Nightmare Alley........8/10

Stellar cast, superb acting, great cinematography and noir theme and a captivating story.
It's a brilliant movie and everyone delivered from Bradley, Cate Blanchett, Toni Collette, Willem Dafoe and damn, didn't know Rooney Mara was this beautiful. It's been long I saw her in a movie.

That ending was a big WTF moment. "I was born for it". It really portrays how to fvvk with a man's identity and psyche.

Wonder why the movie seemed to be marketed as an horror whereas it is a psychological thriller. Great props to Guillermo del Toro. It was a thrilling ride.
Woulda loved this movie doing well at the BO. As it seems adult dramas continue to suffer.

.

Battle at the Lake Changjing ......7.5/10

The Chinese industry seems to be growing and it's another big hit for the middle Kingdom. Another war movie that clicked and hit the right spot after The Eight Hundred. No expense was spared with this $200mn splurge of gargantuan production.

The acting was good although I didn't enjoy the Yanks portrayal — they were a bit bland with no vigor or depth. Some of the explosions especially during daytime looked a bit cartoonish but CGI was decent overall. Nevertheless, it's a nice watch. Cinematography was great as well as sound mixing.


This movie easily emphasizes the importance of having a powerful Airforce. The Yankees had it easy for most of the movie because of Air Superiority.
Also emphasised why having advanced and latest weaponry help ease your military operations.
The Battle at Lake Chanjing marked the first battle which taught people how to defeat a technological advanced US Contingent including marking the first major defeat the famed US Marine Corps suffered.

But it also teaches a lesson, shiny weaponry don't always win you war when you don't know how to apply it. Also grit, will and dedication matters in war.
At the end of the day, "in war no side is victorious or the loser, right or wrong. It all boils down to interests".

Achilles100:


Yes o, out of all the movies wey you drop, that's the first one I downloaded. Might download House of Gucci or the other one tonight.

Drop the list for me too make I download .
Thanks

abduleez1:
Battle at the Lake Changjing ......7.5/10

The Chinese industry seems to be growing and it's another big hit for the middle Kingdom. Another war movie that clicked and hit the right spot after The Eight Hundred. No expense was spared with this $200mn splurge of gargantuan production.

The acting was good although I didn't enjoy the Yanks portrayal — they were a bit bland with no vigor or depth. Some of the explosions especially during daytime looked a bit cartoonish but CGI was decent overall. Nevertheless, it's a nice watch. Cinematography was great as well as sound mixing.


This movie easily emphasizes the importance of having a powerful Airforce. The Yankees had it easy for most of the movie because of Air Superiority.
Also emphasised why having advanced and latest weaponry help ease your military operations.
The Battle at Lake Chanjing marked the first battle which taught people how to defeat a technological advanced US Contingent including marking the first major defeat the famed US Marine Corps suffered.

But it also teaches a lesson, shiny weaponry don't always win you war when you don't know how to apply it. Also grit, will and dedication matters in war.
At the end of the day, "in war no side is victorious or the loser, right or wrong. It all boils down to interests".

Air superiority is key in any war what do you think will have happen if boko boiz have air power forget movie the chinese losing 197,000 soldiers to me is not victory when the US is not even fighting them directly (Korean war)

Adolfhitler001:
Air superiority is key in any war what do you think will have happen if boko boiz have air power forget movie the chinese losing 197,000 soldiers to me is not victory when the US is not even fighting them directly (Korean war)

Lol, guy you funny. I was expecting to meet US military apologist after my post. So I ain't surprised.

The US with a military contingent of highly equipped 30,000 soldiers losing to 120,000 poorly equipped Chinese soldiers is a bigger loser.

As you said it's not a direct war. Both China and US fought as proxies or allies (North vs South Korea). So it doesn't negate China's victory.

If you think such amount of Soldiers stand a chance against a dominant Airforce that attacked unchallenged with tons of carpet bombings, then I have no words for you.
US that had mechanised infantry, with soldiers moving in military trucks and tanks. And still had the backing of Helos, Fighter Jets and Bombers.

Did you see any tank from the Chinese side? It is an unfair fight to the Yankees advantage in the first place. Facing them in open battle already meant heavy losses.
Fighting against a Chinese Army that didn't even had good feeding even when they were fighting in their backyard. An Army that didn't have decent clothing to protect them from the cold and had several men dieing of hypothermia or starvation. Comparing them with soldiers who had to march or trek several kilometres distance before getting to their predetermined battlefield.
An army that had to figure out how to escape air reconnaissance from spotting a large soldier movements. Hiding for weeks while continuing to advance to the warfront. An army without logistics support.

