MovieChat Forums > Sicario (2015) Discussion > This film is way too smart for such a du...

This film is way too smart for such a dumb audience *ANSWERS WITHIN*


* Torture Scene

Alejandro raped the dude, this is obvious if one pays attention. There was no waterboarding, the water jug
isn't being used at all. The crotch-in-his-face action and rythmic grunts later confirm this.

They probably killed him afterward too.

* Alejandro is not working for the Colombian cartel (lol where do you people come up with this stuff).

It's pretty clear he's a SAD/SOG operator. He's being called a 'Ghost' early in the film, later the DELTA
team call the op as 'clearing, placing an agent'. His skills also make this more than obvious, no cartel
assassin has these sort of skills. And no DELTA/SAD operation would place this amount of trust (without any
monitoring) on some unknown factor that works as a hitman for a cartel. It's pretty clear Alejandro is part
of the team and everyone trusts him. SOG operators take part in deniable black ops, in fact this is their modus operandi,
the CIA doesn't need to hire someone from the cartels to do their dirty work, they have their own teams for that.
Finally, the way he carries himself screams 'tier-1 stone cold killer'.

They recruited him sometime after the death of his family and trained him up. He may have been doing his own
assassinations before that happened, but it's clear he's firmly attached to SAD now.

* The Kate character is dumb, which is why Matt chooses her. "I like her already" is a sort of sarcastic joke on his part.
He likes her cause she seems like a dumb grunt to him. He doesn't want the lawyer cause "he's a smart kid".
She's being groomed as a patsy from the very beginning. As if this wasn't obvious, pretty much *every action* of hers in the film confirms that she's not the sharpest pencil in the box. Reggie tells her that Matt is a SAD guy (smart dude) and she tells him "No, he's a DOD advisor". "Do you really believe that?" She's stupid. Later in the motel, when Matt finally admits they're CIA, Reggie anticipates what he's saying (cause he already knows it) but Kate loses it cause she still thought this was something else. She's so *beep* stupid she didn't put 2 and 2 together. DELTA, private jets, "conspiracy to sink Fiji" and so on. All of these red alerts flew over her head.

Later on, she thinks Alejandro works for the Colombians (lmao). It still hasn't dawned on her that this is a deniable black op leading to a targeted assassination. Also note how the DELTA leader says to Matt that he likes 'overseas engagements' more cause he doesn't like to babysit. DELTA and SAD work together in these sort of ops all the time.

* Matt is very sharp and Brolin does a great job portraying that indirectly. Notice how he manipulates Kate by always feeding her half-truths so that she nevers gets to see the entire picture, only the next step. Notice how DEA, DELTA (and Alejandro) act towards him. He's definitely in-charge there but in more ways than a simplistic military hierarchy. They respect him. He's the kind of person that would lead a SAD team.

* Dinner scene

The reason Alejandro asks if the kids speak english and then says we'll speak in english is not (as some idiots posted)
cause the director didn't want spanish dialogue (due to audiences not liking subtitles). He went against the norm in so many
different ways (and there was enough spanish dialogue in the film to begin with) that this wouldn't have made a difference.
No. The reason they do the scene in english is so that the thinking person in the audience can get another glimpse at the Alejandro character. You see, by having this exchange, he's conditioning the drug lord to think that his kids will be spared.
There is no doubt in Alejandro's mind that he'll kill the kids and the wife. He knows it the minute he sees them all together.
*beep* he's planned this for years, probably fantasized about it thousands of times.

But his calculating mind finds a way to extract the most out of his prey in terms of emotional impact, before he dispatches him. When the wife&kids execution takes place, you can see the drug lord is paralyzed by the shock, he can't even speak.
Alejandro tells him to finish his meal and absorbs that emotional despair, then executes him too.
This is the sort of brutality and ruthlessness that the director puts on exhibit here. But of course, it's only there for those who have the thinking capacity to discern it. The rest talk about subtitles.

