Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Fallout 4 Review

     If you were to make a list of the most beloved video game franchises, the "Fallout" series would be towards the top. The first game in the series was released in 1997; an open world RPG, the game became an instant hit among fans and critics and has been listed among some of the best RPGs of all time. Over the next seven years three more games were released, most of which were met with highly positive reviews. But somewhere along the line the series developer Bethesda decided to change up the franchise. In 2008 "Fallout 3" was released, it moved away from the classic top-down RPG style of the previous games and became a first/third person action-shooter with RPG elements. The title was met with wide acclaim and was named one of the best games of the year by many critics and publications. Even though the style of the game was changed almost completely, many fans still believe it to be the best in the series. Two years later "Fallout: New Vegas" released, a successor to "Fallout 3" but not as much of a major installment in the series. While "New Vegas" was met with positive reviews, it was harshly criticized for not being a huge leap forward like its predecessor. The game ran on the same engine as "Fallout 3" and only included some minor improvements, the only major changes would be the new map and story. Since then fans have been waiting for a true sequel to "Fallout 3," and for years they heard nothing but rumors. But early this year Bethesda confirmed that "Fallout 4" was in the works, and just a few weeks after that at the video game convention E3 they announced that the game would be released in November of 2015. Considering many games are announced years before their release, it was surprising that we would get to explore the wasteland once again before the year’s end. So after seven years of waiting fans finally get the game they've been asking for, but is it the game they wanted?
     "Fallout 4" starts off in 2077, where you either take control of a husband or wife. On a day like any other you are just enjoying your morning, when all of a sudden you hear a report on the TV. Apparently nuclear arsenals all around the world have been launched, already decimating parts of the United States. You, your spouse, and you baby leave the house and run to a nearby bunker named Vault 111; the Vaults were supposed to act as shelters in case of a nuclear attack, but in reality their creators designed them with much more cruel intentions. Upon arriving, your family is quickly brought in and placed into decontamination pods. But in reality, you are placed into cryogenic pods and frozen. Instead of keeping the inhabitants and alive and safe, the vault was designed to see the effects of being frozen for long periods of time would have on a person. After being frozen for an untold amount of time, you wake to see your wife spouse murdered and son kidnapped. And for some reason, they just freeze you again. Sometime later you awake once more, this time you are free. You emerge from the vault in Boston, two hundred years after the bombs fall. You then set out upon the Commonwealth to find your son and avenge your spouse. And nothing will stand in your way of doing so.
     The only game I can think of in recent years that has had this much hype and anticipation around it would have to be "Grand Theft Auto 5;" and even that game might not be at the level of "Fallout 4." And after putting many hours of my life into this game, I can safely say that it might be my favorite game of the year. I'll even go a step further and say that it's one of the year's best. What was going to make or break this game was how much it improved upon its predecessors. "Fallout 3" and "New Vegas" are great games, but stumble in many areas. Probably the most notable improvement would have to be how much better the combat is. It won't be winning any "shooter of the year" awards, but it is a huge step forward. The weapons have weight behind them, and the whole system feels less "floaty" than the previous games. I also have to mention the weapons; you are given a lot of options. There are tons of weapons in the game, and something new to the series you are able to heavily mod your weapons. In previous games you were able to attach an upgrade or two to specific weapons, but with this one you can extensively change each weapon to your play style; the same can be said about your armor, there is tons of variety, that offer you options with special boosts attached to certain pieces. Accompanied by plenty of enemy variety and a new perk system that works well, you have what is easily the best combat in the franchise; and it allows you to play many different ways. The only real problem I had with combat would be the NPCs. Both friendly and enemy characters can be rather dumb, and look out of place (especially in combat). They'll try and go somewhere but get stuck, they'll fire their weapon at their opponent but be off by a mile, or even stand out in the open and not even try for cover. They work fine most of the time, but on more than a few occasions I looked at game controlled characters and just rolled my eyes. The game also looks much better that the previous two titles in the series. On a technical level "Fallout 3," which came out in 2008, was not even a good looking game for its time. And "New