The fvvk are you saying man?

One funny thing I found interesting is the official sources stating that US forces lost 1,000 soldiers while having as high as 10,000 soldiers injured. That death rate is highly understated. Most likely to save face.

Now imagine how the US would fare in a fight where it's Airforce is challenged either with missiles or fighter interceptors. Chinese military that were using improvised bombs and WW1 hand bombs to take out tanks. Or didn't you see the grenades US soldiers were using. Even the guns.

Guy rest.

abduleez1:


Lol, guy you funny. I was expecting to meet US military apologist after my post. So I ain't surprised.

The US with a military contingent of highly equipped 30,000 soldiers losing to 200,000 poorly equipped Chinese soldiers is a bigger loser.

As you said it's not a direct war. Both China and US fought as proxies or allies (North vs South Korea). So it doesn't negate China's victory.

If you think such amount of Soldiers stand a chance against a dominant Airforce that attacked unchallenged with tons of carpet bombings, then I have no words for you.
US that had mechanised infantry, with soldiers moving in military trucks and tanks. And still had the backing of Helos, Fighter Jets and Bombers.

Did you see any tank from the Chinese side? It is an unfair fight to the Yankees advantage in the first place. Facing them in open battle already meant heavy losses.
Fighting against a Chinese Army that didn't even had good feeding even when they were fighting in their backyard. An Army that didn't have decent clothing to protect them from the cold and had several men dieing of hypothermia or starvation. Comparing them with soldiers who had to march or trek several kilometres distance before getting to their predetermined battlefield.
An army that had to figure out how to escape air reconnaissance from spotting a large soldier movements. Hiding for weeks while continuing to advance to the warfront. An army without logistics support.

The fvvk are you saying man?

One funny thing I found interesting is the official sources stating that US forces lost 1,000 soldiers while having as high as 10,000 soldiers injured. That death rate is highly understated. Most likely to save face.

Now imagine how the US would fare in a fight where it's Airforce is challenged either with missiles or fighter interceptors. Chinese military that were using improvised bombs and WW1 hand bombs to take out tanks. Or didn't you see the grenades US soldiers were using. Even the guns.

Guy rest.

lol you are funny if you are comparing reality with a movie i have read and study about that war even b4 the release of the movie losing 1,000 soldiers facing both North korea and China with Soviet Union supplying arms and logistics cant be compare with the chinese alone losing 197,000 of thier arm force, no wonder they suffer heavy casualty when they are using themselves are suicide squad

Do the ratio yourself no matter how many Chinese & korean you take out with ur guns and tanks one idiot must succesfully take out one US soldier with the fact that US army are fighting in a new terrain they are not familiar with unlike the chinese fighting in the back of their house

Fun fact do you know more than 2 million chinese fought in that war and according to you US army only lost 1,000 soldiers facing aggression from all side (koreans & Chinese) if not for the fact that the japanese invented suicide soldiers during world war using themselves as weapon i for dash the chinese

Mind you the war is not over so no winner or losers here just dead soldiers which Koreans and chinese paid dearly for
On July 27, 1953, North Korea, China, and the United States signed an armistice agreement. South Korea, however, objected to the continued division of Korea and did not agree to the armistice or sign a formal peace treaty. So while the fighting ended, technically the war never did

abduleez1:
Nightmare Alley........8/10

Stellar cast, superb acting, great cinematography and noir theme and a captivating story.
It's a brilliant movie and everyone delivered from Bradley, Cate Blanchett, Toni Collette, Willem Dafoe and damn, didn't know Rooney Mara was this beautiful. It's been long I saw her in a movie.

That ending was a big WTF moment. "I was born for it". It really portrays how to fvvk with a man's identity and psyche.

Wonder why the movie seemed to be marketed as an horror whereas it is a psychological thriller. Great props to Guillermo del Toro. It was a thrilling ride.
Woulda loved this movie doing well at the BO. As it seems adult dramas continue to suffer.

