A Politically Incorrect Film That Offers A Ringside Seat To A Futile War

The Latin word sicarius means “assassin.” Probing more deeply, we note that its root is the noun sica, which means “dagger.” It is from this grim etymology that the modern Spanish word sicario originates. When I first heard the title of this excellent 2015 film, I thought at once of daggers and assassins. The film did not disappoint. It is a harrowing tale that centers around the drug war along the US-Mexico border, and how hopeless it ultimately all seems.

The story could be taken right from today’s headlines. We, the viewers, are put in the unsuspecting shoes of an FBI agent named Kate Macer (Emily Blunt). After leading a raid on an Arizona house that hides dozens of corpses, Macer volunteers to serve in a joint task-force which promises to track down the people responsible for the murders.


Brolin: Just your friendly neighborhood agent

We immediately sense that not is all as it seems: Macer’s duties are not explicitly stated, and the man in charge, Matt Graver (Josh Brolin), seems to work for some unnamed intelligence agency. Inspiring more unease is the shadowy figure of Alejandro Gillick (Benicio del Toro), who says little; and when he does speak, he speaks in riddles. The significance of all these details does not become apparent until much later.

We are thus thrown headlong into a world where no one can be trusted, where the good guys and the bad guys are indistinguishable, and behind every turn of the maze lies another tortuous turn. “In Mexico, nothing will make sense to you at first. But in the end, you will know,” says Benicio del Toro to the bewildered Macer.

And how true that little prophecy turns out to be. For Macer gets much, much more than she bargained for. This is a first-rate thriller, and one that should not be missed. For once, law enforcement and the military behave as they do in real life, not as some Hollywood producer imagines they behave. And refreshingly, no concessions are made to political correctness.

The impression one is left with, after seeing this movie, is no hope of doing anything about the drug cartels except managing them. The statistics are incredible, and speak for themselves. While American politicians posture and grandstand about ISIS, an all-out war is raging right under their noses.

From 2006 to 2012, Mexican drug cartels killed about 60,000. In 2013, another 16,000 were added to this tally. We should keep in mind that these figures are those provided by the Mexican government, which commonly understates the real numbers. It is almost certainly half again as much, making them closer to 100,000. Many of these killings are gruesome in a way that only ISIS could appreciate: beheadings, burnings, and dismemberings are the rule, not the exception.

The cartels use child “soldiers” as couriers and for suicide missions, sometimes even harvesting their organs for sale on the black market. In the town of Iguala, the local police apparently cooperated with drug gangs in kidnapping and killing 43 students who had dared to protest against the violence.


Between 2006 and 2012, it is likely that over 6,000 Americans were killed in the US as a result of cartel-inspired violence, a number that dwarfs the number of US citizens killed by ISIS. Yet hardly any American can give the name of even one Mexican cartel, or even one cartel leader.

Cartel culture has become so embedded in the border regions that it has even begun to adopt quasi-religious overtones. Many of the killings have a ritualistic tone. Jesús Malverde is venerated in some circles as the “patron saint” of organized crime, and shrines to Santa Muerte (Saint Death) can be found in northern Mexico. To put it mildly, the atmosphere of violence and terror has generated a morbid preoccupation with death.

There seems to be little that can be done except to try to “control” the industry. This seems to be the US government’s strategy, according to a recent article in Time online. According to the article, the US actually helped the rise of the Sinaloa cartel, and assisted it in destroying its rivals.

Those who think that legalizing drugs might solve the problem overlook the fact that even if drugs were legalized, there would still be a black market for drugs and contraband. The battle would then be over pricing and getting around drug distribution regulations. The only way to stop the cartels would seem to be going after their money. But US banks operating in Mexico have not properly enforced money-laundering laws or monitored deposits with the same vigor as such things are done in the US, ensuring that the flow of cash continues unimpeded.


Del Toro: a man with a dark past

There is more than a touch of irony when one of the characters (a cartel boss) in Sicaro notes, as he talks to a US agent, “Where do you think we learned this from? We learned it from your employers.” This may be an exaggeration, but another quote from the movie is not.

“Until we can convince twenty percent of the US population to stop using drugs,” says the Josh Brolin character to Emily Blunt, “the best we can hope for is to control the trade, rather than stop it.”

It certainly seems so. With popular attention fixated on the comparatively minor and distant threat of ISIS, there seems to be little concern in the US that the very authority of the Mexican state itself is in danger of breaking down.  Film viewers can’t change political realities outside their control, but they can enjoy a well-made, intelligent cinematic production. Sicario delivers on all counts, and is not to be missed.

Read More: How Jeb Bush Destroyed The Bush Dynasty And Tanked His Campaign

184 thoughts on “A Politically Incorrect Film That Offers A Ringside Seat To A Futile War”

  1. Yes however the depiction of the lead wymyn agent/cop is highly inaccurate. She clearly isn’t cut out for a man’s work in this depressing and intense field.

    1. Personally, I thought the you-go-girlism was much different than the trailers made it seem. She got put in her place pretty quickly, and stayed there for the whole picture.

      1. I planned on boycotting this one from the “Tough Chick” Trailers, but maybe I’ll give it a go.

        1. Only in the first 10 minutes. Then reality sets in and she is put in place by josh brolin and benicio del toro.

        2. Yes, and mudsharking/tough girl wearing her combat boots around with no bra in a wife beater cause she’s so tough. Yet when shit gets real, she flakes without recourse.

        3. The movie shows the reality of it all with women thinking that they can take on combat roles (or in other words – be men).
          Women are too connected with their feelings where as men are more focused on the objective. It’s the reason why men (in this field) are made for combat and work well with other men in their unit – no feelings, take the hill objective.
          It shows, in life, how men and women are complimentary to each other (not the same or equal). More women should see this movie to get a dose of reality.

        4. There is mudsharking propaganda in it too?! I’m surprised the author left that out. How can you say this is not a PC movie when the main character is a mudsharking feminazi????

      2. That’s absolutely correct. She makes bad judgement, her emotions and her “by the book” PC approach hampers the mission and she is easily manipulated by both colleagues and cartels (motel room) + Del Toro makes it clear at the end when he tells her:
        “You will not survive here, you are not a wolf. This is the land of wolves”.

      3. The part where she pointed the pistol at Del Toro to prove a point as he walked away was BS, girl get back in the kitchen or learn you only point when you’re going to fire

    2. It was still a good film, but yes, she was out of place. Also, while it was a good film, I differ slightly from Quintus’ analysis that it portrayed law enforcement accurately. To me, it was too much 007 glorification when there is very little of that in real police work. But I suppose the scenes were not impossible. The chick, however, simply didn’t belong in the jobs she found herself in. That being said, I’m sure affirmative action and other policies put people like her in all sorts of positions they don’t belong in, so in that sense it was quite accurate. For a good luck at the cartels the Netflix series Narcos is hard to beat. You won’t find any women there who are out of place.

  2. the noun sica, which means “dagger.”
    From the root word for swordsmen from the Germanics, coming from Saxony. SiCa, SaXOn. Saxe (sica, very similar), Seax (knife that Saxons carried, hence their name).
    Spaniards, the non Moors are mostly Visigoths and Latins (Romans). Visigoths being “Western Goths”. Germanics at least in a partial sense, with many Saxons showing up.
    Etymology, it’s not just for breakfast any more!
    Those who think that legalizing drugs might solve the problem overlook
    the fact that even if drugs were legalized, there would still be a black market for drugs and contraband.

    No such market for homebrew beer (the equivalent) although brewpubs have popped up legitimately from hombrewers. But they’re legal.
    I find drug use revolting. As long as we go leftist we’re going to see more and more of it (Soma). That said, the drug war is destroying the Constitution like a giant shredder. The bullshit that became the Patriot Act came from the WOD.

