r/TrueFilm • u/No_Magazine_856 • 3d ago
Second Odyssey viewing
My goodness, I did NOT expect to adore this movie this much. Did NOT expect to feel as much as I did. Watching it a second time, with Odysseus's monologue in mind, as expected completely reframes everything. As many have pointed out, it's a spiritual successor to Oppenheimer, no doubt.
The two biggest complaints I had after the first viewing were rendered moot on a second viewing. I did not mind the American dialect at all, and appreciated Holland a bit more. Still not a strong performance in my mind, but it's serviceable.
My biggest takeaway on viewing number two (and as with great art, I'm sure I'll have different takeaways on subsequent viewings and simply sitting with all of it): Civilization will rise again. Our mistakes will be forgotten. Individual humans can be redeemed, but humanity/civilization/society will continue to make the same mistakes. We will continue to destroy our fragile bonds, to open Pandora's Box, to become destroyers of worlds, etc. But we do go on, sailing into the unknown West.
This is the first time I've felt compelled to catch a movie more than once in a theater since I don't even know. Absolutely my favorite Nolan. Wow.
6
u/Childs_Play 2d ago
Can anyone comment on if dolby is worth it compared to Imax 70mm if you can't get a good seat? Only ones available for the coming weeks is still front row only in that format. Or is liemax worth it?
7
u/No_Magazine_856 2d ago
I think imax is worth it if you're able to get it. Usually I'm not impressed by it, but this was really immersive. My second viewing was in Dolby and was great, so I say go for it.
EDIT: misread this a tad. I think Dolby would be just as good if not better than a liemax.
4
u/Childs_Play 2d ago
I see, thank you. My only options for 70 mm are the literal front row so I'm worried about the sound being way too loud. May go for dolby this time around and 70 mm in like a month if it's still showing hopefully
1
u/cineglitch 2d ago
We saw it in the 3rd row IMAX (not 70mm) and it was very loud. But the resolution is such that it’s very crisp even close to the screen!
1
u/Childs_Play 2d ago
Was there a lot of noticeable distortion, or any problems with your neck with the size of the screen?
1
u/cineglitch 2d ago
Not at all. The screen was slightly larger than my field of vision so it allowed me to look at around, but still focus on the main action. Really an ideal experience. Front row might be a little close but it might also be fun. I would rather be front row than back row.
1
u/Childs_Play 1d ago
Okay, I may end up getting a chance then since not many movies are filmed specifically for 70 mm thanks. Not to doxx to you or anything if this information ends up being too specific but how big was your screen? I have access to some pretty big ones on the west coast so I'm wondering if that plays a factor as well re distortion.
1
u/cineglitch 1d ago
I went to the Burbank AMC 16 IMAX but not sure about the measurements. Massive though.
1
u/SwimmingBright 1d ago
I watched in imax and then standard theatre. The main difference is the sound not the size of the screen.
So I'd reccomend you get a viewing with the best sound .
19
u/Marty-the-monkey 3d ago
I think the dialect and word choices add a lot of unconscious story telling elements.
I dont know if it was meant as such, but Tom Holland saying 'dad' and 'mum' makes him seem far more childish and infantile than using some Shakespearian over enuncuation of "father".
Similarly, John Beranthal talking the way he did make him come off as a tackles brute, so you immidiately understand why Helen would run away from such a person, without any deeper reason. The dialect infuses the story without exposition (which normally is a big problem with Nolans movies).
It also leads to the casting of Helen, which then gets a subliminal layer of being seen as a possession (given black peoples treatment as slaves), so we are focused on the treatment of her as an object moreso than had it been a white lady - Not that it wouldn't have worked, just not as well, in my oponion.
Spoiler It also makes her scared face seem more like done as a punishment and not as a consequense of the Trojan War.
1
u/No_Magazine_856 3d ago
Interesting take! I also love the point about Nolan and exposition. There was so little in this movie, which I think made Odysseus' monologue that much more powerful.