Replacing Pearl Harbor with Nightmare Alley for the weekend.

am watching naija1960media comedy on youtube

Adolfhitler001:
lol you are funny if you are comparing reality with a movie i have read and study about that war even b4 the release of the movie losing 1,000 soldiers facing both North korea and China with Soviet Union supplying arms and logistics cant be compare with the chinese alone losing 197,000 of thier arm force, no wonder they suffer heavy casualty when they are using themselves are suicide squad

Do the ratio yourself no matter how many Chinese & korean you take out with ur guns and tanks one idiot must succesfully take out one US soldier with the fact that US army are fighting in a new terrain they are not familiar with unlike the chinese fighting in the back of their house

Fun fact do you know more than 2 million chinese fought in that war and according to you US army only lost 1,000 soldiers facing aggression from all side (koreans & Chinese) if not for the fact that the japanese invented suicide soldiers during world war using themselves as weapon i for dash the chinese

By your analogy it's obvious you really don't know how military strategy even works.
And what makes you think I haven't studied the war to a degree apart from the movie.

The US never fought that war alone if we are being honest here. They also had backing with US Allied forces (UK & Europe) as well as South Koreans. 22 Countries contributed to the United Nations Command which was headed by the US. The US had the bulk of the soldiers, but they also constituted support from 21 other countries.

Stop being disingenuous here and provide real facts. Not stating one part of it.


About the 1,000 US soldiers loss... So in war you believe what your opponent says he lost? TF. Of course everyone has his or her account of casualties. The US said it had almost 5,000 soldiers MIA. What does that mean?
Besides I'm talking about the main battle at Lake Changjing or the Chosin Reservoir not the whole Korean War.

China losing 197,000 forces in the total Korean War which lasted for 3 years is different from the numbers lost in the Chosin Reservoir battle.
Since we wanna drop facts the US alone lost over 36,000 troops in the entire conflict. US that was the preeminent World power at the time coupled with the best economy and a booming middle class. A force that had the best equipments money can buy and the support of the US navy, Airforce and Marines as well as other nations support.

That war and the battle at Lake Changjing was shambolic and a blatant US loss no matter anyway you look at it.

US had brand new tanks, the latest technology at the time, M46 Patton tanks beside their troops. Allied troops had uncontested air dominance.
Also new terrain is negated by the fact that the US Marines regiment the 'Polar Bears' had fought some years back in Siberia in WW1. They already had the competence and familiarity in terrain.

With your Nigeria/Boko Haram narrative, now imagine if the Chinese had half of what the US had in its arsenal. In that war, the US were simply Nigeria with advanced weaponry and tech, while China were the Bokos.

Fun fact: Do you know the US alone had 1.7 million soldiers who participated in the Korean War.

Kaycee7:
Replacing Pearl Harbor with Nightmare Alley for the weekend.

Nice choice.

Because of this latest Chinese movie, Pearl Harbor is also in my watchlist this weekend.
Need to pump the veins with WW1&2 content. It's been entertaining.

abduleez1:


By your analogy it's obvious you really don't know how military strategy even works.
And what makes you think I haven't studied the war to a degree apart from the movie.

The US never fought that war alone if we are being honest here. They also had backing with US Allied forces (UK & Europe) as well as South Koreans. 22 Countries contributed to the United Nations Command which was headed by the US. The US had the bulk of the soldiers, but they also constituted support from 21 other countries.

Stop being disingenuous here and provide real facts. Not stating one part of it.


About the 1,000 US soldiers loss... So in war you believe what your opponent says he lost? TF. Of course everyone has his or her account of casualties. The US said it had almost 5,000 soldiers MIA. What does that mean?
Besides I'm talking about the main battle at Lake Changjing or the Chosin Reservoir not the whole Korean War.

China losing 197,000 forces in the total Korean War which lasted for 3 years is different from the numbers lost in the Chosin Reservoir battle.
Since we wanna drop facts the US alone lost over 36,000 troops in the entire conflict. US that was the preeminent World power at the time coupled with the best economy and a booming middle class. A force that had the best equipments money can buy and the support of the US navy, Airforce and Marines as well as other nations support.

That war and the battle at Lake Changjing was shambolic and a blatant US loss no matter anyway you look at it.

US had brand new tanks, the latest technology at the time, M46 Patton tanks beside their troops. Allied troops had uncontested air dominance.
Also new terrain is negated by the fact that the US Marines regiment the 'Polar Bears' had fought some years back in Siberia in WW1. They already had the competence and familiarity in terrain.

With your Nigeria/Boko Haram narrative, now imagine if the Chinese had half of what the US had in its arsenal. In that war, the US were simply Nigeria with advanced weaponry and tech, while China were the Bokos.

Fun fact: Do you know the US alone had 1.7 million soldiers who participated in the Korean War.

And they lost only 36,000 according to you. 1.7 million soldiers but lost only 36,000, that's like 0.03% la.

