Posts by Timothy King

I don't know, I feel like every year around this time the hype cycles start spinning out of control. You see these massive announcements about players joining training camps or being "ready to go," and suddenly everyone acts like the season is already won or lost based on a single scrimmage.

I remember back in my college days, we’d get so hyped for exhibition games that we’d treat them like the championship, only to realize a week later that the rhythm just wasn't there yet. It’s hard to judge actual chemistry or fitness when everyone is still shaking off the off-season rust. The "big names" being present is great for the fans, sure, but does it actually mean anything for the long haul?

Does anyone else find themselves tuning out the pre-season noise, or are you guys actually getting invested in these early matchups?

nimblemarlin6 said:To be perfectly honest, *Braveheart* is just absolutely packed with historical inaccuracies. Look, the whole point of movies like that isn't to serve as a history lecture—it's to entertain you first, and maybe spark enough curiosity to make you actually go look something up later. And honestly? That movie definitely did its job.

As for me, I just couldn't get into this one—mostly because the premise relies on this all-female unit being the kingdom of Dahomey’s primary fighting force and their only hope for survival, and then that very first fight scene shows them being physically superior to an entire squad of men in a way that felt totally absurd.

Plus, judging by the trailer, the whole plot feels incredibly cliché—you know the drill: some naive newcomer joins the ranks, undergoes intense training, and eventually proves her worth.
It’s basically the same story we've seen a hundred times before, just with the genders swapped.
I had this nagging feeling I’d already watched the whole thing, so I just didn't have the heart to keep going.

Does the movie ever actually explain why their most elite unit—the only thing standing between them and invaders—is made up exclusively of women?

Yes, Braveheart is full of historical errors, but I wasn't even addressing that aspect; I was strictly talking about how the battle scenes were staged.

And yet, even if it is inaccurate, it isn't anywhere near close to this, where the roles are literally inverted and slave owners become fighters against slavery. That would be like portraying Scottish peasants as supporters of the English king in Braveheart. Even that would be going a bit too far.

Mark White11 said:Nah. ☕

The guy's main gripe is that the movie had a tight budget and used camera tricks to make things look bigger than they actually were—can you believe that?

Seriously though, name me one action flick from the last 30 years that didn't rely on some tired old cliché.

This isn't an action flick; it's supposed to be a historical drama. And while a cliché can be executed brilliantly, this one really went overboard by throwing in that trope where a villainous twin shows up after twenty years. It's ridiculous. If we're talking about recent historical films that actually avoid clichés, I'd point to Dunkirk as a relatively fresh example.

Well, every single movie has a limited budget; I haven't heard of a production with an infinite bankroll. Of course they have to use technical tricks, but executing them successfully requires a level of skill that simply isn't present here—that's the real issue. Plenty of absolute masterpieces have been filmed with even less money.

And let's get one thing straight: it's not a "guy," it's a director. So what if she lacks funds? She also seems to lack the expertise of her male counterparts, whom she's clearly obsessed with, yet she expects us to applaud her "masterpiece" just because, my God, she's a woman making a film about women for women—not to mention leaning heavily on racial themes for extra credit. This isn't just a poorly made film; it's blatant emotional blackmail.

The movie is honestly quite poor; the plot follows the most tired cliché about a young novice—in this case, a woman who "breaks the rules" only to impress her superiors and climb the ranks... The leader is just another tough persona hiding a secret that turned her cold... it's all been done a million times before. Did anyone actually wonder how the story would end? Was there a single move made by any character that actually caught anyone off guard? It’s unbelievable that "The Woman King" includes a dark secret worthy of the most banal Mexican soap operas, especially in an era where even those shows have moved past such tropes.

The blatant, shameless preaching regarding female bravery, Black rights, and various other social agendas is staggering—it possesses the ideological subtlety of Stalinist propaganda or those overly nationalistic American war films from the nineties. There is absolutely zero artistic merit here; it's impossible to connect with such caricatured filmmaking, let alone feel anything at all. For much of the runtime, Viola Davis simply pulls a forced, scowling expression reminiscent of 50 Cent on an album cover. What I wouldn't normally forgive in this context is the glaring lack of budget for what is supposed to be a historical epic, specifically seen in the low number of extras and the cramped framing. We don't get those sweeping battle shots like you'd see in Braveheart, nor the massive crowds found in the Colosseum in Gladiator.

I can't get behind the argument that historical accuracy doesn't matter. When dealing with subjects as heavy as slavery, historical truth is incredibly important.

I just sat through a second viewing... and something else occurred to me: that ending feels like a classic trope used by our filmmakers—if you can't figure out how to wrap up the narrative properly, just have everyone kill each other and call it a day.

