I went into this film with no pre-formed opinion. I didn't want to jump on the hate bandwagon before seeing it. Nolan has never made a truly bad movie ever. I've been entertained by almost everything he's made. So I went in open-minded.

Let me get the controversial stuff out of the way. The casting, modern English, modern accents, and historical inaccuracies didn't take me out of it one bit. I was completely fine with all of that.

My problem with this movie is it simply didn't have that "wow" factor.

Dinosaurs hit the big screen in 1993. There was nothing mind blowing about the cyclops or giants.

Game of Thrones and House of the Dragon offer more immersive and visually breathtaking visuals from the fantasy genre. The Northman had a far superior siege sequence than the siege of Troy, not to mention photography. On that note...

I was completely unimpressed by the photography. Worst of Nolan’s career. What’s the point of shooting large format if all you’re gonna do is shoot tight, shallow, crammed, darkly lit, claustrophobic, shoulder-mount camera shake shots?

The score was forgettable. So were the set pieces generally. And my god, the sound effects were bad. Every time I heard a sword stabbing or slitting someone, it just took me out. Pretty sure they just pulled sound effects from movies 20 years old. For a $250m movie, record some fresh fucking sound effects.

John Leguizamo and Samantha Morton gave the best performances in the movie.

There were some sequences I found quite engaging. I don't want to spoil it, but my favorite scene was mainly anchored by Elliot Page and had a truly absorbing atmosphere and tone to it.

The best element of the movie was the relationship between Damon and Himesh Patel. That should have been the primary focus of the story in my opinion.

I’m drawing a line in the sand right now. I have little further interest in movies shot in IMAX. I like large format, but I want a wide screen image. Would rather more movies just get shot in Alexa LF. I don't particularly love this movie, but Roma is a better example of what large format photography should look like.

You can’t have agile, high energy action sequences on IMAX like Die Hard 3 - taxi raging through Central Park. Everything has to be really stiff. If you give audiences The Odyssey's ocean sequences and have them watch back to back with Master and Commander's ocean sequences, I’d love to know what they think is more visually immersive and gripping. I'm willing to bet it's the latter.

3/5.

The sheer body horror of his transition into the walrus is unmatched. What other films have a transformation that completely shocked you?

Main Points.

1. Felt like I was watching one long extended trailer. Scenes kept cutting quickly back and forth and nothing ever simmered, causing the movie to feel rushed. Because of that, it was never easy to really get into any of the characters in a deep way or feel drawn to their story.

2. Dialogue audio not good. Hard to hear and understand in many scenes.

3. If you knew nothing at all about the Odyssey, then a shit load of things that happen in the movie just don't really make sense and aren't fleshed out or explained well. The story, as viewed from going in without knowing anything, was not compelling. It was hard to ever care about anyone.

4. Robert Pattinson turns into a hilarious bad guy at the end: "swords! looks guys there's spears! get the shields!" they kind of make him this ridiculous coward at the end. Kind of boring.

5. The only truly heart tugging scene is the dog.

6. Acting was fine overall. Wish there were more weird characters or strange people. It was max Hollywood.

7. Charlize, while looking pretty, sort of looks like everyone else now in Hollywood, with the face work, and therefore it drew me out of the scenes cause that whole part with him and her looked like they were in some rich hippie camp in Cancun. Weird.

8. Music was kinda boring. The end credits song was like dark and sad sounding. Just kinda lame overall music and sound, but loud for sure.

9. I wouldn't recommend the movie, but I also wouldn't say don't watch.

10. If this was the first Christopher Nolan movie I had ever seen, I might be drawn into his unique way of making films and they're editing, but since it's not his first and I've seen this schtick over and over, I kinda think I'm bored with his style of movies.

Conclusion: not terrible, but not a great movie that left me wowed.

Thank you

Lost Boys (1987) for me.

Its stylish take on the vampire trope and blending of horror and comedy works so well. Also has one of my favorite Kiefer Sutherland performance.

What’s your favorite vampire movie?

Idiocracy(2006) is a meta-apocalyptic movie in the world of which the idiots prevailed by a socially enforced survival of the weakest.

They ended up watering plants with power drinks and watching movies of 90-minute close-up of a naked butt that intermittently farts.

When a person wakes up in the world of the movie after 500 years of hibernation, having his rationallity preserved, they consider him stupid just because his speech has logical structure.

The movie is brilliant both in plot and in acting, yet it was a massive failure.

It barely made half a million with a budget of $2,4 million.

Apparently it wasn't advertised because the studio feared lawsuit from real life companies, like starbucks who were mocked in the film.

Still, IMO it mostly failed because it was too realistic in its representation of our real world and what we have become. That scared the audience and stayed away.

The movie failed because it succeeded delivering an accurate critique of which we were not ready back then and we would even be hostile to it today.

it's not the easiest challenge.

I remember when this came out. The island was waved off as sleek but hollow and a “ripoff“ of Logan’s Run, Soylent green and the like.

