Sicario: Day of the Soldado Review

By Alex Bauman

Sicario: Day of the Soldado is the sequel to 2015's Sicario that nobody asked for. Then again, nobody was asking for a sequel to The Godfather either and that worked out pretty well. This sequel also lost two of the greatest assets from the original film: Director Denis Villeneuve (replaced by Stefano Sollima) and cinematographer Roger Deakins (replaced by Dariusz Wolski). So needless to say, I was a bit hesitant about this film once it was announced, but it certainly intrigued me. Taylor Sheridan was once again writing the screenplay and after Hell or High Water and Wind River, he had solidified himself as a screenwriter I enjoyed quite a lot. The original film was financially successful, making $84 million on a $30 million budget, but that's not the kind of success that causes a studio to demand a sequel. It seemed like Sheridan was doing a sequel because he genuinely wanted to do a sequel.

I'll give a little bit of perspective onto my thoughts on the original film before delving into the sequel for anyone curious. I think Sicario is pretty fantastic. It's led by a trio of great performances from Emily Blunt, Benicio Del Toro, and Josh Brolin, the direction and cinematography are unsurprisingly excellent, the musical score helps build tension in a subtle way, and the moral ambiguity gives the viewer a lot to think about long after the film is done. There are a few minor issues I have with the film, but the strengths greatly outweigh any flaws and I'd probably give it something close to a 9.5/10.

Soldado (because I really prefer this simple title over the one ultimately used) starts a bit rough, taking its time before reintroducing Benicio Del Toro’s Alejandro. There’s one part in the beginning I didn’t like that sorta justifies itself later but it also results in a pretty big coincidence that you just kinda have to go with. There’s also a really stupid scene of a random woman running directly towards danger with her daughter, seemingly only existing to create an emotional response. (Please see #1 at the bottom for more spoiler-heavy insights into my full thoughts on this scene).

Josh Brolin, Jeffrey Donovan, and Benicio Del Toro

That said, things improve in the middle section, which is easily the strongest. It features some good action set pieces and while there is more action than the first, it doesn’t feel like it’s completely sacrificed its roots to be a standard action flick, which is what I feared from the trailers. The acting is generally strong from everyone, though Del Toro, Brolin, and Isabela Moner (playing the daughter of a cartel leader) are the only ones with actual meat to their roles. Catherine Keener is decent with her limited character, Jeffrey Donovan has a few quips, and Elijah Rodriguez playing a teenage "coyote" is pretty uninteresting though the actor is fine, I suppose. My favorite part of the middle section is how it builds off of themes from the first film. It’s gone from bending the rules to “no rules” as we see our apparent heroes make some pretty morally questionable choices. While it never quite reaches the anxiety of the first film, there are still moments of genuine tension. (Please see #2 at the bottom for more spoiler-heavy insights into my thoughts on a specific scene in the middle section of the film).

Unfortunately the last section is pretty weak with more contrivances, an unnecessary plotline involving a teen named Miguel working as a “coyote” at the border which ends up being a lot less interesting than it sounds (basically like the Mexican cop plotline in the last film except the Mexican plotline was simultaneously more simple and emotionally involving for me), and a plotline that abruptly resolves itself in spite of leaving a lot more questions than answers. And I’m not talking about ambiguity. I mean, the way it’s resolved doesn’t make much sense to me. I can’t say I cared much for the final scene either which felt like something that could've been completely cut out and changed nothing, especially since so much is skimmed over that the film could've easily focused its time on. (Please see #3, #4, and #5 at the bottom for more spoiler-heavy insights into my thoughts on the last act of the film).

As someone who’s a big fan of Taylor Sheridan’s earlier screenplays, Soldado is easily his weakest to date and I’m genuinely surprised by how sloppy some elements of the screenplay were. Still, there are other to enjoy. Stefano Sollima is no Denis Villeneuve but it’s still a solidly shot film and Benicio Del Toro is excellent once again. It’s not as good as the first film, but I think everyone already knew that. I wish i could give it a higher rating, because if the beginning and end were as strong as the middle, this would probably be closer to an 8/10 rating from me. As it is, we have a decent crime-action film. It’s just disappointing it couldn’t be better. It’s not The Godfather Part II of 21st century sequels but it’s not complete cash-grab garbage like Speed 2. See it if you liked the first and wanna see more like it, just don’t have your expectations too high.

