WARNING: Spoilers ahead…on a story 2.5 millennia old.
Finally got around to watching it this weekend. After the Mt. Everest sized stack of cash it made and all of the glowing reviews, honestly, it was pretty underwhelming.
First thing’s first. The dialogue was AAAAAAAAAWFUL. Seriously? What the hell? It sounded like I was listening to dialogue written by a small team of junior high students. And not the junior high students that take honors English. I was fine with the choice to do American accents, although I would have preferred British accents for a movie like this cuz it just sounds classier. But that wasn’t it. It was the actual words used by the actors to communicate to each other. It was just so dumbed down and sounded so boring and basic. I’m assuming it was a choice made on purpose to maybe connect with as many modern English speakers as possible, but it largely killed the film for me. I was actually kind of shocked how bad the dialogue was in this movie.
Another thing that kind of bothered me, although not nearly to the same degree as the dialogue, was over-acting. I felt like there were some performances that were dialed up a little too much. To the point where it kind of took me out of the film because I felt like I was watching an actor trying to shoot for an oscar a bit too hard. I think the main culprit on this one was Anne Hathaway. Alternatively, I think there was also an issue of under-acting. I’ll get to that below.
Pacing. Despite having 3 hours to tell the story, I kind of felt like some things were skipped over too quickly. Other things that they spent too much time on could have been shortened to allow more time for things I think deserved the time more. Scenes didn’t really punch the way I thought they should. In the book the scene where he comes back after 20 years and his dog is still alive but dies as he touches it and it recognizes him is really impactful, but it was just kind of glossed over in the movie with little to no emotion from Matt Damon. Same with Odysseus finding out Calypso had trapped him on the island for years. Not a lot of emotion there. Actually, I think the only scene Damon really sold was the siren scene. He did the opposite of over-act for most of the movie.
The film looks great. Gotta give it that. The cinematography is solid. And I’m not saying the film was bad (other than the dialogue which was truly awful). I just don’t get the massive hype. Honestly, I still prefer the 90s made for TV version with Armand Assante. I think the dialogue was better. The acting was better. The pacing was better even though it’s almost exactly the same length as this new version. And they did it without the star-studded cast the new film has. Obviously the new version has better special effects, and I do think overall better cinematography. I acknowledge maybe there’s some rose-tinted glasses thing going for me with the 90s version as I grew up with it.
I guess I’d give this new version a B. Just a mid-range B. With a special handwritten in red ink note in the margins that the dialogue is an F.
Ok, crucify me now.
EDIT: You know what, I’d like to add a few things I did like, beyond the cinematography. I liked Odysseus’ monologue about the siren’s song. I liked his monologue about his point of view of his role in the war when he’s talking to his wife. I liked that Athena ended up being a ghost of someone he watched get murdered at Troy (although I do not like Zendaya as an actress).
You must log in or register to comment.
Tom Holland was super distracting in this film. Idk, I just see him and I don’t see Telemachus, I see Spiderman. He’s too recognizable.
Zendaya was less bad, but same problem.
Maybe if they didn’t always cast these two in the same films the comparison wouldn’t be so easy.
Maybe if they didn’t always cast these two in the same films
You mean Spiderman? Because that’s the only other movie series they are in together.
edit:
maybe you have Zendaya confused with Mark Walberg?
Holland and Zendaya are also main characters in the Dune movies.
Holland isn’t in any of Dune movies
I assume they mean Timmy Chalamey, even though Timmy and Holland look nothing alike over than both being soft-faced white boys (despite being in their late 20s or early 30s)
You’re right, I’m stupid. No idea what I was thinking.
So, I was going to respond to a comment OP made, but decided to expand on it beyond that context. I think way folks may be missing is what the Odyssey is, and that’s where the comment started j
As far as that goes, the Odyssy was never realistic. It’s an epic, written long after the events would have happened, as a form of entertainment rather than historiography. It’s supposed to be unrealistic because it’s the equivalent of a graphic novel.
The characters are meant to be damn near demigods. They’re the distant past heroes, their stories told orally for generations, then written down in a new form. It simply isn’t about realism. If it was, the sirens and the cyclops wouldn’t be there.
You have to look at Odysseus as captain america, or black panther. Not quite superhuman in the way of someone like Hercules (the Marvel version or the older myths), but peak human capable of feats that would destroy “regular” people to do just once.