    1. I agree, but sadly I observe that the war on drugs is such a cash industry for the law enforcement/security/prison industrial complex that it’s not going anywhere soon. And even more sadly, conservatives enable this shredding of the Constitution because drugs are bad and cops can do no wrong or some such.

      1. Asset Forfeiture, a concept that would find the FF’s in total revolt, is now “the law of the land” despite being illegal. I agree with your analysis.

        1. Oh yeah. I feel maximum rage when a “conservative” tells me something along the lines of “if you don’t want your stuff stolen, don’t do bad things.”
          OR, how about the government fuck off and follow the fifth amendment regardless of whether my property was used to commit a crime. Revolutionary, I suppose…

        2. Asset forfeiture is a scourge on society. Also “for profit” prison is the same, IMHO. There should be NO profit motive, what so ever, for locking someone up. If you want to fine someone, take the money and light it on fire. Don’t put it “back into the court system” or “give it to the police”. No, no, no. It’s a punishment, NOT a new stream of revenue.
          Remove the profit motive and you’ll solve most of the problems. Remove the ability of the state the press charges (except in the case of children or murder) and you’ll remove the rest of the problem. The concept of the “state” being “injured” by you doing something is the cause of most ridiculous laws. Want to charge me with driving like an asshole, find someone on the road to press charges. And no, that’s not impossible, I’ve called the cops a few times when someone was driving really poorly and would happily stand up in court and say this person needs to be punished.

        3. I feel maximum rage when a “conservative” tells me something along the
          lines of “if you don’t want your stuff stolen, don’t do bad things.”

          Yeah I know what you mean. The naivety of that view is laughable. They just simply assume LE is something out of the old Chips series or something. Those idiots watch way too much TV.

        4. Yeah, I’m always amazed that these people cling to this view even after it has been proven that the people whose stuff was stolen didn’t actually do any bad things and still had their stuff stolen.
          If I use my car to smuggle drugs, I’m guilty of smuggling and should pay the price for it (I think drugs should be legalized, just making a point). But the law says the “price” is prison. If I paid for my car, it belongs to me, and the government doesn’t get to fucking keep it just because I did something bad with it. Once it is no longer needed as evidence, the ownership should revert to me immediately, and there should be a time frame for how long they can withhold your own property from you.
          Another thing these derp-servatives overlook is that “your” property can be stolen by the government if “someone else” uses it to commit a crime. So if your buddy borrows your car and uses it to smuggle drugs unbeknownst to you, the government can steal the car you paid for. So what these dumbfucks believe is not even true, in the most literal sense. You can never do bad things and still have your stuff stolen.
          This is why democracy is retarded.

        5. I agree entirely, but get off the “conservative’s say” tripe. Fact of the matter, is far more conservatives – and libertarians – agree with you than liberals or any other political slant.

    2. I brewed 5 gallons of Kolsch a while back and the ingredients cost about $35 in a kit. At wholesale prices lets say that cost about $15 so 2 cases of beer cost $15. Now add the bottles and caps and we’re at $20 but let’s just say that it only cost $5 for 2 cases of beer. I can sell that beer for $40 pretty easily, for a tidy profit of $35
      In the same space as 2 cases of beer I could hold approximately 10 kilos of methamphetamine give or take. So 10,000 grams of meth take up the same space as 2 cases of beer. At $20 a gram for meth we are looking at $200,000
      That is where your example is far from equivalent, and why Mexican’s deal meth instead of bootlegging beer.

      1. Meth costs almost nothing to make. Take away government bans and “watches” and you can make meth for pennies on the dollar with 1990’s prices (pre-ban on buying lots of OTC drugs without ID check).

        1. And that is exactly the point. The companies that provide it legally would incur the taxes (which would be the biggest expense) as well as marketing costs.
          So even if they sold it for $1 a gram legally, bootleggers could sell it for 50 cents a gram. And 10 kilos, which would take up the same space as 2 cases of beer would yield a profit of several thousand dollars.
          $3000 profit for bootlegging meth vs. $35 profit for bootlegging beer is hardly equivalent, and if meth were legalized bootleggers would be making the shit out of it.
          This is why “Those who think that legalizing drugs might solve the problem overlook the fact that even if drugs were legalized, there would still be a black market for drugs and contraband.” is correct.
          Your libertarian ideas are flawed.

        2. I agree with you that there would still be a black market, but I’m not sure I agree with your assessed impact. When it’s legal to make, why should I risk prison and death for one tenth the profit I could make legally (I realize your numbers include costs on top of profit). Also, why do you think there won’t be pressure for the legal market to compete with black market prices?
          Again, I agree about the existence of black markets. They exist for everything from drugs to stereos and sex to cigarettes. But for markets where a legal analog exists, the black markets aren’t as extensive or violent.

        3. “Your libertarian ideas are flawed.”
          I disagree, and your example above does not pass muster when compared to other legal drugs. Oxycontin can be made in a lab for pennies on the dollar compared to what it costs in the drugstore. However, no cartels (as far as we know) make this drug, they make heroin because it’s illegal and has the max profit margin for them.
          Once a drug becomes legal, it’s very difficult to make a profit bootlegging it; people generally want to follow the law, give them an option to do so (even if it costs a bit more) and they will. Sure, there are people who brew “shine” today; and people who drink it. But 99%+ of the booze consumed in the US comes from the legal sources, not from bootleggers. I have no reason to believe this wouldn’t be the case after a full legalization of drugs.
          The other example for this is pot in California; most of the small suppliers are gone; people are going to the stores and buying the legal/taxed weed, even if it’s a bit more expensive. The black market is all but dead in that state for MJ, I suspect the cartels have stopped importing any significant amounts to CA at all.

        4. Not really. You can buy marijuana legally for $50-$60 for an eighth of an ounce, or $40 for the same amount, illegally. Plenty of small time guys still selling and making a profit over the state.

        5. speaking of heisenberg- I havent seen him post anything in months

        6. LOL. It’s the small time growers in Cal that supply the dispensaries and weed is EVERYWHERE on the street. Never underestimate the negros desire for chronic, not to mention the Mex.
          I live right by the shops and know people in the industry. There is a HUGE black market for weed, no pun intended.

        7. This is pretty interesting regarding the approach in Singapore. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jun/05/singapore-policy-drugs-bay
          Harsh but effective, and yet a few people still smuggle, sell and use drugs even knowing the possible risk of death. Legalization of heroin, cocaine and meth would simply flood our communities with highly addictive substances when we have enough of a problem with booze.
          Hard drugs are a scourge to humanity. I am actually in favor of legalized cannabis, just not in public spaces and with very harsh punishment for sales to children under 21
          I would tend to agree with you about being less violent due to the decrease in high profit margin, but I think people overlook the damage that these drugs cause. Not much difference between dying from an overdose or being shot when the end result is dead.
          This is coming from a former lib who has turned full Fascist.

        8. I don’t disagree that hard drugs are a scourge to humanity, generally, but I disagree that legalization would flood our communities.
          First, it’s already there. I’m not aware that any drug is difficult to procure anywhere at all. So this isn’t going to make something available where it previously wasn’t available, it’s going to make something visible where it previously was invisible or obscured. As to this visibility, I don’t know that it should be assumed this is bad. Perhaps it would be illuminating to be able to easily identify that someone is a fuck-up because they are also an addict.
          Second, admittedly, this is just my own anecdotal experience, but I don’t know a single person who doesn’t use hard drugs just because they are illegal. In other words, I don’t know anyone who, if heroin were legalized tomorrow, would decide that they’re going to start using it just because they could now legally do so.
          Third, most of these drugs were legal in the past and were criminalized for racist or paternalistic reasons. So long as I know the risks, I don’t need some bureaucrat telling me what I can or cannot do with my own body. As for my children, they too will make their own choices, and though I would hope that they choose not to use drugs, I would much rather live in a world where I only have to face the potential consequences of use and addiction, and not have to face all of that plus prison and violence.

