Sicario: Soldado - Let Me Explain 

He killed the lawyer of the guy that killed his family, no alternative time line.

The guy Alejandro kills in the first movie is Fausto Alarcón, who worked for Carlos Reyes, so in the sequel he still wants to kill Reyes. Not the same dude.

This is the sequel to the first movie... the guy he killed in the first, had another boss. It literally stated that in the movie

I’m fairly certain the man who directly killed his family is still dead, he’s just now going after the boss of the guy he killed in the first one cause his family wouldn’t be dead without that boss

Hate to blow your “alternate timeline” thesis up: but....”Carinna” (the daughters alias name) asks about and makes specific reference to who he killed in the first movie. And Alejandro answers by explaining to her that he is basically working his way UP the chain of command. So this is CLEARLY a kind of sequel linearly .

There's literally nothing in Sicario 2 that would suggest it's an alternate timeline. Sure the behind the scene stuff you mention suggest they're not entirely related but there isn't any continuity issues that prevent it from being looked at as a direct sequel.

he got shot in the cheek... of course you could survive a shot like that

I enjoyed Sicario 2 more than I expected ..... something that did sorta bug me tho was when the US forces were racing to get back across the border they were able to clear out a lane for them which sorta cancels out the entire tension and crazy scene from the first movie that established they couldn't clear away traffic/cars .... was this somehow explained that I may have missed?

1:45 not at all. In sicario 2 he said something to the extent of " I just killed the guy who did it, his boss gave the orders" so he's still after someone or some people who ordered his family to be murdered.

This is completely wrong man. How is this not a essentially a sequel. Spoillers ahead!!! . . .. . In the movie he talks to the girl Isabel and essentially tells her that her father did not kill his family another man did but her father Carlos Reyes was the one who gave the command. So it is just a continuation of Benico Del Toros characters storyline from the first movie. He is still out for revenge for the death of his family because he only killed one of the men responsible for his family's death. So wait how is this not a continuation of the first movie. Josh Brolin is still trying to hunt down and eliminate the drug cartels and Benico is still trying to kill everyone who is responsible for his family's death. I think you missed understood the movie or maybe I am missing something here!

What are you babbling about? He says to the girl that her father ordered one of his men to kill his family. It's just a sequel, still in full continuity with the first one. I'd expect a bit better from someone doing Let Me Explain videos. This is a garbage video.

He is not searching for the same man who killed his family. he is searching for the mans boss. In part 1 the mans name is Fausto Alarcon and in part two the man he is looking for is Carlos Reyes. It is not an alternate timeline. Cmon bruh.

Damn the fact that you explained that this is part of an anthology with separate timelines made me really re-evaluate what I think about the movie. I initially felt this movie's plot lacked any meaningful connections to the first one, but now I can kinda understand why. I personally feel thematically this movie would have worked better as prequel. 1. In the first one Alejandro Gillick was already part of Matt Graver's team, while in this one Gillick is recruited into Graver's team (albeit re-recruited would probably be more accurate). 2. Gillick is far more cold hearted in the first one as he had absolutely no issue murdering the family of the drug kingpin, nor does he seem to have any issue with potentially killing Emily Blunt's character. Meanwhile in this movie he almost gets himself killed while protecting Reyes' daughter. Furthermore he is betrayed by the CIA after he volunteers to retrieve the girl. This could suggest that he learned his lesson leading him to become more cynical in the first Sicario because he almost died the last time he stuck his neck out. Additionally it could also explain why he was such a lone wolf character in the first one because he has an uneasy relationship with the CIA. 3. In the first Sicario the CIA's objective is to introduce order within the drug-trade as the infighting between the Mexican cartels made it harder for the U.S to control this "necessary evil". This movie is all about disrupting that order. If the movies were reversed the story could be about how the U.S underestimated the collateral damage created by the cartel wars in the aftermath of the CIA false flag operation thus leading to the events of Sicario 1 where the CIA is attempting to correct this issue. 4. Gillick's character arch would've been more satisfying if the two movies were reversed. I mean in Soldado despite Graver telling Gillick that he is off the leash free to enact his vengeance on Reyes, however there isn't any pay off other than that one lawyer who does not get any build up before he is killed. While in Sicario 1 Gillick's pay off is far more appropriate as there is a proper build up prior to the reveal of the mysterious kingpin. Sorry for the long comment but I just noticed these points when I realized that Soldado isn't necessarily a direct sequel to Sicario. The relationship between these two movies remind me of Bad Lieutenant and Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans.