* Final scene

When Alejandro says "you would be committing suicide Kate" he doesn't just imply that he'll kill her, but that her death will look like a suicide to whomever discovers her. Note how he's handling *her* gun with a gloved hand. Since he has her sign a formal paper, this is the final nail in the coffin of "Alejandro works for the cartel theory". Why would a cartel assassin care about any of that? Alejandro is part of of the SAD black ops team that Matt leads. The final scene makes it crystal clear that these people are truly shadow agents, with no moral hangups and def not to be messed with. Matt also says to Kate "that would be a major mistake", again implying death.

I found the movie very entertaining because it doesn't just spoon feed the audience with the facts. Instead it plays with doubt and lets us figure it all out.
Most of the posters in these boards act like dumb Kate, lapping up everything Matt feeds them without engaging critical thinking. I view this as another success for this film, exposing its audience as dumb hicks looking for easy answers that fall conveniently in pre-formed molds.

reply

Not only did Kate miss all the obvious clues you mentioned, she failed to realize Matt was CIA when she saw him wearing flip-flops during a business meeting. Dead giveaway.

In any case, thanks for bringing things somewhat back to reality. The wild theories created on this forum are insane. Posters have created this incredible backstory of Alejandro based on nothing but thin air.

We might as well start a thread-

"Alejandro's favorite food as a kid was peanut butter."

We can tell this from the way he stared at the food at the drug lord's table...

reply

Oh the kids would turn into drug dealers, he did good to execute them.
Oh the wife was evil because she knew.

As if the world is black and white and ppl need to have moral justification for doing what they do.
I think the background they gave Alejandro was one of the weaker points in the movie.
The film would have been a lot better had they simply presented him as he was, a stone cold executioner.

Which is what CIA SAD/SOG and DELTA are to a large extent, they did a good job I thought by portraying that
throughout the movie (weapons free boys!)

reply

[deleted]

"This film is way too smart for such a dumb audience"

LOL!

"But of course, it's only there for those who have the thinking capacity to discern it"

LOLOLOL!

It's odd and ironic, that some people tell you so much about themselves, and yet lack the insight to realize they are doing it. These are the people who also love to sometimes title their posts “Those who didn’t like [insert film title]…just didn’t understand it”, or something to that effect.

Just who are these people?

Well, some call them neckbeards, or the basement dwellers, or beta males. Some like to assume they are socially inept and/or profoundly unattractive people with insecurities in many areas, who desperately need to feel in control, but since that isn’t part of their world, they find other areas in which to attempt dominance over others.

Their needs can effectively circumvent any insight that they might actually be stereotypes. Rather interesting, those people. Far more interesting than this film, anyway. I knew this morbidly obese guy once, who I must admit was decently bright, and he had an encyclopedic knowledge of his little hobby, which was ancient maritime history. But I first got to see what these people were all about, when I watched him belittle someone else who knew nothing about that same tiny and highly specific sliver of history he excelled at. The way he grinned, in that “Ha…guess I showed him” expression after winning a debate involving the only thing he was skilled at, was rather disturbing. He was so happy. And then drove his barely-running car to Burger King before going home alone.

But as far as the film, it didn’t suck horribly, I admit. In fact, some areas were quite good. The acting was decent too. But the writing was insulting, such comically bad decisions by supposed professionals, such unbelievable coincidences to move the plot forward, such weak character development. But the OP sure loved it, didn’t he? Mostly because he had the “thinking capacity” to see those luscious little clues, subtext, or subtleties which the mindless hordes could not. Which for people like that, is like a succulent treat, and one which they must immediately race out and inform others about.

reply

That was some damn good writing.

reply

I loved the film but thought your post was very satisfying.

reply

Great. Now please write and also stereotype the people who write about the people you just wrote about.

reply

"Urp, hurpdurp, I like red meet, is good, hahahahahahaha, film is not deep or have subtext, yarp. Neckbeard betamales are cünts, because thei dont are. Yers.

Beta beta beta beta beta, I am arpha mare."

-*Inserting random phrase by famous madman/idiot that makes me feel intelligent*-

reply

i don't think she was stupid, i think you missed it. She knew he was CIA, she even said it. But when reggie said he's CIA she still said he's DOD, because she wanted to believe they weren't being lied to, used. But she knew. Her curiosity got the better of her. Even in the end, reggie wants to leave and stop the operation from happening, but she wants to stay and find out what they are being used for.

She wasn't dumb, just curious.