        9. You make some interesting points.
          I find this compelling. http://sortocracy.org/about-sortocracy/
          The concept is that we form test governments on a small scale and that people will naturally choose the government that appeals most to them. I believe that was the original concept of States which would then form a Union for greater protection.
          I choose Fascism with a strong leadership principle.

    3. In the article, there’s a link to a very good study in “Foreign Policy” that has a big discussion on why legalization would not stop the cartels. They are in the “empire” business, not just the drug business. They are moving into everything. It’s a good article, and worth reading.
      (But note: you can only access it one time. If you navigate away from the page, they don’t let you read it again.)

      1. This is somewhat true, but it would certainly cut the legs out from under them. There are lots of other crimes they could/would commit, no doubt. But none of those crimes pay anywhere near as well as drug trafficing. Murder for hire might pay a 10’s of thousands, but that’s peanuts compared to the millions they make for a single successful drug shipment. Also, perhaps .01% of the US would hire someone to kill another person, compared to the 10% (probably low) who use illegal drugs.

        1. Agreed. The idea that these drug cartels would still exist to anywhere near the degree they do now without the drug war is laughable. You can’t make the mountains of cash they make if it’s legal.

        2. The Mafia existed and was powerful long after prohibition was over turned. It will take a combination of cutting off the best money source, drug trafficking, and long term policing efforts on both sides of the border to get rid of the scourge.

      2. I just read it. It is an interesting article. They list the other lines of business the cartels are getting into, all of which have a genesis in government restricting something. It concludes with targeting cartel finances as the best solution. I am dubious as they cite the examples of Wachovia and HSBC getting away with laundering. I remember Lanny Davis testifying before congress and stating that no executives went to prison at HSBC because that would “disrupt the market.” There are too many people in our own government and corporations that are making too much money fighting the war on drugs. They are addicted to the cash like the meth heads to crank.
        Legalization will help. Changing the focus of immigration enforcement from the border to the companies that hire illegals will help. Prosecuting sanctuary cities will help. Ending welfare for illegals will help. But again, lots of money being made by lots of people in the current situation. Maybe the article is another smokescreen to ban cash so the Fed can go NIRP and every financial transaction we make can be controlled. And the narcos will find a way to profit from that, too.

      3. Even if drugs were legalized something else would be illegal…these things go in cycles. It’d be funny you go to the corner store to buy weed and the cops break into your house later that day because your neighbor ratted you out for having red meat in your fridge.

      4. I think we should try drug legalization as a national experiment. Give it 10 to 15 yr trial. Treat it like an addiction or a public health problem. Still keep impairment laws while driving etc. It might reduce the violence and savagery of the drug trade. But would have to be prepared for massive increase in drug use. Who doesn’t think that if drugs are made legal and more available that their use won’t skyrocket. We can’t get people to stop eating chips for fuck’s sake can you imagine if oxycontin were available???

    4. > “Spaniards, the non Moors are mostly Visigoths and Latins (Romans)”
      In Spain there’s almost no Arabic blood. Arabic people were wiped out after The Reconquest and kicked back to Africa (a lesson to learn here for the current world). Genetically, we’re closer from English and Irish people than from continental Europe, specially in the North (culturally, that’s another story).
      Right now, you’ll find far more arabic blood in France or Germany than in Spain.

      1. The early Iberians were Celtic tribes just like pre-Roman France/Gaul. The bagpipe is native to northern Spain. That is an unfortunate byproduct of Celtic culture.

        1. Thats fascinating- did the bagpipe originate in Spain, or did it makes its way there from Scotland?

        2. Neither of them. It seems that the origin was french and from there, it reached north of Spain and the islands.
          In general the Scottish one is the most known because (let’s be honest), its sounds is deeper and more beautiful.
          To see the differences, this is a song from a very popular spanish bagpiper, Carlos Nuñez. Here he uses the spanish bagpipe at the song’s beginning.

          Scottish bagpipe, amazingly beautiful, in one of my favourite songs, Farewell to Govan

          Davy Spillane, an irish musician, playing irish bagpipe in Midnight Walker, an amazing song

          And the french bagpipe or cornemuse, typical from Bretagne, in a song from Gwendal (one of the most important groups of celtic french music, though they rarely use this instrument)

    5. Those who think that legalizing drugs might solve the problem overlook the fact that even if drugs were legalized, there would still be a black market for drugs and contraband.
      No such market for homebrew beer (the equivalent) although brewpubs have popped up legitimately from hombrewers. But they’re legal.
      That said, the drug war is destroying the Constitution like a giant shredder. The bullshit that became the Patriot Act came from the WOD.

      Yup. While I also find drug use disgusting fighting a war over a plant is idiotic. It only causes death and empowers illegal activity. Alcohol prohibition is living proof of that. It has also been the main cause of creating a police state in the US. Not smart.

  3. Quintus, good write up. I too enjoyed this film immensely. I would, however quibble over your observations on legalization. To be sure, black markets will always exist, but they would be significantly less violent. I don’t see why Prohibition is not the model? Once gone, sure the mob continued, but in a much diminished state. Perhaps there’s something different in the narcotics trade, but I fail to see how legalization could make it worse.

    1. I say either outlaw alcohol again, or legalize drugs. This hypocricy where some are perfectly fine but others, often far less dangerous, are banned is nutty.

        1. I’m a bit torn on the whole issue. Are we talking about all drugs or just a few like marijuana?
          If we’re just talking about marijuana, then when it gets legalized, I imagine the Mexican drug cartels will just shift their focus to the next drug down the line (crack, meth, etc). We’d essentially just keep chasing the ball until everything was legalized.
          That being said, what are the ramifications IF all drugs were legalized all at once? That sounds might risky to me, but perhaps I’m being paranoid.
          The thought of hamstringing the drug cartels so the USA could focus on other things would be nice though.

        2. All drugs were legal in 1880.
          Today, good question, but I’m of the mind that letting leftists get totally strung out and useless is a good thing.

        3. America was 90+% white in 1880. It’s difficult to implement a libertarian paradise when you have huge populations of drug-trading Mexicans in your country.

    2. Read the article that I link to in my review here. It’s the one in “Foreign Policy” magazine. They explain why legalization will not stop the cartels. It’s about empire now, not just drugs.

    1. The Counselor is brutal. Talk about staying away from dangerous/damaged women!
      Bardem talking about his gf portrayed by Diez(paraphrasing here)
      “A man’s fatal error is to believe he can change a damaged woman; he cannot, for they do not want to be changed, they merely want to be entertained.”

  4. With due respect to the writer, ALL major films released by Hollywood are politically correct, and ALL of them are stuffed with Cathedral propaganda. This turkey is no exception.
    Main villain is a White male? Check.
    Main protagonist is a bad-ass you-go-girl PowerBitch? Check.
    Minorities are excused for their crimes because they “learned it from the White man”? Check.
    The real problem is the system? Check.
    Embracing a morally ambiguous attitude? Check.
    There is plenty that can be done to immediately cripple the cartels, but of course the powers that be are benefiting immensely from the situation so why would they try to fix it? The producers of this movie could have raised several points that they chose not to.
    The first step to stopping the problem is obviously to seal off the border and deport the criminals that currently reside in the USA. That is a no-brainer. From there, several other obvious steps could be taken to completely eliminate the problem of Mexican drug cartels. It’s not hopeless at all – they would just rather you think it is.

