My friend and I watched The Odyssey, and we enjoyed it.

Even the bots love it

Iraq2xVeteran said:

---

My friend and I watched The Odyssey, and we enjoyed it.

---

Tell Claude I said hi.

I really wanted to like this movie, but it fell far short of its potential IMO.

This movie was a slog for me. The absolute worst part: I found myself not giving a crap about Odysseus about an hour in. Damon's portrayal combined with Nolan's script created a dull, one note unlikable ******* for a hero. He had no rapport with his men whatsoever, which is crazy considering he spent the previous 10 years living & fighting beside them. His men were there to defy him and serve as fodder for monsters & calamities; they were not there for him to lead.
Nolan missed an opportunity for Ody to have a bond with his men: shared meals, jokes, humor, heartfelt talks of home. Instead is was an "us vs. them" mentality that ruled, and everyone all the time was down and depressed. People aren't like that. Think of the scenes between Mel Gibson & his men in Braveheart, Maximus & the gladiators/soldiers. Even in the worst of time, dudes WILL joke and bond. Nolan missed that.

Other gripes, many have been said.
The language: American English didn't bother me as much as the "My Dad" or "MFing Beach" "Our age of Bronze"

The cast: Holland was weak. Zendaya was perfect for this: void of emotional range. Pattinson, Hathaway & the actress who played Circe were fantastic. The diverse cast was eye rolling and dumb as expected. (but far from the biggest problem)

The setting: Enjoyed the diverse scenery, but would have been nice to see Greece as it actually is: full of light & blue water. Filmmakers insist on washing over everything with undertones to set a mood and it really sucks.
I also appreciated using real sets instead of CGI, but he could have spiced it up a little. Those palaces were sparkling new 3500 years ago, not ruins.

The story: I think this could have easily been a two part film. It was too long as is (and too loud) and many parts felt rushed as Nolan pushed to check off the boxes (islands) and important scenes were left out.

*I appreciated Nolan's light touch with the gods. I thought he should have emphasized Poseidon a little more since he was the one who really prevented him from returning home: he wanted him dead.

*He changed Circe in a way that I thought was great. Her character in the book is quite similar to Calypso so this made sense.

*Calypso (Theron) was handled weirdly, in the book she had a palace - she wasn't a padre island beach hermit. She didn't use lotus flowers to keep him there. She also offered immortality and he refused, preferring life and death with his wife rather than eternity with her.

*I wish he would have had the Cyclops talk. Another opportunity for levity and to show Odysseus using his cleverness with the "Nobody" line. The Cyclops design was great though.

*The giant Excalibur knights were a terrible change. These guys just hang out on their island in full anachronistic plate armor waiting for people to land & kill them? Just delete this scene & have something else kill the crew. It added nothing.

*The Island of the Sun God. Again, rushed. The scene was so fast you never got the feeling the men were really starving. I would have thought the Sun God would have a nice uniform herd of Red Brangus or something instead of a motley heard of whatever came out of the sale barn.

*Sirens: Not bad, just rushed again. Would have been nice to see a close up of the actual Sirens.

*Charybdis & Scylla: A stupid monster design & a rushed scene.

*I enjoyed the climax scene on Ithica, Pattinson calling out "Spears!!" etc. was probably the funniest moment of the movie, though I'm not sure if Nolan meant it to be that way.

*The scene of them sailing off to the West fell flat for me. You haven't seen your son in 20 years, and you sail off with your wife to leave him to his fate as a King? What a sh*tty "Dad".

Other gripes:
*No one wore roweled spurs in Greece 3500 years ago, nice contrived plot device.
*Plucking a bow to warn your prey? Yeah, the animal would just run. Damon's archery was bad.
*Give the guy a little more time with his dog! Faithful animal waits 20 years, then dies... Damon just moves on. WTF? I guess we should have known he'd leave his son by his actions here.
*Could we have a drinking game every time someone says Zeus's law chug a beer?
*The "Odysseus & Crew run screaming to the boats" Could this have been done differently? Once, ok. Maybe another a strategic retreat? Just seemed repetative.
*The "Sea Peoples" angle was dumb if you know the real history, but I get what Nolan was trying to do: Preach.

Maybe a 6 or 6.5/10 for me & not nearly worth the hype. Sits far below Gladiator, Conan the Barbarian, & Braveheart in this genre. Definitely won't be rewatching this outside of maybe a scene or two.

JMO.

I saw it for the first time last night on 70mm. I thought it was incredible. The practical effects were well worth going to see this movie.

CharleyKerfeld said:

---

Iraq2xVeteran said:

---

My friend and I watched The Odyssey, and we enjoyed it.

---

Tell Claude I said hi.

---

Hello back at you.

Quote:

---

I found myself not giving a crap about Odysseus about an hour in. Damon's portrayal combined with Nolan's script created a dull, one note unlikable ******* for a hero.

---

Yeah, I've grown tired of this. I know theater kids love playing these parts, but they are tiresome to watch.