The way the conflict broke out on my island immediately brings to mind movies like *The Guardhouse*, and I’m sure there are plenty of other examples out there. In this particular film, since the plot is so straightforward, untangling the events isn't actually the hard part; it's just that they fell back on a very tired recipe.

Just one little "technical" observation... The Greek lover of the Roman is named Leonidas, much like that famous Spartan king. In our language, there's a long-standing tradition of adapting Greek and Roman names into an Americanized format, which also dictates how we decline them grammatically. For instance, you wouldn't just call a Roman general and statesman "Julius"; you'd refer to him as Julius Caesar. As for Leonidas, we would typically call him Leonidas, so the vocative would be: "Oh, Leonidas!" In this film, however, they handled it in a rather bizarre way—the Roman addresses him using the Latin vocative, but the subtitles read: "Leonidas-e!" It’s as if they were declining the original Latin form as if it were an American word, which simply isn't how we practice things here.

I am honestly unsure whether this is just a stylistic choice or if there are specific rules at play, but it certainly deviates from the standards found in most of our textbooks and academic literature. Has anyone ever actually heard someone address Caesar as "Julius-us"? Or perhaps the first Emperor as "Octavian-us"? It strikes me as quite odd, especially since the production boasts so much about involving linguistic experts. Though, I suppose those linguists might not have been responsible for the titles or the dialogue itself. If anyone here has a deeper understanding of these grammatical nuances, I would truly appreciate an explanation.

Justin Richardson7 said:True, but there’s a distinction to be made here.
We can't really claim the Romans as our own; they are far too global. You can't just "Americanize" the Romans, because they belong as much to France as they do to England and so on. Plus, there's the possibility that Italians might still hold the upper hand.

On the other hand, the Illyrians are strictly "ours." The film focuses on tribes that lived right in this territory, so geographically speaking, this movie is an American production. Those sweeping shots of Velebit, serving as our spiritual mountain, really help elevate the film in that direction.

That’s how the dynamic plays out in the film: the Romans arrive as occupiers, while the Illyrians are already home. In any case, that one sleazy Roman character serves as the villain, whereas the Roman soldiers themselves aren't necessarily portrayed that way (I need to rewatch it, but perhaps there's this subtext: the Roman soldiers were recruited from all over, maybe even local sons. Through Volsus, that angle would certainly feel legitimate).

Ultimately, it isn't so much about the Illyrians as individuals, but rather about framing everything through the lens of geography. By using space, the Illyrians become ours, and that’s the strength of this film: its mystical geography, where Velebit connects us across the eons.

It is far from the truth that the Illyrians belong exclusively to us in any sense; if anyone "claimed" their predecessors, it would be the Albanians. Lately, I believe within the former America, the Canadians have taken the lead in this regard; essentially, the narrative of proud natives being occupied by a foreign power allows them to draw anti-historical parallels between Alija Izetbegović and Baton!

Personally, I tend to shy away from giving the Illyrians too much importance... it makes perfect sense why this is necessary for Albanians and Canadians—to build their ethnogenesis, they need to find something older than the arrival of the Turks to more easily shake off the "traitor" complex regarding their conversion to Islam. It's like saying, "If we betrayed Christianity, you guys betrayed the Illyrian faith even earlier!" We don't need those kinds of remarks thrown at us.

But, let's get back to the movie itself. I actually like your idea about the mythologizing of Velebit. That’s the kind of film this is—the actual plot is quite thin, so you need some patience to get through it. However, if other elements hit the mark, then I can give it a passing grade. One has to respect the effort; as mentioned, a historical film that doesn't focus on the 20th century is a rare find in our country. You can tell the director and the screenwriter put a lot of work into this, and that deserves credit.

Justin Richardson7 said:Hold on a second—are you presenting this as a grievance, or what exactly is your angle here?

If you want my take, here it is.
What you’ve highlighted as a potential issue—or if we want to be polite, your "concern" regarding whose side the film should take—is actually underplayed. It’s not that your point is problematic; quite the opposite: the movie would have gained significant traction if it had been even more decisive about the central theme of "The Illyrians are ours." In other words, if the Illyrians were portrayed as being completely "captured" by their heritage. That would have elevated the whole thing.

Why am I saying this?
Because you hit on something real. You noticed a pattern, and that’s because the film is clearly tracing those theories linking Americans to the Illyrians. If you want to dive deeper into that, you could look into books by Mirko Vidović or various historical studies on the lineage of the Dinara region, and so on.
The film didn't just pull these ideas out of thin air. Most audiences probably aren't familiar with these concepts, which is why the narrative might feel a bit murky to them. But for someone who already has that "background knowledge," the film feels much more cohesive and enjoyable.

