Sicario

OldCorpse said:
The real worry is not Deakins, it's that hack, Denis Villenueve.
Click to expand...
Could very well be. Haven't seen anything he's done, so cannot tell. Sicario looks totally uninteresting to me though.
Saw an interview with him where he claimed to be a life long Blade Runner fan. Guess that can be both a good and a bad thing though...

What I've seen of Deakins work is that it's good but boring. Like he's playing it safe always. Never bad but never great. Just good in a rather bland way. I'm pretty sure he has the SKILLS to pull it off, not sure he has the mind to pull it off though. Hope I'm wrong.
 
dmitrizigany said:
What I've seen of Deakins work is that it's good but boring. Like he's playing it safe always. Never bad but never great. Just good in a rather bland way. I'm pretty sure he has the SKILLS to pull it off, not sure he has the mind to pull it off though. Hope I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Interesting perspective... ...I've never thought of Deakins as the ColdPlay of cinematography... ...surely he's better than that?
 
Sometimes these film discussions sound like "didn't follow the formula, it's too formulaic"
 
James0b57 said:
Sometimes these film discussions sound like "didn't follow the formula, it's too formulaic"
Click to expand...

I never look at it that way. I don't mind formulaic if it's done well; sometimes you just want to see the good guy win. And I don't mind breaking the mold if you live up to your own ambitions. But I don't think this one did.
 
Liam Hall said:
Interesting perspective... ...I've never thought of Deakins as the ColdPlay of cinematography... ...surely he's better than that?
Click to expand...
Haha, that is a great metaphor ;)
Good does not always equal interesting or exciting.

Looking at the list of his work on IMDb, I realise I haven't seen very much he's done. And most of his work is films that don't interest me much. Maybe it's just a style that's very far from my own likes?
That said, the new Hail, Ceasar looks amazing both as a film and visually!
 
OldCorpse said:
Saw it today. After all the hype, I was a little disappointed to be honest. I mean, it was OK
Click to expand...

Meh. I rented the BD last night. I gave it a 6/10, well below the IMDB 7.7.

Like most movies, I think the script was to blame (script writing has to be the hardest job in the movies). The Emily Blunt character in particular was poorly written. She did the best she could with this part, but she's way better an actress than this part allowed her to be. I don't understand why she took the part in the first place. In contrast, the Benicio Del Toro role was a much better part, and he did an excellent job with it. But even that wasn't believable to me.

That said, there were some interesting positives. I really liked the sound design (Tom Ozanich?). They got just about all of it spot on. Even the "small room" reverb of the interrogation rooms, and the distant gun fire. And of course my subwoofers loved the explosions. :grin:

And I thought Deakins did an excellent job as DOP given what he had to work with. I especially liked his use of FLIR. I just wish he hadn't been working with a director who was so heavy handed -- it's not often a director makes Deakins look bad.

I guess Villeneuve isn't going to be a favorite director for me. Oh well. I'm sure he'll find a way to cope with this disappointment. ;-)
 
Was listening to the sound track yesterday, oof, love it. Not going to say it is amazing, but i really enjoy it. It was definitely a big part of why i liked the film.
 
OldCorpse said:
I've seen all the films nominated for Oscar in cinematography. Of those, The Revenant is far and away the best cinematography - by leagues, no contest. UNFORTUNATELY, it would mean a THIRD Oscar in a row for Emmanuel Lubezki - somehow I suspect politics would prevent that, even though by merit and rights this is his clearly and obviously, given the other nominations. We'll see. Maybe Sicario can get the Oscar in Music as the whole category this year doesn't seem to have any strong standouts for original score, but to me, Sicario is merely adequate musically (actually that's a huge compliment, because it's so rare to hear good music in films nowadays, so "adequate" is high praise).
Click to expand...

Pleasantly surprised! This time, politics did not mess things up, and the cinematography of The Revenant was justly rewarded - third time in a row for Emmanuel Lubezki... totally deserved! I'm very happy for him, and congratulations to the voters, they got this one right!
 