    1. As the author indicates, around 20% of Americans are currently using these illicit drugs. Are we going to “deport” or exile all of these criminals too? That’s quite a tall order. Prohibition only works in extreme police states (and never fully). The US is not there yet.

      1. It doesn’t even work in Saudis Arabia, for that matter both Iran and Afghanistan have serious heroine problems.

        1. interestingly, alcohol is banned in Iran – but they legalized weed a few years ago.

        2. So I guess potheads can add Iran to their bucket list after Amsterdam.

        3. Could be one intelligent decision; anyone with half a brain can see that liquor is far more dangerous than pot. I think everything should be legalized, but, if you’re going to be selective, let’s start with the low risk stuff. All the psychedelics (mushrooms, LSD, MDMA, etc), pot and other “hippie” drugs (ketamine, NO2, etc) are typically the least dangerous.
          Cocaine is probably next up on the danger list, very addictive, but many people use it in moderation without a serious problem.
          And then, last up would be the pure feel good drugs. Pretty much all the opiates (heroin, etc) and stuff like meth. These have an incredibly high addiction potential and can be devastating to many people. I still think they should be legal because I don’t morally agree with legislating morality in any shape or form. But, we have to be honest with ourselves, legalizing drugs like this is going to result in a LOT more addiction and harm from the drugs. It will also result in a much freer society and lot less harm from the police/legal system, so there is some balancing effect there.

      2. I never said we were going to eliminate 100% of drug use. What I said was we could CRIPPLE THE CARTELS. I also did not call for prohibition. Again, I called for crippling the cartels.

        1. Who is going to be providing the drugs to the users then, if not the cartels? The answer, historically, has been: New Cartels.

    2. Revenant
      The Matrix (part one)
      Sin City
      Captain and Commander

      Not “ALL” but close.

        1. Good catch, thank you for the correction.
          Does Apocalyptico fall into that?

        2. just watched it and yup. Mayan civilisation was mostly patriarchal with a few exceptions. In the film women are either trophies, prisoners or wives/mothers. The main male character is clearly the provider and protector of his pregnant wife and child. No inspirational women there.

      1. Conan – 1982
        The Last Samurai – 2003
        Carlito’s Way – 1993
        The Count of Monte Cristo – 2002
        13th Warrior – 1999
        Mystic River – 1999
        Heat – 1995
        Hoffa – 1992
        Personal favorite actors :
        Sylvester Stallone – most of his movies try to uplift;
        Marlon Brando – the incarnation of masculinity;
        Mel Gibson – this guy can be summed up as an excellent student of the neo-masculine, and a good character study.
        When I first saw the movie Highlander, taking that I was just a kid, I recognized something extremely admirable in Christopher Lambert’s character. I did not know what it was, until I discovered ROK – masculinity.
        And a small personal favourite, cheezy, but still a favourite.

        1. Again, all of these are more than a decade old, before the SJW fever really took hold. Even still, all of them have little PC digs sprinkled throughout them, it just isn’t as in-your-face as it is today.

      2. It’s very telling that the majority of films in your list were made more than a decade ago.

    3. Not sure about this. Mexico has been lawless forever. As noted in the movie, President Taft visited Juarez one hundred years ago and even then took 4000 soldiers for protection.
      Are 99% of Hollywood movies politically correct? Sure. I agree.
      But we have to at least recognize the ones that are far better than the average, like this one.
      I think this is actually an anti-girl power movie. The final scene of Del Toro is utterly devastating to the PC narrative, since he totally establishes his mastery over her.
      And yes, things can be done to hurt the cartels, and those things are noted in the articles I linked to in the review. But they would involve going after the cartel money and money launderers, and they have not done that yet. I suspect US banks are also deeply involved in this chicanery.

      1. This is going to be about as popular as a vote for Hillary..
        Look at the “backwards” countries in the world. What do almost all of them share in common? Well, for one, almost all of them are in temperate areas with an abundance of resources. And, because of that (IMHO), there wasn’t the same evolutionary pressure to raise intelligence as there was in the colder/harsher areas. Places that are shitholes today are generally inhabited mostly by low IQ people. Note that this is not “all” places that are shitholes, but, by and large, most of them this holds true.
        The simple fact is that places like Mexico exist because most of the people who live there aren’t very smart and/or educated. If they were, they could either GTFO or start to change their country from the inside. When you’re dealing with an less intelligent population the only way to rule is by fear and with overt displays of power.
        Think about training a dog/cat vs a child. You can reason with the child and have a well behaved person without every laying a hand on them. With a dog, get out the choke collar and milkbones, the only thing they will be able to understand is pain and pleasure. In many ways, this analogy holds for the less intelligent in the world; they simply don’t understand the higher concepts that many of the 1st world countries try to push forward. And, I’m not sure they ever will; places that are low IQ have been shitholes forever; until you start to bring better genetic stock in, I don’t know that you can fix this problem.

        1. What you’re saying is not controversial at all. It is perfectly sensible, and accepted science among those who have removed their PC blinders. There are some, even in the manosphere, who cling to myths about human inequality, but the simple truth is pretty close to what you laid out.

      2. I am not concerned with Mexico’s problems. I am concerned with insulating US Citizens from negative consequences that result from those problems.
        When the IRS decided they needed to steal more revenue from global citizens, they passed the banking laws known as FATCA, which now makes it nearly impossible for a typical American to open a checking account in a foreign country.
        When the will is there, the people will force the politicians to act. That is quite a different thing from there being no solutions available.

    4. Do you even realize what you’re saying and how impractical it is? Seal the borders and deport all criminals currently residing in the U.S.A. Cool, how do you do that? Prevent the cartels from smuggling in drugs and people? Cool how do you that? We’re not talking about your local gangbangers here, we’re talking about highly motivated organizations with an income stream of upwards of 64$ Billion who WILL push their products no matter how many barriers you put up.
      Problem with a lot of people on the internet is that a lot of their “obvious steps” have no substance and are completely impractical. I’m really curious as to the 100% fool proof way you’d eliminate the cartel problem. I mean, you must be some kind of genius, no one has managed to come up with a plan so far so go for it

      1. If a country’s main (serious) focus was to guard a border, then it can be done. Two examples: the Soviet Union and the recent border erected in Hungary (in response to the illegal immigrants crossing).
        The exception: the Soviets wanted to keep people in versus out but you get the idea. No one stepped near or crossed that border for fear of losing their lives. The Soviets didn’t fuck around with anyone (shot first, no questions).
        We have plenty of resources in the U.S. to guard that southern border but many don’t want it “guarded” for various reasons.

      2. The majority of the deportation comes from self-deportation once you simply begin enforcing existing laws that are already on the books. The problem is that those who we entrusted to enforce our laws have chosen instead to look the other way, and the court system who we trust to prosecute criminals has become incredibly lax as well, infiltrated with Marxist subversives.
        As soon as the people become resolved in their will to face the problem and defeat it, it will be done.
        As for specifics, this isn’t the place for that. I have tons of specific, detailed policies, but I’m not laying them out in a comment section about a different topic.

  5. I saw this exceptional movie last week. As the author hints, it totally subverts the SJW narrative. You will note on Rottentomatoes, the only reviewers who hate it are SJW apparatchiks who decry the lack of a proper kickassgotankgrll role for Emily Blunt.
    Doesn’t matter to them that it’s a raw, riveting story.
    Benicio’s performance is Oscar-worthy.
    When Kate (Blunt) goes off and lands a haymaker on Matt (Brolin), she gets her ass handed to her, while her white knight affirmative-action sidekick get his ass handed to him by special forces operators when he tries to intervene. It’s eminently satisfying for it’s raw and real and authentic portrayal, not the fantasy SJW’s want to see where women kick men’s asses who are 2x their weight.