The rape scene i think you may be partly right. I initially thought it was just a beating prior to him being waterboarded.


But I don't think he orally raped him, by putting his crotch in his face, he was telling him he was about to be raped, maybe with a broom which is used a lot by CIA agents in middle east and africa. It would be crazy if he raped him himself.

Maybe he did it cos that guy raped his wife or daughter, though it was never implied they were ever raped. But you would assume it is a real possibility in a hit.

reply

maybe with a broom which is used a lot by CIA agents in middle east and africa


Do you have a source for that or is that just oozing out of your ass?

I would say my memory is not what it used to be. But I don't remember what my memory used to be.

reply

Yes it's in the CIA handbook that he can just link you to.

reply

Yeah, you are right. Since there is no evidence it must be true.

I would say my memory is not what it used to be. But I don't remember what my memory used to be.

reply

Here you go, monkey boy:

"Sexual threat with broomstick' among CIA anti-terror tactics due to be revealed"

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/sexual-threat-broomstick-among-cia-4775255

"reported being sodomised with broomsticks, a 'chemical light' or rifles"

http://thejusticecampaign.org/?page_id=273

"the report describes how at least one detainee was sexually threatened with a broomstick.

https://www.rt.com/usa/212711-us-cia-report-torture/

"According to the 480-page summary report, at least one detainee was sexually threatened with a broomstick"

http://www.ibtimes.co.in/sexual-abuse-threats-broomstick-power-drill-part-cias-torture-tactics-mentioned-senate-report-616608

"According to Mark Hosenball and Jeff Mason of Reuters, the report also reveals that detainee Abdel Rahman al Nashiri was threatened with a buzzing power drill, and that another detainee "was sexually threatened with a broomstick."

http://www.vox.com/2014/12/9/7339753/senate-torture-report

"In another instance, the report documents how at least one detainee was sexually threatened with a broomstick, the sources said."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cia-torture-idUSKBN0JM24I20141208

"The CIA officers involved in the detention and interrogation program weren't the most savory bunch. The group "included individuals who, among other issues, had engaged in inappropriate detainee interrogations, had workplace anger management issues and had reportedly admitted to sexual assault," the report said."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/09/politics/cia-reports-shocking-passages/

reply

Wow, you went to a lot of trouble to prove you are an idiot. I could just see you at a bar:

You: "You know broom rape is used a lot by CIA agents in the middle east and Africa."
Poor Bastard next to you: "Really"
You: "Oh yeah for sure. Well at least I read about an incident where a CIA agent allegedly THREATENED to do it."

Reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where George claims Peter Jennings had a nose job: "Well, it's possible. most of them do."

I would say my memory is not what it used to be. But I don't remember what my memory used to be.

reply

So after providing the links you were asking for, you proceed to attack him so you don't look like a fool in denial. That's cute of you.

I didn't know about broomstick rapes but after seeing what they did at Abu Ghraib, it doesn't surprise me in the least some sick american mrn in the army would be capable of doing that.

Sorry, I don't suck up to the US military like you.







If I don't reply, you're most likely on my ignore list

reply

If you read the content of those links and compared it to the claims made and this is the conclusion you came to, you are even dumber than the poster I was dealing with.

I would say my memory is not what it used to be. But I don't remember what my memory used to be.

reply

Actually, around 2006 or so there was even a video on the net circulating around.

You could probably find it if you cared to look for it, but most of it you will never see

Wiki:
Prisoner rape

In 2004, Antonio Taguba, a major general in the U.S. Army, wrote in the Taguba Report that a detainee had been sodomized with "a chemical light and perhaps a broomstick."[30] In 2009, Taguba stated that there was photographic evidence of rape having occurred at Abu Ghraib.[31] An Abu Ghraib detainee told investigators that he heard an Iraqi teenage boy screaming, and saw an Army translator raping him, while a female soldier took pictures.[32] A witness identified the alleged rapist as an American-Egyptian who worked as a translator. In 2009, he was the subject of a civil court case in the United States.[31] Another photo shows an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner.[31] Other photos show interrogators sexually assaulting prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube, and a female prisoner having her clothing forcibly removed to expose her breasts.[31] Taguba supported United States President Barack Obama's decision not to release the photos, stating, "These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency."[31] Obama, who initially agreed to release the photographs, later changed his mind, as he believed their release would put troops in danger and "inflame anti-American public opinion".[31]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

reply

Irrelevant to the claims made of using broomsticks as a common practice. F

reply

https://www.hrw.org/news/2010/04/27/iraq-detainees-describe-torture-secret-jail

http://www.mintpressnews.com/classified-evidence-us-soldiers-raped-boys-in-front-of-their-mothers/200160/

reply

All the detainees interviewed described the same methods of torture employed by their Iraqi interrogators.