Fun fact, head shots are actually very survivable. Unless you sneak one in the cranial ocular cavity("between the eyes"), ear canal (side shot), or brain stem (back of the head). Bullets will deflect off the scull, especially hand gun rounds. What happened was he was shot in the cheek, the round would have knocked out his teeth and rode along the roof of his mouth then went out the other cheek. Path of least resistance is to the ride the skull rather then penetrate it. That being said, bullets do weird stuff and at the least he would the absolute worst migraine you could imagine. Like getting punched by a prize fighter repeatedly.

I was like holy shit I can't believe they actually killed Alejandro and they are about to kill the girl, it's going to be like No Country for Old Man, that took balls. then the ending is just...wtf

the misinformation in this video is imensed. The movies are stand-alone movies, but they're not in "alternate timelines" lol. There's multiple references to the events that happened in the first movie. It's not a "what-if" scenario, but rather focusing on a different story. Which is exactly why Sicario 2 had an ending that sets up Sicario 3, which will ALSO focus on a new story that plays off events from the 2nd Sicario. Not hard to understand.

I don't understand your rating system

The Collector and Thanos team up.

This is not an alternate timeline... You're confused

No. It's not a what if sorta thing. It explicitly says in the film that he killed the man who killed his family, but now he wants the man who was his boss.

Dude! You are so ignorant with what the director and writer are saying. Read EXACTLY what they are saying. "Not that he considers it a 'sequel' in the traditional sense, of course." ' "It's not a real sequel," he continued. "It's absolutely a standalone movie - a completely different story with just two of the characters that you met in Sicario. "The reason that I love [Soldado] is because it's not exactly a sequel; it's something you can catch and enjoy even if you haven't watched the first one." '

It’s a sequel to the first, he mentions killing the guy from the first one and saying he was the underboss to Isabella’s dad

I think the whole Del Toro getting shot and surviving was perfectly realistic. After all, a kid shot him, a kid who shot a gun for the first time etc etc. Also the cartels are dumb enough to not double tap so yeah. Del Toro had his mouth open trying to yell while it all happened so perfectly possible. It even showed how much pain he was in when was starting to slump over in the car and went off road, but his will kept him forward.

This video was misguided. He talks about the events of the last movie. He even says he killed the guy that killed his daughter. You might wanna fix this in the community section. I’m just lookin out for you man love your videos!

I kinda loved the second. I always saw the first one as how america saw the border wars. And emily blunts character represent that, as she went through movie she was shown more of what is actually happening there. Opposed to the second movie, where it kinda feels like its the border from the point of view from those who reside near or around that area and see the brutality on a daily basis. The second movie is based on the area I'm from (south texas) and i feel like they represented the life of border towns perfectly.

I'm excited to see what they will do in the 3rd movie hopefully it tops the second one even though I liked it very much I hope the 3rd one has more having you on the edge of your seat moments with an insane plot

Can't wait until part 3. I'd assume that kid who shot Benicio he'd use to go after that lady in the CIA who planned to have him killed. Remember Donavan said, "I'm glad we didn't have to do that." Right after Benicio got shot in the face by that kid? I would think he'd go after her.

The twist at the end was amazing. Think of how badass Alejandro is to have thought, "I don't deserve to exact revenge on an unfortunate kid who shot me in the face earlier. His bravery shows he would make a good Sicario." Alejandro takes revenge more seriously than that, as shown at the end of the prequel. It's an extreme form of grace but still.