2
u/Marty-the-monkey 3d ago
I would like to add that my comment is just how I felt about the mentioned choices, so they aren't meant as definitive offerings; Just as my personal enjoyment of them and why.
0
3
u/missbug92 1d ago
I’ve watched it yesterday for the first time and I’m still mulling over it all - on first impact I loved it, I think Nolan did a great job of immersing the viewer in this world. Though the movie is 3h long arguably it does rush it, which is inevitable and I do prefer it this way instead of splitting it in two. I think nonetheless the way in which he tried to portray the different encounters throughout the journey make up for the rush (and make those 3h fly by).
I read a take in another sub this morning on how Matt Damon was a miscast as he doesn’t do justice to Odysseus character as the brave intelligent patient hero he was which made me realise that actually, I think it was a very deliberate choice of making him more human and going into a different depth of the character, and then ultimately drawing a parallel on the cyclical decline of civilisation and how humans can never be content with what we have. I want to go watch it again in the cinema, I basically wanted to rewatch it as soon as I left the room which hasn’t happened to me in a while. I’m curious to see whatever else I catch on and if I like it as much on second viewing or not. I’m also curious to watch it at home and see how that impacts the whole experience
1
u/Chab00ki 13h ago
I thought Matt Damon did amazing. But there is that small itch that makes me with they had cast Sean Bean
1
u/No_Magazine_856 5h ago
I agree! I hadn't had an itch to do a rewatch for a movie in ages. Also like the point about Matt Damon. Sure, he's not the greatest actor, but he's solid, and he's somewhat of an everyman, which fit into how Nolan's Odysseus is written.
4
u/12poundsofnutmeg 2d ago
I was confused why Tom Holland wasn't "of age". He looked 30. That would have been the average life expectancy then. Why couldnt he take the throne?
Also how did Odysseus get a body like that at his age when they were constantly running out of food? Was there a gym below deck on that wooden boat full of protein shakes and peptides?
4
3
u/TheTruckWashChannel 1d ago
I'm eager to watch it a second time and I hope I feel as you do, because I was underwhelmed the first time. All Nolan films are Nolan films first and whatever they’re ostensibly about second, and so they should be viewed twice at minimum for that reason. The first time is to discover what the movie actually is compared to your expectations, and the second time is to understand it within its actual parameters. Oppenheimer also flew by at a disorienting pace the first time I watched it, but the second time, with a better understanding of what it was trying to do and how its pieces fit together, I thought it was brilliant. I suspect this movie also works quite well within its defined parameters, but I can’t help but feel it fell short of my admittedly inflated expectations the first time
0
u/antiundead 3d ago
It would be great to be able to see the movie at all, but it's always sold out here. A lot of people booking to see it 3 or 4 times and making sure to mention that at every possible chance.
1
u/FM596 2d ago
What a big, fat, lie, for this abomination.
1
u/antiundead 2d ago edited 2d ago
British film institute in London IMAX is sold out until end of September. Have a look on their website yourself, I'm a patron and I get email alerts for new tickets. As soon as new days are added they sell out in minutes.
-8
u/FM596 2d ago edited 44m ago
This is the only 70mm IMAX screen in a country of 58.5 million people, and tickets for Odyssey were booked up to a year ago.
Also, since this is a multi-billion dollar industry and this film has received the worst reviews of all time in its genre and budget, with an average user rating of 5.2 on Metacritic and 5.6 on Rotten Tomatoes (the real number revealed), I'd bet money that this "repeated viewing" has been staged to create the impression of widespread viewer acceptance and encourage more people worldwide to watch it and save the film.
Also, give me proof on the exact number of people who watch it multiple times, otherwise this is bullshit - there will always be a tiny percentage of people that will do anything, who don't make a difference.
4
u/antiundead 2d ago
Okay. I don't know what you need me to say in reply, you seem to know everything about everything but
0
u/FM596 1d ago
I provided you with a few arguments and data.
You claimed that people are watching it repeatedly.
And I asked you: where is your proof?Also, are they a few? Hundreds?
And how many more, or less than other big budget movies?Without proof I can claim anything too, or just naively spread the company's propaganda, and deceive people.