Yup that sure is proof that is was common practice for the CIA to use brooms! Can you people read?

Didn't read the 2nd link but it is about soldiers, not the CIA. The propaganda is comical. One person makes a ludicrous statement, I simply ask for evidence of it and a bunch of you come on and post completely unrelated claims to allegedly support the poster's claim.

I would say my memory is not what it used to be. But I don't remember what my memory used to be.

reply

Well, I'll just remind you that when it came to torture the claim was that this was only for a few people, but then it turns out that it happened a lot more.

They are not exactly gonna admit to it, you might have to wait decades for all of the information to come out.

"According to the 480-page summary report, at least one detainee was sexually threatened with a broomstick, sources told Reuters. The actual 6,000 page report will remain classified"

If you google on this you will find out that they were merely threatened, but as I wrote here at least one video leaked sometime in the mid 2000's. Sadly I can't find it again (due to a harddrive failure many years ago).

If a country is ready to bomb another one based on "faulty" intel then it can easily cross the line in this way as well.

reply

I am just saying that people spout off about things they really know nothing about. It is like sitting in a bar and someone just makes a claim and everyone goes along with it. I was genuinely curious (and obviously highly skeptical) of the poster's claim and wanted to know where they came up with it. I am still waiting. If one wants to criticize tactics used by government agencies, the military, whatever...would it not be better to make statements that at least have some support? You lose all credibility otherwise and do more harm than good if your agenda is to point out atrocities committed by the US.

I would say my memory is not what it used to be. But I don't remember what my memory used to be.

reply

She was stupid when emotional. Saying to Brolin's character "I'm going to talk...I'm going to tell everyone" when it's clear as day this guy is part of a very shady operation which has alot of power, it's downright stupid.

reply

She was stupid when emotional. Saying to Brolin's character "I'm going to talk...I'm going to tell everyone" when it's clear as day this guy is part of a very shady operation which has alot of power, it's downright stupid.


That part had me questioning and hating the character that liked so much for the entire movie.

First she tries to arrest Alejandro when she is clearly out of her depth.

Then she is being beaten by this guy or at least subdued in the middle of no f#¨where with a Delta team that wouldn't hesitate to erase her from existence if Matt just winked to them.

And she just goes and tell him what she gonna do, kind of made me wonder why he just didn't shoot her right there on the spot.

reply

Not only did Kate miss all the obvious clues you mentioned, she failed to realize Matt was CIA when she saw him wearing flip-flops during a business meeting. Dead giveaway.


It's either CIA or a Google employee...



Working in the movie business since -92

reply

She wasn't chosen because she was dumb as in stupid, she was picked because she was:

1. Woman - weak constitution, psychically and mentally, easy to manipulate.
2. Sex - an outsider among her peers, easy to get alienated, which again affects mental health

The rest is not that important, her being idealistic held both vices and virtues, she found the truth in the end, which gave her a hard time signing the papers.

I wanted her to pull the trigger, I wonder why she didn't, was it because she was afraid or smart? Or is it the same thing?

This interview with Emily Blunt tells a bit of her character:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3vJ4DSTCrw

reply

I wanted her to pull the trigger, I wonder why she didn't, was it because she was afraid or smart?


It was played well. With her crying she refused for a moment that she had to cross that line, but when Alejandro explained to her that she will "do" suicide, she realized that she is not a part of that game.

The line with the wolves was perfectly shown, when she stand on the balcony and couldn't do anything. She wasn't a wolf.


reply

The guy saved her life and he had justification to do what he did. It wasn't her fight. Killing him would be more messy than letting it go. It would also be suicide, knowing his crowd.

reply

I'm just re-reading your post again... and I have to say I think you are giving the movie a little too much credit.... and your points are a little.... questionable?