I absolutely love the original Sicario, but this movie really disappointed me. Anthology or not (I consider it a sequel), it still follows the same characters, and this movie completely undoes their development from the original. In the original, these characters are terrible people with Del Toro actually murdering a dude’s entire family, including his wife and kids. In this movie, he refuses to kill his enemy’s daughter because the plot demands it. He literally becomes a good guy in the second half for absolutely no reason. Before the kidnapping, they were excited about starting a war and getting revenge, but now he’s fighting to not get revenge? Also, the boy’s storyline was pointless. We followed his story just to see him shoot Del Toro in the end. Literally any other character could’ve done that scene, and it wouldn’t have made a difference. Then he jumps out of the truck (presumably because he regrets his actions), then a year later he’s a full blown cartel member and Del Toro wants to train him? The story just makes no sense and it’s lacking the character development and themes from the original.

I dont see it as an anthology. In the campfire scene, Del toro tells the girl that it was not her father who killed his daughter, but someone who works for him. AKA, Fausto. He blames the entire organization for the deaths of his family. Not a different timeline, simply very disconnected stories, evolving mostly the same people.

AIGHT. So every time Taylor Sheridan’s face would pop up on screen I would say to myself, “This guy looks just like...” A quick Wikipedia search confirms that he also played the Deputy Chief on Sons of Anarchy who’s death was pretty epic if anyone remembers! Crazy

I AM SO HAPPY YOU MADE A VIDEO ON THIS MOVIE. i literally just finished the movie at the theater and seriously needed this. thanks 🙏🏼

The opening really scared me, at the mall when that lady and her kid tried to escape. None of the people there deserved what happened. But it shows how when these bad things happened it doesn't matter weather your involved or not, its gonna hit you any way physically or mentally.

Benicio Del Toro gave me chills in the last scene of Sicaio: DoTS when he was closing the door. I mean, the expression he had on his face and demeanor were just oozing murderous intent. And don’t get me started with that look in his eyes, they really out did themselves with casting him as Alejandro.

Alejandro was resurrected to Hunt the Agency, now with an underling. There will be a third. "The message is the same, the Messenger will change" I don't know if that's the line from the movie but it's true.

Yoooo! When when that kid shot Benicio I thought for sure he was dead. But when it turned out he survived, I was pleasantly surprised

Unbreakable, Split, Glass. 3 movies. 3 Different Stories. Same timeline. They drive 3 seperate ideas and finally meet for a final story. There you go. It's not hard to understand, push that brain of yours a little more. Same TIMELINE.

The kid is NOT working at the fast food counter, he is there for a pick-up.

Loved the movie right up til the last scene. Not as good as the first but still solid

The second movie isn't a alternative timeline, it takes place after the first, and the guy who had his family killed is still trying to get back at the cartel boss's other cartels that splintered after the first boss was killed.

Actually there are many instances were they link the first to the second. Not a deep connection and defenately can be watch as a stand alone but there are plenty of references and connections. Great movies.

Sicario Writer, Taylor Sheridan : “I wanted to create a unique experience that goes just beyond making a sequel. As you know, ‘Sicario’ was really well received by the critics. But it wasn’t ‘Fast And Furious.’ So the idea of the producer was a little bit smarter to make a sequel of a successful movie.” “To do this kind of sequel that is not really a sequel but more of a stand alone movie but in the same world was one of the reasons why I accepted it.” “The original idea of Taylor Sheridan was to create three stories that are linked by the same characters, not all the characters, just some, set-up in the same world. I think it was part of the idea to put together a new crew with its own specifics that was of course different from the first one.” “This was to guarantee that the movie was another experience, with some of the same characters, but it is a stand-alone movie, so that was the process.” “‘Soldado’ is a really smart and unusual kind of sequel. Because in a way it is not a sequel at all. So it is really smart. So for sure he is going to create something smart again.” From Metro US

So to clarify, I don't need to see the original to see this one?

'Pulls a Logan.' Best line in a review.

