I like when he shot the wife and kids - Sicario (2015) Discussion

[–] mariusar 9 years ago

No, you're not.

You're just another run-of-the-mill post-millenial pathetically trying to use the net to get some attention.

Seek help. Or grow up. Either will suffice.

--
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."

reply

[–] MovieFella23 9 years ago

Haha that was pretty funny

reply

[–] Busted_Toof 8 years ago

And that is a bingo.

reply

[–] sheltiknong 9 years ago

the whole movie leads to this specific moment

reply

[–] zigurusejin 9 years ago

consider discussing that with your psychiatrist.

reply

[–] Yarre_Time 9 years ago

Me too, I knew he was going to off the wife and kids first, just to see the look on the Boss' face. The suspense of that scene was incredible. Alejandro was waiting for the perfect moment. When the Jefe said, "Not in front of my kids." I then knew Ale was going to kill the kids and wife first. It felt good getting the revenge and looking at the reaction of Jefe his brain could not compute he just lost his entire family.

reply

[–] gino-lee 8 years ago

The jefe brain was trying hard to cope. I kinda wondered for 1 second if Alejandro was going to walk away and let that scene stew in the dudes mind and make him go mental like he prolly did with thousands of other families. He would just sit back and grab some pop corn

reply

[–] soldier_one_2 8 years ago

I always wanted to be a serial killer when i was young.
But killed my parents, sisters and brothers. So growing up... i wasn't taught! Bummer :/

reply

[–] tucker13-1 8 years ago

I thought it was pretty cool.

reply

[–] Stonaraptor 8 years ago

ya good scene. Nice to see movie makers that aren't too godamn soft and PC

reply

[–] akeshishian17969 8 years ago

Except they didn't show the deaths onscreen.

reply

[–] matdemon 8 years ago

It was a great scene. I laughed.

The thing people need to understand is two-fold: one, people like this do exist (as in zero morality nihilists); two, this is a movie about entertainment. Do the kids and wife deserve to die? Not necessarily, but they do, and they do so in an unapologetic way which current Hollywood has steered so far away from these days. It was refreshing to see.

What? Is this guy going to let them walk away? "Oh, here you go pretty Mexican wife and two little kiddos. Go on and play!" The entire scene was to show Alejandro bringing the shock and terror to a type-of-guy who did this to him long ago. That's probably his character's only form of enjoyment in life.

Anyway, I'm glad they did it. So many people in the US over-value life anyway. You would think that current American society thinks that EVERY SINGLE LIFE in the world has value. Please. 99% of lives have no real value. Live or die, world keeps going on with no actual change outside a few people directly impacted by that person's circle. Off-topic, but this movie pretty much stated up front, "over here people get abducted, raped, and heads get chopped off." It's telling you that things like this do happen out there, especially in corrupt or war-torn areas, and our little pussified American culture can't handle it because we have nothing better to worry about these days then which fake-sex can use what bathroom. Grow up people. Get with it. Get a stomach.

reply

[–] andyg_1992 8 years ago

You laughed at a scene where an innocent mother and her two innocent children are killed as revenge for their father's actions? I mean, I agreed that the scene worked because the father felt what it was like to have his family killed in front of him like he had done to others before he died (he died an unhappy man), but to think the scene (the darkest, most serious scene in the entire film) was funny is a bit *beep* up.

Also, 99% of lives have no real value? To you, maybe, because you don't know 99% of people. But they definitely have value to their family and friends. That's a pretty shallow statement to make. I want to know, are you included in the 1% of valued lives? Or, if not, who is?

The icing on the cake. "...we have nothing better to worry about these days then which fake-sex can use what bathroom" just sums up how self-centered and arrogant you are. There's a difference between someone who disapproves of political correctness and someone who is just an *beep*

reply

[–] Smokey_T 8 years ago

He's a faux nihilist, espousing an uninteresting view of the universe. And a bunch of bs about this film.

A "zero morality nihilist"...?

Firstly, there's no evidence he had no sense of morality. He went out for revenge, for his wife and daughter that were murdered, and didn't care who he worked for to achieve his revenge.

He at no point harmed an innocent. I believe his threat to kill her at the end was perfectly real, but he felt it his moral obligation to protect her, and volunteer for that job.

The wife and children were (in biblical terms) very guilty. Remember what ole Jehovah did to the Egyptians? The sins of the father, all that sort of crap.

A bit like religious zealots, or staunch atheists who think they have some important insight, and it's just boring, angry spiel.