For one... "you would be commiting suicide Kate" .... (you're saying he isn't implying that he'll kill her?) Uhh... wrong. Whether or not it looks like she killed her self is debatable, but clearly he will be the one killing her.

You also say "where do you people get this stuff" about Alejandro being involved with the Colombian cartel. The more I think about it.... why would that be so far fetched? The drug jefe at the end knew exactly who Alejandro was, said it was 'not personal' when he cut off his wife's head and put his daughter in a tub of acid.

Sounds like something you do to your competition....

Also it's really not that weird that CIA/FBI would enlist the help of a criminal to accomplish their goal. There have been countless other stories/movies where this type of thing has happened. Whether or not Alejandro was or was not involved with drug cartels is kind of irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

It's more about the moral dilemma of what is wrong/right, and how corrupt everyone has become. There is no true good/bad.

Same thing with the supposed 'rape' scene. Who cares if Alejandro raped him, waterboarded him, beat him up, etc. Point is we all know he tortured the dude. The specs are irrelevant.

So in my opinion, you're kind of hung up on the wrong details....

And there is a difference between not spoonfeeding the audience (which I agree is a horrific way to tell a story, and unfortunately the status quo in today's world), and kind of ... eluding the audience as a gimmick and then not paying it off appropriately.

What's the big reveal or point of all of this? we already knew Alejandro had suffered some type of horrible past experience related to all of this.... we already know how the world is (or at least I hope we do) .... so I just don't get what the big deal is.

Are we supposed to relate to Emily Blunt.... are we supposed to agree at the end that it was better that Alejandro did what he did, and just leave it alone?

I figured that out in the first 10 minutes, and kind of wish Emily Blunt did, too. It would have eliminated some of her annoying moral-dilemma hissy-fits she kept throwing at the drop of a hat.

EH....

I think you need to see better films.

reply

This.

reply

I agree, in the torture scene is up to the audience's imagination to decide the torture method.

reply

Alexandre was a prosecutor! You obviously did not listen when u watched the movie! Former prosecutor I might add turned vigilante!

reply

I'm just re-reading your post again... and I have to say I think you are giving the movie a little too much credit.... and your points are a little.... questionable?

For one... "you would be commiting suicide Kate" .... (you're saying he isn't implying that he'll kill her?) Uhh... wrong. Whether or not it looks like she killed her self is debatable, but clearly he will be the one killing her.

You also say "where do you people get this stuff" about Alejandro being involved with the Colombian cartel. The more I think about it.... why would that be so far fetched? The drug jefe at the end knew exactly who Alejandro was, said it was 'not personal' when he cut off his wife's head and put his daughter in a tub of acid.

Sounds like something you do to your competition....

Also it's really not that weird that CIA/FBI would enlist the help of a criminal to accomplish their goal. There have been countless other stories/movies where this type of thing has happened. Whether or not Alejandro was or was not involved with drug cartels is kind of irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

It's more about the moral dilemma of what is wrong/right, and how corrupt everyone has become. There is no true good/bad.

Same thing with the supposed 'rape' scene. Who cares if Alejandro raped him, waterboarded him, beat him up, etc. Point is we all know he tortured the dude. The specs are irrelevant.

So in my opinion, you're kind of hung up on the wrong details....

And there is a difference between not spoonfeeding the audience (which I agree is a horrific way to tell a story, and unfortunately the status quo in today's world), and kind of ... eluding the audience as a gimmick and then not paying it off appropriately.

What's the big reveal or point of all of this? we already knew Alejandro had suffered some type of horrible past experience related to all of this.... we already know how the world is (or at least I hope we do) .... so I just don't get what the big deal is.

Are we supposed to relate to Emily Blunt.... are we supposed to agree at the end that it was better that Alejandro did what he did, and just leave it alone?

I figured that out in the first 10 minutes, and kind of wish Emily Blunt did, too. It would have eliminated some of her annoying moral-dilemma hissy-fits she kept throwing at the drop of a hat.

EH....

I think you need to see better films.


Thank you! I could not agree with what you said anymore. OP definitely needs to see better movies.

