Director Gina Prince-Bythewood’s The Woman King may be “inspired by true events,” but the film plays like pure old-school Hollywood: a historical action epic that, for all the novelty of its setting and subservience to contemporary attitudes, traffics in a lot of cliché narrative beats and ideologies. You’ve seen much of this countless times before, even if its unabashedly feminist bent might deceive you into thinking otherwise.
According to Prince-Bythewood and screenwriter Dana Stevens (who formulated the story of the film with producer Mario Bello), before there was Black Panther’s fictional Wakanda, there was the real Dahomey. The Woman King is set in the West African kingdom during the 1820s—in what is today Benin—and, if the film is to be believed, the state was something of a proto-feminist paradise, protected as it was by the Agojie, an all-female army of warriors.
At the head of this troop is Nanisca (Viola Davis), who takes it upon herself to train a new cohort of soldiers after the Agojie suffer heavy losses in The Woman King’s opening battle sequence. Among the new recruits is Nawi (Thuso Mbedu), whose father, frustrated by her rejection of multiple suitors, more or less dumps her at the palace of young King Ghezo (John Boyega) before Izogie (Lashana Lynch) ushers her into the empowering universe of the Agojie.
What follows is a whole host of familiar emotional and plot complications. Nawi is the prototypical reckless upstart who eventually has to learn to modulate her ways and prove herself worthy of being a member of the group. Nanisca, meanwhile, is haunted by a dark secret from her past, represented by a recurring dream that she asks second-in-command Amenza (Sheila Atim) for help in deciphering. A forbidden love story even figures into Prince-Bythewood’s incident-clogged film, as Nawi finds herself drawn to Malik (Jordan Bolger), whose mother was a Dahomey slave and who’s a begrudging part of a band of Europeans who participate in a slave trade involving them, the Dahomey, and the more brutal rival Oyo Empire.
One of the film’s more nuanced aspects lies in the recognition of Dahomey’s complicity in that slave trade, a deal with the devil that Nanisca is intent on destroying even if it might lead the nation to financial ruin. Also refreshing is the acknowledgment of feminist agency complicated by feminine feeling. “Love makes you weak,” Izogie insists to Nawi at one point, and Nanisca, who was once captured and raped repeatedly by the leader of the Oyo Empire, Oba Ade (Jimmy Odukoya), would likely be the first to agree. But both Nawi’s romantic feelings for Malik and a revelation in the middle of the film connecting both Nanisca and Nawi suggest that being a powerful woman doesn’t inherently mean having to only be emotionally steely or hard.
For the most part, though, The Woman King plays as old-fashioned, crowd-pleasing, slam-bang entertainment. At the film’s best, Prince-Bythewood’s direction is a skillful supplier of that kind of entertainment. For one, The Woman King’s battle sequences make detailed-packed use of the widescreen frame, across which Gersha Phillips’s lush costumes become characters in their own right. It also doesn’t hurt that they’re worn by performers as committed as Davis and Mbedu, among countless others, whose passion practically seeps through their pores.
That old-fashioned feel is also evident in the stale, even regressive ideologies that the film, whether it realizes it or not, affirms. The Woman King doesn’t exactly offer anything subversive when it comes to its view of warfare, happily feeding our bloodlust across its viscerally effective action sequences (and, thanks to its PG-13, without even much actual on-screen blood to speak of), complete with rousing nationalistic speeches leading up to those scenes.
Speaking of bloodlust, The Woman King is the umpteenth Hollywood film to tout the nobility of righteous revenge, especially when just about all of the Oyo tribesmen are portrayed as brutish mustache-twirling villains. There comes a point in Prince-Bythewood’s powerful rally cry of a film where it becomes hard not to imagine if, had it not been set in a West African nation with a nearly all-Black cast, just how different it would really feel from any number of less socially progressive classic Hollywood World War II action pictures from the 1940s and ’50s.
Since 2001, we've brought you uncompromising, candid takes on the world of film, music, television, video games, theater, and more. Independently owned and operated publications like Slant have been hit hard in recent years, but we’re committed to keeping our content free and accessible—meaning no paywalls or fees.
If you like what we do, please consider subscribing to our Patreon or making a donation.
It’s funny how ‘critics’ try to hold this film to some sort of double standard of historical accuracy while wallowing in the endless self delusion of mainstream cinema’s misogynistic and white race fantasies. From Top Gun Maverick, to Game of Thrones, from BraveHeart, to Gladiator. Propaganda you like – passed off as harmless entertainment. It’s a form of gaslighting – or don’t you even recognize that.