Yikes. I love the passion some of you have for trying to connect the films. That's cool! For those who didn't get the word "anthology" cause they needed to hear the director literally say they're not connected - I'd never "misinform" you, here ya go: "I don’t think Soldado is a sequel. It has just some of the characters who were in the first one. The timeline is *not so connected*. So I don’t think it’s a spinoff or a sequel" www.slashfilm.com/sicario-2-director-interview/ So for those who threw insults cause they saw things that weren't there - all love. lol

hate to nitpick but the Gillick character got shot through the jaw, definitely survivable.

He survived the gun shot because he got shot in the cheek you can survive getting shot in the cheek he just got unconscious which seemed like he died but yeah he did lose a lot of blood I’m surprised he didn’t die because of that

I think you mis-understood some of the film twists. 1. The metamorphasis from soldado to sicario, is the central theme of the movie. The transformation is displayed in all 4 central characters. Basically standing up against authority, from Isabella in the beginning to Matt defies Miss Sunshine, and Alejandro refuse to kill Isabella to Miguel jumps out of the truck. 2. Illegal border crossings. Underlying the migrant crossing is the bigger problem of illegal crossing done by American operatives backed by the Government. They creates way worse chaos then the criminals in U.S. Also maybe a subtle jab at Trump's " they send the worst criminal" claim. 3. The American "made" sicarios. Isabella, a child terrorized by Americans, seemed to have lost all innocense at the end. Her contrast character, Miguel, an American made Sicario, attracted by the galore and money. As Alejandro speaks of not understand the attractiveness of the American way of life, they ran into Miguel. Alejandro, a Sicario made by thr American government, whose family was killed indirectly or directly by Matt. And Matt, the Soldado turned Sicario made by the American government. 4. The Interlude of Alejandro at the ranch allude to the Poem "Touched by an Angel" by Maya Angelou. Where Alejandro was touched by Angel's simple welcome, reminded of his old wound, but strikes away the pain with love.

Yep I thought the side story was better in this movie because it Provided the twist of the and which was the best part. The 1st movie I thought her friend set Yes totally set her up because that was his friend of Phoenix PD add what he said to her a for that the maker vulnerable for that guy. Plus He was never around and ask a lot of questions

Alejandro would definitely have survived the bullet wound to the face. The bullet entered beneath his left check bone, which would have crushed through his upper back teeth, and exited his right check at a lower angle. There is nothing vital to survival in that area. It was also a light caliber, and actually probably would not have exited the other side. When he came to, he would have probably spit the bullet out of his mouth along with the blood and broken teeth. There are countless accounts like this. Officer 401 on RU-vid here talks about responding to a call where a little girl had been shot in roughly the same place and survived and was even walking around and trying to tell the cops what happened. In a book called “violence of action” which is a compilation of real life stories from the 75th Ranger regiment in the global war on terror, a ranger describes getting separated from his men and shot through the same area by a taliban fighter with an AK47. That’s a much heavier caliber with a much higher velocity and having several orders of magnitude more energy. He lived, and even navigated his way back to his men.

