I think it’s one of those films that simply doesn’t hold up to a specific story paradigm and trying to force it upon its structure causes more frustration and consternation. I don’t have a problem with the POV character being passive; it’s by design because she’s the main character – but not the protagonist, just as Scout isn’t the protagonist in To Kill a Mockingbird or Red in The Shawshank Redemption. The important thing is, the protagonists in those respective stories have an impact on them and cause them to change.

With regards to Sicario specifically, the story has elements of a mystery which further identifies the audience with Kate as we know as much as she does, when she does. Once it’s revealed what’s really going on, the fundamentals of the story themselves don’t shift – they’ve been there all along. It’s our perception that shifts. That’s why it’s important to analyze a story in its totality, once all the cards have been laid out and why separating the function of protagonist and main character is essential in some stories – nobody realizes that Andy Dufresne has been actively pursuing a prison-break in The Shawshank Redemption because we experience the story through Red’s eyes (and ultimately feel the impact on Andy has on him as a result.) That’s why some movie critics, like Owen Gleiberman, get it wrong when they saying “laconic-good-guy, neo-Gary Cooper role, Tim Robbins is unable to make Andy connect with the audience.” They weren’t meant to, otherwise the ending with Red would never have worked.

That was, for me, perhaps the most fascinating aspect of Sicario: most of us believe, or want to believe, that our authorities act justly, so we willingly follow Kate and believe she’s doing the right thing. But once the cards are turned over and we realize what’s REALLY going on, we start to doubt Kate’s approach and, at least in my experience, slightly turn on her once we understand the motivations involved. In the end, the film hammers home it’s ultimate intent by showing us nothing has really changed with regards to the violence.

I saw it on a movie screen, not a special vmax or anything but it ought to be cinematic enough I think.

I’m fond of Blunt but I don’t think this was her best by any means. To pick an example at random I liked her better in Edge of Tomorrow. (A surreal role: her character behaves differently each time we meet her because situation is changing, but zero character development.)

You didn’t miss a thing.

It’s called taste.

If I were to be asked for my opinion on the script, I would have huge reservations. You are absolutely right, although the Threshold primes us perfectly for the journey, it doesn’t guarantee a movie that works.

In fact, I find it surprising that it DID make its money back. At a worldwide gross of USD$80m, they’ve recouped about 2.5 times the production budget (USD$30m), so they should be in the clear.

To me, the Threshold worked as a lubricant for the problems with the film that were lying ahead. It won so many brownie points with me that I was willing to accept the POV shift, or even the Protagonist shift.

Final point: how did you watch the movie? Did you see it on the big screen? It’s cinematic, and the experience makes a huge difference.

So, yeah, your story/theme summary is spot on. To me it was the full cinematic experience that did it. The script was not a huge selling point.

All this double threshold business … it’s a technique, maybe it can do useful things, but it’s not enough to hang a movie on. If it’s the main thing you find yourself talking about I think that’s a sign the rest of the film was lacking.

Sicario shares with Saving Private Ryan that the most interesting, striking and memorable scene of the film happens quite early (though not in media res).

Everyone else seems to love it so I guess I missed something but I can’t see what.