Vegas" just two years later looked exactly the same, and was put to shame by other games that came out that year. "Fallout 4" is a huge step forward, but at the same time it's unimpressive. This year we've seen some games with truly impressive graphics, such as "The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt" and "Metal Gear Solid 5: The Phantom Pain." Compared to them, "Fallout 4" looks like it was released two years ago. The open world is big and beautiful, with colorful art design and an impressive level of detail; but on a technical level, the graphics are subpar. Another problem regarding the look of the game would have to be its characters. Unlike the previous two games, in this one when characters have conversations they move and have more elaborate animations. The problem is that they don't look very good. To be honest, they often just look kind of wonky with bad lip syncing. It kind of takes you out of it when you’re watching a character and it's just jarring to see them walk and talk. When it comes to building worlds, Bethesda is one of the best in the business. The world of "Fallout 4" is impressive to say the least; there is an ungodly amount of stuff you can do, and the map is massive to say the least. I'm not sure on the exact size, but I think it's safe to say that it's larger than "Skyrim." I had a blast just traveling through the Commonwealth, all while enjoying one of the best video game soundtracks of the year. And there is no shortage of stuff that you can do in "Fallout 4," after my first play though I feel like I've barely scratched the surface. You'll find dozens upon dozens of missions to complete that could keep you satisfied forever. But some of the missions do feel repetitive, often involving you traveling to a location and just killing a bunch of enemies. But if doing mission after mission isn't your thing, one of the more interesting new features would be base building. Throughout the world you'll be able to establish bases, once there you can build houses, security defenses, and other structures to improve the lives of your followers. You don't have use this feature though, it’s entirely optional. During my run I only used it to complete a few missions, but my roommate loved it and put a ton of time into it. So while not mandatory, it is a neat new mechanic to play around with. But with a world like this, the game encounters more than a few problems; mostly technical ones. Bethesda has never been known for their polish; with some of their games they were essentially unplayable at launch. During my play through, I rarely experienced any major issues; but the game certainly had problems. I did experience a good number of minor glitches, things like a body falling through the floor or an item floating above the table. There were also issues with the frame rate, at random times the fps would just drop for no reason. The problem would be fixed quickly, but they were annoying and happened more than they should. The only really major technical issue I faced was that the game once shut down on itself. Fortunately I saved not long before that, but it was quite an annoyance. From what I've heard, I experienced fewer problems than many. Some have reported serious issues with the game, while my roommate was playing a character glitched that actually prevented him from completing a side quest. I'm sure that these issues will eventually be solved with patches, but for now it’s important to know that the game is having problems. If I had to guess what people loved most about the "Fallout” series, I would have to be the story behind the world. The way that the world evolved since the end of World War 2, the series is rich in lore that covers a few hundred years. The series has also been known for its compelling stories, and "Fallout 4" is no different. I was invested in the games plot pretty quickly, and really wanted to see how the story would end. And like its predecessors, this game has many interesting and memorable charters. Now since I had started playing, there was something that was bugging me that I quite couldn't put my finger on. Something that really bothered me, that detracted from the game in a way that didn't impact its predecessors. Then it hit me, the dialog. The dialog isn't bad, in some ways it feels much more organic than "Fallout 3" or "New Vegas." But the dialog feels much more limited. For example, in "New Vegas" you could be talking to someone and if you had a trait (such as medicine or explosives) high enough, you could actually unlock unique dialog options. "Fallout 4" still has these speech checks, but they've been simplified and lack the variety of these unique options. In what feels like an attempt by Bethesda to make the game friendlier to new players of the series, they removed one of the best features of the series. If anything, that is my biggest issue with the game. So let's be honest, "Fallout 4" isn't perfect. It is plagued by problems that do detract from the experience; problems that could have been avoided. But I can forgive its problems, because the game is just plain fun. This is one of the most thoroughly enjoyable games I've played this year. So while it's not perfect, it is still great. It may not be the masterpiece that everyone was hoping for, but it is enough to satisfy anyone interested. And with DLC packs on the way, the adventure has only just begun.