But revisiting this movie is a stunningly executed 2000s Frutiger Aero Futurescape with really great production set design and cinematography.

Yes it’s not reinventing the wheel but the practical sets, practical action and sleek 00s Softclub visuals of swimming fish ocean and islands and blue skies is fun to watch and readily lies in the camp of Minority Report.

mcgregor and Johansson are great actors and elevate the story with their charisma. As a summer popcorn flick this film deserves more love than It got.

I'm not going to review The Odyssey in detail. Instead, I'll compare it to a few films and series that I greatly enjoyed, each approaching mythology in very different ways.

• The Odyssey is never truly grandiose, unlike Troy (2004). In Wolfgang Petersen's film, the sets are spectacular; in Nolan's version, Troy is reduced to a few bare white walls. The palace of Ithaca is little more than a large, dimly lit hall. Menelaus' palace—one of the most powerful kings of this era—looks completely unremarkable. At no point does the settings feel epic. And this isn't even a question of realism: archaeological ruins and frescoes give us a fairly good idea of what Greek architecture looked like, and it was far more impressive than anything shown here. Where did the $250 million budget go? Honestly, it feels like an arthouse film where the director compensates for limited resources with cheap-looking sets and twenty extras where there should have been five thousand. (I haven't seen Dunkirk, but it seems to suffer from the same issue: instead of taking your breath away with thousands of soldiers, you get ten men awkwardly fighting in a dull street)

• The Odyssey is neither primal nor grit, unlike The First King: Birth of an Empire (2019). That film presented the legendary founding of Rome through a grounded, "organic" lens. It was simple, yet incredibly powerful. The cast even spoke proto-latin! When a scene felt limited, the modest budget excused it. (if you're a fellow Roman enjoyer, this movie is a must see!) It's clear than Nolany wants to achieve that same kind of raw atmosphere, but it never truly comes across on screen.

• The Odyssey also lacks depth, unlike Iphigenia (1977). If you're expecting strong dialogue and gripping dramatic tension, look elsewhere. That's especially disappointing considering that half the film consists of two characters standing face to face, talking.

• The Odyssey has no real "wow" moments, unlike Game of Thrones. Once again, you have to wonder where the budget went. We all remember the dragons in GoT: magnificent, epic, and awe-inspiring! Or the famous "Battle of Bastards" episode, that was so intense you couldn't take your eyes off the screen! By comparison, the giant toy soldiers in The Odyssey—who are apparently meant to represent the Laestrygonians—look just as ridiculous on screen as they did in the trailer. Scylla fares no better: we're treated with three pitiful tentacles that look like something out of a 70s Japanese TV show. If this was supposed to be a tribute to Ray Harryhausen, it completely misses the mark. The Underworld looks just like the beaches, only darker. I can't remember which 1950s film it was, but there was a similar sequence featuring breathtaking painted pandemonium backdrops. Even the Circe sequence, which some critics have praised for its "horror" atmosphere, brings nothing new: it almost looks like the actress is simply handling latex masks while the camera spins wildly around her. The Cyclops is probably the film's only genuinely successful visual effect—but five minutes out of a nearly 3h long movie isn't much.

• Finally, even compared to Nolan's own films, The Odyssey falls short. Interstellar is one of my favorite, largely because its father-daughter relationship is deeply moving. Nolan completely fails to recreate that same emotional intensity with Odysseus and Telemachus, even though the story naturally lends itself to it. Unlike Interstellar, this is never a film that will have you reaching for a kleenex—and that's a shame.

(That's another comparison with Troy, actually. In Troy, many scenes show Achilles taking care of his men, or Briseis, Agamemnon joking with his brother, Paris with Helen, Hector and others sharing conversations, bonding, and interacting naturally. Despite the conflicts, you genuinely get the feeling that these are men and women who have real human relationships. Hence, you feel for them. You never really get that in The Odyssey. Odysseus' relationships with Calypso or with his crew, or Telemachus' relationship with his mentors, all feel staged and scripted)

Good morning / Good evening,

I watched the movie yesterday, and I genuinely think it has a strong chance of being the movie of the year.

I also believe there's a high chance it will win multiple Academy Awards. The stories featured in the film are well known and are rooted in ancient Greek history and mythology.

One thing that really surprised me was how incredibly loud the sound was. I honestly think it had the loudest audio I've ever experienced in a movie-even my smartwatch gave me a warning that the noise level was too high.

A few of the actors gave slightly weaker performances than I expected, but it didn't have much of an impact on the film as a whole.

I highly, highly recommend it.
I enjoyed every minute of it.
One thing I would strongly suggest for anyone planning to watch it in theaters is to book VIP seats (the one with the reclining seat) , as the movie is fairly long.

My rating is 8.7/10.

It's easily one of the top 15
movies I've ever watch.

Thank you, and I hope everyone who watches it has a wonderful experience.

Whenever I watch this movie, I ALWAYS wind up leaning to the left on that hard right turn. It's instinctive, and that's good filmmaking! but i'll tellya this: it would've been cool to have Charlie Epps do the math for us. Just sayin'.