WTF do transgender have to do with his argument except he is clearly pretentious, and likes to imagine he has something in common with this assassin.

reply

[–] andyg_1992 8 years ago

I agree completely that he went out for revenge and didn't care what obstacles were in his way in order to get his revenge. I hope it doesn't come across as ignorant, as I really have very little knowledge of the Bible, but I'm really interested to know how, in biblical terms, the wife and children were very guilty? Would you say, then, their killing was justified?

I tried Googling 'Jehovah Egyptians' but wasn't sure what I was looking for haha. Cheers.

reply

[–] Smokey_T 8 years ago

Well, and bear in mind I'm pretty areligious, God punished the Egyptians by killing their first born, when Pharaoh said he'd kill all the first born of Hebrew slaves, something the Egyptians were prone to doing, if we believe the bible. This would be described as poetic justice. Like the guy that goes to shoot someone in a robbery and trips and blows his own head off, or the gun backfires.

This is old testament stuff. This is where the expression an eye for an eye comes from, turning the other cheek is new testament.

So as far as 'morality' goes, you ABSOLUTELY could kill someone, or someone's children, or sell someone into slavery, or do all manner of things without being 'amoral', or a nihilist. Someone that is amoral has no concept of right and wrong, or does, but acts contrarily to those moral constructs they understand as truths, which makes their acts amoral, but not themselves necessarily. This prosecutor turned assassin might very well have been morally conflicted had he been ordered to murder an innocent mother and her unborn child. He makes no bones about killing a corrupt cop working for the people who killed his daughter, this is the difference. The only way he could protect the FBI agent was to take the assignment to gain her signature. So not amoral.

If the system is corrupt, if people are corrupt, or offend you, not valuing the laws or the lives of those others that are corrupt or offensive does not make you amoral, or nihilistic. Killing might make you a bad person, in the eyes of others, if there's a God he might judge you harshly, or applaud with glee and reward you! Who knows.

Not obeying the law similarly does not make you amoral. It makes you criminal. This is definitely not the same thing as being amoral. People that think it is have a fairly simplistic understanding of morality.

reply

[–] Smokey_T 8 years ago

ANYONE that felt that killing people who were part of the cartel (like the corrupt cop was) was 'amoral' would have to admit that the God that features in the bible is similarly 'amoral' because he very happily destroyed hundreds of thousands of humans lives for moral infractions or disobedience. Of course that all changed with Jesus, but it is the same God, just different mood.

That is why I don't like calling people amoral, unless they themselves have none. And that's very rare, outside of crack houses.

reply

[–] voight84 8 years ago

it was poetic justice....maybe they didnt deserve to die ,but alejandro had the right to kill them after what happened to him

They hate us 'cause they ain't us

reply

[–] Smokey_T 8 years ago

Well, see that right is subjective. He certainly acted like he had the right to. We can understand him thinking he had the right to. It isn't even important that we, the viewer, agree that he had the right to.

You might agree that he did... But I tend do disagree, because I tend more towards a Buddhist philosophy of the lesser harm being the better, and there being no lesson in murder.

He killed him, his two children, his wife, and his brother (or was it his cousin). That's five murders, as a revenge for killing his wife and daughter.

An equation might make his wife and daughter (being presumably innocent) 'worth' more than the lives of his five victims. But then why do we assume his wife, or him to be uncorrupt as a prosecutor. It is convenient, for us as a viewer to presume that to make him a moral character, but it might very well have been his ties to the Colombian gangs that resulted in a Mexican cartel killing his family.

The wife of the cartel leader and his cousin (or brother) aren't worth anything because they are in the cartel...? But his wife is clearly affected by the brutality of her husband. The children might have been guarded from the criminal activity of their father.

You have to believe as an individual that if some guy breaks into your house and rapes your wife you are entitled, you are just, to have your revenge by raping his un-offending wife in return, as some form of 'justice'. I don't agree.

reply

[–] voight84 8 years ago

I totally got your point but I'm more like ''eye for an eye''....cant blame him
when the cartel boss said it wasnt personal, i had to laugh a little...i think he made it even worse stating that

They hate us 'cause they ain't us

reply

[–] Smokey_T 8 years ago

I didn't cry for any of them, to be sure. But I don't agree it was a righteous act. Of course it didn't have to be.

Alternatively he could tell them all the story of the prosecutor and what happened to his wife and daughter, and then to ask his youngest son "To answer truthfully, what should that man do?", or something similar.