Pros: Greatly improved combat over predecessors, improved graphics, big and beautiful open world, great world design with impressive level of detail, colorful art design, new perk system works well, fantastic soundtrack, captivating story, several interesting and memorable characters, rich lore, tons or weapons/armor and customization options, base building is neat new feature, ungodly amount of stuff you can do, lots of enemy variety, let's you play many different ways, just plain fun.
Cons: Improved but unimpressive graphics, friendly and enemy NPCs can be dumb, various technical issues, issues with lip syncing, character animations sometimes look wonky, dialog options have been simplified, some missions feel repetitive.

4/5 Stars

Saturday, November 7, 2015

Spectre Review

     I have seen a lot of movies during my life from a lot of different franchises I love, but the one I love more than any other would be the "James Bond" franchise. If I remember correctly the first "Bond" movie I saw was "The Spy Who Loved Me," starring the longest serving Bond Roger Moore. The action, the characters, the women, I fell in love immediately and continued to love the series for years to come. Now let's be honest, a lot of the "Bond" movies aren't very good; more than a few are bad. And to this day I still believe "Octopussy" isn't just the worst movie in the franchise, but one of the worst movies I've ever seen. But there are a few great "Bond" movies: Dr. No, Goldfinger, Casino Royale, and Skyfall are all fantastic and are easily some of my all time favorite movies. Over the years though the series has gotten some flak for being ridiculous and downright cartoony, but in 2006 the series was given reboot with Daniel Craig as the title character. Taking a cue from the "Bourne" series, the new movies were darker and more series and even touched on a few deep thematic elements. The initial reboot was a huge success with "Casino Royal" receiving critical acclaim, with particular praise going to Craig. While the next movie "Quantum of Solace" was met with some harsh criticism, 2012's "Skyfall" was the series biggest hit and grossed over one billion dollars at the box office. Being such a success, the property owner Sony actually asked the director of "Skyfall" to return one more time for the 24th film in the franchise, "Spectre." But alas, with such a promising movie there is heart break. "Spectre" is likely Daniel Craig's last movie as Bond, which is a shame because he has become the definite Bond actor in the eyes of many fans. So while all great things must come to an end, one question still remains; "how good is Craig's last Bond movie."
     Not long after the events of Skyfall, MI6 agent James Bond receives a message from his recently deceased boss asking him to kill an assassin and track his associates. By doing so Bond accidentally causes an international indecent in Mexico when he practically blows up a city block. While all this is going on, the government has decided to merge MI6 with MI5. The boss of MI5, C, believes that the double O program is obsolete and thinks that the future of surveillance is in technology. While investigating the assassin he learns that he was part of a secret organization of criminals called SPECTRE. So Bond sets out to discover who is behind this organization and what their goal is, but in the end he might not like the answer to either of those questions. 
     "Spectre" was one of my most anticipated movies of the year, not just because I love the series but in the wake of some of the other recent "Bond" movies I was sure that I would love it. In reality though, I only liked it. Now let's get this out of the way, Daniel Craig as James Bond. When I think of Bond, I think of Craig. He has become the definitive Bond of the modern age; and as always he is great as the character in "Spectre." But he isn't alone in this movie; the entire cast does a good job, new and old. Especially Lea Seydoux, who played the leading lady. She did a great job, and I really liked her character; Seydoux and Craig had good chemistry together, and I can see their characters working together and riding off into the sunset. So while I liked her character, some of the other new characters were less impressive; especially the villains. To be honest the villains were just lackluster and unmemorable. Coming off of "Skyfall" which had one of the best villains in the entire series, none of the villains in this movie stood out. Christoph Waltz played the lead antagonist in "Spectre," and while he did a good job his character was not up to par. For a series known for its memorable villains, "Spectre" disappoints in that regard. One thing that the series always gets right though is the action, and "Spectre" has some of the best action scenes in the entire series. What helped with that would be the great production value and huge set pieces. Apparently this is one of the most expensive movies of all time, and you can definitely see it. And just like "Skyfall," "Spectre" is a gorgeous movie to watch. The cinematography is beautiful and some of the best I've seen this year, particularly the opening scene which is mostly one long shot. I would not be surprised if this movie were nominated for best cinematography at the Oscars. And like almost every "Bond" movie, "Spectre" features a great soundtrack. The new songs work great and the classic pieces are always a joy to hear; I didn't love the opening song by Sam Smith, but the accompanying sequence was absolutely beautiful. There were a lot of things about this movie that I really liked, but there is one major flaw that takes almost all the steam out of it; the story is just not good. "Skyfall" had one of the best premises and some of the best writing in the entire series. It was deep and showed a new side of the title character; "Spectre" didn't have any of that. The story was often messy, confusing, and all over the place. There were a few times where I had no idea what was happening and why the characters were doing something. And the whole side plot about how the new boss wants to cancel the double O program was rather uninteresting. There is also so much happening in this movie that it feels bloated at times, which contributed to how unnecessarily long it is. Clocking in at almost two and a half hours, towards the end you are just ready for it wrap up. There were a couple scenes that felt unnecessary all together, and could have been cut. On top of that, some of the dialogwas rather cheesy and sounded stupid when it came out of the characters mouth. That might have worked for the older films, but they can't get away with that in the modern ones. "Spectre" could have been great, it could have been one of the best in the series; but somewhere along the line the people behind it took a wrong turn, and plunged it into mediocrity. It‘s a shame, if this is Craig's last movies as Bond he deserved to retire the character with a better movie. While it shined in some areas, the story, villains, and writing really do drag it down. It's not a bad movie, and overall I did enjoy it. But if asked to list the best "Bond" movies, "Spectre" would not rank that high. 

