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).
Well I liked it a lot. Not for everybody I guess. Also don’t crucify ppl
I haven’t seen it and probably won’t, I didn’t see how it was going to be good.
I haven’t watched it, nor have I had any intention to watch it, based solely on the fact it has been marketed so hard.
It’s meh for me.
I’d rather watch Troy than Nolan’s odyssey.
I think I liked the Nolan Odyssey more than you did, but I agree that the 90’s version with Armand Assante was better lol. I just rewatched it and yeah, the pacing really is much better. Cinematography was better in the Nolan version, but it was made for theaters and the 90’s version was made for 90’s-style small TVs, so it’s hard to compare directly.
I think the 90’s version is a better adaptation overall, but Nolan’s version is a unique interpretation of the story.
IDK why people hated the accents so much. Ancient Greek folks didn’t speak English with a British accent. Having Telemachus call his dad “dad” was fine with me.
deleted by creator
It’s a movie with amazing cinematography, but awful dialogue, basic looking sets, and costume design that looks like it’s from a cheap fantasy TV show.
Couldn’t even be bothered to use an authentic looking ship. Jesus.
Where were all the cool Greek gods? I only saw Athena, and she barely had any dialog.
I feel like most of his movies are like this.
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 doesn’t have to be historically accurate because it’s not a real historical telling of the events.
But that doesn’t mean it can’t be historically authentic. Sorry for being a movie goer with expectations, but I’d expect Nolan of all people to have a higher standard.
I’m not certain about your semantics here.
What’s the difference between accurate and authentic here?
In most usages, they’re almost synonyms, or outright synonyms. When accurate leaning more to the “precise in detail” with authentic leaning more to being “real” or verified, as in authentic parmesan, or authentic roman coin.
Now, I suspect you may mean authentic as in conveying a feeling commensurate with something. But I’m not certain, so I figured I’d ask rather than assume.
If you’re using that type of meaning, I’d still say that that’s totally subjective, the same way using dad instead of father would be. Conveying a vibe is so totally based in individual perceptions and assumptions that no film maker can ever cover everyone. What “feels” ancient greek to me is unlikely to match your sense of it completely. It’s unlikely it would match even halfway. As a rough example, maybe ornate armor feels more authentic to you because it stands out and has familiar imagery, but plain armor feels more authentic to me because it lacks narrow era specific errors, or maybe that it’s less obvious as a prop.
My expectations of a film aren’t the same every time. I have them. And leaving without a sense that my time was wasted applies as universally as it gets. So there’s no need to apologize.
Accurate; everything and everyone looks, talks, and generally is exactly how it is for the time period the movie is set in. This isn’t necessary because the Illiad and the Odyssey is a fantasy retelling of an actual event and is in itself not a historically accurate portrayal of the the events.
Authentic; it’s a good representation of the story it’s adapting in a way the author meant it. Nolan’s odyssey sure as hell isn’t that.
Holy shit a good take on the movie!
I like recommending the Emily Wilson translation of The Odyssey, which was recommended to me recently and I even went through the translator’s notes. She specifically says The Odyssey was not originally written in a grandiose form, but just rather regular speech for the time and Shakespearean or Victorian or whatever English is just as far from the ancient Greek as modern day English is, so it’s actually better to use common English for the reader’s understanding rather than some just as anachronistic form of the language that’s also stylistically wrong.
So “dad” is just fine. Telemachus was a teenager. Do we think they did not have anything other than official “I’m addressing the king, I must use only the bestest of words” speech to use in their day to day lives in ancient Greece? I somehow doubt that.
There are few common men with names in those poems. Most characters that are named, have intimate relationships with gods. Odysseus can kill 108 suitors with a bow and arrow because for decades he’s been making sacrifices to Zeus and Athena and in his current endeavor, Athena herself is aiding both her and Telemachus. But the gods don’t just love him for making sacrifices. They love him BECAUSE he’s strong and (usually) wise and cunning. They most often bless those who have already blessed.
I’d give it a 7-8 out of 10. Replace Jason Bourne and the stupid ass 70mm film, and it could be much better. I didn’t even mind Spidey as Telemachus, Telemachus HAD to be played by someone who’s believable as a weakling towards the beginning of the movie and grows up (partially at least) to be a proper man. I’m sure they could’ve found someone better, but it’s not nearly as bad as people make it out to be.
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.
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!
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)
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.
Both of them had lame deliveries of their lines. It’s like having them barely recite Shakespeare. They are in over their head, and offer no depth to what should be more.
Yeah, Holland and Zendaya are having that effect where they’re just in too much stuff, specifically together, that it kills the immersion. I’m not a particularly big fan of either actor.
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?
Yeah, but there have been FOUR Spiderman movies starring Tom Holland and Zendaya in the last 9 years. So even though it’s just Spiderman, the zone is getting flooded with Tom Holland and Zendaya.
Wait, that’s Mark Walberg? Then who the fuck is Zendaya??
Holland and Zendaya are also main characters in the Dune movies.
You’re right, I’m stupid. No idea what I was thinking.
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)
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.
The mom/dad thing seems to be universally disliked by viewers. I think they made a mistake by focusing on using modern vocabulary for a movie set in the past, even if the story isn’t based on actual historical events.
If they all had British accents I would have thrown up all over the theater
Eh. There’s a reason 95% of narrations are British. It just sounds better. Not to mention half the cast are British, so they could have just used their native accent.
Thats an ice cold take man. Brits sound like clowns.
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.