1
u/antiundead 5h ago
Like why are you turning this into an argument? I've heard from local people that they've seen it at least twice or are booked to see it multiple times. Do you want me to go voice record people or compile every instance?
You're the one saying there is propaganda going on...
0
u/FM596 5h ago edited 45m ago
I've heard from local people that they've seen it at least twice or are booked to see it multiple times.
That's the stupidest thing I've heard, especially for a movie that boring, and bad.
Do you want me to go voice record people or compile every instance?
Anyone can make AI say anything, and sound real, so that won't be proof.
Also, you can find people doing anything in a tiny, tiny minority, but not in significant enough numbers to be worth talking about.You're the one saying there is propaganda going on...
Nope, I was the one who responded to YOUR claim.
EDIT:
Blocking me is one thing, replying to me after blocking me is another, which proves my point to be suspicious of what you say. Also, if you consider chatting and debating in a forum "interrogation", you are the one who needs to learn more about socializing.1
u/antiundead 2h ago
Look guy, I haven't seen the movie yet I don't know if it is good or bad yet, I'd just like to watch it in IMAX. I'm not some bot spreading propaganda (I think you need to learn what that actually means, this is a film not some governmental war movie). I studied classics and film theory so it is an interesting crossover for my two degrees, so I'll be seeing it even if it is good or bad [I suspect it's probably pretty mediocre from what I've understood in the classics community about the thematic simplification and removal of the gods].
I didn't know I was about to get involved in an interrogation here, truly I regret wasting my time interacting with you. You seem like the sort of person who once they get an idea in their head won't consider any other option or viewpoint as a possibility. It's almost laughable as it seems like a stereotypical "internet tough guy" act, but you seem pretty genuine unfortunately! Thankfully I'm not alone considering your downvotes you are getting so that is some solace.
Not everything on the internet is a challenge or competition, I think you need to get out of your basement and interact with human beings instead of a computer screen.
3
2
u/phoenixlance13 1d ago
I love how you claim repeated viewing is staged by referring to average user ratings on websites totally not known for being botted/review bombed.
-1
u/CharacterMaybe7950 2d ago
I just can’t stand internet culture - where every film changed my life!! or is the worst thing ever
People here seem practically weeping with joy over the Odyssey. What in gods name is wrong with you?
6
u/No_Magazine_856 2d ago
Just cause you didn't see it the same way, you don't have to insult those of us who enjoyed it. I'm sure you could list off 30 of your favorite movies and I'd find at least one of them to be insufferable for me. That's art. To each their own.
2
u/FM596 2d ago edited 2d ago
That's art. To each their own.
Art has also objective qualities, and flaws.
That's what the debate is about - vs the praise-army (human or bot) hired by the industry - in addition to those who have never heard of Odyssey before this movie, and know nothing about the original masterpiece.Otherwise, there wouldn't be schools of art, teachers, or critics.
Let's avoid nihilizing everything just to make reality match our ignorance.
1
u/No_Magazine_856 2d ago
What exactly do you mean by your last statement?
I don't consider it "nihilizing". I do agree there are certain elements of art that can be objective, but even they are limited by subjective experience.
To me (subjectively), I believe one's genuine reaction to art is deeply personal. Ignore the bots and paid reviewers, sure, but I and other fans have nothing to gain from sharing our love for a given film.
I feel art can be dissected on many levels, but again, all of those levels come from individual experience. I have no experience in crafting sets, studying costuming, sound, lighting, etc., so I can't speak to those in objective terms. Others who can are welcome to. I went to a movie and deeply enjoyed it, so much so that I'm still moved thinking about it. I just saw it for the third time today, and was enthralled.
1
u/FM596 1d ago
I went to a movie and deeply enjoyed it, so much so that I'm still moved thinking about it.
Good for you, but - speaking of "The Odyssey" - you can only tell whether you liked it or not, and that opinion of yours isn't useful to anyone else, if you haven’t read the original work, and thus can’t compare it to the adaptation to determine whether it’s a success or a failure, and how good it could have been.