I don't buy the anthology schick. it's clearly a sequel but with weird/expanded character motivations. For example del toro (he plays himself as far as I'm concerned) might be a cold hearted killer in the first movie but in this one he's pretending he's thanos but can't kill gamora so as punishment he gets shot in the face by mexican elliot rogers. that's ok - i am not sure how else they were going to play his character in a *sequel*. ... In the first movie he's a mysterious man who is revealed to be blah blah family died. so that's why he's helping the CIA find the big shot so he can kill the big shot. In this movie we find out that the big shot works for Josef "doctor evil" Oberhauser and THAT's the guy he really wants to hurt, so he agrees to kidnap scott evil's twin sister. Now, imagine if we had the character/motivation in the first movie tossed into this movie - the fans seem to want that and were wondering why del toro won't kill doctor evil's kid. IMO having different motivations makes the character more fleshed out. He's not just a murder machine surviving on plot armor on a quest to kill doctor evil for killing his family. Well, he is, but that's when you look at his character across all 3/4/5/6 films or whenever this series is played out. Within each film, we seem to be able to see more about him. The logan sequences (Great analogy btw) let us learn more about his deaf kid (what's the point btw? he knew ASL to talk to a deaf person but unless I fell asleep there wasn't a reason to introduce a deaf person except to add some character lore) and del toro's tortured past. Hopefully they will make thanos/cable more interesting in movie 3. In this movie I felt like thanos played second fiddle and his character flip flop at the end didn't make sense. He murdered everybody and all of the witnesses. It would be so easy to just kill the girl and succeed in the mission after all. But nope - everybody gains a conscience and now we have a happy ending yaaaay I would give the first movie a 8.5/10. It's a very basic story (beat cop/fbi agent gets more than she bargained for a la training day but without the comeuppance at the end) that flips the script on the viewer when Blunt / the audience gets the big reveal. Tada the movie's actually about Del Toro now! This movie can't use the same format because the audience would say that it's rehashed. So instead it's a bigger TM and badder TM explosion filled extravaganza. But as far as sequels go, it's very good. If it didn't have the sicario characters I think we would all be united in saying that it's a very good movie with a slightly weak and convenient third act. And that's ok.

It is kind of a sequel because Benicio and the girl talk about his daughter being killed. And when Josh Brolin was in Benicio's apartment he said "this time" there are no rules.

You said there would be no spoiling at the start then gave an entire pot synopsis my dude.

The events of sicario still happened. Just because it’s not a direct sequel doesn’t mean this is an alternate timeline. Same timeline same characters different story. Just like most of the movies in the MCU aren’t direct sequels to each other it’s still the same universe.

can you do the hollow on netflix its so good tbh

Alejandro said he killed the man that killed his family, but he worked for the girls father, I just watched the movie

I know this is a lot to ask for you to do, but can you go over 50 cent’s Tv show “Power”? It’s really good but underrated imo

Soldado is not in an alternate timeline. It is a sequel and very clearly laid out.

If this was anime it would be considered “spin-off” 😉

It is a sequel. It just doesn't flow storywise directly from the first film. When the director talks about "Anthology" he means so in style, not in substance. Look at it like Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom being technically a prequel but an anthology film in execution. Its the same Indiana Jones as in Raiders of the Lost Ark, but it happens a year earlier than the first film and none of the other characters in that film ever show up again in an Indy film. That doesn't mean the events of that film are out of continuity. The director was approaching the material as if Soldado was a stand-alone film, meaning you don't have to worry about the fall out from that mission or the life of Emily Blunt's character.It's its own thing, but the events of the first movie did happen because Sicario said so. They just kind of retconned things so that instead of seemingly getting his revenge on the drug boss who murdered his family, it turns out that guy was working for an even bigger boss who was responsible.

This guy benecio's thirst for revenge will never end in the movie, come on, he shot innocent kids in the first movie under the pretext of 'this is land of wolves' stuff and now, the makers want the viewers to believe he is a rough man with a heart of gold who has sympathy for the drug lord's daughter, totally out of character!!!

I guess in the Sicario 3 Alejandro will team up with Miguel, and that duo will kick Reyes' @ss

Do set it up the Netflix movie

It's not an anthology. Brolin's character said "its gonna be different than last time, this time there are no rules"

Bruh!!! I'm gonna put this as simple as possible 🤔 THANK YOU for this vid..simple,humorous and actually gives a good perspective instead of some clowns opinion about it's not his opinion of a movie.

It is a sequel, just not a direct one. In the first movie, Faust (the guy killed at the end) is stated to be the 2nd Rank in the cartel. It's reiterated in this movie, to Isabella, once she figures out his identity.

First!

Couldn't survive a face shot? Buddy, ask Curtis '50 Cent' Jackson if you can survive a face shot. He survived a shot at point blank range right in his face! This guy was shot in a similar spot.