Finally saw the movie. I liked it very much. Emily blunts performance was fine for me, but the character was a bit cold and one dimensional. Why does she have to go on this task force? Ostensibly it's because she wants to get the bad men that killed so many people but it's not really her job and it's not personal so the motivation to embark on the Heroes journey seems a bit weak. Emily blunt is the main character because she's the one we follow but she seems more like an observer than the hero and Beniciodel toro seems more like the hero or anti hero of the story in this case.


im the opposite of old corpse. Nothing yanks me out of a movie more than a "gritty" documentary style look. I can't help but think, can't you get some lights? You have big stars, you couldn't afford a good dp? Why is the camera shaking? For gods sake get that camera man a tripod stat! The lighting and camera movement in Sicario just disappears for me and let's me watch the story.
 
Batutta said:
I've never seen it. One take movie, right?...If they don't move the story forward in opposition to the antagonist then they are are boring to watch, and the audiences attention should be elsewhere. Almost any other major character in Sicario would be more interesting to follow in this film. Especially the way the film is set up, as a hunt for the big bad drug dealer. We're saddled with the lead who does the least to achieve that goal. And the movie is distinctly told from her point of view. Sure there are movies that are more episodic, and really loose in narrative form where traditional storytelling might not apply, but this wasn't one of them. Is the movie bad? It's too expertly shot and acted for me to call it bad, but I don't think it works really as a story, which is why many people were underwhelmed by it.
Click to expand...

At first I felt the same way, however the Hero's journey can also be internal. While Emily blunt isn't the driving force of the external action in the story she does go through a major change. She starts off "by the book" and she's fighting against injustice focusing on protecting innocent hostages. But she learns that in the big picture it's all corrupt, even the good guys are doing things that are illegal. The last scene, signing the document, is her acceptance of this new reality. It's not well fleshed out but I think the main elements are there. It's just obscured by all the shooting and fighting whereas most internal struggles on fil tend to be less violent subject matter.
I would compare this to Drive. There's something inexplicable about the story that works.
 
Gillvane said:
At first I felt the same way, however the Hero's journey can also be internal. While Emily blunt isn't the driving force of the external action in the story she does go through a major change. She starts off "by the book" and she's fighting against injustice focusing on protecting innocent hostages. But she learns that in the big picture it's all corrupt, even the good guys are doing things that are illegal. The last scene, signing the document, is her acceptance of this new reality. It's not well fleshed out but I think the main elements are there. It's just obscured by all the shooting and fighting whereas most internal struggles on fil tend to be less violent subject matter.
I would compare this to Drive. There's something inexplicable about the story that works.
Click to expand...
Totally agree, there was a huge internal change at the end. But seems like a lot of people who watched it, felt it was a weak ending, in that nothing happened. So, perhaps the film was not so good at bringing the average viewer along, and so there was a disconnect? Mental dissidence? I felt similarly about Drive. Something off, but overall, I very much enjoyed it.

Was talking about this film with a close friend, as there are elements of this film I thought they would like. We started the conversation talking about "Narcos", the Netflix series. My friend had already seen "Sicario", and to my initial surprise, he immediately expressed his dislike of Sicario. Mainly, because of the weak female archetype. As we began discussing, we realized, that all of the characters were heavy on the 'archetype', and light on the complex human character. So, while the film's view of the world may have had a nuance, the characters themselves were too one dimensional. I also, couldn't really fault the movie on Blunt's performance by itself, but when you combine all of the archetypes together, it becomes
a bit annoying.


Kate Macer - confused helpless woman (even though she was a strong cop, she really couldn't do much, and never actually knew anything after the shed explosion, in this climate of sexism in Hollywood, there was a disconnect for me, making me cringe at the director's lack of awareness. )
Alejandro - troubled revenge tough guy
Matt Graver - the cocky cowboy
Regie Wayne - the side kick

I think each one was played well by the actors, but they were overdone archetypes. What can you do with that? The style of this film seemed to call for more nuanced characters. If you isolate any one of the characters, I could find reasons to like them, or justify them, but all together, it really falls flat for me.


(PS> Spoiler Alert > At the beginning of the film, Kate Macer shoots and kills one of the criminals who had just shot at her, however, Macer doesn't really show much emotion about the experience. For being so altruistic, there is a strange ability to kill without much remorse. Then at the border, the character shoots another person, and it seems as if she is more upset. As a civilian viewer, sitting in a comfortable theater watching fiction, I would hope there be consistency of virtuous behavior from the hero, so I can still empathize with them, rather than disconnect from them. I like a complex character, like the ones in Breaking Bad, as we are all full of contradictions, but there was something missing with Kate Macer. And it would have been difficult to show her internal experience and may have slowed the story down. However, it felt like there were some missed opportunities at the beginning to make a fuller main character. But again, for me, the main character was not a person, but a presence. And so, the film still worked for me overall)
 
Last edited:
James0b57 said:
Totally agree, there was a huge internal change at the end. But seems like a lot of people who watched it, felt it was a weak ending, in that nothing happened. So, perhaps the film was not so good at bringing the average viewer along, and so there was a disconnect? Mental dissidence? I felt similarly about Drive. Something off, but overall, I very much enjoyed it.