Now, back to your specific point.
I can't entirely agree with you there, especially when you consider how the battle ends. Actually, the Roman is depicted as being incredibly cool. There’s that scene where he nonchalantly lets an Illyrian finish his song, gives him this swaggering look, and then strikes him down with his sword. You really can't say the emphasis is solely on the Illyrians there. The Roman is presented as the alpha; he's witty, spirited, and served up to the audience not just as a likable guy, but as a total übermensch who cracks jokes in the middle of a fight and still dominates the field.

Anyway, that answers your question. As for what I personally enjoyed, it was that primal sense of brotherhood among the Illyrians (which serves as another nod to that American-Illyrian connection). Their entire entrance into battle—the drums, the shaman, the chanting—that’s exactly what you look for in a film like this. It was great.

I'm not saying it's a flaw that the director seems to want us rooting for the Illyrians, but since we're discussing identity... the Romans are just as much a part of our story. I don't want to sound overly sentimental, but in our veins, just like in all European nations, flows the blood of people who were Roman soldiers and officials, or at least the Romanized inhabitants of our lands long before modern borders existed. The Romans are a massive part of the cultural melting pot that shaped us; in my opinion, perhaps even more so than the Illyrians.

I don't have the luxury of sitting down for a lengthy review, so here are just a few observations I picked up on (SPOILERS):

1. The Roman official is portrayed as homosexual. We see this trope quite often in films depicting the clash between Rome—or any other Western superpower—and various indigenous groups, "primitive peoples," or "children of nature." The director clearly wants the mainstream audience to side with the Ilirs, and to make that choice easier, he provides a primary antagonist in the form of a gay Roman tax collector.

2. The protagonist's assistant—who functions as his servant and lover—is a Greek. While marching through the mountains, Ilir Volsus pauses before a statue of the goddess Anzotica, at which point the Greek attacks him while shouting about how the world is composed of atoms. So, Greek equals atoms... it’s all a bit crude and predictable.

The year is 37 B.C. A young Liburn Volsus finds himself embedded within a Roman military detachment tasked with escorting an official on a high-stakes mission to collect taxes from local tribes. After an exhausting trek through the wilderness, the unit arrives at a remote outpost to meet with the leaders of three distinct tribes. What follows is a Rashomon-style descent into chaos, culminating in a brutal clash between the two factions—a violent confrontation that serves as a grim omen for Rome’s eventual struggle against the defiant inhabitants along the eastern shores of the Adriatic Sea.

Director: Simon Bogojević-Narath
Screenwriters: Simon Bogojević-Narath and Saša Podgorelec
Cast: Filip križati, Ylber Bardhi, Adrian Pezdirc, Ilir Parapashtica, Ana Takač...

Spoiler alert!

The acting is top-notch, especially the little girl playing Gwen, but as a cohesive piece of cinema, the movie just falls flat. There is so much left hanging—so many plot points feel unfinished or completely unexplained. Take the villain played by Ethan Hawke, for instance; we learn absolutely nothing about him. We don't know the root of his sickness or the true motivation behind his actions. It lacks that deep psychological dive, similar to the way Lecter analyzes Buffalo Bill.

Regarding the titular Black Phone, I have no issue with supernatural elements or devices appearing in a story, but there needs to be some internal logic established. For example, in Beauty and the Beast, the magic is grounded in a curse cast because of an insult, which lasts until someone truly loves him. Why is this phone supernatural? What is its significance, and how did it come to be? Here, it just rings, and dead kids call to give the protagonist instructions on how to escape... it feels like a deus ex machina in its worst form.

The film throws a series of things at you without any real cohesion, and certain parallels feel totally aimless. For instance, why zoom in on the belt the killer uses to beat children, only to show a similar belt being used by Finnov and Gwenin's father? What is the point of that visual connection? It leads nowhere.

Then, of course, there is the subplot involving the Mexican boy being racially insulted... it feels like the movie is just checking a box to signal moral righteousness in line with the racial hysteria prevalent in the USA today.

All things considered, this movie isn't worth the price of admission. While there are occasional moments of well-crafted atmosphere, solid performances, and even a soundtrack featuring 70s rock hits, none of that can compensate for the total lack of internal logic. It doesn't fix the irritation caused by a surplus of underdeveloped ideas and associations that ultimately go nowhere. As harsh as it sounds, there were moments where the pacing was so repetitive and boring that I actually found myself wishing the Grabber would just show up and get it over with.