things do hurt the film, and took me out of the immersion I felt in the first film; in particular the ending I thought was pretty weak as a conclusion to this film, albeit opening it for the third film that we all knew was in the works before this one was even released.

The cast add to the sense of quality, and the performances are suitably tough and committed. The production standards are high, and it is easy to see the money and effort up there. It is just a shame that at its core, the writing is not as tough and engaging as everything else would have you believe. Still a solidly tense affair that is too slick to not be worth a look, but not as good as it seems.

This is one of those action movies that it only job is to give you as real as possible experience with its beautiful cinematography. It doesn't feel as real as ''Children of Men'' and it probably won't get a Oscar but it serves its job. The movie may not be as masterful as Villeneuve's original, but it achieves to keep you on the screen. There are really good heart-pumping scenes that beautifully blended with the score in its convoluted plot. Just like in the first movie, the story gets darker and darker. It reflects real-life situations, that's why it's so dreary and compelling. All the events is a buildup to our main story. It all ties together perfectly in the end. And even though key cast member Emily Blunt no longer here, the movie stands alone as a powerful modern-day Western, thanks to the Josh Brolin, Benicio del Toro, and Taylor Sheridan who also penned the screenplay of the first movie.

I'll definitely watch this again.

Pros: The story was well told.

The characters were engaging.

Benicio Del Toro is a God.

An honest portrayal of a sad reality.

Cons: one character should have remained how he was, that would have been a fitting send off for his character. Is it better than the first Sicario? Yes. Why? No moral compass, it doesn't exist in the real world.

Where the original Sicario was carried by the suspence created by the contrasting naive FBI-agent Macy (Emily Blunt), the cynical CIA-agent Matt (Josh Brolin) and the vengeful Alejandro (Benicio del Toro) as ruthless sicario turned against the drug carlets operating along the US-Mexico border, the sequal lacks this tension and becomes an analogue and rather predictable story. Decent acting performances, and attempts to recreate the original dark athmosphere cannot save the weak plot, where several interesting issues launched at the start are not followed through. This makes for a rather unfulfilling experience, despite hints of another sequal.