The sequal was better than the first one. The first one had too much talking

I literally found your channel today and I love it! I subscribed and can't wait to watch more

It's not an alternate timeline though. He said that Alarcon worked for who they're after now; they still acknowledge that he killed him.

“Pull a Logan” dude you got me with that 😂

world war 1 people jaws shot off and there is a story of a guy touching his face and saying it felt like chicken bones

Let me explain: This is a sequel. The events of the last film are referenced. Del Toro killed the assassin, Reyes gave the order. Del Toro mentions that “the man who killed them worked for your father.” End of.

How the hell is this an alternate timeline? It might not be a "part 2" but it's like "the next day"

Lol “this dude has to pull a Logan” haha I lost it

Traffic, day of the Sicario lol. What made no sense about this movie is, why the fuck were they taking the girl back across the border in 3 army humvees? How was that going to contribute to starting a war between two Mexican cartels or disrupt the border crossing trade? From the point of view of the kingpin, he's supposed to believe that his daughter was kidnapped by the rival cartel after their kingpin was assassinated, so why would the "DEA" rescue her and give her back? Makes zero sense. They'd keep her so as to make the kingpin think she's being held somewhere in Mexico and boom that's the war. The whole giveback operation is where the movie went off the rails for me.

In Soldado, Del Toro’s character talks about how he killed the guy who killed his family, but not the guy who sent them. They guy who sent them was the little girls Father, Reyes. I saw no disconnection. I consider more a continuation of the events in the world and not so much a direct sequel

This movie is totally a sequel. When Alejandro is alone with Isabel on Angel’s home grounds (and burying weapons - why the hell is he burying those weapons? Perhaps to be used in the future, maybe part 3, at some point?? No one points that out or explains why he was doing that), but anyway, when he’s alone with her in that scene she tells him she knows who he is, that he’s the “attorney” (attorney really?) whose family they killed, to which he says not they and she replies my father, and he says a man who worked for him referencing Alarcon the other cartel leader who he got at the end of Sicario 1. And he further tells Isabel that he’s not done, he’s CONTINUING his journey to send a message only the message is different now. So how does anyone gather that this isn’t a sequel to part 1??? Also, again, really disappointed that no one has a detailed explanation video scene by scene explaining odd things like why Alejandro is considered to be an attorney, and why he was burying those weapons in the ground at Angel’s home.

After rewatching this movie years lasted I realized absolutely nobody talks about the fact that in this movie it states that the government “made him” implying that it wasn’t the cartel who killed his family but the United States so that they could convince him to help because of his skill set…. Which is why she said we could throw a stick across the border and create another one.

I like to believe that Alejandro recruited kid long time before Sicario story lines. So, the boy was his "Sicario" all the time. I haven't noticed any scars on Alejandros face in that last scene. Boy probably fucked up big time in the past and Alejandro gave him a chance to change his future as a Sicario soldier instead.

It could easily be a sequal. The man he killed in the first sicario was the person who actually killed his wife and kid , reyes #2 guy. Then he kills reyes lawyer (who probably helped reyes avoid jail for the murder of his family) in the 2nd movie. They clearly had this conversation about the #2 guy being the guy he wants or wanted to kill. But the main point of the conversation is the dad is his main target. If the director wanted alternate timelines he should have paid attention to the script better because the dialog pretty much connected the dots he wanted to be vague about.

Carlos Reyes isn’t the man that killed Alejandro’s family. A man that worked for him did. Alarcon is the man that killed Alejandro’s family and he works for Reyes. Alarcon is the man Alejandro kills in the first movie.

Nah brother i gotta interfere and tell you straight up that the second movie was even better than the first. They kept the great pacing of the movie yet added some deeper insight into the world of gangs and undercover operations and in addition the whole story line just blew me out. If that isn't creative directing than i dont what is!! Thumbs up who thinks the second movie was en par or even better than the first!

