"Sicario 2 - Soldado" Topic

Looks good!

YouTube link

Amicalement
Armand

No Rules this time.

Yes….!!!!

Amicalement
Armand

Just gauging from the trailer, it seems some subtlety is lost without the guiding hand of Villeneuve. For example, the voice over says, "The current definition (of terrorism) is any individual or group that uses violence to achieve a political goal." Whose definition is that? Besides some screenwriter? Looks like the nuance has changed from the conflicted characters in the first movie to a Rambo update. The first film was great because it fed upon the tension of the naive, by the book, FBI character portrayed by Emily Blunt and the shadowy, Sicario played by Benedict del Toro. Her status as a visible member of a well known federal agency is there simply to give legitimacy to their nefarious activities. She realizes that she is a prop. And that is why we have the last comfrontaion with Blunt and del Toro in her apartment. I suspect many were expecting a bloodbath. Well, at least the writer is back. Maybe there won't be a sophomore slump.

Watched it yesterday and it was a fairly good movie.

"The current definition (of terrorism) is any individual or group that uses violence to achieve a political goal." Whose definition is that? Besides some screenwriter?

English Users Definition here
link

First definition here
link

Unless you are focusing on the difference between terrorism and terrorist?

The voiceover is the Secretary of Defense? so any government official can make up any BS about a word definition.

Anyway, I watched it a couple days ago. I agree with Mithmee that it was good and almost kept up with the first one, but it had some weirdness about a couple plot points.

The movie kinda plays like a modernized "Clear and Present Danger" with much stupider politicians but their part in the story isn't as important.

There was one scene were the guy behind me just let out this surprised and depressing yelp as he realized what just happened. It would have been awesome if the movie just ended right there on that note.

For example, the voice over says, "The current definition (of terrorism) is any individual or group that uses violence to achieve a political goal." Whose definition is that? Besides some screenwriter?

Try the official US government definition in effect today:

The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

There was one scene were the guy behind me just let out this surprised and depressing yelp as he realized what just happened. It would have been awesome if the movie just ended right there on that note.

Let me guess. It's the scene where the teenager performed a task given to him by his boss which another teenager before him failed to perform. It didn't fool me though.

I still liked the first movie with Emily Blunt better, but DotS is still "certified fresh" by me: link

Right, so who were the terrorists in the AWI…..or the ACW? Depends on which side of the conflict you are looking from, doesn't it? It also depends on your definition of "unlawful". Hardly an airtight definition. Again, the nuances are lost.

Right, so who were the terrorists in the AWI

Why the British of course.

If you use violence or the threat of violence to get your way…

You are a Terrorist.