gotmyorangecrush

Honestly, why anyone would come to a site like IMDB for reviews anymore is utterly beyond my understanding. A significant percentage of people literally have no clue how to properly critique something like a film. Those people just throw out 1's and 10's like they were no big deal. Anyone who thinks any of the Star Wars film made to date a truly a 1 have never seen a film by Asylum or similar movie companies. Those are film that are truly deserving of a score as low as a 1. Haters and fanboys, and many in between, have utterly ruined online ratings for movies, games, music, etc.

So do yourself a HUGE favor and don't come to sites like IMDB if you want legitimate reviews written by people that actually have the ability to stand back from a movie and give a legitimate critique over all of the aspects of filmmaking. A great film is a combination of great characters, great acting, having a great script, and having a great score to top it off. And with films like Star Wars, special effects also plays a key role. Again, just look at the special effects from films like Transmorphers by Asylum if you really want to see what a 1 in that rating gets you. Coming on sites like IMDB and seeing films like this score a 1 is just laughable in every aspect possible. Those are people who are so blinded by not getting a product they wanted that they score everything in the film a 1 when clearly that isn't the case. Anyone who gives Star Wars a 1 in the special effects or score categories are exactly the kind of people you want to be ignoring when it comes to rating films. Do yourself a huge favor and find a couple quality reviewers who have similar opinions to your own and leave the drivel on sites like IMDB for the the same people that write that drivel.

As for the Last Jedi, it could have been better and it could have been much worse. This film should score between a 5 and 7, at least from anyone that has any skills at all at critiquing. Again, scoring this film a 1, or a 10 for that matter, is just laughable at best. If I were in charge of IMDB, I would have the system automatically delete such drivel.

I don't think most people realize, even to this day, just what an amazing feat Marvel pulled off when they released Avengers, and more recently Civil War. Pulling off successful ensemble team up's are a LOT harder than most people think and it was Marvel's choice to go with many individual films first before going with the team up films that made them so successful. It really allowed the team up films to jump right into the stories without any big character introductions or long exposition scenes to set up relationships or what was going on. Even the main antagonist for Avengers (Loki) was a character we already knew from Thor. Basically, Marvel really set things up perfectly with its motion pictures and in so doing really created the perfect blueprint for super hero films in general.

So with all that being said, one would think that Marvel should have had the same success with The Defenders since each character has already had its own individual series before Defenders, but unfortunately Defenders had one thing going against it that wasn't present with the motion pictures, that being that the characters and the series in general were very unique and stylistically very different from one another, in just about every way possible. Even the cinematography style of the shows differed quite dramatically. So bringing these 4 charatcers and styles together into a single show was going to be very challenging, even more so than the ensemble films IMO.

And for some strange reason, Marvel didn't take advantage of the advantages that having individual shows can give you like they did with Avengers and Civil War. Again, with Avengers we already knew most of the main players including the main antagonist and that really allowed Avengers to jump right into the main story and that gave the film just a stellar pace as again there was really no need for introductions or long exposition scenes explaining what was going on. The different pieces just came together perfectly. Yet with Defenders, Marvel largely keeps these characters separate from one another for a significant portion of the series. It isn't even really until half way through that the team really comes together. That causes a couple of problems. First and most importantly, the initial episodes have to jump back and forth between all of the various characters and the show really doesn't even feel like a team up show at this point. And 2nd, it makes the blending of the various styles of the shows that much more difficult since the first 4 episodes basically stick with the styles of the individual shows depending on what character your watching at any given time instead of creating a new style for this ensemble,

What you ultimately wind up with is a series that really struggles in its first half of the season. Die hard super hero fans or huge fans of the individual series might not have too much a problem with this aspect of the show, but for the general population or for those that aren't die hard super hero fans....well, the first half of the Defenders will definitely be viewed by most as the weakest first half of all the shows released to date. Hopefully it doesn't stop too many people from finishing the show as once the team actually comes together, its a VASTLY more successful show. While the uniqueness of the individual shows makes it more difficult to make an ensemble, the uniqueness of the actual characters themselves makes for a very interesting team once it actually comes together.

All in all, Defenders is still a good show and many Marvel/super hero fans in general will still wind up enjoying it. Unfortunately, its just not as good as it could have been as the first half of the show really struggles to find its feet and most importantly to mesh the various characters and styles into an individual show. Once it does tho, The Defenders shines just like everything else Marvel seems to touch these days. Its just a shame that it takes almost half the series to really reach that point.

7/10

That quote is one of the things Alejendro (Benicio Del Toro's character) says to Kate Macer (Emily Blunt's character) at the beginning of the film and it really sums up this film perfectly as the viewer is basically in the same position as Kate in regards to understanding what is going on in this film and as a result, you really do question everything that is going on and you really don't understand everything until the end. Honestly, this is one of the best drug related movies I have seen in a very long time!!

I don't want to give any spoilers away as to do so would be a crime to the people that haven't seen this film yet. Its got an absolutely fantastic script and the directing and cinematography are both absolutely off the hook brilliant. One of the things that stood out the most for me was just how amazing the control of tension was in this film. There is a scene in the beginning where the team crosses over to Juarez Mexico to pick up a high level drug detainee and brings him back across to the US. It was roughly 10-15 minutes of the movie and the tension in that scene just builds and builds throughout the entire scene. It was just a masterfully crafted sequence of the film, in every single aspect of film making, and the film only gets better and better from there.

The cinematography in general was just absolutely brilliant throughout the entire film. The car scene I just mentioned in the beginning, the amazing aerial photography shot on the border and in the city of Juarez, and in particular the use of satellite imagery, drone imagery, and the use of night vision photography towards the end of the film. They even use security camera footage. Its just a masterful blending of a whole slew of different photographic tools and styles and it really helps give the film a sense of realism and really helps put you in the shoes of Kate and the team. I'm a professional photographer so I tend to focus on cinematography more than your average film goer, but this cinematography is so well done that I think most movie goers that appreciate a beautifully shot film will be talking about just how amazing this aspect of this film was when the credits start rolling.

And the casting is just top notch. Emily Blunt, Josh Brolin, and Benicio Del Toro all give top notch performances. Benicio Del Toro's performance is definitely the best of the 3, but that's mostly because his character was the most interesting of the 3. There is a lot of mystery and intrigue behind his character and you don't find out the real story behind Alejando until the end of the film and Del Toro does a brilliant job with the role. You can see Kate trying to figure out just who Alejendro is from the very beginning of the film and were only given small bits of information on his character as the film goes on. One of my favorite aspects of Josh Brolin's character, Matt Graver, was just how much he enjoys sticking it to the bad guys. He is a man that truly loves what he is doing and you see him smiling in many scenes where most people wouldn't be. And Emily Blunt definitely holds her own. All 3 play off each other really well and the result is one of the best acted films I have seen in awhile.

If there was one weakness in regards to the casting it was with Kate's partner Reggie. Its not that he did a bad job, its just everyone else did such an amazing job that his character just doesn't hold up and feels kinda boring. Fortunately, even when he is there, the focus is usually on one of the other team members so his performance really doesn't hurt the film at all. Again, his performance just wasn't up to par with the rest of the performances in the film.

All in all, Sicario is just a brilliant film. It has a fantastic script, great casting, top notch performances, and some of the best cinematography I have seen in some time. It has action, tension, intrigue, and it has some great twists and a great ending. Ultimately, this film was a very different take on the whole "war on drugs" genre of films.

Definitely a solid 9/10 for me!!