    1. I suspect I have to see this now based on your comments.

      1. Added to Netflix queue, seems right up my alley, I loved Traffic; this sounds like a similar theme, perhaps even more well done.

      2. The title of this article says it all. It really is a politically incorrect film. And much more realistic than the usual bullshit that Hollywood tends to churn out. Definitely not a feel good movie where the kick-ass chick saves the day

      3. Based on the initial trailers I thought it was another “girl power” movie. the trailers seemed to focus on Emily Blunt’s character as some bad ass agent kicking ass and taking names. However, it was anything but.

    2. i’ve heard revenent is also a 0.0% girl power film. makes me want to check it out in the theater, something i do very rarely. my coworkers have been raving about deadpool, but i hear that colossus, my favorite x-man, gets beat up by a girl in it, which is enough to make me want to stay away. i’d love to see a list maintained somewhere on the manosphere of 0% girl power films.

      1. ”i’d love to see a list maintained somewhere on the manosphere of 0% girl power films.”
        Great idea…
        I’ve quit watching movies altogether for a very very long time for the very reason of ”girl power” being present in each and every movie. But I definitely require a bit of entertainment now and then… And I don’t want to watch Papillon and Godfather over and over again.
        Such a list would be hugely appreciated.

        1. an article on the worst girl power offenders would be good too. had i more time, i might write it myself. some candidates i can think of off the top of my head:
          1) mad max: feminist road (sidlined mad max in his own movie in favor of a warrior princess)
          2) the hobbit (the heresy of “correcting” tolkien by adding a superfluous warrior princess character)
          3) john carter.
          about #3, i know no one cared about that movie, but it’s based on some of the greatest, most masculine fantasy adventure novels ever written, edgar rice burrough’s mars series. they were huge inspirations for me as a kid and i lay the blame for ruining the movie and ensuring that the books will be forgotten entirely on feminism.
          the most glaring problem was turning the female lead (actually a nuanced, strong character in the books) into a cliched warrior princess who can compete physically with john carter himself, which makes absolutely no sense in the context of the story, where john carter is essentially a superhero because he’s an earthman operating in mars’ lower gravity.
          beyond that, hollywood is (rare exceptions noted) just incapable of reproducing the beautiful, masculine savagery of early twentieth century pulp fiction, so the movie ended up as a silly, campy romp rather than the intense, bloody, masculine adventure story in the books.

        2. I see. I never watched that movie (but I just googled it and I see what you mean).
          Ah well… If I ever get into watching movies again, they definitely won’t be hollywood movies.
          Actually it’s not just the girl power, but also the exaggeration of the use of effects as well as simply too much action that makes hollywood movies repulsive to me.
          I enjoy simple, boring movies without much drama but with nice hidden messages in it.
          Knowing that you have learnt something new after watching a movie is a very rare occassion these days, I think.

        3. I read the book for the first time just before the movie came out and it is great. I want to read the rest of the Mars books and add Burroughs’ Tarzan to the list as well.

        4. yes, excessive girl is certainly not the only problem with hollywood.
          i prefer story-driven, deeper stuff too, like the cohen brothers’ movies (no country for old men, fargo, and burn after reading are my favorites) and ingmar bergman’s stuff (e.g. the seventh seal and wild strawberries).

        5. all of burrough’s mars novels are excellent. i believe that if hollywood had just followed the books and captured their spirit, with all the grim violence and no girl power, they would probably have a cash cow on their hands, and we’d all be looking forward to third film, “the warlord of mars” right now.

        6. John Carter was great. I loved that film. I get that they ‘toned down’ the masculine savagery but all they did was make Dejah more of a scientist and less of a screaming Fay Wray character…if they made that film as brutal as the pulp fictions would have it they’d have to make it a hard “R” and until Deadpool, Hollywood had convinced itself no one sees those films.

        7. good point, maybe post-deadpool a faithful adaption of “a princess of mars” would have worked.
          did you read the book by the way? the film had potential in some places, but i think i hated it because i compare it to the book. there was no reason (other than feminism) to make dejah thoris into a warrior princess. it made no sense in the context of the fictional world the movie takes place in, and she was already a genuine strong female character in the books: competent scientist and diplomat, and she bravely stands up to the green martians under threat of torture. she can’t compete physically with john carter.
          i hated how they made the green martians kind of campy and silly in the film too, whereas they are stone cold terrifying in the book.

      2. Any X-man that falls to the legacy virus is no X-man at all! And way too submissive to Kitty Pride. We all know Jubilee is the best X-(wo)Man ever.

        1. i stopped reading after 1990, so everything after that is apocrypha for me. 1980s colossus was bad ass. well, at least as i remember him. i should go back and read some classic x-men and see if it still holds up.

        2. Apocryphal x-men, I like it haha. I was a 90s and early 00s reader, though I do have a few 80’s comics. Colossus is in my top x-men as well. I didn’t think they did him justice in the movies.

      3. He holds back in the beginning, but doesn’t lose the fight. Overal it’s one of the most entertaining superhero movies.

        1. that’s good to hear. maybe i should check it out. especially good if they make it clear he’s holding back.

        2. He is a guy who is aware of his strength and will only use it if it’s absolutely necessary. And he kind of holds back against the chick because she is a chick. Oh well …

      4. I highly recommend you watch the Revenant. I watched it twice in theaters and I never do that

        1. sounds good. i really like leo as an actor anyway. he my be the greatest american actor of our time.

      5. Just before the Oscars I watched a commercial for Revenant. I don’t watch any TV directly. I always digitally record it and then skip the commercials. Even then I typically watch only the history channel(s) and AHC or some reruns of shows from the 60s (before the mandatory feminist gogrrrlism). I chose to watch the ad. In it the announcer said it was such a feminist movie. This went against everything I had read on the manosphere. I guess they were just pushing a false narrative to get the Academy votes.

      6. Deadpool is overhyped schlock that runs on SJW fuel. Colossus was for me the best part as he is a faithful depiction of the character (in comparison to the X-Men films) but yes, Piotr getting his ass handed to him by a female was ludicrous. However, he does ultimately gain the upper hand.

      7. My 2 cents about Deadpool from a neomasculine perspective;
        1. The whole movie could be summed up as “love conquers all”. The main storyline is about Wade getting revenge on Francis for disfiguring him, which takes him away from his girlfriend (a prostitute). In the end they get together (surprise surprise). In the comics he breaks up with her. Which ending do you think has more impact??
        2. In the comics, Wade is insane. Schizo. Hears multiple voices. Part of his insanity is that he will have sex with anything (he is currently married to a demon). What the SJW’s would call “pansexual”. I am relieved they didn’t bring that into the movie.
        3. There is lots of the ultra-violence and death and very bad language, however they tried very very hard for this to only be against men. Every female character remains largely untouched (Colossus versus strong woman: he only hits her back very begrudgingly and is nearly killed but saved by the chick with the shaved head. Wade is similarly saved by his girlfriend. Because GGRRRLLLLLPOWER!!!!). Of course there are only about 4 female characters in the whole movie, but surely somewhere there are people complaining about lack of “diversity”.
        It’s not a bad movie and it definitely funny. Like many of today’s movies though, it does have an agenda that is hard to ignore.

        1. thanks for the info. i don’t know, maybe i’ll have to go with my instincts and be an elitist snob who refuses to like what the masses like. heh.

      8. I’m hesitant to see Revenant, but several people here endorse it, so I’ll have to check it out.

      9. I saw Revenent and it’s not a chick flick, they only flash Leo’s wife in the beginning of the movie and throughout it a few times. It’s a couple hours long, if you know anything about the history of French fur traders and the Indians it will help you figure it out since there is no information given to you about the movie. The movie is about survival of the fittest and honesty! Some hard to believe parts but a good movie!