Was talking about this film with a close friend, as there are elements of this film I thought they would like. We started the conversation talking about "Narcos", the Netflix series. My friend had already seen "Sicario", and to my initial surprise, he immediately expressed his dislike of Sicario. Mainly, because of the weak female archetype. As we began discussing, we realized, that all of the characters were heavy on the 'archetype', and light on the complex human character. So, while the film's view of the world may have had a nuance, the characters themselves were too one dimensional. I also, couldn't really fault the movie on Blunt's performance by itself, but when you combine all of the archetypes together, it becomes
a bit annoying.


Kate Macer - confused helpless woman (even though she was a strong cop, she really couldn't do much, and never actually knew anything after the shed explosion, in this climate of sexism in Hollywood, there was a disconnect for me, making me cringe at the director's lack of awareness. )
Alejandro - troubled revenge tough guy
Matt Graver - the cocky cowboy
Regie Wayne - the side kick

I think each one was played well by the actors, but they were overdone archetypes. What can you do with that? The style of this film seemed to call for more nuanced characters. If you isolate any one of the characters, I could find reasons to like them, or justify them, but all together, it really falls flat for me.


(PS> Spoiler Alert > At the beginning of the film, Kate Macer shoots and kills one of the criminals who had just shot at her, however, Macer doesn't really show much emotion about the experience. For being so altruistic, there is a strange ability to kill without much remorse. Then at the border, the character shoots another person, and it seems as if she is more upset. As a civilian viewer, sitting in a comfortable theater watching fiction, I would hope there be consistency of virtuous behavior from the hero, so I can still empathize with them, rather than disconnect from them. I like a complex character, like the ones in Breaking Bad, as we are all full of contradictions, but there was something missing with Kate Macer. And it would have been difficult to show her internal experience and may have slowed the story down. However, it felt like there were some missed opportunities at the beginning to make a fuller main character. But again, for me, the main character was not a person, but a presence. And so, the film still worked for me overall)
Click to expand...
I think that like Drive the story worked in a sort of Zen like way. The internal struggle is only inferred but if you get that inference it works.
for a more main stream experience it helps if the internal struggle mirrors the action. Like if Benicio was the main character and he wants revenge, then gets it. John Wick is a good example of a straight forward revenge story.
 
Tim Sewell said:
I turned John Wick off before the end - I just couldn't figure out why they even bothered making the film.
Click to expand...

I thought John Wick was one of the best action movies to come out in years. Simple and enjoyable with great cinematography and the perfect role for Keanu with minimal dialogue.
 
Yes, this is a good illustration of the controversies that happen here on dvxuser when people complain about the split between discussions of technical aspects of filmmaking and the higher level considerations. The guy who is running this analysis does focus primarily on the purely technical aspects of lighting, but there is also a side-dish of commentary on the impact of various framing and lighting choices. However, it is indeed 95% technical stuff, and maybe 5% slightly higher-level analysis. The problem arises when people come into these discussions expecting one thing, and getting another. If you are primarily interested in the technical lighting aspects of cinematography, you can certainly have that interest satisfied by the analysis in the link charliemcdanger provided above. But if you come in expecting to see a discussion of the higher-level art of photography in service of the overall film, you will be very disappointed, as there is virtually none to be had here. Typical of that missed expectation is this comment in the comments below the youtube video:

"I find it difficult to watch the whole thing, since, it's not about the cinematography. At all.When you talk about the" reflections on the chairs from the warm back wall", it's certainly not about cinematography.May be it should be titled "the properties of light" or "light on surfaces", that, I believe would be much more appropriate.If you really want to talk about the cinematography of Sicario, talk about the choice of lenses, choice of angles, and above all, the MOOD of the lighting used to convey the scene. How can this lighting translate in visual terms the emotions the character is going through. That's the only thing that is really important for telling a story in an effective way. The character's feelings. Everything else is secondary or unimportant.For your credit, you do have a good eye, and an incredible attention to detail.The only problem I see, is that with your talent, instead of dissecting the lighting, you should concentrate on how Roger Deakins achieved visually what the script was trying to say with words. Because that's what cinematography really is.It is not the reflections on chairs, not the "flat" reflections on a dull cabinet but the visual feelings. The silhouettes that demonstrate visually the disconnection of the main character with the people surrounding her, and things like that.Because that's what Deakins is great at. He is a visual master."