Sandra Bullock is a goddamn delight in everything she does. She's genuinely wonderful, and she sells her character so hard you feel her emotions coming right at you.

The movie itself manages it's beats very well. Just enough action and just enough drama all the way to the final bang and beyond, when Jack gets the girl AND his man.

Speed's a fan favorite around my house and always has been.

Watching the early reactions to Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey made me wonder about something.

Whenever a movie becomes the “must-love” film of the moment, there are always people who seem almost eager to be the first to explain why it’s actually disappointing.

Of course, popular movies can be overrated, and criticism is essential. But I sometimes wonder whether some criticism is less about the film itself and more about psychology.

Is there a point where being a contrarian becomes a form of status signaling?
As in: “Everyone thinks this is brilliant, but I can see the flaws you all missed.”

It seems like there are several possible motivations:
- a desire to stand out from the mainstream,
- gaining approval from the minority that disagrees,
- signaling sophistication or superior taste,
- or simply enjoying the attention that comes with a hot take.

Again, I’m not saying every negative review falls into this category. Plenty of criticism is thoughtful and completely justified.

I’m asking about the mindset itself.
At what point does criticism stop being independent thinking and start becoming a way of saying, “I’m smarter than the crowd”?

Regardless of all the gluttonous discord around this movie I took something away from it I wasn’t expecting.

I don’t know about all of you, but the education I have, the government i live in, and the gadgets I play with made me feel disconnected from our ancient world. Like we were better than. Granted our social infrastructure is, but how we act as people hasn’t changed.

To peer into old Greek hyperbolism and see under the veil at what these people venerated and what they feared. What they saw as honorable and evil showed me we haven’t changed, and we’re still living in the shadows of our predecessors. Granted in suits now. But still being dominated by ambition, ego, honor, fear.

I always thought the goal of man was to rise above our animalistic instincts. And I thought we were on that path. This movie and its source material made me think, maybe we can never escape it. Nieztche always preached about how god is dead, and I never really understood what he meant by that. But this movie lays it out plainly. To not honor one another, and to continue to destroy our social fabric and institutions through distrust is akin to cannibalism and self immolation of an entire species

I’d be really interested to hear what yall took from this.

P.S 8/10
Cast was incredible, didn’t know leguizamo was like that. Some of the dialogue was flat but the ending 40 min was phenomenal and Odysseus’s talk to Penelope was the highlight for me. Could feel shades and lessons of Oppenheimer in here.

Could be that the subtitles held this one back, but Jacques Audiard’s A Prophet, and Tahar Rahim’s performance in it always felt underappreciated to me.

Rahim had only done two smaller roles before A Prophet, but he nailed this role like a seasoned vet.

The way he played Malik adapting to prison life, and rising through the gangster ranks was on point. Not sure how he pulled it off, but he added a ton of depth and realism to that performance.

For me, the movie and the performance by Rahim ranks right up there with Pacino and The Godfather( just in French and Arabic with English subtitles).

I can't decide this are both good movies

I’m trying to expand my horizons and watch older movies. I watched the original Godzilla a few weeks ago. The 1954 Godzilla remains an absolute masterpiece of atmosphere and dread. It’s a chilling, beautifully shot allegory for nuclear trauma. Honda’s direction and Akira score still hold up perfectly today. A true cinematic triumph. The more I think of it the higher I regard it. May be in my top 3 ever.

In some ways, the movie was better than I expected it to be. In others, it was a lot worse.

Visually, I would have to say the movie is a mixed bag. I think the cinematography was overall quite excellent, however, the visual presentation in quite a few scenes suffered quite heavily due to some of the costuming looking strangely cheap, plastic, and poorly designed. At times the movie looked rather visually dull, even by Nolan's standards.

In regards to the quality of the acting, I don't really have complaints, but I would have to say that the decisions made in regards to dialogue were.. Poor. On multiple occasions the dialogue felt jarringly anachronistic, and overall, the movie could have felt significantly more immersive if the script had been written differently.

Maybe it was an issue with the location, but the audio in general, however, was rather terrible. In more than a few scenes I could distinctly hear extremely egregious audio quality inconsistencies, especially during character dialogue, and at times it was flat out hard to hear what people in the movie were actually saying.

Overall, however, without getting into major spoilers for those who haven't watched it, I would say that the cardinal sin of this movie, is that it was plainly, and very simply, a boring adaption. The more of the movie that I saw, the less anticipation I had for the rest of it.

And while I can see the effort that was put into many parts of it, with the exception of the costuming, because I can definitely say from my personal experience with cosplay, that not nearly as much effort was put into that as there was in other parts of the movie.

Nor can I, in good faith, from my experience, recommend this movie or laud it as being worth your time, because at the end of it, I didn't feel like it was worth mine. Even with the caveat that in other locations the audio could very well be significantly better, I can't say that it would be worth your time or money.