Sicario

[Tonker]

It may sound ridiculous, but I thoroughly enjoyed this film and yet, I was still a little disappointed with it.  It's a little over two hours long, but it absolutely flew by and I think they could actually have fleshed it out quite a bit more: two and half hours would have been good.  It's not often a director is too efficient, but this was one of those times.

One of the downsides of the breakneck pace of the whole thing is that there are many, many questions about the lead character that remain unanswered and it's to Emily Blunt's credit that she's a) hot and b) talented enough for it not to bother you too much.  Benicio del Toro benefits from just about the only backstory in the entire piece, and it's no coincidence that he completely steals the show.  Josh Brolin is Josh Brolin, but a little less so, and there are several very nicely played smaller parts, not least the Mexican cop who gets tangled up in the whole thing, and his on-screen wife's tits.  Well, her tits are bigger parts, actually, not smaller, but you know what I mean.

For those of you who like suspense and action (and who doesn't?), there's plenty of both.  The scene when the CIA/Delta/FBI/[spoiler deleted] pile across the border into Juarez and back is edge-of-the-seat stuff and never lets up for a second, and that's only one of several big set pieces in the film.  Don't see it with a full stomach, though: large parts of it are pretty brutal.

All in all, I'd give it about 14 out of 17.  It was just a shame there wasn't more of it.

[Quality Start Machine]

All in all, I'd give it about 14 out of 17.  It was just a shame there wasn't more of it.

You and your fucking metric system.

[R-V]

It may sound ridiculous, but I thoroughly enjoyed this film and yet, I was still a little disappointed with it.  It's a little over two hours long, but it absolutely flew by and I think they could actually have fleshed it out quite a bit more: two and half hours would have been good.  It's not often a director is too efficient, but this was one of those times.

One of the downsides of the breakneck pace of the whole thing is that there are many, many questions about the lead character that remain unanswered and it's to Emily Blunt's credit that she's a) hot and b) talented enough for it not to bother you too much.  Benicio del Toro benefits from just about the only backstory in the entire piece, and it's no coincidence that he completely steals the show.  Josh Brolin is Josh Brolin, but a little less so, and there are several very nicely played smaller parts, not least the Mexican cop who gets tangled up in the whole thing, and his on-screen wife's tits.  Well, her tits are bigger parts, actually, not smaller, but you know what I mean.

For those of you who like suspense and action (and who doesn't?), there's plenty of both.  The scene when the CIA/Delta/FBI/[spoiler deleted] pile across the border into Juarez and back is edge-of-the-seat stuff and never lets up for a second, and that's only one of several big set pieces in the film.  Don't see it with a full stomach, though: large parts of it are pretty brutal.

All in all, I'd give it about 14 out of 17.  It was just a shame there wasn't more of it.

Great review. Co-sign. The only fault of this movie was that it seemed they tried really hard to make del Toro and Brolin's identities/motivations mysterious, when I actually thought the movie was more engaging once those were revealed.

[Canadouche]

All in all, I'd give it about 14 out of 17.  It was just a shame there wasn't more of it.

You and your fucking metric system.

That's not metric. He's rating it in leagues, or cubits, or zereiths, or something weird.

[Tonker]

All in all, I'd give it about 14 out of 17.  It was just a shame there wasn't more of it.

You and your fucking metric system.

That's not metric. He's rating it in leagues, or cubits, or zereiths, or something weird.

I gave it fourteen fathoms out of a possible seventeen gills.  I don't see the problem.

[Bort]

All in all, I'd give it about 14 out of 17.  It was just a shame there wasn't more of it.

You and your fucking metric system.

That's not metric. He's rating it in leagues, or cubits, or zereiths, or something weird.

I gave it fourteen fathoms out of a possible seventeen gills.  I don't see the problem.

I assumed it was only 12 drams out of 23 hogsheads.

[CBStew]

All in all, I'd give it about 14 out of 17.  It was just a shame there wasn't more of it.

You and your fucking metric system.

That's not metric. He's rating it in leagues, or cubits, or zereiths, or something weird.

I gave it fourteen fathoms out of a possible seventeen gills.  I don't see the problem.

I assumed it was only 12 drams out of 23 hogsheads.

"Now it came about in the four hundred and eightieth year after the sons of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD. As for the house which King Solomon built for the LORD, its length was sixty cubits and its width twenty cubits and its height thirty cubits. The porch in front of the nave of the house was twenty cubits in length, corresponding to the width of the house, and its depth along the front of the house was ten cubits...."  (Hint.  Multiply everything by 1.5)