It's a prequel to the first, for the following reasons:
1. Matt met Alex for the first time in this film and said, "This is your chance to avenge your family." At the end of the first part, Alex has avenged his revenge.
2. The dialogues of some supporting characters and Alex's scars in the first part can all prove that the time is after the second part.
3. Alex didn't lie and told the little girl that one of his father's men did it, but it was her father Reyes who gave the order. (Little girl: "Your family was killed by them." Alex: "Not 'them'.") So he just wanted to get revenge on Reyes, and if he wanted to find the killer himself, he couldn't do anything for America. The US military makes such a big noise, even if the action is successful, what impact will it have on a thug? He could have taken refuge in another godfather.
Alex said it on purpose. Why stress that it was done by subordinates? Of course, Reyes won't do it himself. This seemingly nonsense sentence is actually a language strategy. He didn't lie, but it made the little girl think that he didn't want to seek revenge on her father, but only wanted to seek revenge . If the little girl thought he was going to take revenge on her father, would she go with Alex obediently? Don't forget that she is not the kind of cute and innocent little girl, she grew up in the headquarters of drug dealers, and if she wants to escape, Alex can't watch it. In addition, this is also a necessary detail in order to connect with the first part.
Then the little girl said: "Now you are hunting them." This means that Alex has not yet sought revenge for the murderer , otherwise even a prosecutor (or lawyer) whose wife and child were killed would know that his father's subordinates were murdered. Wouldn't she know if she killed the door?
4. Why did the BOSS of the first Rial Kill become the big drug lord Fausto Alarcon? The only explanation is that Reyes is dead, and the thug is in the top position, and Alex can only seek revenge from him. If Fausto was just a subordinate and Reyes was the boss, wouldn't the U.S. military be a heartless man? Dispatching so many troops, just to deal with one subordinate? The plot of the first part made it very clear that Fausto is the big boss. And looking at the pomp of Lifusto in the first movie, that kind of prudence and secrecy, is it the treatment that a subordinate deserves?
Why did the screenwriter have to come up with another BOSS in the second part? This is where it gets awkward . In the second part, Li Li did everything to protect the little girl, but in the first part, he killed the entire family of the drug lord, but he knew the little girl, and it was impossible for him to do such a thing. Therefore , in order to avoid self-contradiction, the screenwriter explained in the second part that the big drug lord Alarcon was just a murderer. Obviously, I didn't think about making a prequel when I made the first part, and the writer and director loved the story of the second part, so they just dealt with it.
In fact, it can be dealt with completely without this kind of contradiction. For example, if the little girl is set as the child of the opponent drug lord, the action can also be completed. Of course, this will change a lot of plots, and there will be no moral dilemma for Alex to protect or kill the enemy's daughter (in fact, this is not shown in the movie at all, and Alex never thought of hurting the little girl from beginning to end).
He thought that the second part was a sequel based on the opinion of an actor. In fact, that is not reliable. He also said that the story focused on three male protagonists. I only saw two male protagonists. Jeffrey Donovan said that "The Soldier is more like a spin-off movie than a sequel or a prequel", only for the main line and cast of the first film, and it cannot be denied that the time of the second film took place in before the first one . As for the derivative movie, it is even more unreliable. This movie is only one film. What qualifications are there for derivative? Not really a story of Thanos and collectors. And the location and the enemy have not changed, so what is the derivative? It's not a small holiday to go to Malaysia to do something.
In the end, I personally think the ending of the second part is very dark. That's why Alex later stopped believing in forgiveness and kindness in the first installment—because good intentions don't lead to good results.
The little girl was silenced by the president (even if he didn't say it), and no matter how much Matt protected her, the little girl wouldn't survive. Just look at the performance of the president and the generals at the beginning of the meeting. And at the end, Ma Zai is still selling drugs a year later, which shows that the pattern of the local drug trafficking group has not changed at all. This shows that the action of the US military is over, so the little girl must have disappeared - at least not in court.
For this reason, Alex finally closed the door to kill the pony , not to win him over as an informant or something. ——Alec, who has seen so many dark realities and experienced the edge of life and death and the tragic disaster of his family, would be naive enough to believe that he can persuade a drug dealer with his mouth?
Although there are a little embarrassment and a few loopholes, this film is still a commercial film worth watching. The scenes, plots, and thoughts are all there, and it is a rare good film.
View more about Sicario: Day of the Soldado reviews