Thus, trying to filter any version of the Odyssey as historical fails. You can’t make a realistic movie of it because it’s never been realistic, nor the Iliad that precedes it. These are stories of gods, men, and those in between.
Trying to compare it to something like Band of Brothers, where you find a mostly reality grounded story that’s a fictional pastiche set during a historical event, just isn’t giving credit to the source material.
This needs to be compared to Clash of the Titans.
The immersion break of “dad” is more about the audience’s expectations of any far past setting using theatrical formality than any unrealistic placement.
Think about it. If you see your father fall to the ground, grasping his chest, what are you going to scream? Father? Dad? Daddy? Papa? Most people don’t call their parents mother and father unless speaking about them distantly. Even then it isn’t universal.
The choice in terms of movie values is a difficult one, because Nolan has to be aware that the audience is going to be jarred by their preconceptions when a character supposedly alive over a thousand years ago doesn’t have a British accent, and a posh one at that. But that’s no more realistic than dad. It’s a preconception, not an objective and direct translation of what someone in the time the Odyssey is set in would have said.
People habe suggested “oh brother where art thou” as a superior version of the Odyssey. I don’t disagree, but I would point directly to the language used in that movie. It’s vernacular English, and not even particularly accurate for the setting it’s in. The accents aren’t realistic, they’re as overblown as a theatrical British one. But we set that aside because the film is amazing in its own rights.
I’m not saying the Nolan Odyssey is a perfect film. Hell, I even agree that it doesn’t measure up to its hype. But I think OP’s criticisms are as much or more about the preconceptions of the moviegoers as the movie itself. I would agree with the rating of B though! It has flaws (and one of the comments made mentions the jank that’s due to IMAX filming necessities where you can only record so much at once points to the one I notice most in IMAX movies), and it has a very Nolan style. Nolan isn’t really who I would pick to bring the Odyssey to the screen because you do end up with a little too much style creep, but I also think it’s a worthy addition to the litany of greek myth based movies.
It simply isn’t about realism.
Sure movies don’t have to be realistic, but they have to be entertaining.
Having era authentic production can be a part of what appeals to people.
The immersion break of “dad” is more about the audience’s expectations of any far past setting using theatrical formality than any unrealistic placement.
He’s not complaining about that. The movie has straight up some atrocious on the face dialogue. It has little subtext and leaves little for the mind to imagine. Good dialogue is the opposite. People like to infer what the character is saying over what they actually mean.
And from what I can tell, if it was trying to emulate the illiad’s style of prose, it fails at it.
Nolan has some really good movies, but I’d get his brother or another writer to edit his writing for the big screen.
Era authentic?
It’s the Odyssey, which era? The era when the Trojan war was supposed to have occurred? Homer wrote his version? When his version was translated to English? And which translation?
Neither the Iliad or Odyssey are historiography. So any film based on them in inherently incapable of authenticity. They’re fiction, written so long ago that it’s hard to be certain when the events of the story are supposed to be from. Homer, if he was the actual author and stuck with some kind of accurate oral writ, would have been writing through the lens of time as much as Nolan did. Homeric descriptions of combat were, and I’m saying this as someone that’s trained in fighting of various sorts, laughable. They’re absolutely not more accurate than any movie based on Greek mythology I’ve ever seen.
Well there’s evidence the siege of Troy actually happened in the bronze age. Homers illiad and odyssey are also definitely refering to the bronze age era.
My point being - It should been at least interesting. I found it boring to see the same greek armor being used for everything, when we know they were a diverse bunch, let alone for something that supposedly took place thousands of years before. You wouldn’t have complained if Nolan used era authentic armor, but it would have added to the charm.
Homeric descriptions of combat were, and I’m saying this as someone that’s trained in fighting of various sorts, laughable.
Yeah, it’s a myth. To be honest it fails in my eyes there as well. It’s not a very epic myth, everything feels so small. I wanted to see a grand Troy being seiged by hundreds of thousands of people. I get that it’s trying to be more grounded, but I thought it wasn’t supposed to be realistic.
If you are going to represent an epic, why not go all the way? Why is it grounded in only some places but doesnt care to be grounded in history?
The immersion break of “dad” is more about the audience’s expectations of any far past setting using theatrical formality than any unrealistic placement.
Did the OP edit his post? There’s no mention of “dad”. Only that the entirety of the dialog was bad.