Please don't quote me oo, just rest

Anny505:


And they lost only 36,000 according to you. 1.7 million soldiers but lost only 36,000, that's like 0.03% la.

Please don't quote me oo, just rest

Olodo, how do you do your maths? Who be your maths teacher?
It's 2.1% of the total US military force.


Tired of these mofos wey no even understand military operations they yarn anyhow.

Numerically the Chinese had the advantage. But that is cancelled by the fact that the US was a far superior opponent. Having well equipped soldiers and weaponry at its disposal means it doesn't have to send much troops on ground.

How do you think Israel survives in such hostile environment it finds itself in and wins wars when it's outnumbered 4-to-1. It's cos of its technological advancement.

Lemme break it down in layman's language for you: it's like bringing a knife into a gunfight. You get.
Now rest.

Na ppl like you dey easily assume the US would win any fight it gets into.

Any mature movies like 1922?

To that person that recently dropped 1922 God bless you.



I need more old school and historical vibes, cold murder....movies like this with matured actors






Please help recommend

abduleez1:


Olodo, how do you do your maths? Who be your maths teacher?
It's 2.1% of the total US military force.


Tired of these mofos wey no even understand military operations they yarn anyhow.

Numerically the Chinese had the advantage. But that is cancelled by the fact that the US was a far superior opponent. Having well equipped soldiers and weaponry at its disposal means it doesn't have to send much troops on ground.

How do you think Israel survives in such hostile environment it finds itself in and wins wars when it's outnumbered 4-to-1. It's cos of its technological advancement.

Lemme break it down in layman's language for you: it's like bringing a knife into a gunfight. You get.
Now rest.

Na ppl like you dey easily assume the US would win any fight it gets into.

Yen Yen Yen Yen, guy so 2.1% out of 100% is a huge loss. So if you lose like 36,000 naira out of 1.7 million naira, na big money you loss be that for your mind. Abeg gettat

So many mugus fool here sha.... Just watch film without knowledge and understanding....


Dumbos go watch film and be okay with a group of Special Forces of about 15-30 highly trained and equipped soldiers face off against 120/ Hundreds of terrorists wielding AK-47s and RPGs and come out on top.
But the same mumu go find am hard for a highly equipped 30,000 force to effectively face off against 120k poorly equipped hostiles. Chai... SMH

Anny505:


Yen Yen Yen Yen, guy so 2.1% out of 100% is a huge loss. So if you lose like 36,000 naira out of 1.7 million naira, na big money you loss be that for your mind. Abeg gettat

See as this Dumbo dey showcase him stupidity...
So you think in war its BODMAS 1+1=2

Pls help me explain how the US operations in Vietnam was considered an epic defeat.

North Vietnam lost about 660,000 soldiers according to US account. While the US lost just 47,000 in combat.
US had 2.7 million soldiers/ personnel serving in Vietnam.
The death rate of US forces was just about 1.7% of the total force.


But pls professor, come and explain why the US operation is considered an EPIC LOSS.

donforeign:


Drop the list for me too make I download .
Thanks

House of Gucci
The Battle at Lake Changjin
The King's Men
Nightmare Alley.

These are the movies

House of Gucci: 3/4 stars

Fireworks.....

This niqqas ain't playing...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTI6T5M8Fj0

See this War College Generals wannabes.



You all should research "Tactical loss/win" and "Strategic loss/win".


Stop disgracing yourselves online.
War is not a game of numbers. You can have your entire fighting force wiped out and still win the war as long as your initial objective is achieved, case in point, Leonidas and the 300.


You can have your entire fighting force intact after the conflict and still be dealt with a resounding L.




War is a game of objectives not counting numbers dead or alive.



Shalom!

Calibrator:
See this War College Generals wannabes.



You all should research "Tactical loss/win" and "Strategic loss/win".


Stop disgracing yourselves online.
War is not a game of numbers. You can have your entire fighting force wiped out and still win the war as long as your initial objective is achieved, case in point, Leonidas and the 300.


You can have your entire fighting force intact after the conflict and still be dealt with a resounding L.




War is a game of objectives not counting numbers dead or alive.



Shalom!

Pyrrhic victory

abduleez1:


By your analogy it's obvious you really don't know how military strategy even works.
And what makes you think I haven't studied the war to a degree apart from the movie.

The US never fought that war alone if we are being honest here. They also had backing with US Allied forces (UK & Europe) as well as South Koreans. 22 Countries contributed to the United Nations Command which was headed by the US. The US had the bulk of the soldiers, but they also constituted support from 21 other countries.