And there you have it. Misplaced expectations. The analyst was confining 95% of his remarks to purely lighting techniques, with 5% at best toward framing and framing effects, and the commenter wanted to know "but in service of the film how?" - which is a higher level question left unaddressed by the analyst.

It also somewhat illustrated the disconnect in the discussion of Sicario in this thread between Liam Hall and me. Liam was under the impression that I was talking about the technical aspect of Deakin's work, whereas I barely made a glancing remark about that, and concentrated on the directors's job of camera placement blocking and editing choices. Talking past each other.

Btw., in this thread I kept recommending the documentary Cartel Land, also nominated for an Oscar. In charlie's link the guy briefly mentions that Vice did a documentary interview between Deakins and the DP for Cartel Land, and indeed here it is:

https://youtu.be/JZARGFIzdN4

As you can see, Deakins is a huge fan of Cartel Land. I am telling you guys, do yourself a favor and watch Cartel Land - it is, as I keep saying, all that Sicario should have been, but was not, and I don't mean just on the technical side, but the story - by leagues. And you'll understand better my point about Sicario being a very "Hollywood" take on the Drug War. The fantastic thing about Cartel Land is that the DP there is also a huge fan of Deakins and their efforts sort of converged from opposite sides - the DP for Cartel Land tried to make his documentary more "cinematic", whereas Deakins tried to put a more "documentary" take on Sicario. I think if you watch both, you'll see what worked best. It is hugely illuminating. Again: watch Cartel Land and then talk about Sicario.
 
Alright, after reading this thread and seeing that lighting breakdown, I watched the film last night. This will be brief, crass, and probably influenced by what others have already said.

Writing: pretty rough. The cops talk in a way that sounds suspiciously like what film students think cops talk like. Listen to the garbage ADR at the end of each scene. "Two suspects in custody, sir!" "Good to see you, John." "I'm catching a red-eye back to DC tomorrow." How stilted and forced is the kid feeding his dad breakfast in bed? How phony is the gun to the throat of the agent at the end? Yes, I'm sure U.S. agents are forced into morally murky bargains with unseemly characters in real life--I doubt this involves signing affidavits with pistols to their throats. So ham-fisted.

Directing: see above. The director who believed this script had his hands full. I don't know if he was dumb enough to buy it, or just figured the audience would be. Side note: What's with the repeated push on the bodies in the wall? Yeah, we get it. We got it the first time.

Cinematography: I suspect if it weren't a name people already revere, folks would be less enthusiastic. I watched the Vice interview OC posted; my read from that is that Deakins likes the documentary more than he likes Sicario. I also think he sees the failure in verisimilitude when watching one against the other. This is not to hassle Deakins! I think he got saddled with a crap script and director.

Acting: Agree that Benicio stole it. As to the lead, I'd let her off the hook based on writing/directing.

Haven't watched the documentary yet, but definitely will now.

EDIT: Forgot to mention the soundtrack. For all the protestations of gritty realism, they sure lay it on thick with the score. Love it or not (I didn't), they go reeeeal Hollywood on this front.

MORE EDIT: I talked to retired FBI friend (El Paso office no less), and asked if it made any sense that they'd run this giant operation for one guy's revenge mission. And also if there'd ever be an affidavit-at-gunpoint situation. He said no, it's stupid, but he highly enjoyed the movie anyway.
 
Last edited:
I woke up at 2 a.m. and had this nagging thought about why Sicario irritated me so much. Here's what it is: it purports to be a serious geopolitical think piece. Watch Deakins talk about how the story is very real and he wanted it to look like a documentary. Watch Emily Blunt give somber interviews about how her character is based on a real FBI agent she spent time with. Watch the first and second acts play solemnly with the human costs and the political/moral aspects of the war on drugs.

And then watch the third act play out like a Steven Segal flick.

The movie is not only an artistic misfire; it's also a big dumb lie. Compare my friend's assessment of "who cares, it's a movie" to the statements of the people behind the film.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top