You are simply a racist that depicts all europeans as an amorphous blob of white skin. White is not a race. Try opening a dictionary. It is abhorrent how racist you are. You forgot to mention how this film is a black supremacy film and advocates slavery by Africans and to Africans. It even makes the wild jump of creating a European character that promotes them to continue slavery despite this time period being 20 years after slavery was banned in Britain and over 2000 sailors were on the seas fighting to free African slaves… oh by whiteness ya ya sure thing there racist
it’s funny how woke “opinion givers”, who can’t be called thinkers no matter how hard they try or no matter how many “degrees”they have, can’t accept any iota of criticism even when they acknowledge their owen woke propaganda for what it is: brainwashing. Their only resort is the very tool used by the most tyrannical regimes used in history …”whatboutism”.
They also can’t fathom that there are people that despise neo-Maoist wokes almost as much as the Top Gun nonsense or Game of Thrones onanism. They wallow in the same manichean thought process that has plagued the inferior American culture since the 1960’s .
This was an excellent movie! I’m taking my family to see it twice and every weekend thereafter. It’s no surprise that some lack appreciation for such an excellent film. This review should be called The Minimizer! It’s too bad the writer of this article’s ancestors weren’t enslaved. If they had been, Im sure the perspective and review would totally different and he endured continuous racism that African-Americans experience til this day.
You clearly did not see the same film that I saw. Or, more accurately, you did not see the same film that I saw through my eyes and in my lived experience. This was one of the most powerful pieces of I have ever experienced. I will not share any details to spoil any plot however I simply enjoyed seeing strong, Black, powerful, beautiful women kicking ass.
You are a racist, we know. You can just say it, you are a black supremacist
A great critic has the talent to review a movie regardless of connection to the theme or previous experience. This one missed MANY major subtexts that most African Americans and those familiar with Southern Black culture easily comprehended. I give this movie a strong “A+” and encourage everyone who understands the nuances of Black culture, history and, most important, traditions across the diaspora to see it. Just because the reviewer didn’t get it doesn’t mean others won’t.
Best movie ever!
This movie touched on more than just war or the fight for a people not to be sold into the ever-wrenching slavery system. It was more of a woman being raped and how your past has come back to haunt you and the child abandoned in the wind. It was a cry to see the dregs of a slavery systemic immorality upon women and men as if they were chattel property or cattle themselves. The brutality and the result thereof is left for the woman to dispose of and the men to go on as if nothing happened. And how a mother has to eventually face the choices of the past in order to rectify the future as does a system gone awry and the great-great-great-great-grandchildren’s cry to be heard and to be seen. This was deeper than many who lacked the ancestral trauma can see. Hence the switch of clothing before the final fight as if to say the children of those who are descendants of those of slavery have to fight their own battle as the ones who have been torn apart from there love a family have to fight their own battle and one day will come together to fight as one. The blood that runs through my vein is the same blood that they portray to run through the child’s vein. I too was a victim of rape and had to go through the trauma not have been cast away but being cast down every day as a reminder to my mother hoping one day she realized that I was never the problem. So much hitting depth to this movie a man could never know. Only a mother maybe even a woman or descendant could understand. That’s my take on it
Wow really surprised most of the comments are negative when the review really wasn’t all that negative. :/ I haven’t seen the movie yet and based on this review I would consider seeing it.
It seems to me the critic gave a lot of praise actually to the action sequences and showing that you can be a strong woman and still feel love. The only critisism seem to be that it didn’t really bring anything new to the table regarding war. And that’s okay; if people just want to see black woman kicking ass and defending their country that’s totally fine. Not sure why people are getting so bent out of shape about it?
I’m confused; You say a good critic doesn’t need to be personally familiar with the source material, yet you then criticize the reviewer for allegedly missing things you need to be familiar with Southern Black culture to understand? Perhaps you can clarify?
I do appreciate you mentioning that this movie would be better understood by those familiar with black culture. I don’t go to theaters much but it might help someone else decide if they should spend the money or wait for it to come out on streaming. Other benefits to home viewing would be being able to pause and discuss, or look up things you don’t understand.
The reviewers lack of basic historical context makes their ability provide a thoughtful review suspect..
Much of this review centers on “unbelievable” aspects of the movie, such as the role of “Mino” in the Dahomey society and politics.
Or the actual historical context in which Dahomey actually came into being; it was a response to themselves being enslaved by other tribes and sold to Europeans.
And it is TRUE that the Mino opposed the slave trade.
It is also true that because of their situation the Dahomey became a very militaristic and some would and violent people.