Pros: Daniel Craig has become the definitive bond, awesome action scenes, great production value and set pieces, good performances from the cast, beautifully shot, great soundtrack, beautiful introduction sequence.
Cons: Much longer than needed, lackluster villains, some bad dialog, issues with the story.

3.5/5 Stars

Saturday, October 17, 2015

Steve Jobs Review

     Steve Jobs is one of the most idolized and polarizing public figures in decades. While some believe he is a genius and single handedly revolutionized the tech industry, others see him as a hack who couldn't make a computer to save his life and just took the credit from others who actually did the work; I'm somewhere in between those two mindsets. Jobs was an egotistic credit hog, as well as a genius marketer and promoter. Either way he founded and ended up becoming the face of the most profitable brand in the world, Apple Inc. In 2003 it was announced that Jobs was diagnosed with cancer, even so he still led his company up until his death in 2011. Since then his status as an icon has only grown, leading to many books being written about him and a 2013 movie called "Jobs." But since his death numerous allegations about Jobs has emerged, calling him a task master and a hypocrite. More and more people are realizing that maybe Jobs wasn't the savior he was built up to be. Personally, I don't really care; I don't even like Apple products. But I have been getting sick with all the Jobs related movies and books that have been coming out for a few years. So when I heard that a new movie was in the works, I rolled my eyes; but when I heard that it was being directed by Danny Boyle and written by Aaron Sorkin, it became one of my most anticipated movies of 2015. 
      "Steve Jobs" takes place over the course of 15 years; it features three product launches by Jobs in 1984, 1988, and 1998, and all the personal and professional troubles that surrounded them. With the later success or failure that would follow these launches in montages, immediately leading to the next product launch. And due to Job's personality and unwillingness to compromise, things never go easy at these launches. 
     Steve Jobs is one of those larger than life figures whose personality many have tried to capture in entertainment, but few have come close. Most of the time you either get a glorified portrait showing him as a modern day Leonardo da Vinci, or you he is shown as an egotistical maniac who couldn't actually do anything. But this movie manages to be somewhere in between; it has great depiction of these real life characters and their goals and ambitions, but at the same time doesn't sugarcoat anything and shows that Jobs was not an easy man to work with; mostly due in part to Aaron Sorkin's writing. Basing his screenplay off the Walter Isaacson biography about Jobs, Sorkin writes one of the year's best screenplays that is almost assured for an Oscar nomination; despite allegations of questionable historical accuracy. It has that classic Sorkin dialog between characters which is always smart and funny. It also helps the movie be constantly entertaining with at a non-stop pace. But that might arguably be this movie's biggest problem. For two straight hours the characters never stop talking. At a certain point later on in the movie I started to think to myself, "I wish for one minute everyone would be quite so I can enjoy how well this movie is made." But because no one ever stops talking, you always have to listen and pay attention to them. But at the same time, you won't really mind. Watching these actors give some of the best performances of their careers while reading one of the year's best scripts is a joy to watch. The movie co-star's Kate Winslet, Jeff Daniels, and Seth Rogan; each of which beings justice to the characters, and is as good as they've ever been. I definitely expect Winslet to get an acting nomination at the Oscars. But the real star of the movie is obviously Michael Fassbender as Steve Jobs. Let's go ahead and talk about the elephant in the room. Fassbender does not look like Jobs. But that's alright, because he is phenomenal in this movie; this might be the best performance he's ever given. He truly encompasses Jobs in what might be the best performance of the year so far. And you have to give credit to director Danny Boyle for getting these performances out of the actors. I truly believe Boyle to be one of the most underappreciated directors currently working, despite several iconic movies he's made such as "Trainspotting" and "28 Days Later." And "Steve Jobs" ranks among some of his best. He takes a commanding lead of this movie and made it into the image he wanted, and employed some clever tricks in the process. One of the most unique aspects of this movie would be the way it was shot. Each act takes place years apart, so as the movie progressed the quality of the footage got better which really made the movie feel like it was moving with the times. This movie is brilliant, and a career highlight for everyone involved. I know a lot of people are sick of hearing about how Jobs was a genius (myself included), but this movie does a great job depicting a fascinating true life story. And in doing so, it manages to be one of the best movies of the year. 

