I didn't really like it, but I was kind of resigned to what it was, so I didn't feel big feelings of disappointment lol. In general also just as a movie it wasn't really my thing, I'm not a big fan of Nolan's jumping around style. I did enjoy the landscapes and feeling of space, the sensations. Its very much a 4DX ideal experience lol. It is interesting though in reading the early part of the Odyssey there is indeed a lot of jumping around and getting ur bearings in the beginning so in that way it was kind of reflective? But it gives me a headache cinematically.
Overall this post is what I liked, what I didn't like, what I compare it to and am reminded of in regards to other stuff I've watched, and also why I think despite my lots of complaining I think it's a Good Thing that it exists:
Themes and Artistic Vision:
Conceptually I think it took some very interesting swings and had some ambitious ideas but a lot of it didn't land for me. I did think it was very interesting how it's a very American film about American imperial hegemonic guilt and anxieties, but like most USAmerican films about war it pulls its punches and avoids the specifics of actually confronting its own violence even while it talks a big, vague game about it. In that sense it really is an interesting reflection of our times, even if I find it to be a rather insipid commentary.
The script was...very weak. The actors were doing ok and I'm not against modern sounding dialogue, since like I mentioned it had a very modern feel already. I'm glad they stuck with American accents because it felt more honest to the themes and framing. But even modern American movies and modern colloquial language can be elegant, and this was VERY lacking. There was a lot of weird imbalance between overexplaining some things and under explaining others that was just very contrived. I know people say stuff like " you need to explain and repeat basic info several times so the audience remembers!" When actually you need to SAY it clearly and have it be reinforced consistently. More talking doesn't HELP!
I know we all complained already, much has already been said. Like I said earlier I adjusted my expectations in full knowledge that it was going to have that Look, the Nolan movie is going to look like a modern Nolan movie. And it will reflect the story being told, so at least it's honest. And you know, with that adjustment in mind, I did not completely hate the costuming. At the best I'm glad nothing looked like it came from SHEIN and there was some elegance in the textures that reflected the kind of moody modern vibe the story had. At the worst I was left very confused at why anyone thought it was a good idea. Let's discuss:
Agamemnon's Chad spine Looksmaxxing helmet
Much mocked online, this actually was the standout for me because of how stylized and thematic it ended up--a man who is a shadow and a shape, a costume and a memory more than a person. I liked it a lot! Especially juxtaposed with Rpatz's Antinous who is also piled on with cloaks and is posturing. I wish there were more creative decisions like that that felt like there was a vision, letting shapes tell the story rather than the dreary overexplaining that only served to be more confusing.
This one was more of a ??? because it just felt too on the nose. Fashion model concept. Also it was kind of funny how there was Fishnet Dress but over a completely body covering outfit LMAO modest is hottest fashion
Telemachus's Medieval Getup
Much has already been said about there being too many pants in this movie and not enough men's legs, but he was specifically very modern looking which threw me off a lot.
I did kind of like his embossed chest plate at the end as an individual piece, it looked very nice, just a weird choice for what's supposed to be an ancient times story. In my mind I came up with a sort of meta-explanation of how he represents the passing into the future and next generation and thus he looks very Medieval. But I doubt that was the case.
I kind of see what they were going for and respect the commitment to the practical effects but come on. It looked so bad. Good for a doctor who episode but come onnnnn.
The rest of the costumes weren't much to write home about. Basic costume movie fare, though way too much pants.
I thought it was very good! I liked it a lot. Glad to have something a little different than the usual Zimmer orchestra. I especially liked the ending music and how eerie and modern it sounded, it kind of gave a scifi-ish feel over the whole thing and was great at setting the tone.
Overall I can't say i was a huge fan, but I'm still glad I got to see it in theaters, and iI think the space this movie has been occupying in broader discussion to be extremely interesting and invigorating, and in a way that I find mostly positive.
I also think it's been an interesting thing to watch something inspired by the "classical" world come up that gets the right wing culture war machine revving but in a way that I think kind of shows the incuriosity and ironically, the victory of progressives in certain ways--when people are so racist they must co-opt the language and arguments of anti-racism to try and be demeaning. I also think it's another reminder for us nerds into such historical spaces and subjects to of course share knowledge when we can, but be very wary of essentialism, reactionary attitudes, and right wing dog whistles and arguments even as we long for historical accuracy (I run into this a lot as a medievalhead).