Rating: 6.5/10

SPOILER ALERT. I will be discussing spoilers here to elaborate on points in the review. If you don't want to be spoiled stop reading.




1."There’s one part in the beginning I didn’t like that sorta justifies itself later but it also results in a pretty big coincidence that you just kinda have to go with."
I’m referring to the whole concept of cartels smuggling jihadists over the border, since it seems so counterproductive to do something that would bring that much heat and potentially kill their American customers. There is a line from Graver giving an explanation about how if the border is tightened up, they can charge more, so i’ll give it credit for that, but I still felt relieved when it turned out the suicide bombers were U.S. citizens. That reveal even helps give more insight to Graver's character, seeing how upset he is that the narrative he set up isn't true and how he doesn't seem to care. The only problem is that it makes a really huge coincidence with the one guy who did blow himself up at the border around the same time as the suicide bombers in Kansas City.

2. I really loved the scene when after the shootout with corrupt Mexican cops, Graver’s team sees other cops asking them for help and it’s unclear if they’re also corrupt or not. While one of the Mexican cops did fire a bullet at Steve (resulting in all of the Mexican cops getting gunned down), I wonder if anyone else thought there was ambiguity over whether those guys were actually corrupt or one of them just got nervous and fired a shot. I'm not sure if Sheridan actually intended for the scene to be ambiguous or if we were supposed to assume those cops were corrupt as well, but it was easily one of my favorite moments in the theater because of how uncomfortable it made me.

3. "Unfortunately the last section is pretty weak with more contrivances, an unnecessary plotline involving a teen working as a “coyote” at the border which ends up being a lot less interesting than it sounds..."
I'll admit I never cared too much about this teen coyote storyline, even as it was obvious it was going to tie back into the main plotline. As mentioned above, it parallels the Mexican cop storyline in the first one but lacks what made it interesting. I enjoyed the Mexican cop storyline because it added dimensions to a character who would've otherwise been a flat plot device, but the film also knew to not overdo it with screentime. He pops up every once in awhile and we see a sympathetic character, a loving father and husband who may be more a victim of circumstance than anything. With the teen coyote, we briefly see his family when we first meet him, but they never appear again. Even though he seems to have a lot more screentime than the Mexican cop in the first film, I never felt like I really knew his character that well. Likewise, the contrived way he comes into the storyline where he just happened to see Alejandro briefly and then a few days later instantly recognizes the face of a guy he saw in a car for like 10 seconds, felt just kinda lazy.

4. and a plotline that abruptly resolves itself in spite of leaving a lot more questions than answers
That was really stupid when Graver just changes his mind and decides to bring Isabel into witness protection. It’s not a horrible development in theory, but how could the storyline end there? It’s not Graver’s decision to make. He’s got bosses who made it very clear they wanted her dead. He doesn’t get to just say “nah” and magically put her into witness protection. But that's it. No confrontation or argument with his bosses, no fallout for disobeying their orders. The storyline ends there.

5. "I can’t say I cared much for the final scene either which felt like something that could've been completely cut out and changed nothing, especially since so much is skimmed over that the film could've easily focused its time on."
So besides the way that the film skims over Graver somehow putting Isabel into witness protection, it felt like the only person who cared less about Miguel’s storyline than me was the film itself. So he shoots (and miraculously doesn’t kill) Alejandro, then seems like he wants out of the criminal life and jumps off of the truck. Then we cut to a year later and he’s dressed considerably more thuggish than before. So did he just change his mind? Did he call up his buddies the next day and say “Sorry about jumping out of the truck, guys. Can I still be in the gang?” What’s the point of giving him that kind of development if you’re just gonna cut to a year later and undo it? The film seems to have a sequel hook in the final scene but it's going to need to do more to make me care about Miguel in the next one if he's going to stick around.