Not the commenter you’re replying to, nor have I seen the film, but I’ve seen the dad line complained about a lot. But a lot of it seems like bandwagon hating something popular (I don’t mean OP’s post which is thoughtful)
That was from comments, not the initial post. As I said, the comment you’re responding to was started as response to a comment in a thread.
Edit: go team venture!
Honestly, I still prefer the 90s made for TV version with Armand Assante
I have always loved that one.
The part that killed it for me right at the start, even more than American accents was the casual use of the words Mom and Dad, not mother and father.
If you want to watch the Odyssey, May I reccomend O’ Brother, Where Art Thou, or The Warriors.
Come out and plaaaaay aaaaaaaay.
Warriors is based on the Anabasis.
If they all had British accents I would have thrown up all over the theater
I particularly enjoyed the reveal that the mighty walls of Troy, which the entire Greek coalition spent 10 years camped outside, was a 15 foot mud brick partition which could have been breached by two tall men and a running jump.
People give the movie Troy shit but at least they did justice to the city in that one.
Tom Holland as incapable 35 year old weak man-boy, spec-ops archer firefights and the “bronze shower” of weapons being dropped through the floor were just the icing on an increasingly ridiculous adaptation.
The fact that someone thought it’s intereating, fun or even somewhat “realistic” that a dude fighs 40 guys in a small room with bow and arrow says a lot about the movie. It was supposed to be the climax of an already pretty slow and not very interesting movie, but then they had to cut away a lot, because, i don’t know how he would fight all these people. The whole bit where he pretends to be a beggar reminded me more of that office acene where Andy pretended to be a janitor for way too long than an actual movie that tries to be taken serious. Tge only thing i liked about the movie, really was Robert Pattinson’s performance. He is a sleazy douche and you buy that. Tom holland was annoying as hell at some point and Matt Damon was just some guy with a glued on beard for most of the time.
Wait, only 40? I can see your problem with it then! In the original poem, he fought 108 guys in a room with a bow and arrow.
The whole bit where he pretends to be a beggar
Odysseus was always the cunning trickster and Athena helped him play characters so people wouldn’t recognize him. In the original poem, not just this movie.
Tge only thing i liked about the movie, really was Robert Pattinson’s performance. He is a sleazy douche and you buy that.
Good that they didn’t mess that one up, he really was a sleazy douche in the original too.
Tom holland was annoying as hell at some point
Honestly without having seen it yet, I would even say that could also be true to the original. He was an annoying scaredy-cat momma’s boy in the beginning.
Like half the things I see people complaining about… Are things that were literally in the original poem? So the problem is that it’s… Too CLOSE to the source material? That’s a new one. Well, my torrent is finishing in 3 minutes so I’m gonna see how horrible it truly is then.
deleted by creator
Christopher Nolan is incredibly overrated IMHO. Wooden characters, thin script, over reliance of gimmicks of editing and bombastic music. I can’t see why anybody likes his films all that much.
Hot take: Interstellar was mid af. I burst out laughing in the theater at the book shelf scene. He needs to hire a writer because he’s not a very good one himself.
When I watched it in the theatre all those years ago, I thought it was pretty solid. Then I watched it again a couple years ago and did not think it aged well. When I first saw it, I thought the black hole imagery and TARS robots where fantastic. On second viewing everything was meh.
Prestige was amazing. I liked Memento a lot too.
I find the movie mid myself. I agree wholeheartedly about the acting, Robert Pattinson and Spider Man were the two worst for me, especially the scene where spider man shouts “DAD!” like, call him father at least come on… I actually like Anne Hathaway more than most everyone else, she is intense the way a woman would have to be to resist society the way she did for so long. I agree Matt was just Matt doing Matt the whole time, I usually love the guy but I think he was miscast. Honestly everyone being an A list start was a big part of why I found it hard to get into, aside from the bad acting and dumbed down dialogue. I didn’t find the movie to look that good though, were the cameras high quality? Sure but it was just such a bland movie, flat, colorless, drab, you have such beautiful nature in that part of the world, you have literal magical goddesses and Demi goddesses, they definitely had some idea of what people were expecting when you look at Agamemnon’s armor, they just didn’t stylize any other part of the movie, at all? I also agree the pacing was bad, the entire last 3rd of the movie felt like it was dragging it just kept going and going… the long part of the story is the voyage, the pacing was bad. Generally I found it stale, boring, and disappointing, worth a watch once in theaters but I didn’t like it and wouldn’t recommend it.