Pros: Oscar worthy performances from Fassbender and Winslet, great performances from supporting actors, great depiction of the characters, doesn't sugarcoat anything, brilliant screenplay from Sorkin, smart and funny dialog between characters, clever cinematography, one of Boyle's best movies, fascinating real life story, fast paced and non-stop entertainment.
Cons: Fassbender does not look like Steve Jobs, questionable historical accuracy, constant dialog never gives you a chance to truly appreciate how well this movie was made.

4.5/5 Stars

Saturday, October 3, 2015

The Martian Review

     Ridley Scott is often cited as one of the most celebrated directors of all time, being the mastermind behind classics like "Blade Runner," "Alien," and "Gladiator." But for the past few years Scott has not been at his best. The once praised director has since brought us some of the most critically panned movies in years such as "Exodus: Gods and Kings" and "The Counselor." Since "American Gangster" Scott has been looking for a way back on top, which brings us to "The Martian." Based off the acclaimed 2011 novel of the same name, it had to be one of the most talked about books in years. Sporting a rather unique premise and an all-star cast, it quickly became one of 2015's most anticipated movies after the trailers release. But while most everyone was excited, I still had my reservations. Ridley Scott isn't the director he once was, and after his last couple movies I pretty much wrote the guy off. But going into "The Martian" I gave him one last chance, and I'm glad I did.
     Mark Watney is a botanist and astronaut on a mission to mars with a team of five others. His job is to take soil samples to see if food could be grown on mars. One day while taking some samples, the team is alerted that a massive sandstorm is heading straight towards their base. Knowing that the storm is strong enough to topple their return shuttle that is fastened to the ground, the team captain decides to evacuate the red planet before their mission is up. While heading towards their shuttle, Mark is hit by a piece of debris. He goes flying and the sensors in his suit malfunction; barely able to see in the storm, the team has no option but to escape. The following day Mark wakes up on the mars surface, seriously injured and low on oxygen. He manages to make it back to the base and close his wounds. He quickly realizes that he is in some serious trouble. He doesn't have a lot of food and water and he's on a planet where if he steps out of his base without a space suit on he will die. On top of all that, the fastest that earth could get a shuttle to him would be in a few years. Scared and exhausted, he has reason to just give up; but he refuses to die on the red planet. So the question arises, how does he make a few months supply last for a few years until he can be rescued.
     "The Martian" was one of those movies that I had high hopes for, but went into with low expectations because of Ridley Scott. His last few movies were so underwhelming that it was hard to give him the benefit of the doubt; but with "The Martian," he is back. Basically, this is one of the year’s best movies. And it is Scott's best movie in over a decade. The way he directed this movie was brilliant, the amount of suspense is nail biting at times. Alongside "Sicario," this is one of the most intense and suspenseful movies I've seen in a long time; and certainly the best survival movie in the past few years. One of the stand out aspects of the movie would be the acting. Everyone does a great job, it's easily one of the best ensemble casts of the year; and there could be a few Oscar nominations for acting. What helps is that pretty much all of these characters are incredibly likable, and you are rooting for them to succeed. And every time they fail your heart sinks a little bit. The dialog between the characters is also top notch. This is one of the best written movies of the year, and a serious contender for best adapted screenplay. Speaking of the writing I really have to commend the humor. When you think about a man fighting for his life, you don't find much humor in the situation. But "The Martian" is filled with comedy that works very well, and had the entire theater laughing. When you have a movie on a foreign planet, you really have to nail the look of it all; and this movie does that perfectly. The visuals are gorgeous and the production design is top notch, you really feel like you are on mars yourself. The great special effects also help; both the practical effects and the computer generated ones. But while being on mars is riveting; being on earth though, not so much. The scenes that take place on earth are less interesting than what you see Matt Damon's character goes through on mars. While there by no means boring, you just can't wait to get back to the red planet. "The Martian" exceeded my expectations in almost every way. A movie filled with enough math and science to make any geek go nuts ended up being one of the year's most gripping movies. While they could have cut about 20 minutes or so, I found myself so connected to the screen and all the characters on it. "The Martian" is one of the must see movies of 2015, and a return to form for Ridley Scott. 

