As I post less and less articles, I don’t walk out of a film thinking I must write about that. That is also the case with Sicario 2: Soldado (UK title, it seems to have different titles in different territories), however, I do feel compelled to write, not about the film, but peoples reaction to it. It has received mixed to positive reviews, the IMDB rating is similar to the first film but the Metascore is much lower. There appears to be two main criticisms, 1: A lack of Emily Blunt. 2: It is right wing, and even pro Trump. There is a third, the fact that Denis Villeneuve didn’t direct, that is a whole different conversation, who made it is less important than how well they made it, I am therefore parking that one. 
To give some context, I love Sicario it is a straight choice between this and Mad Max: Fury Road as my favourite film of 2015. Both are amongst my favourite of the decade so far. Written by (début) screenwriter Taylor Sheridan and directed by upcoming Denis Villeneuve (Prisoners was the only one of his films I had seen at the time) it came almost out of nowhere. When a sequel was announced I was a little unsure how I felt about it. Sheridan was returning as writer, now with two great screenplays behind him, Hell or High Water (2016), and Wind River (2017) which he also directed. Sadly Denis Villeneuve did not return as director, that job went to largely unknown Italian Stefano Sollima. Although this article is about the reaction to the film more than the film itself, I do need to express my thoughts. I really liked the film. It is a solid and tense thriller with compelling, if not likeable characters. I am led to believe that Taylor Sheridan always intended Sicario to be the start of a trilogy, as such, and given the strength of his other films, he was the most important returning element of a sequel, he has not disappointed. Denis Villeneuve is missed, the film lacks of the style and vigour of the original. The set pieces are larger in scale than those of the first film but don’t carry the same weight. It is a slightly flabbier, less taught story, is this less assured direction, or the result of the expanding story? I’m not sure. Any film is going to miss a director of photography like Roger Deakins, veteran Dariusz Wolski proves to be a good substitute, the film looks great. The night-time exteriors are particularly well lit. 
In the first film, Emily Blunt’s character was both our way into the story, and the stories conscience, she was the strongest thing about a flawless film. This film need neither of those things, we don’t need a way in as having seen the first film we are already in, and the films lack of conscience is half the point, there are bad people on both sides, doing bad things, that they can all justify in their own minds. Everyone is the hero in their own story, whether a real life or a fictional character, does anyone think they are the villain? Yes I would have liked to see Blunt’s character again, but that would be a different film, she would not have had a place in this story, and this is the story the filmmakers have chosen to make.
So is the film right wing, and pro Trump! All art is open to interpretation, and saw this very differently. The film may glorify some of the actions, but it does not try to justify them. Furthermore characters do question their part in the situation giving the faintest glimmer of conscience . To explain what I mean we have to delve into the plot so this will contain SPOILERS: Drug cartels transport people illegally across the border. Amongst the many innocents looking for a better life, there are a few terrorists. A bomb is detonated in a shopping centre. This gives US politicians and what we assume to be the CIA a mandate to start a war between the cartels. To achieve this Brolin and Del Toro’s characters start playing the two sides against each other, including assassinations and the kidnapping of a child. When things go wrong. The powers that be, pull the plug on the operation ordering the elimination of their own ally and an innocent child. It further transpires that two of the three terrorists that prompted their actions were American citizens not smuggled through Mexico. For the right wing, and pro Trump argument to work, the American’s must remain the heroes of the story. They are pretty far from this: We already know that they are prepared to break the law (their own law, intentional law, and the law of a foreign sovereign state) because they believe the end justifies the means. They see life, including that of innocents as expendable (collateral damage). They are happy to start a course of action before they know the facts. They have no loyalty to their own allies. To try and give some balance, I don’t know if terrorists are smuggled to the USA via Mexico. The film could plant a seed that this is happening giving fuel to the pro Trump, pro wall brigade. To put it simply I don’t see the story as a rallying cry for right wing xenophobia, it is more a condemnation of Americas foreign policy under Trump. 
As mentioned above Taylor Sheridan always intended Sicario as a trilogy, I for one am keen to see part three. Given the great job he did on Wind River, I would like to see Sheridan in the director’s chair too. As much as I loved Emily Blunt’s performance in the first film, she probably doesn’t have a place in the final film, just like she didn’t in this second film. This doesn’t have to mean the end of her character, there is plenty of space for a side project away from Matt Graver and Alejandro. The end of part two gives us an indication of where it may go, I suspect there is a little more to it than that, as with the first two films it will be a reflection on the time it is made.
Fandango Groovers Movie Blog 