    3. It was great also to see the total amorality of the film, it doesn’t try to make it “good guys vs. bad guys”.

    4. someone mentioned Tank Girl? I loved that film…no the character in it is NOT a ‘mary sue’ — she keeps getting her ass kicked early on. And spare me that it’s not ‘realistic’ — it takes place in a post-apocalyptic wasteland featuring evolved intelligent kangaroos.

      1. Why is that a great movie? Water wars. We arent far away from this

    5. Saw this last month, def Oscar-worthy and refreshing to see a movie so raw that had the incredible backing as this did.

    6. Right on. I am so sick of movies that show a girl single handedly kick the shit outta 5 Navy Seals. This movie was accurate …Josh Brolin easily subdues Blunt’s character with one arm. That’s reality…

    7. It’s all fiction friendo. You think any one of those people really care ??? I mean really the whole her white knight affirmative-action sidekick get his ass handed to him like thats some big victory they don’t care they’re rich and don’t care about what any of think.
      Keep this in mind “Man is Affected not by events, but by the view he takes of them.

  6. I love it that you wrote about this movie because I was just thinking last night that I should write about it in light of all the snubs it got at the Oscars. It should have been nominated for best picture. My theory is that the lack of love from the Academy is due to the fact that it is an accidental two hour advertisement for Donald Trump. There was this lame message in the film about moral ambiguity in the drug war, about how the USA’s hands aren’t clean, about how Josh Brolin and the CIA were bad just like the cartels because what they were doing by secretly going into Juarez was illegal, etc. And all that was horseshit. Because at the end of the day, all the movie was about was good guys with guns bending the law in order to kill bad guys who skin people alive and kill innocent people. Plus, I love that it was set up to be some grrl power bullshit but then the movie was nothing but Emily Blunt not being tough enough to be involved in a dangerous, masculine profession.
    Like The Wire, the messages they communicate are internally inconsistent. The overt message of both is that “the system” is corrupt and fuels the drug war and that we white people need to feel guilty about it, but by accurately portraying the brutality of inner city Blacks and Mexican cartels, the stories in fact become good guy cops vs. barbarian minority drug dealers. You can’t have a scene where a a swat team finds a house full of 30 dead bodies of people murdered by a cartel, a scene where naked, decapitated bodies hang from a bridge to scare locals into not cooperating with police, and a scene where some Mexicans attempt to murder a bunch of Navy Seals and then have me to go boo hoo when the CIA breaks the rules.

    1. Hm, I didn’t come to the same conclusion about the film as you did. I’m not even sure I could identify the “good guys” versus the bad at the end.
      The Wire was an amazing work, and a great commentary on America, and especially Balt’more.

  7. Saw the movie. Pretty good overall. The girl’s part is wholly unnecessary and looks like it was shoehorned in to have a “strong woman” in it. Could have been deleted to make the movie much better.

    1. 99% of movies these days. Thank God Revenant made it to the screen.
      Strange that spell check finds an ancient word so troublesome.

    2. Agreed. It should have been a male lead. An actor like Mark Ruffalo or Jason Patrick would have done a good job. But it’s still Hollywood.
      Still, I think you’ll find that the director slyly undermined the entire “girl power” narrative here. The final scene is just fantastic, as Del Toro totally establishes his mastery over her in every way. The scene has clear sexual overtones, and this is what SJWs found disturbing: a man laying down the law to a clueless woman. This movie is very, very subversive.

      1. I noticed the sexual aspect too. The “posture” Del Toro took when he “interrogated” the cartel dude was the same posture he took when he confronted Blunt.

    3. Respectfully, when I saw the phrase ‘politically incorrect’ in the title of this article, I assumed it was in reference to how weak they made the female character.
      She is ‘strong’ and ‘in control’ for about 5 minutes of the movie. After that she is a mess. She can’t even keep her panties on – and they bank on this to set the trap.
      Side note – I’m of the opinion that her character is a proxy for ‘all of us’ and the limited understanding of this conflict that is typically present.

  8. Yes, legalization would not eliminate the black market, but it would seriously limit it. Drug use is awful, but the war on drugs has been a colossal failure and a waste of billions of taxpayer dollars.
    Creating a legitimate private market will significantly decrease the illicit cartels’ income, and in turn, render them far less powerful.
    I don’t agree with prostitution, but the above holds true. Quit wasting money jailing desperate betas and create a legit private market (where it’s in the best interest for companies to take care of their girls, not abuse them like pimps do, and have them regularly tested to help prevent the spread of STDs). Could you imagine the Yelp reviews if fifty guys get the clap from the same whore house?
    There will still be girls selling their bodies independent of private companies, but the black market will suffer if it is legitimized.

  9. There’s already small neighborhoods around houston that are like a miniature Juarez. People really dont understand immigration but ive seen it with my own eyes. In 20 years ive seen booming towns degrade into nothing but taco trucks, whorehouses, and tire shops. Those whorehouses, its nothing but 14 year old girls. Mexicans like them young. Those tire shops, all fronts for illegal activity.
    Living in texas, we hear about stuff thats depicted in this movie all the time. This is a great movie. Only thing that was off was our 106 lbs “door kicker” but hollywood is hollywood.

    1. They like them young because the younger the girl the less likely she carries a disease. This is why in 19th century Britain men would request virgins at whorehouses. In order to prevent the trade in young girls as hookers they created the age of consent (now at age 16).
      However, the reason for the age of consent is now long forgotten which is why Adam Johnson is in serious trouble for an apparently mutually consensual relationship with a 15 year old girl. It is not claimed that he had sex with her but rather that he “groomed” her and kissed her with sexual intent.
      This is how laws take on a life of their own and create their own reason for being.

  10. If Donald Trump as US president is serious about building a wall along the US southern border, he’ll be dead before the first mile is completed.

      1. He no longer uses a SS security detail- he employs his own private security team now.

  11. I would like to point out, thus is but part of a bigger symptom. I believe the era of the Big country might be coming to an end. You see, even though the cartels are indeed motivated by money, the more one digs, the more one finds other stuff, like religion or regionalism. The religion part is easy. The regionalism part, just take a look at how the cartels are splintering. There is the Jalisco New Generation cartel, the Michoacan based Knights Templar, Juarez still has its cartel, as weak as it is. The cartels are grabbing their own turf and pretty soon they will become de facto independent of Mexico. Just like 100 years ago. The Big revolutionary chiefs, Villa, Zapata, Carranza, and Obregon had their own fiefdoms and the smaller caciques fought for scraps. If one sees it closely, it mirrors what is happening in the Middle East right now, especially Syria, where that country, for all intents and purposes, is no longer existing. Heck, look at Europe. Forget the EU and Schengen, Scotland already attempted a split from Great Britain, Catalonia and the Basque Country have tried to split from Spain, Kosovo is still an enigma. And with the refugee problem as a catalyst, regions like Flanders, Bavaria, Alsace, or Sicily might attempt a split.
    As for the U.S., I don’t see it happening soon. The debacle of the Oregon takeover is a dead giveaway.

  12. are you guys in favor of the War on Drugs? and do you guys think all drug dealers deserve to rot?
    if so, you’re idiots.
    and no i’m not a leftist. since when did letting people economically do as they please (excluding sexual acts) become a left wing position, and throwing people in jail in order to save the drug addict “victims” from their own actions become a right wing position?

    1. Ok, I’ll bite. This is not an answer to question 1 above.
      If you think people are idiots for wanting all dealers to rot, can you explain why?

    2. Drugs are for the weak, they lead to escapism and running away from your problems. Pro tip, running from problems generally makes them worse. Drugs lead to poor decision making and apathy. A drug dealer is the lowest form of scum, except for maybe a politician or tax collector.