This while I found the movie to be quite cowardly in its self critique (and inconsistent in that usual way of trying to reconcile the spectacle of Cool Violence with a disclaiming of it), it being kind of middling/liberal and failing at its Big Ambitions is much preferable to me than creating a version that we've seen 1000 times before to feed into conservative reactionary fantasies. I'm actually kind of impressed by that but in a way, that on its own is kind of sad. Shouldn't the bar be higher? Overall, it's like what I said in my David movie review--its not "faithful" to the text that contains much divine and human violence, but as I'm relieved that David movie didn't call for genocide, for a mainstream flick I'm glad its one that does not actually, posit a message of nostalgia, or allow nostalgic rot to settle into its own story.
The manufactured RW outrage over the "diverse" casting was laughable to me too since I think the casting was very reflective of the American-Hegemonic-Guilt complex that the movie carries–on one hand, the diverse casting is just natural, not a big deal-a reflection of a US cultural landscape, in that we are used to a variety of people existing, it's normal and a reflection of our normalcy. On the other hand, central roles and who gets to be a fully fleshed out character, always goes to the already popular anglos. It's both a positive reflection of how things have improved slightly over the past decades but also an indictment of how shallow it still is.
Movies that this movie made me think of.
Last Days in the Desert (2015) where Ewan MacGregor plays Jesus wandering in the (California) desert and hallucinating a partner who tempt him in his own visage. Another entry in the canon of Scottish people playing mediterraneans. I thought of this whenever Athena showed up.
I also kept thinking about David (2025) and Chief of War (2025) regarding the storytelling of telling stories about iconic, culturally beloved kings (King David of the Bible, and King Kamehameha I of Hawai'i) in an era where we have vehemently declared that No Kings is our ideal. David goes from a crafty warrior who kills "ten thousands" to a community minded bard, and Kamehameha's farmer and peacemaker aspects are emphasized above his war prowess.
Interestingly, David also features the "Sea Peoples" that are ominously referred to in the Odyssey in the form of the Philistines (Peleset) and also contains a depiction of the divine that is divorced from its cultural practices but displayed by rumbling clouds. Curious.
Chief of War also depicts a society on the brink of great change, of exile and an unharmonious return, atn act of complicity in violence, and the idea that things cannot be the same as when one departed. I think it's a work that is trying to reconcile historical interests with the modern view of looking backwards into the past, in a way that doesn't always cohere but is done very interestingly. There is something very Homeric to me as well, which makes sense--the Aegean also was a bunch of island nations and small kingdoms with great lineages and pride.
And of course. You cannot have a "fucked up great man" story without thinking of the OG.
I will say the bait and switch of "Defy the Gods" on all the advertisement of nu Odyssey is like if all the Lawrence of Arabia posters said NOTHING IS WRITTEN on them (iykyk) except LOA did it both better and gayer and while it did pull a few punches about it's protag and his complicity, it didn't shy away from violence it in the same way I feel. But then again it's a bit of an unfair comparison, isn't it?
The whole Returning Vets thing that was going on also made me think of The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) which I always thought was interesting as a post WWII story made very soon after the end of the war.
It's hopeful but also has a melancholy to it, like something that exists before the nostalgia kicks in at full force. However I think as people have said there's probably more comparisons to be made between Vietnam War media (not the first time comparison between that and Homer have been made) and the current legacy of how stories talk about war and vets in the aftermath of Iraq war media. But I'm not really versed in that in the fictional landscape, so I can't comment.
Despite my personal dislike for the movie and somewhat negative evaluation, I can't deny that having a big blockbuster like this is a very reasonable and healthy thing for the overall culture literacy, and it's been really exciting to see people actively discussing and arguing and being invested in this millennia old story, with many (including myself!) feeling inspired to pick up the poem and experience it for themselves. I'm glad that it can assert that the story doesn't belong to "the past" necessarily, and that new media, and the critique of such media, and the continuous cycle of creating and critiquing and reacting to the past–is something eternal. I mean, I have a coworker who said she had never heard of The Odyssey before (shocking to me) but then out of curiosity was going to watch it, and I'm certainly not discouraging her! it got people at my workplace talking and discussing like we haven't before. I love seeing the discussion, the reactions and evaluation, from both layfolk and academics. Some positive some negative but always with the pursuit of curiosity and knowledge.
(to be honest, some of the movie was SO CONFUSING and unclear with it's clunkiness I bet it actually will drive people to have to become more educated to figure out wtf was going on. Net good?)
It's deeply touching to see how these stories remain relevant eternally, and how people over the centuries have interpreted and related it to their visions in different ways according to the cultures and societies they live in, even if we may have critiques and frustrations with the execution of such. I think there will be some very interesting discourse over the next few years, and hopefully there will always be a multitude of things waiting to be made.