Tom Holland and Zendaya have 0 range. Every single movie they play the same people. Especially Tom Holland ruined the immersion for me. He sounds like a GenZ teenager.
He’s also felt way too old for the role. I know his characters age isn’t a hard fact so he could be the “real” age of the character but he was written like a child. They needed an actor with a baby face on the younger side or to write Telemachus more like a high born young adult who was well spoken. If they’re going to have tom play a character his age, write the character for that age.
try the 1997 version
I went to this movie for three things: the spectacle, the cool sounds, and watching serious actors act seriously. It delivered on all those fronts when I watched it.
What spectacle?
The big boats being rocked by big waves, the big armored guys’ attack in the forest, Polyphemus. The pillage of Troy. It looked cool.
The Big armoured guy attack was the most confusing and jump-cut happy five seconds I’ve seen yet. That was a big boat, not even a ship by today’s standards. It wasn’t that impressive. I desperately want to get my hands on the IMAX resolution cut of the movie to ‘get’ what Nolan was trying to say.
Did you really ask just to have an excuse to shit on their personal experience?
It does look like that doesn’t it? I thought I was having a conversation in that second comment. I did not want to invalidate their personal experience.
Fair enough :)
What serious acting? Serious over acting maybe
I really liked it. Before it came out I was convinced that you can’t do a good adaption and was mostly curious what Nolan wanted to achieve with it. Having seen it, I think Nolan succeeded in getting his idea of the themes on the screen but I wouldn’t say it is for everyone.
Visually it was great.
The acting was wooden and underwhelming.
The sound was poorly mixed, being both too loud and not loud enough.
That’s 2.5 hours and $10 I’m never getting back.
You guys go to the cinema for only 10$ ? I spent 35$ equivalent 😭
The sound was poorly mixed, being both too loud and not loud enough.
Also known as the Chris Nolan Special
Also known as mixing for dynamic range
Of a fucking multi-million IMAX theater! I don’t have that kind of gear lying about! Mix the sound for normal people, or even rich people, sound systems! Hell, mix it for non-IMAX theaters! Other movies do it fine, why not his?
He’s got some deluded fucking zealotry about the purity of the experience, keeping IMAX standards throughout to the detriment of more casual viewing experiences.
From the man who makes Batman movies.
That’s exactly the problem with this whole movie. His ego takes higher priority over the art.
Sums up most Nolan movies for me. Look good but that’s about it. Actually screw that they don’t even look that good, mostly grey and washed out.
Sounds like most big budget movies these days.
I liked the acting but I can understand why some people would think that way.
I had a similar reaction to Oppenheimer. It felt like a 3 hour long trailer. Every scene felt like a cut scene, with no real sense of progression. It was amazing visually, but that was pretty much it. I was simultaneously over stimulated and bored by the end, if that’s even possible.
All my friends were surprised that I preferred Barbie to it. (We did the double feature Barbenheimer thing.)
Was really disappointed with the Nuclear explosion. It was like extra gassy fart on taco tuesday. I think I saw some instgram videographer do it better.
Also for the love of God why doesn’t he doesn’t holding shots? I want room to experience and breathe in the moments. He cuts to the next scene way too fast.
“It felt like a 3 hour long trailer.” I was having a hard time explaining how I felt after watching it but this pretty much describes my reaction perfectly. So much happened with so little depth, it was the quickest three hour movie I’ve ever watched. I generally like Nolan films but I hated this one, was just waiting for it to end. Also, the acting felt so bland, like everyone was just reading script for the first time.
I think it’s the style Nolan has developed and stuck with / become trapped by; a vignette scene to reveal a carefully crafted shot/moment, followed by a link to the next vignette scene building to another moment. Almost all his scenes end that way, with a full stop at a moment of impact, all careful and curated and never freewheeling or chaotic.
I think it robs his films of organic feeling, and it feels to me like being sheparded towards a catharsis he designed rather than acheiving any real trancendence. It’s no surprise given his start with Memento, a film hinged around the vignette-reveal-repeat rhythm, but he could never pull off something as frenetic as Black Swan, Good Time, Birdman, etc. That would stretch outside his “what if they don’t get it” architecture.