The correct answer being to kill the man responsible, at which point he kills the father, and the son lives with the guilt of ordering his own father's righteous execution.

If the answer wasn't immediate for each wrong answer a family member is killed, working from the second youngest to the father.

reply

[–] voight84 8 years ago

when i wrote ''he had the right to'' i was being a little provocative,but i stick to my original post....but i like the way you would have handled them anyway:)
great movie btw

They hate us 'cause they ain't us

reply

[–] dodgethat 8 years ago

him killing the family and then the boss was the most satisfying moment of the movie. i loved that he did that because honestly you go through all this effort and your not going to kill his family? just the boss? well problem with that is then the sons will grow up and come hunt him down too.

reply

[–] andyg_1992 8 years ago

This is exactly why I questioned the thing you said about the wife and children of the cartel boss being 'very guilty' in biblical terms. (Thanks for your answer, by the way). I can see how and why he acted in 'an eye for an eye' manner, in that the boss killed his wife and unborn child so he felt he could (should?) do the same to his family in revenge.

However, for me, this is completely unjustified. The children were not contributing to their father's criminal activity, but rather were born in to that life. They did not deserve to die because they did not choose the life that they lived.

That all being said, it was a great ending to the story, and would not have been anywhere near as effective had he not killed the cartel boss' family in front of him, forcing him to experience the pain that he had put Alejandro through.

reply

[–] Smokey_T 8 years ago

Just a thought.

I don't even think it is that much of a moral equation in the end, but a question of power, much as the prison rape/torture scene was.

The Cartel boss was still trying to be in control. He was surprised at first, and then recovered, making his speech about it not being 'personal', and taking a moral high ground when he asked "who do you think we learned it from?". So at that point he had tried to establish control via contextualizing his murder of the wife and daughters, and instructing his killer not to kill him in front of his family.

His children being killed in front of him made it personal for him, and illustrated that he had no power, and wasn't in control. All that was bs.

He was then left with he realization that he had no control, the instruction to finish his meal was another exhibition of his killers power over him, but this was promptly denied reinforcing the power balance. Finally, his being killed was the absolute demonstration of power.

If he hadn't tried to project power, and control the situation, and instead been weaker, blubbered and pleaded for his life, or the lives of his family, would he have still killed his wife and children? Why did he assume he wasn't there to kill his family? Arrogance.

reply

[–] andyg_1992 8 years ago

I think you might be on to something there. With the Cartel boss displaying such arrogance when staring down the barrel of a gun, being in the situation he was in due to his arrogant and controlling persona (you couldn't control a cartel without this approach), Alejandro realised the boss' Achilles heel was his family. The only way he could truly get revenge on his wife's killer, or at least to put the Cartel boss through what Alejandro experienced, was to kill his wife and children in front of him.

That being said, with Alejandro being able to break through the security as easily as he did, the cartel boss probably realised that he would have no way out of this situation, and probably accepted his fate, and in doing so, realised that whatever he did, he could not change the outcome. Alejandro made it all this way to seek revenge and so the cartel boss knew he had only a few minutes left to live. As a result, the cartel boss wanted to save face in front of his family, for them to remember him as a powerful man.

I can't help imagine, though, if he had backed down to Alejandro, that the outcome would have been the same. Had he encountered the cartel boss alone in his house, he probably wouldn't have tracked down and killed his family. His family being with him at the time, at the dining table of all places (love a good dining table scene) was the perfect opportunity to truly get the revenge he wanted.

reply

[–] Smokey_T 8 years ago

I just think the boss never thought he would do what he did, it didn't cross his mind.

And if we are to assume that he was a good attorney, someone who fought the good fight, and paid for it, his killing the family says more about the depths he sunk to than revenge or whatever. What could he take back from the boss, where was the meaning. In the end it was wounded male pride, and that's what he did to the boss.

reply

[–] Doc_Roliday 8 years ago

You can't say she's a innocent mother. Probably not, as she knew all about her husband's life. The actress was spot on, she looked at her husband like she knew about what he does.

I agree about the children, they were innocent, but I think they are better dead than living with the memory of their family getting killed at dinner

reply

[–] Mattc164 (619) 6 years ago

Those two little fucks and the wife weren't innocent. The wife knew what kind of man her husband was and she went along with it.

The two little shit kids with a father like that weren't exactly going to grow up lawyers or doctors. No, they'd continue the family business and kill themselves. Del Toro did the world a favor.

reply

[–] JimmyStrudel (600) 5 years ago

You’re trying way too hard to be edgy. It’s pathetic.

reply