Stop being disingenuous here and provide real facts. Not stating one part of it.


About the 1,000 US soldiers loss... So in war you believe what your opponent says he lost? TF. Of course everyone has his or her account of casualties. The US said it had almost 5,000 soldiers MIA. What does that mean?
Besides I'm talking about the main battle at Lake Changjing or the Chosin Reservoir not the whole Korean War.

China losing 197,000 forces in the total Korean War which lasted for 3 years is different from the numbers lost in the Chosin Reservoir battle.
Since we wanna drop facts the US alone lost over 36,000 troops in the entire conflict. US that was the preeminent World power at the time coupled with the best economy and a booming middle class. A force that had the best equipments money can buy and the support of the US navy, Airforce and Marines as well as other nations support.

That war and the battle at Lake Changjing was shambolic and a blatant US loss no matter anyway you look at it.

US had brand new tanks, the latest technology at the time, M46 Patton tanks beside their troops. Allied troops had uncontested air dominance.
Also new terrain is negated by the fact that the US Marines regiment the 'Polar Bears' had fought some years back in Siberia in WW1. They already had the competence and familiarity in terrain.

With your Nigeria/Boko Haram narrative, now imagine if the Chinese had half of what the US had in its arsenal. In that war, the US were simply Nigeria with advanced weaponry and tech, while China were the Bokos.

Fun fact: Do you know the US alone had 1.7 million soldiers who participated in the Korean War.

lol you concluded that i dont even know about military strategy do you know the current job i do, it is obvious you are the ignorant one here so let me rest and ones more thing what happened in that movie is different from what really happened but am not here to lecture you

Adolfhitler001:

lol you concluded that i dont even know about military strategy do you know the current job i do, it is obvious you are the ignorant one here so let me rest and ones more thing what happened in that movie is different from what really happened but am not here to lecture you

What is the current job you do?

Adolfhitler001:

lol you concluded that i dont even know about military strategy do you know the current job i do, it is obvious you are the ignorant one here so let me rest and ones more thing what happened in that movie is different from what really happened but am not here to lecture you

I'm not concerned about your current job.
If you were that good with military strategy, I would have felt with few words you had said. It would be obvious in your rhetoric.

Even being or working with the military doesn't necessarily predispose you with Military tactical acumen.
So rest. No be me you go give Lamba chop.

Just saw the video review of some of the movies Netflix has lined up for this year and amongst them is Knives Out 2.

Seriously! I don't think there is a need for part 2 o. They will flog this movie until it looses flavor.

Also, part one of Enola was a bust IMO, now Enola 2?

Achilles100:
Just saw the video review of some of the movies Netflix has lined up for this year and amongst them is Knives Out 2.

Seriously! I don't think there is a need for part 2 o. They will flog this movie until it looses flavor.

Also, part one of Enola was a bust IMO, now Enola 2?

Maybe you watched a different Enola but the one I watched was well received. I can't wait for part 2.

iamL:
Don't look up 9/10.
Educative, entertaining and well put together. I laughed all through in a different kind of way.


All the big business men and politicians are interested in one thing, money. I kinda feel a connection to the movie due the covid-19 conspiracy theories about Bill gates and the big pharms. Is a movie intouch with the modern world.

Where can I download it

Achilles100:
Just saw the video review of some of the movies Netflix has lined up for this year and amongst them is Knives Out 2.

Seriously! I don't think there is a need for part 2 o. They will flog this movie until it looses flavor.

Also, part one of Enola was a bust IMO, now Enola 2?

The sequel of Knives out won’t be a direct continuation of the nurse’s story, it’s just another detective thriller.

Calibrator:
See this War College Generals wannabes.



You all should research "Tactical loss/win" and "Strategic loss/win".


Stop disgracing yourselves online.
War is not a game of numbers. You can have your entire fighting force wiped out and still win the war as long as your initial objective is achieved, case in point, Leonidas and the 300.


You can have your entire fighting force intact after the conflict and still be dealt with a resounding L.




War is a game of objectives not counting numbers dead or alive.



Shalom!

War is a game of strategy, objective & NUMBERS.Yes! numbers matter.


All three are not mutually exclusive.

It's hilarious that you'd use the film 300 to buttress your point when it's a fictionalized version of greek history. The number of the Spartans were appr 7000, and even though they won a number of battles, they ultimately lost the war. Guess why they lost? They were outnumbered.

Following