Posts by bluebison8

This movie is going to be such a massive flop that the producers will be left spinning. I was debating whether or not to catch Black Panther: Wakanda Forever in theaters until the very last second, and honestly, I’m glad I skipped it because the film is absolute garbage.

After seeing this trailer, I can already decide right now: I am not wasting my money on this trash at the cinema. There are plenty of people like me who have been following everything since the first Iron Man, and we are getting pretty tired of all this junk they keep dumping into theaters.

I might go see Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 later this year, but after that, I'm done with Marvel.

In my opinion, it isn't just Marvel's fault. I didn't even bother seeing Shazam! Fury of the Gods because that isn't hitting the quality levels we used to expect anymore either. Now I'm even sitting here wondering if The Flash is actually worth watching.

Just walked out of the theater, and honestly? It was a blast. You don't even need to be a die-hard Dungeons & Dragons fan to follow the plot and enjoy the ride. As long as you're a fan of fun fantasy flicks, you're set.

It's finally hit theaters—has anyone caught a screening yet? The first reviews are calling it an entertaining ride.

hiddenpuma75 said:1. Around 11:30 tonight, I finally decided to sit down and watch this movie—the one everyone expects to sweep the Oscars (at least, that was my thought earlier tonight).
I figured, why not? Let me experience an Oscar winner for the very first time on the actual night they hand out the awards.

2. One friend had already warned me that the film was absolute garbage. 😲🤔🤔

3. Honestly, I barely made it past the 25-minute mark before it became unwatchable. I actually ended up turning it off.
I tried speeding through some scenes toward the end just to see if it improved, but it all felt like mindless chaos and unnecessary filler.

4. I have to admit, I’ve never actually walked away from a movie in my entire life!! 🤔

5. Can someone please help me understand how a film like this is considered so good?
How on earth did it win an Oscar?

Have you ever sat through that sci-fi flick from the last century, Brazil?
Now *that* is a movie that’s genuinely hard to finish.

cosmicotter9 said:I can already smell another trash adaptation coming our way.

The first reviews suggest it’s actually a fun adventure.

This is essentially the spiritual successor to the 2006 hit Snakes on a Plane. Only this time, we have Samuel L. Jackson playing a bear fueled by pure cocaine. If you can't recognize him in this role, it simply means you haven't snorted nearly enough cocaine yourselves.

wearybear82 said:This trailer isn't anything special. It feels like they're just checking boxes to get this thing finished. A few monsters, an octopus, more comedy, and then some tragedy at the end. But the trailer doesn't have that vibe from the first movie. It's giving me late-stage Thor or Ant-Man.
How on earth did they bring this version of Gamora back to life?

That's the Gamora from before she ever teamed up with the Guardians.

Based on the trailer, this looks like it’s going to be a blast.

nimblemarlin6 said:Red Sonja shouldn't be walking around with a body straight out of a Playboy bunny photoshoot.

I mean, sure, those models have incredible physiques—but you can tell they’re curated. They're raised on a steady diet of caviar, oysters, gourmet pastries, and high-end cocktails at poolside parties in five-star hotels. It’s a very specific look.

Red Sonja is sexy, sure, but she isn't someone you mess around with.

Her build needs to be lush, yet undeniably athletic—think more along the lines of a classic Frank Frazetta illustration.

Honestly, Gina Carano back when she was starring in "Haywire" would have been the perfect choice.

Just look at the way Gina Carano moves in a fight—she was only 29 then, and now she's 40.

What a powerhouse!

True, she’s 40 now and carrying an extra 30 or 40 pounds. Unless she gets back into training, she’ll never pull off action sequences like the ones in that video again.
Even in the Mandalorian, her movement was sluggish, and she's put on even more weight since then.
Given that her career depends almost entirely on action roles, I don't understand why she isn't taking better care of herself.

Quote: was better.

Richard Wilson4 says: The opening battle in Rome

Perhaps. But I don't recall her.😁

bluerider3 said:With a Worldwide Gross of 91 million, the movie lost money. Look, losing cash doesn't inherently mean the film was bad, but it sends a clear signal to the suits in Hollywood: they aren't going to throw money at projects that don't pay off. Nobody invests just to watch their capital vanish. It’s a weird cycle—sometimes things go great, sometimes they tank. When superhero flicks make a killing while genuinely high-quality films earn nothing and bleed cash, the entire industry shifts its focus entirely toward capes and tights. As Tarantino once noted, most people are just sitting around waiting for this superhero bubble to finally burst. Ultimately, the Box Office tells you exactly where the industry is headed; when one thing makes a mountain of money, studios just chase that high by churning out endless sequels, cinematic universes, or cheap imitations. That’s just how the business works.

