Wonder Woman (2022)

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.

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...

bluebison8 said: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...

Well, what did you expect? Showing things realistically is pretty much off-limits these days. Anyway, see you Tuesday, 🤣

I don't really get why anyone would bother watching this movie, but hey, everyone has different tastes. I guess some people will find something to enjoy in it regardless.

Why would anyone bother watching this movie? Because it’s actually well-made—that’s really all there is to it.

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."

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...

There was probably some sort of female warrior unit in Dahomey back then—I mean, sure—but I highly doubt they were the elite backbone of the entire kingdom's military readiness. It feels more like they were either a ceremonial squad used for parades, or perhaps the state was just forced to draft women because they’d lost way too many men in combat.

And look, even Gaddafi had his unit of female bodyguards, which doesn't exactly make them the premier fighting force in all of Libya—it's more like they functioned as a glorified harem meant for show.

^It wasn't just about being women; they were fierce fighters who had serious guts.😁
But even all that grit couldn't hold them off against those French bayonets and pure firepower.☕

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."

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 nothing more than blatant propaganda—just a way to rewrite history to fit some trendy new narrative.
If they really wanted to tell a story about the underdog fighting back against oppressors, there were a million better ways to do it. Instead, they chose to highlight one of the most brutal kingdoms in Africa, which was basically famous for running slave trades. 🤦

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."

bluebison8 said: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."

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.

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.

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.

Timothy King said: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.

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.

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.

It’s not like the director doesn't know her stuff...

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.

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?

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.