Watching a police drama right now called Bergerac that is eat up with it. Alcoholic...widower...whatever. It subtracts.

Great review. I agree with pretty much everything you said. I walked out of the theater thinking I'm glad I experienced it in the theater, but probably will never bother to watch it again. From a storytelling perspective it was just not well done.

I agree that Odysseus was pretty flat and uninspiring. He wasn't driven by much sense of purpose, as he was in the source material and in the way great epic heroes should be. The calamities (sirens, cyclops, Circe, etc) feel like a token series of events that don't add much to the narrative, just provide fodder for another run-to-the-boat scene.

Ol Jock 99 said:

---

Ok, I've accepted that Im not going to get to see this in IMAX. Normal theater or wait until streaming?

---

See it in a theater. I don't think this movie would be very enjoyable streaming at home.

*not adjusted for inflation

It was alright. Agree about a 6.5/10. Won't watch again.

I can't wait for the next epic to come out and be done right so people can look back and realize what an underwhelming stinker this was.

Good Lord, give it up.

TCTTS said:

---

Good Lord, give it up.

---

good Lord, quit gooning to this average at best movie.

It's the...

- Highest-grossing R-rated movie in history.

- Highest-grossing IMAX movie in history.

- Highest-grossing movie in Christopher Nolan's career.

- And is projected to finish around $1.7B, which would make it the highest-grossing movie in the 114-year history of Universal Pictures.

In other words, it's clearly doing something right.

Acting like I'm some weirdo for liking it is ****ing weird in and of itself.

You're the odd man out here, dude.

being a successful social experiment does not necessarily correlate to a quality product, but you keep fanboying this B- movie til your heart's content.

You know, you can acknowledge that something may be "good" or "good quality" and still doesn't work for you. And thats cool. Not every movie works for everyone. But just because it doesn't work for doesn't mean its sub-par. Example -- I don't really care for the movie Whiplash. People LOVE it. To me it just doesn't work. But I don't think people who do like it are living in some fantasy world or are dumber than me. They just...like something I don't.

veryfuller said:

---

You know, you can acknowledge that something may be "good" or "good quality" and still doesn't work for you. And thats cool. Not every movie works for everyone. But just because it doesn't work for doesn't mean its sub-par. Example -- I don't really care for the movie Whiplash. People LOVE it. To me it just doesn't work. But I don't think people who do like it are living in some fantasy world or are dumber than me. They just...like something I don't.

---

but I don't think it was good or good quality, especially for a budget of $375M.

After speaking with folks in my social groups, I heard a lot of similar gripes. Honestly, was refreshing. It's quite insane to me the echo chamber love fest in here for this very very average film.

It's wild the amount of effort some of y'all put into making sure others know you don't like or won't watch something.

Hell, some of you do on multiple threads in the same afternoon.

Quote:

---

After speaking with folks in my social groups, I heard a lot of similar gripes. Honestly, was refreshing. It's quite insane to me the echo chamber love fest in here for this very very average film.

---

"After confirming it with my echo chamber, I was relieved. So different from this echo chamber over here that has had tons of opposing viewpoints about the movie."

By definition it's not an "echo chamber" if praising one of the most fianancially successful and well-reviewed movies of the year. Unless the "chamber" you're speaking of is... Earth?

Also, it's not surprising to me in the least that the people you choose to hang out with have the same overcritical tastes as you. Congrats?

Bunk Moreland said:

---

Quote:

---

After speaking with folks in my social groups, I heard a lot of similar gripes. Honestly, was refreshing. It's quite insane to me the echo chamber love fest in here for this very very average film.

---

"After confirming it with my echo chamber, I was relieved. So different from this echo chamber over here that has had tons of opposing viewpoints about the movie."

---

except I never had an echo chamber nor mentioned that. I said heard a lot of similar gripes, not exclusive gripes. Read, guy.

zgolf coming in hot on Day 45 of the film's release.

TCTTS said:

---

By definition it's not an "echo chamber" if praising one of the most fianancially successful and well-reviewed movies of the year. Unless the "chamber" you're speaking of is... Earth?

Also, it's not surprising to me in the least that the people you choose to hang out with have the same overcritical tastes as you. Congrats?

---

as others have said a bazillion times....and stay with me here...use that Ag degree there guy. We now pay $16-35 (or more in some markets) per movie. For reference and since you're such a all time list nerd, Avatar came out in a year where ticket prices averaged $7.50 domestically and Titanic was under $5.

Also, stay with me here...the movie industry is an embarrassing shell of itself in a competitive sense from what it was before the streaming age. Who was CN honestly competing with for top box office dollars this summer? I'll wait. This isn't 2005 where you have a dozen watchable movies hitting theaters (both mainstream and indie venues) every week. There were just two massively hyped non-children's films this summer...The Odyssey and Spider Man. That's it, that's the list. Shocking that Odyssey took in so many dollars when there's not dick to watch otherwise.

Also, you misspelled financially.

The cope is strong with you.

zgolfz85 said:

---

when there's not dick to watch otherwise.

---

What kind of movies are you watching?