Pros: Great special effects, impressive visuals and production design, very suspenseful, humor works well, likable characters, great writing and dialog between characters, fantastic performances from Matt Damon and the rest of the cast, Ridley Scott's best movie in a decade, best survival movie in years, a nerd's wet dream.
Cons: Earth scenes aren't as interesting, 20 minutes too long.

4.5/5 Stars

Friday, September 25, 2015

Sicario Review

     For decades the US government has waged a losing war on drugs, with most of the drugs making their way into the US by going through our border with Mexico. Obviously drug smuggling is illegal, but if there is a demand there will always be a supply. Cartels have popped up all over Mexico, and made it their business to supply. And with such big business, these cartels will defend their turf. Since 2006, over 100 thousand civilians, police officers, soldiers, federales, and cartel members have been killed. And there doesn't seem to be any signs of the violence slowing down. Some say the solution would be to legalize more drugs in the US, some say we need tighter border security and take military action against the cartels; but that's an argument above my pay grade. All I know is this war still has years left. One thing I've noticed is that this subject hasn't been touched very much by the film industry. While it's often a plot point crime shows, I can't think of a lot of Mexican drug war movies. So when I heard that a new movie involving this subject matter called "Sicario" was in the works, and was being directed by one of the best in the game Denis Villeneuve, I was immediately interested; especially after hearing reviews during its run at this year's Cannes film festival. 
     Kate Macer is an FBI agent working kidnappings in the southern United States. One day on a routine operation looking for some kidnapped victims, her and her team come upon a particularly grizzly scene. Shortly after she is approached by a DOD contractor named Matt Graver, who asks if she would like to be part of his team; whose job it is to take down high ranking cartel members. While unsure she ultimately agrees. The team's first mission involves heading south of the border, where they pick up a cartel member from a prison and bring him back to the states. They come into some trouble along the way, and deal with the situation using questionable methods. Macer soon realizes that Graver might not be who he says he is. Wrapped up in a bad situation, Macer searches for the truth while trying her best not to be killed in the crossfire. 
     At the start of every year I basically start the countdown until Oscar season which usually starts in late September, in my opinion "Sicario" is the first movie of Oscar season. From the pulse pounding opening scene to the heartfelt finale, this is simply one of the best movies of the year; and most the credit has to go to the director Denis Villeneuve. With 2013's "Prisoners" and last year's "Enemy," he has really established himself as one of the best directors currently working; and I would say "Sicario" is his crown jewel. He directed this movie with a gritty realism that gets under your skin. And the way he did the action scenes felt believable, and kept you on the edge of your seat. And the way he told the story was top notch. On paper it seems like a cut and dry drug-revenge film, but there are twists and turns at every stop. The story always keeps you guessing, you're never really sure what the characters are planning or what they'll do next. Almost every scene is intense and suspenseful, which brings me to the biggest and most blatant problem. There are a few scenes that are rather uninteresting. One particular scene when the main character goes to the bar, as well as a side story involving a Mexican cop, pale in comparison to the rest of the movie. While they have important story elements, you're just waiting until the suspense picks back up. A lot of credit for how this movie came together would also have to go to the cinematographer Roger Deakins. Known for his work on "No Country for Old Men" and "Skyfall," he really made sure every shot in this movie was perfect. I wouldn't be surprised if he won the Oscar for best cinematography. The movie also features a very fitting soundtrack, which complements every shot and scene and adds to the intensity. What most movie goers will remember from this movie would have to be the acting. Every single actor gives a great performance, with stars Emily Blunt and Josh Brolin both give some of the best performances of the career; but the real stand out would have to be Benicio del Toro. This movie features his best performance in years, and will for sure get him an Oscar nomination and maybe even a win for best supporting actor. I had high hopes for this movie from the first time I heard the premise. I wanted to believe with this director and this cast that "Sicario" would be one of 2015's best, and it is. It's one of the most intense movies I've seen in years, and it is a must watch for anyone planning on heading out to the theater anytime soon. 

Pros: Great performance from the entire cast, Oscar worthy performance from del Toro, Oscar worthy cinematography, several impressive action scenes, fantastic directing, fitting soundtrack, gritty realism, incredibly intense and suspenseful, keeps you guessing until the very end.
Cons: A few uninteresting scenes. 

4.5/5 Stars