Hey man I'm extremely late to to the party, but I like your perspective on Daniel Kaluuy character. I never would thought of that, him being a mole or bought by the Cartel. Now the first movie makes so much sense! Why he kept asking questions, how coincidentally the bad cop met with Emily Blunts character. Good job on paying attention to detail.

Possible suggested Sicario 3 titles: 1) Sicario 3: Back to School 2) Sicario 3: School Daze 3) Sicario 3: Detention Class

no Del Torro’s character killed the guy who actually killed his family in the first one but in the 2nd hes looking for the guy who hired the guy he killed in the first one

It's not an alternate timeline. They can say what they want. It's a follow up.

Sicario Soldado... the girl references the killing of Beneficio's family when she says " I know who you are."... and the murder of the boss in the first film that ordered it. The girl's father was the Boss of Bosses... that's clearly the inference in the film. Same lead characters and related bad guy characters but unrelated story in the theme of the drug cartel wars! The offer at the end of the film to train the young shooter as a Sicario makes the series ongoing.

They should do a prequel to Alejandro and Matt’s back story next then wait 4-5 years to make a sequel to sicario 2

i loved how the first movie made it seem like it was emily blunt's movie.... but she was just there as a vehicle to tell the story of deltoro and brolin's kick-ass characters. That's why her character was a woman, to make it interesting and contrasting to their much tougher characters.

I didn’t even know it was an anthology. I thought it was a prequel even while I was watching it. When he got shot in the mouth I thought to myself I don’t remember him having mouth scars

not an anthology. it's a sequel. When Josh Brolin asked after they got shot up for no BS at the border like last time indicates the border crossing scene in the first movie.

This was an okay explanation. But I really loved Day of the Soldado as much I loved the first film

The film makers clearly meant this movie as more of a stand alone story than a direct sequel of the previous one. It is still in the same universe or timeline. This whole video essay would fall on its face once they make the new Sicario and Alejandro has the scars on his face.

Dude, you specifically said you weren't going to spoil the movie.

When Matt came to recruit Alejandro for the mission he said you are free, Alejandro replied for how much, it is implied that before that moment he was restricted by CIA to do anything to the Cartel boss, meaning that in the first movie he was only allowed to kill the man who directly ordered to murder his family, probably that was a cartel general, it would be weir if one man could just walk into a lair of real cartel head and just kill him. The real cartel boss was too big to go after. In the first movie Matt explained to Emily Blunt their goal: they tried to use on cartel boss to lure out a bigger one, the man who murdered Alejandro's family, that would weaken that cartel, allow another cartel to win over, and in the end there will be onely one cartel left, which would end cartel war and violence in southern border. Alejandro was actually working for a rival cartel, to avenge for the murder of his family when he was a prosecutor. CIA used his lust for revenge to kill that cartel general, since they didn't want to be involved themself, they assist him in that goal with cover raid on cartel's drug smuggling line and transfer of a cartel superviser. Supposedly the result of the first movie that another cartel was not able to win over the entire mexican mafia, but reached an equal influence and 2 cartels now have a peace. In the first movie CIA was restricted with finance and limit of what they could do, they understood they couldnot really fight the cartel with that, and set their goal to simply weaken cartel, it didnt end the exact way they wanted, there was still 2 cartels instead of one, but they were wekaen and were at peace, which reduced level of violence and still fit CIA's goal. In second movie since US put label cartels as terrorist organisation CIA were given permission and finance to do more, so they decided to resume cartels war, with the hope to further weaken them. Matt decided to rescue the girl because she was a witness that they were attacked by Mexican police, therefore he implied to put her on witness protection program, so he would worsen relationship with his boss, but not lost his job.

2:24 That may be true. He was the one who told Emily Blunt's character that Ted was a good guy when he clearly wasn't, he really demanded to know what was going on, and at the start they were listing his history and how he has a law degree and maybe there's something in that which was suspicious.

Think Drax wanting Ronin dead to avenge his fam, yet with Thanos in-mind as the shot-caller responsible in the end. Get it?

1:24, oh that's why some Wind River situations/scenes felt familiar