And yes they sold other Africans into slavery with the colonizers in order to secure the weapons and resources they needed to secure their kingdom which was surrounded by enemies.
I haven’t seen the movie yet but I have spent some time looking into the history of these incredible women.
Some of whom who were sold into slavery to the French, ended up in Hati and helped win the Haitian Revolution!
I can see why some people would think that unbelievable given the colonizers want us to believe that they are the only ones capable of such feats.
They were not sold to europeans. At this exact time frame. over 2000 europeans had been killed freeing African slaves from African slavery. The African slave trade has never ever ended. The first slaves of Europe were under black skinned men. First slaves of America were under black skinned men. In both cases we have the transcripts of sale, the docks the ported out from and where they were sold. We have whom bought them too.
A colony is a group of people that live in a foreign body of land while not assimilating and practicing their cultural norms such as religion, dress an speech. Colonies are not white people you disgusting racist filth. This entire comment section is full of abhorrent racist garbage. You are talking about a time frame in history where Europe was fighting slave trade and freeing people. The irish were the number one slaves at the time, traded in over 16 countries. Do you even know any actual history? I have dozens of books and encyclopedia covering this. What in the world are you disgusting racists talking about?
I couldn’t have said it better myself. Thank you for your eloquence. I wish you would copy/paste this on all the review boards, particularly the ones by the far right who tout this as another Hollywood “woke” message.
I loved this movie. It is definitely a must see. It is the best movie I have seen in several years. Viola Davis was awesome and so was the rest of the cast.
Wow. I saw the movie today and by FAR…THIS IS THE BEST MOVIE I HAVE SEEN IN YEARS!!! SO INTENSE, LITERALLY TAKE MY EYES OFF THE SCREEN. LOVED IT SOOO MUCH!!!! YOU HAVE GOT TO GO SEE THIS MOVIE!!
thanks Bob finally someone who actually knows something about the slave trade , what annoys me about it is no one mentions the North africans enslaving mainland Africans or Europeans or the romans taking millions of French and British celts to be enslaved and murdered these are just basic examples there’s many more people with half a brain are getting fed up of this agenda being shoved down their throats by people who don’t research what they are talking about
It’s almost hilarious to hear these halfwits getting bent out of shape because people don’t wish to accept their revisionist framing of the TransAtlantic Slave Trade. bobart (or M.A.G.A. cap wearer) erroneously claims that “Britain abolished the slave trade”. He conveniently neglects to mention that enslavement continued throughout what we now call the Americas, but the British were fearful that the insistence on importing kidnapped Africans to the region was supplying further troops to Jean-Jacques Dessalines, who regularly hijacked slave ships and took the former captives to the revolutionary Haiti, which was formed after the Caribbean nation had bested French (twice), British and Spanish armies to establish a liberated state on the location where once stood France’s most profitable colony. African enslavement had ‘evolved’ from its original construct, where captives died within seven to nine years, due to overwork, repeated rape and torture. The ‘new thinking’ proposed less torture and brutalisation, to allow the kidnapped captives to procreate infants who were born as slaves and would, therefore, not require the extensive ‘seasoning’ which was inflicted upon kidnapped Africans to brainwash them into enslavement. Britain saw that the Haitian Revolution was a game changer and feared the prospect of more rebellions in Jamaica and also feared that Dessalines would eventually build an army which would export his liberationary ethos to neighbouring nations (such as Jamaica).
People such as bobart highlight that the TransAtlantic Slave Trade has a legacy in the mentality of folk who believe they can dispense with decency or courtesy during communications or interactions with people of African descent. bobart demonstrates this by defending his perspective with reference to faux history and then accusing people of being ‘racists’ because they have the temerity to espouse points of view which oppose his own.
I see no problem with the reviewer’s revulsion at the perpetuation of militaristic tropes which have been a mainstay of cinematic expression over the past century. However, I also recognise that we haven’t evolved as a species and we still regard the ‘eye for an eye’ paradigm as the most satisfying way of dispensing justice. Indeed, I have to admit that I myself have not evolved past the reductionist viewpoint of how justice should be administered. Where once I castigated myself for cheering John Wayne in various movies where he would slaughter “pesky redskins” or “gooks and Japs” framed as villains, because I had been hoodwinked into believing the invading colonialists were on the side of righteousness. However, although I pride myself on having recalibrated my equity perspective, my cerebral and political ontogenesis has done little to assuage my primeval bloodlust. I cheered as in days of yore, when the Agojie put slavers to the sword during the climactic scenes in Woman King. I am so happy that those scenes made bobart uncomfortable, it enhances my adoration for this movie. The sequel cannot come soon enough for my liking.