stimpson said:Watched this yesterday—honestly, it’s a slight departure from the typical M. Night Shyamalan role where you're just waiting for a jaw-dropping twist. It’s more of a small, intimate thriller with a cast of seven. Dave Bautista is great. All things considered, it’s better than his last one ("Old"), though still miles away from his absolute best stuff...
I'm feeling the same way. I dig the play with biblical symbolism, but let's be real—the push for the LGBTQ+ agenda felt a little too heavy-handed.
It’s a solid, well-rounded drama about a retired engineer who's basically lost his spark after his wife passed away. He’s got that local reputation—grumpy as hell, but strangely willing to lend a hand to the neighbors when it counts. Everything changes, though, when a young family with a Hispanic wife moves in nearby and throws a wrench in his rigid daily routine. Tom Hanks is so incredibly good in this that you almost forget you're watching Tom Hanks. It delivers exactly what you'd expect—nothing too wild—but it's consistent and hits all the right notes.
James Bond (2006) is the first one that comes to mind. I’ve seen it at least seven or eight times now—and honestly, I’ll probably watch it again. It just hits all my marks: top-tier action, deep conspiracies, and that gut-wrenching love story.
Great movie, but I honestly can't wrap my head around how Dustin managed to pull in that many gorgeous women... in the real world, there's zero chance a guy like that would have any luck.
One of the best movies of 2022—and let’s be honest, it was a massive year for cinema. It’s that rare kind of film that works as both a sharp social critique and a total creative playground for the director. Definitely one for the history books. I'm not sure if it's officially in the running for an Oscar yet, but I'm rooting for it to take home the win.
I’ve seen at least 15 of them. The best original one set in Thailand is hard to beat—everything else after that is just a downhill slide. Laura Gemser is alright, though the movies are definitely hit or miss.
Daniel Kelly57 said:Not a bad flick. Solid action with some really tight cold weapon fight scenes. And the veteran actress playing the general is incredible—she definitely deserves an Academy Award nod. Plus, the kid playing the rookie is a total standout. It’s a great movie to just chill to with a big Coke and a bucket of popcorn. 🍿
Yeah, but unfortunately, that superhero bubble isn't popping anytime soon. Kids, teens, and adults—well, everyone—just loves this stuff. Especially the younger crowds.
If you actually trust the numbers on IMDb, the budget was $50 million and the Worldwide Gross hit $91,105,451, with the Domestic Gross sitting at $66,005,451. It turned a profit—so I'm curious where everyone is getting this "epic fail" narrative from. Plus, the IMDb rating isn't even that bad. And the Metascore is in the green at 77, which means the critics actually liked it.
Mark White11 said:Look, don't just watch ten minutes of a movie and call it a day—try to actually follow the story, okay? Because honestly, they definitely took casualties. Later on, the king and his council are literally calling a war meeting because they lost so many soldiers in such a tiny skirmish—they're basically asking how they're supposed to stand a chance against an army three times their size later.
Unlike some of the "genius" commenters on here, I actually sat through the whole thing. I'm not sweating the historical accuracy because, newsflash, this isn't a documentary! But as far as movies go, it’s solid in a lot of ways. And seriously, major props to Viola Davis—she was doing her own stunts at nearly 60! Plus, it feels like there's hardly any CGI used; everything looks pretty practical. I mean, if the warriors weren't women, it probably wouldn't be quite as striking—it would just be your average action flick. But the way it's done really makes it stand out.
Agreed. I don't get the constant nitpicking or why everyone is so obsessed with historical facts here.
A pretty decent historical action flick about an African kingdom featuring female warriors. Honestly, I got exactly what I bargained for—I saw this one in theaters. Visually stunning, sure, and the story is predictable, but it’s well-executed and keeps you engaged. My only gripe is how they tossed historical accuracy out the window for the sake of the plot, but hey—it’s a Hollywood blockbuster, not a documentary. Not really expecting a history lesson anyway.
Of all the movies I've checked out this year, this one takes the top spot. The whole concept—a girl growing up isolated in the marshlands, just trying to find her footing—really hit home for me. Plus, the cinematography is gorgeous, and there's a solid crime subplot to keep things moving. Definitely worth a watch.
Looks like it’s based on a novel, too—might actually be worth picking up the book.
Gerald Torres84 said:The crying and wailing will only intensify. They’ll start making those empty nuclear threats once they realize the Ukrainians aren't going to stop reclaiming their occupied territory.
Putin just can't stomach admitting he lost the war. That leaves us facing a new kind of danger—terrorist sabotage. For instance, that gas pipeline between Norway and Poland could easily become a target. Russia is going down the drain regardless (and honestly, only after he's gone), so the real question is just how much damage they can inflict on the rest of the world before they go.