My god did I expect a much better film than this based on the way everyone has been praising it. It's a 6/10 at best.




You don't get hard this quick unless its real.

reply

For one... "you would be commiting suicide Kate" .... (you're saying he isn't implying that he'll kill her?) Uhh... wrong. Whether or not it looks like she killed her self is debatable, but clearly he will be the one killing her.


That is not at all what he was saying. Of course he would kill her but he would make it look like she killed herself. That was obvious.

You also say "where do you people get this stuff" about Alejandro being involved with the Colombian cartel. The more I think about it.... why would that be so far fetched? The drug jefe at the end knew exactly who Alejandro was, said it was 'not personal' when he cut off his wife's head and put his daughter in a tub of acid.


Agree. I thought Jefe actually said "we learned this stuff from you" (meaning the Columbians). I got the sense that Al was working with the Americans but for the Columbians and that was a regular thing. The CIA wanted the Columbian cartel to have a monopoly as that was more peaceful (plus a little further from Phoenix, etc.)


I would say my memory is not what it used to be. But I don't remember what my memory used to be.

reply

If the OP is correct, the jefe could have been referring to the School of the Americas.

reply

My biggest negative is they made her a bit too stupid and naive. She's just coming from a mission where she finds 30 dead bodies buried in the walls and she's upset that guys with obvious guns sticking up in their cars are killed before her and the rest of them are?

The bank scene was okay, her wanting to make a legitimate case on the cartel to have some kind of resemblance of actual American justice, or police work, but for her to be so clueless to the end was very annoying. I guess she represents the naivety of most Americans and people who live outside this world.

Now I know how King Arthur felt when Lancelot caressed his wife's genitalia!

reply

[deleted]

Yeah, I didn't really think it was that difficult to understand but apparently I was wrong.......


“Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance."

reply

Then why go through the charade of carrying a full water jug into the room? I think his actions were just intimidation and dominance. At the end of that scene they even show a drain in the floor. Why have a drain in the floor of an interrogation room and bring in a giant full jug of water? It's to wash the blood away. It's fairly clear that a heavy beating was taking place, especially when they show what he did to the corrupt cop that tried to choke Kate.

As for his identity, he's called multiple things at multiple times during the film. Why would a drug king go through elaborate deaths for a black ops guy? Those deaths, as someone else mentioned in comments, sound more like the deaths for competition. Josh Brolin's character even says they can't get rid of everything, but they can put the power into the hands of someone they can control (Colombian Cartel with Alejandro). Also the comment the cop makes after he exits the tunnel, which Brolin explains to Kate. There's multiple possibilities, yours is one interpretation.

I liked your takes on the other characters and scenes, thank you for sharing.

reply

Those deaths, as someone else mentioned in comments, sound more like the deaths for competition
.

2 possibilities that were broached in the film. 1. he said he was a prosecutor so that would make sense and
2. He was with the Columbians.

Maybe even both.

I would say my memory is not what it used to be. But I don't remember what my memory used to be.

reply

Rape....you base that on fantasy or experience or what? Alejandro established dominance and probably did something cruel but first get an erection and then,infront of Matt,bang7rape Guillermo...? Great,effective way to get information.

Fausto Alarcon confirms who sent Alejandro,as if the 20 times medellin is said isn´t clue enough"you think the people who sent you are any different?Who do you think we learned it from?" they´re talking about the CIA...? Sure,why not?

He was a mexican,which confuse some people but he was "now sent"from Colombia...pretty open about his affiliation. Seems he was a doubleagent of sorts,with both the cartel and U.S government knowing his agenda. He likely got his training in Colombia after his family was butchered in Mexico.

The reason he threatens Kate to turn her into a suicide is just the small prize he had to pay,a chore bestowed on him;in exchange for Matt and the U.S cutting him loose,giving him free reigns to exact his revenge,all needed in exchange was her signature. They figured he was the one who could persuade her,having saved her life and all and if not,she knew he wouldn´t hesitate to make her dissapear,though it seems he had certain reservations about it....but the scare tactic worked. Agree with the rest you say.

reply

good comments

I would say my memory is not what it used to be. But I don't remember what my memory used to be.

reply