MovieChat Forums > fc31 > Replies
fc31's Replies
One thing I will give it is that I think it is male oriented entertainment with a lot of actions.
It is actually very rare these days and people have a hunger for it.
I think that is the reason a quite silly movie like Deadpool 3 was praised like Oscar worthy.
The reviews basically say the basic plot is very close to the first movie, might as well see the first one instead.
The CGI is kind of lame, also filling Colosseum with water and sharks is kind of ridiculous. If I had any doubts about the movie's relation to the actual history, I don't anymore.
The plot is very silly, the bad guys are just evil for no reason.
This is basically not that different from a Vegas show, flashy but with little substance.
The first Iron man is good too, but not at the level of those 2 avenger movies.
That would indeed be better.
But this movie would be gone, since Thanos did not destroy the stones, they just need someone powerful enough to reverse it.
But I never liked this movie anyway.
There are 2 near perfect movies in MCU, one is the first avenger movie, the other is the infinity war.
You sound like a smart guy, but think this way, this is one of the better movies of the year, which is not something I am all that happy about.
She is never going to be a A-lister as actress.
But she is a big deal as director now, at least after Barbie.
So career wise she has a better future as a director.
In the movies it is always different.
Real soldiers don't fight like that, they usually form a formation and fight as an unit.
Elite soldiers like storm-troopers, both WW2 Germany and the galactic empire of star wars, were usually shown as clumsy and incompetent in movies. Anyone with a gun can kill a dozen.
But that was neither real history nor logical, and I think for majority of people those scenes are cringe to watch.
They were praetorians, they were soldiers, they always have someone like commanders and squad leaders present, there is always someone in charge, they are useful in small battles.
Back to the topic of fighting.
Soldiers fight as a team, they have a command structure, everyone follows orders.
UFC fighters don't have anything like that, everyone fights for their survival. Everyone will try to give orders, none will follow. They also have no camaraderie, none will have the other's back.
Think of 2 armies fighting, one just soldiers, each fighting on their own, the other has leadership, fighting units and squad leaders.
Which one do you think will win?
From the reviews so far it is not a very good movie, I am not sure I will even watch it when available on streaming.
Then again, hardly anything is worth watching these days.
Like I said one on one an UFC fighter will more likely beat a navy seal, but if fighting in groups, the soldiers will likely win.
Praetorians were not exactly bodyguards, they were more of personal army of the emperors, they were usually selected from the best of soldiers of the legions and paid several times higher than regular soldiers, and they had seen battles and did quite well.
I think one on one a gladiator would more likely beat a praetorian, since gladiators were high value possession and capital investment, they were well trained and well fed.
But if fighting in group formations, I think praetorians will be able to beat the same number of gladiators, since gladiators were not trained to fight in groups.
I did think filling Colosseum with water and have navy battle shows in it was a bit silly and over the top.
Hollywood is heavily Jewish, this is an undisputed fact.
To make a movie, you need to get it financed, especially when the budget is over $100 mil. Financial cycle is also heavily Jewish concentrated (That is probably one of the reasons why Hollywood is heavily Jewish).
Combined with what she did, that is not a far fetched theory. And I am definitely not the only one thought of that, both articles I shared mentioned that theory. And a lot, I do mean a lot, of people on social media thought of it too.
Some people went further than I did: https://x.com/dariusacruxx/status/1858773100202225694
<blockquote>Or maybe, in the end, they just thought she sucks as an actress.</blockquote>
That could be as well. But if you think that is more likely, then I don't think you are being very honest to yourself.
Like I said it is a likely possibility, and there is nothing pointing to otherwise.
It is easy to make statements, but without something to back it up, it is just nonsense.
Actually saying that about Edward Snowden would be more believable since he went to Russia, and now a Russian citizen.
See, you don't even know how to make shit up.
I knew that, a bit, I did not read the books, but even from movies I knew what they have become, but this show is not a good introduction.
It is just very weird why they were trusted at all. It says nothing about how they developed their powers.
It just says:"Ah, that happened, you just need to accept it".
I think for sci-fi to work people need to believe the world they are in, but this is not convincing at all.
Some of the review for Gladiator 2 was bad, US box office predication is disaster level: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIWcIwMh5ZI
So it might be worse than I thought.
To where exactly?
She is following through at least.
I have lived in London for close to 5 months in the summer this year, if you have money it is not a terrible place.
Clotted cream is very fattening though, I added at least 10 kilos after the trip.
Your true colour is clearly shown, again a lying low life, or maybe it is the same person.
Posting the whole article is not helping your case.
I will say it again, smeared by low lives like you boosts her good standing.