Usually, Americans refer to "worldwide" as everything outside of the US, which is why I calculated it that way. If the total is only $91 million, then this is an even bigger failure, lol.

nimblemarlin6 said:That whole battle? Historically inaccurate—just completely off the mark.
I’m guessing they were aiming for more of an impressionistic vibe—you know, trying to capture that specific feeling of being a barbarian when you're staring down the barrel of a highly organized, totally superior military machine.

Look, nobody was pulling any superhuman stunts; they just showed how devastating a Roman phalanx can be when it’s doing its job. Whether it was 100% accurate doesn't matter, as long as they didn't pull the kind of nonsense ruggedmaker99 described.

One of the most incredible combat sequences from the old school era had to be that opening battle in Gladiator. It was absolute genius.

Elizabeth Sanchez2 said: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.

So, $150 million worldwide? The studio only sees about 50% of that (and they’d get more if it were a major blockbuster). That leaves them with $75 million. You also have to consider that the $50 million budget doesn't include marketing, which often costs as much as the production itself. This means they either just broke even or lost a massive amount of money.
That is a fail.

Mark White11 said:It's just great how you think the Box Office is the only way to judge if a movie actually worked.

If a film is a total disaster, then sure, the numbers are a great indicator. In the opposite direction? Not so much.

Mark White11 said:Honestly, you're the only failure in this whole thread. Like, what are you even doing? Just rambling on and acting like a history professor to prove some point?
If someone makes a movie where Hitler saves Jews, I don't give a damn about historical accuracy. Seriously, who cares?
A movie is just a movie—I judge it on its own merits.

Maybe you don't care if they completely rewrite the narrative in a "historical" epic, but most people actually do. Specifically, Black Americans, who were the intended audience for this film. It particularly offended them that they made a movie about the worst slave owners in history and then played dumb about it.
The film is a total crash and burn at the box office, and frankly, I hope we don't see more garbage like this in the future.

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.

This movie is a massive box office disaster, and you’re living proof of why. You seem to be the only one willing to throw money down the drain. The rest of us? We'd rather just sit back and laugh at their attempt to make a film where "Hitler saves Jews instead of killing them" while simultaneously "defeating the Russians without any losses."

nimblemarlin6 said:Just started watching. It kicks off with the opening narration.
Set in 19th-century Africa—the Dahomey kingdom going up against another group...
It bugged me a bit that the intro feels so "American"—you know, all that talk about freedom and liberty.
I mean, were people in the Dahomey kingdom back in the 1820s really rocking American vibes and clinging to Christian moral standards?
Whatever, not my point.
The narration keeps going, and there’s this quote, roughly: "The only defense for the Dahomey kingdom is a regiment of warrior women." Hmm. Okay... I think they also mention they're some of the greatest fighters the world has ever seen. Right... seriously?

First scene: nighttime. You see a group of Black warriors sitting around a fire with spears—clearly meant to be African warriors.
Then, out of nowhere, these stern-looking women emerge from the tall grass, dressed like they stepped straight out of "300."
They charge the warriors and just absolutely wipe them out with this insane level of skill—without taking a single hit themselves.

I don't doubt the movie is well-made—it clearly has high production values—but watching it requires a massive amount of, what's the term, "suspension of disbelief."

The only historical records from that era state that the French defeated them with minimal losses... so much for being the greatest warriors...

Elizabeth Sanchez2 said:https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8093700/

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.

Actually, in this specific instance, the lack of historical truth matters quite a bit. For example, this was a slave-holding kingdom that hunted other Black people to sell to Europeans. Eventually, the Frenchman decided enough was enough and moved in to stop them, easily defeating them with minimal losses.

The movie presents the exact opposite...

I wouldn't say it's a masterpiece, but it could actually be a blast. Based on the trailer, it definitely looks like an upgrade over the last Dungeons & Dragons movie we saw in theaters.