re: Has anyone on this board actually sat in a theater and viewed The Woman King?(Update pg 2)

I don’t need to see it to know it’s the most powerful movie of the year and will win the Oscar.

quote:

---

from those who actually saw the movie.

quote:

---

The biggest impediment to my watching the movie is that...

---

---

First response. Here we go.

The preview saying it’s “this generations Gladiator” made it clear to me that I would never watch it

quote:

---

I've only seen 2 movies this year and nothing since Top Gun and want to go to a movie. Oscar Season isn't quite here yet.

I like movies with an historical setting, and Viola Davis is a really good actress. The others you listed honestly don't peak my interest.

I can deal with The Patriot-level historical inaccuracies.

---

It has a A+ Cinemascore, so basically anyone that has ACTUALLY seen it, really likes it. Brother and fiancé and the friends that saw it all thought it was very good. One thing I heard though was they did sort of wish it was R-rated. Which is something I thought too with the previews. PG-13 historical epics with big sword battles should bring the blood IMO

quote:

---

Only user reviews worth a shite is Cinemascore, cause its the only one that is actually verified.

---

Oh kinda like the recruiting site that rates your committed prospect the highest is the correct one?


Cool

Update….in previews and there’s 6 of us. And we’re in one of the big auditoriums. Love it

quote:

---

First response. Here we go.

---

It has made only $23 million in a little over a week in theaters.

You’re gonna have to entertain some opining from those who haven’t seen it, or else this thread would never get passed by he first page.

That being said, like the OP, I want to know how good it is (out of curiosity), but I’m just saying the movie doesn’t seem to be all that interesting at least from the advertisements.

quote:

---

I want to know how good it is

---

So I'm home now.

Things I appreciated:
-The sets and on-location shooting in South Africa. Seems like modern productions don't use locations very well anymore. This movie does.
-Viola Davis is great and is actually pretty convincing as a battle worn, tired, badass soldier (seems like Viola Davis looks like a worn out person in every movie)
-It was set in the 1820s after the US and British ban on the trade, so they use Brazilians/Portuguese as the traders. I'd imagine this is more accurate? Brazil's ban came later.
-The subject simply isn't something that is common in film, so I appreciated a movie that at least touches on the subject. The only other examples I can think of are Amistad and Roots.

Things I didn't like:
-I thought the film's score was mediocre, such a shame considering its set in Africa
-The script wasn't the strongest
-It really should have been rated R, the battle sequences were well made but too clean

The slave historical accuracy....if you go into this movie knowing absolutely nothing about the subject, you would come out knowing that the Dahomey did participate in the trade and sold its captives. The Viola Davis character tries to influence the new king to move away from it while others argue to keep it, the debate is part of the story. However, the conflict with the Oyo is the central part of the film and the Oyo are much more involved in the trade in the film. There is one part though where the slaver straight up tells the Dahomey king that without the trade, he'd have nothing but a kingdom "of mud" and that all of his riches are due to the slave trade.

I'm glad I saw it. It is a competently made film with good acting performances and solid battle scenes.

quote:

---

Still wondering if people came out of it more dissatisfied if it did portray aspects many don’t want to talk about.

---

Its tough because its hard to tell an accurate "hopeful" African story set during that time because of all the shite that went down. They clearly bent history towards the end to give it a hopeful more happy ending. I don't blame them at all for that.