Froget about those 7~10 stars high ratings

Rating: Null/10 (9 October 2015)

Actually, this movie sucks big time! Ginving it 5 stars is already too generous and too kind. Why? Because the screenplay and the casting were not that great. Why put a female FBI agent in this mix? Why chose a not so great and strong-minded female agent to be one of the team that needed 99% violence, extreme cruelty to do a drug war job? This female agent didn't show any potential and flexibility on par with the other team members, on the contrary, she was weak, clueless, unwilling, awkward and sometimes, even stupid. Her weakness seemed to be also the weakest part of this film. Why this drug lord hunting needed a pawn-like female FBI agent to make the mission legit? With the presence of a FBI agent and her signature on a paper would be able to legalize what they did, the constant killings, the cross over the border doing the hunting? Give me a break!
Why chose Emily Blunt to play such role? She didn't even look a bit like a competitive agent, albeit an agent with higher ranking position and well experienced. Blunt got a very embarrassing face, a victim facial expression no matter what kind of roles she played. Most of the time in this film and other films she was in, she couldn't close her mouth, her upper and lower lips seemed to have a problem to close; she couldn't keep her mouth shut. A face always looked so sad, seemed to burst into tears in any moment. She just looked so sad, like somebody in her family just died or had accident, or she was informed she got cancer or something. Her eyes always looked so sad. She was not a convincing actor who could make people believe that she is the exact right cast in any film. She also gives people an impression of weakness, weak-minded, unwilling to committing. None of her characters in any film really impressed enough to be great, yet her career seems prosperous. She's one of the actors that only make me wonder what's going on in the Hollywood casting business.
There were so many ridiculous or unnecessary scenes that proved the director is not a good one, the production team is incapable to the extreme. Why they used vehicles to paraded into Mexico and marched back to the U.S. and stuck-ed in the line at the border control? Why they didn't use choppers to bring back the drug guy in Mexico? So it's legal to have convoy on the road but illegal in the air? Or it's just because they needed such arrangement to shoot the scene of the ambush? To me, it's just a totally stupid and highly unlikely crappy scenario.
Then, the tunnel fighting scene. It's another stupid arrangement, totally. Guys used night vision devices at first, then it showed that the night vision goggles were absolutely useless in the tunnel. The firefight scene in the tunnel was also a stupid arrangement, simply for the purpose of creating an unnecessary tensified segment to patch up the already disastrous film directed by an over-the-top director with limited talent, together with a bunch of pea-brained screenplay writers.
The CIA guy with so much power like in this film? Should he be a DEA guy instead? Why we always made a CIA guy wear flip-flops, without tie, dressed so sloppy and gave him so much authority to do anything he liked? It's so clichéd too, man. A film just used the American tax dollars to carry out a personal vendetta.
There were lot of smoke on and on, but in the end, we never saw any meaningful fire. This film is like what usually heard in the dark night, ambulance siren coming along from afar, then passing where you lived, then the noise gradually died down. We never knew who was the patient, what kind of emergency, what kind of illness that needed ambulance to carry that person rushing to the hospital. We just heard the siren, but we didn't see anything. This is exactly like this film.