      1. that is true about hard drugs like heroin and other opiates. drugs like weed, LSD and mushrooms are psychedellics that alter your mind and perception of the world, often for the better. they are not used to “escape” from the world, as they cause everything to feel more “real,” the opposite of a numbing “escape from your problems” effect.
        have you ever tried these drugs? or are you just like the guy in south park who said “as someone who has never done drugs in my
        life, I can tell you with absolute certainty that they have nothing to offer.” ??
        and dont give me any b s about how “pot rots your brain” (it doesn’t) or how “pot is a gateway drug to harder drugs” (it is only a gateway drug BECAUSE it is illegal, and you have to go to black market dealers to get it, and these dealers often will have other drugs on sale as well. alcohol is legal, and therefore is not a gateway drug). by the way, coffee is technically a “gateway drug” because everyone who becomes a drug addict has probably tried coffee at some point before.
        now tell me, why do drug dealers, lots of whom are not murderous savages but rather just young men who happen to be making a stupid decision, sometimes out of necessity (to get out of poverty), deserve to be locked up for decades, but liquor store owners do not? just because alcohol is abritrarily legal while other drugs like weed and ecstasy and coke are arbitrarily illegal?
        as a reader of ROK, i assume you know full well how the government fucks young men over (rape accusations, gun control, alimony, taxes, etc). but when it comes to arbitratily deciding which drugs should warrant decades-long jail sentences for young men who choose to sell them, you have full confidence and trust in your government.
        how do you rationalize the cognitive dissonance?

        1. It kind of reminds me of how some people realize how corrupt government is at home but somehow think they are doing the right thing overseas or vice versa.

        2. There is no cognitive dissonance. I see first-hand how drugs, even your “safe” drugs like MJ harm lives and lead to failure. I’d be for legalization if we got rid of welfare, but I’m tired of subsidizing losers poor choices. 90% of the people booked into my local jail have EBT cards. These same people on assistance have smart phones and expensive clothes/shoes, and have enough money for drugs. They don’t take care of themselves on the outs, and once they detox in jail they get medical treatment on the taxpayers dime. You know, if you want to kill yourself, do it on your own time and expense.

        3. I agree with you about the welfare. when I worked at a convenience store once, people woule come in and use their EBT cards to buy food and drinks, and then (since they were not allowed to buy beer and cigarettes with the EBT cards) would use cash to buy beer, cigarettes and lottery tickets. So the EBT cardsa were, in effect, funding their drinking, smoking, and gambling, because without the EBT cards, these people would have had to use their cash to buy food.
          However, I still don’t agree with drug prohibition. I would be fine with drug testing welfare recipients, but there are plenty of people who have never been on welfare who have their lives destroyed because they made a stupid decision when they were young. By the way, I can respect a drug dealer way more than a welfare recipient who does nothing.
          Blaming the drug dealer for someone’s addiction is like blaming players for women’s promiscuous behavior.
          By the way, are you a cop? How do you know that 90% of people booked in your local jail are on food stamps?

  13. We should put the National Guard on our Souther Border. Great military training and help keep the Brown invasion down, and also make drugs slightly harder to get in the US.

    1. Good call. Tell them that ISIS is coming across the border and maybe we can get the military to guard it.
      It seems that we’re good at throwing money (and resources) towards fighting “terrorism” around the globe when it’s happening right in our own backyard.

  14. Very timely given the US presidential primaries. Most lib-tards deliberately distort Trump’s message about illegal immigration, but this movie accurately reflects the grim reality. I’m an Australian and I would have better knowledge of the Mexican cartels and the history of their rapid development in the last decade than 90% of Americans. Only last year 2 Australians driving around in a mini van got executed there.
    And to support Trump’s point regarding ILLEGAL immigration – search for the GAOs annual reports on alien make up in the US’ prison population – of the approximate 350-400,000 aliens in the prison population, about 66% are…you guessed it… ILLEGAL Mexicans. At an average cost of US$31,000 per prisoner per year, that’s about $7.0-$7.5 billion a year, JUST to keep people who don’t even belong.
    I thank Christ I live in a remote country surrounded by thousands of miles of ocean and a ruling party with the balls to refuse illegal immigrants.

  15. I did enjoy this film. Blunt’s purpose was pretty much to be an innocent (politically correct idealist) abroad, learning some hard truths about reality: (can you retreat to your safe space in Juarez?), other than that, she didn’t really have much of a reason to exist – as she more or less discovers. Benicio Del Toro was good and Brolin was entertaining. Having said that the film does kind of justify the CIA’s ‘you’ve got to break some eggs’ position. I did find myself wondering whether the film accurately reflecting the US role here – if it’s really fighting the drug cartels with everything it’s got, it hasn’t exactly done a very good job. Nonetheless a refreshingly off-message film coming from Hollywood

    1. I agree on Blunt’s role and it’s a good point. It shows just how disconnected women really are with reality (and war). I say drop off some of these “you go girls” units in the Middle East and let’s see what happens.
      The Results: I can tell you, now, that these women will come back and play victim the whole time doing TV interviews, writing books, etc…they’ll eat up the attention (which is something that women are good at in the first place).
      Then, we’ll donate more tax dollars to women for treatment for PTSD Centers for Women (only) around the nation and other treatment centers for women only. That’s how it will all work out (plus, don’t forget the new ribbon color)…..while men with the same conditions will be ignored (move along, nothing to see here).

      1. Yeah I think you’ve got it figured out. I think few people today are built for war but we live in a society that allows us to believe what were comfortable with. Good knows what’s it going to be like when women are on the front line for real

        1. “…women are on the front line…”
          They won’t as any stupid enough to be in those roles will flake before deployment. Amazing how many females suddenly get pregneant when a unit comes down on orders and they go down range under stengthened.

  16. You’re right about Americans not knowing names of cartel leaders. I read a story a couple of weeks ago about one of them (whose name, of course, I can’t remember) declaring war on ISIS for interfering with his cartel’s distribution protocols.
    Don’t see any moves on his behalf, but if such a war were to break out, I think I’d put my money on ISIS and then pass the popcorn.

  17. I agree with most of the comments here. This movie is well worth a watch and will give you a far better idea of what actually happens and just how grey some of the areas that supposed ‘law enforcement’ organisations operate in are.

  18. There would only be a “grey” market in drugs if the government interfered with the free flow of goods. With no restrictions (RE prescriptions, licensing, taxes, etc.) there would be no incentive for criminals to involve themselves in the recreational drug trade since people would be able to buy their products at the uninhibited market price.
    The reason there is a drug war is essentially because of internal conflict (put simply) between the CIA and the DEA. The CIA needs drugs to be illegal so that it can fund off the books operations. The DEA was set up by Nixon to cut of the CIA’s flow of funds. This ultimately failed, leading to the drug war we have today and Nixon being framed.
    The War on Drugs will not end until it is no longer in the interest of the ruling elite within the US Government. This is also why Trump will ultimately fail. They will get him, either like Reagan, like Nixon or like Kennedy.

  19. I would recommend “El Sicario, Room 164” (I think it is on YouTube) to everyone. Especially law enforcement.

  20. You lost me at:
    “We, the viewers, are put in the unsuspecting shoes of an FBI agent named Kate Macer (Emily Blunt). After leading a raid on an Arizona house that hides dozens of corpses… ”
    I have exiguous interest in watching a female run around and pretend to be bad ass like a Man normally would be.

    1. It’s actually one of the main points of the movie : what happens when the hollywood stereotype of the strong female FBI agent is confronted to the real world? I won’t spoil it, but that’s indeed not very PC.

      1. It is subversive on many levels. Hence why it was snubbed at the Oscars for all the major categories despite the very strong performances, directing, and writing.

      2. Meh. Still not worth it. I’ll save my money instead and catch it for free later on if it does what you say it does.

    2. The male/female dynamic is the strongest point of this movie.
      It realistically portrays the phases an alpha females emotional roller coaster.
      It’s beautiful how grounded it actually is.

      1. Any sentence that has “female” and “leading” together is one which i automatically find noxious, like a freefalling fart in an elevator.
        Again, i pass.

        1. That’s the whole point of the movie. She runs around thinking she’s a badass, but in the end realizes something very different.

        2. Does it get through? Or do we as the viewer simply understand what she is expected to?

  21. It always strikes me as particularly hypocritical that many liberals who can’t wait to boycott some business for not supporting (or supporting) certain causes are also the ones regularly smoking weed and sometimes snorting coke. I know a girl who won’t eat at fuckin’ Chik-fil-A because of the founder’s opposition to gay marriage. I asked her about the ounces of smoke she burns every week. She said that it should be legal. I countered that it isn’t currently, and a major source of income for Mexican cartels.

  22. El Chapo construction and tunnel digging experts will be building the wall. An assassin’s bullet will have Trump’s name on it.

  23. “Until we can convince twenty percent of the US population to stop using drugs,” says the Josh Brolin character to Emily Blunt, “the best we can hope for is to control the trade, rather than stop it.”

    1. So true. As long as there’s demand, there will always be people smuggling and selling drugs.

  24. The CIA connection with the Colombian cartel reminded me of an article I read recently of a former DEA fast member who was critical of them and how on every drug ring break up he was on from Afghanistan to south east Asia was always broken up by a CIA operative/spook. I’ll have to find the article because I believe it was part of a book but it reminded me of how the CIA sold drugs in the past to fund guerillas in Nicaragua and I’m sure they still do it whenever they need.

  25. Damn hippies trying to make drugs culturally acceptable, then complaining about how the West is oppressing everyone.

  26. I despise the use of most recreational drugs – but I’m in favor of legalization.
    Sure – our grasping politicians would be unable to resist taxing and regulating the industry – which would lead to a black market. But that of black market (like cigarettes) is far less dangerous than one that emerges from Prohibition.

    1. Damn the motherfuckers that started the war on drugs. Most of them are long dead. Probably the biggest policy mistake in modern times.
      Legalization a prerequisite to undoing the mess but, at this point, who are we kidding? There are too many Alejandros on all sides with axes to grind. And, who can blame them? They deserve vengeance.
      When the drug war finally ends, it will take something on the order of reconstruction to make things right. This is generations away. The affected parties (on both sides) literally need to die off. Not in our lifetimes.

  27. I’ve watched “Sicario” recently. Amazing movie, very tense and unpredictable and very realistic.

  28. there’s no black market for bread or jeans……. a day’s supply of heroin costs about $2-3…. make it $10-15 and 100% certified pure…. and every street dealer is out of business… Coke is no worse than booze – there’s no reason coke is not available OTC. it used to be… Pot is already folding into legal mainstream….
    THE only reason that drugs are illegal is to create a ‘money laundering’ problem which is not about catching drug dealers or drug money, but policing everyone’s bank account… money hungry bankrupt politicians… want all your money for their protection racket tax coffers..
    If all the drugs are legal, how can the IRS etc. justify policing the bank accounts so heavily ?

    1. Heroin used to be legal too and somehow we didn’t all shuffle around like drugged up zombies.

      1. Bayer Heroin was legal in the US until about 100 years ago and even more recently in the UK. You can still buy over the counter opiates in the UK, though not heroin.
        I don’t understand why in the world we would ever make drugs illegal.
        It isn’t a deterrent. I don’t even do drugs and I am pretty sure that I could make a few phone calls and figure out where to get pretty much anything and even get it delivered.
        Let natural selection take its course.

  29. Just saw the movie. Nothing more rational and simple idea. It’s what I would do. This movie went ahead and showed us how ,,business” gets done.

  30. Gated communities, grills on Windows is what this movie was lacking as far as aesthetics goes.

  31. I did like this movie. I laughed my butt of when del torro came to her house and jacked her to sign those papers.

  32. Search Youtube for detectives held press conferences decades ago….and found the drug cartels were being funded, and profits shared with the highest offices that run the USA. This is old news we dont need a movie to share what we all know. We raided Afganastan over heroin, Bin Laden was burning and cutting down all the fields. Now heroin is an epidemic in the USA. I remember when I saw a “G”, yes man come on TV and explain how fighting the war on terror was not going to flood the streets with fresh drugs.. my how wrong they were (again)…no surprise.

  33. I see that people are not getting the fact that these people are bringing back the practice of the old Aztec religion. If you want to understand the cartels you must first understand their religion and why they believe the Gods are thirsty for human blood.

  34. It was a very good movie…which is why it didn’t receive any recognition from Hollywood…

  35. The irony about SJW’s not liking it is that the issues of Mexicans coming here and bringing their problems with them was caused by conservative politicians. The whole things a joke. Conservatives, while pandering to their base by decrying the “invasion of illegals,” worked with corporations to get as many illegals in this country as they could. Then when it became an issue that average Americans started complaining about, liberals stepped in to defend them. It’s all bullshit. We don’t control our country anymore; whoever pays off politicians does. If you want to know why and what about our country just follow the money. Ask who’s benefitting from this?

  36. Advice to film makers: stories set on the southern border of the United States of America, should be titled in English, Arroyo?

  37. Man you guys really dont know what many people from the left think. I am from the left, support feminism and all that, and I think this is a masterpiece. It really seems to me that you created a fictional image of what the left really is. Because you can pick dumb people from anywhere. I, for instance, think clint Eastwood is one of the greatest filmmakers alive, and look at that, he is a conservative. I love John Ford and recognize what Griffith was to cinema. This is really an agenda from you people. Cause the reality dont matter to you. Simple as that. Little children you are.

  38. Been ignoring this film after noticing it on Netflix for the past few months, but watched it after reading this essay a few hours ago. The female character is central and she gets most of the screen time. And she is irritating as fuck. She goes through the entire movie “rebelling” against the operations of her fellow law enforcement individuals, of all ranks and departments. And for why? It’s not right is all she says. What’s not right? She wants to make small busts (e.g., the bank that’s laundering a few thousand a day) even though ordered not to. She gets weepy and depress-y in every single dang scene!
    Completely irritating. Though it is mildly entertaining to see her get her ass handed to her (several times), watching it her carrying on was like nails on a chalkboard to me.
    Also, the author of this essay’s blithe assertion that if drugs were legalized nothing would change is utterly ridiculous and thoroughly ignorant. When alcohol prohibition ended so did much of the violence. Mobsters went into other, prohibited fields (gambling, prostitution, drugs), which only shows that those prohibitions should have been legalized as well.
    As has been done in Portugal for over 10 years now. Crime has gone down. Citizens are more productive. The sole reason for this film seems to be to pump up the prohibition theme. I pray for the day when films like this have no point and no purpose any longer. May that day come soon.

  39. Loved the movie. One thing I found dubious, though, was Brolin’s character (Graver) working for the CIA. I have a hard time believing a spook (field operative) is a good guy, although in any large organization there are several competing factions and he could be the one who’s on our side.
    Secret Wars of the CIA excerpt
    A lot of the black ops conducted by the CIA and other alphabet agencies are funded by black budget money. Guess where that comes from?
    The CIA imports cocaine into the US (hence the moniker Cocaine Import Agency), it introduced the hippie counterculture to drugs like LSD and mescaline, it created grunge culture to divide white and black youth to defuse civil rights activism and a host of other covert ops both in the US and abroad.

Comments are closed.