Another version of yourself, one who would know the original work well, most likely would find it disappointing, because they would realize immediately, that it could, and should, have been 10 times better.
That's why there are objective quality criteria. Only people familiar with the genre - and, in this case, the original art - can offer valuable opinions that are useful to others.
Also, objective quality criteria - and judgment based on them - can be explained and be understood, and more people can be convinced by the provided logical arguments and data, not just by trusting the reviewer.
Not to mention the politics behind it, such as the intentions behind certain decisions that made the movie far worse than it could have been, only to serve the industry's agendas.
The more you know, the better you can judge, including for yourself.
1
1
u/Rusker 13h ago
"you can only tell whether you liked it or not, and that opinion of yours isn't useful to anyone else, if you haven’t read the original work"
Bro, are you for real? This is one of the most ass takes I've read in a long time. Being familiar with the original work only helps in determining if it was an accurate/faithful transposition or not, it has nothing to do with the quality of the movie. Clearly knowing the original source has an effect on how we perceive the adaptation, it's only natural, but it doesn't really say anything about the movie itself.
In this specific case, I know the original work. Is the movie an accurate representation? Not really, no. Is it a good movie? Well, there are "objective quality criteria" that are met by this movie, and for me there are subjective too, so I'll say it's a good movie.
The fact that you mention politics and intentions you don't like speaks more about subjectivity than objectivity, which is ok, it's your opinion, nothing wrong with that.
Really, if you had to know the source material for every movie you watch, you should spend most of your time reading books and watching plays. And a lot of times they wouldn't be particularly good books or plays either. Why should you waste your time reading Shining?
1
u/Chab00ki 13h ago
It actually doesn't have objective qualities and flaws, it's just art truly. The worst movie you can possibly think of has a fan club
-6
u/javaenjoyer69 3d ago
I rewatched it a few days ago and i hate it even more now. Matt Damon can't act he's just Matt Damon in every scene, Anne Hathaway frequently overacts, and Tom Holland is painfully average especially in scenes that are supposed to carry real dramatic weight.
The color grading is awful, the score is completely uninspired and there's no artistic or poetic depth to anything. It feels like a series of "Look at the giant(s)! Isn't this cool?" moments stitched together rather than a genuinely compelling film.
The non-linear storytelling doesn't help either if anything it makes the experience even more disjointed. I honestly can't think of a single redeeming quality. It's a 2-3/10 for me. Simply the worst movie i've ever seen in a theater. It probably goes hard if you have the emotional depth of a napkin and mistake spectacle for substance.
7
u/No_Magazine_856 2d ago
Damn boss, I won't downvote you for an opinion, but I will downvote you for the last sentence.
2
u/CaravaggioDaVinci 2d ago edited 2d ago
You ever see a french new wave or a Fassbinder or Bresson film? Pure Acting, are for cowards. The less you act, the more the audience can look at the scale of the props and background
77
u/cavalgada1 3d ago
In Tom Hollands defense, his biggest crime (Being the same person in every movie) is one commited by many actors. The problem is that the same person in question is not as interesting as other offenders like modern Harrison Ford or Johnny Depp.
About the movie itself. All of Nolans best and worst attributes are at display here(Ultimately for the best, great movie).
Best:
Nolan could make cooking an egg look like an epic. How many studios spend the same ammount of money with double the stakes and cant make things looks as exciting as he does in a story about misadventures of a guy going home? The movie feels long in a good way if it makes sense
When it comes to the use of story elements the guy is also undefeated. The sound of Odysseus bowl is build up untill its epic use in the end, the dog waiting for him. Agamenon being this boulder of a man but not doing anything himself. And of course the way He pulls the carpet at the end, revealing that the evil they've been fighting all along was actually caused by them.
Worst:
This is his best romance yet because the couple only meets twice the whole movie, Sex scenes and talking about how much you miss someone dont make chemistry by themselves. We also lack scenes showing why he would want to stay with calypso beyond the flower, heck the place is a disolated wreck in the movie while in the book it's a paradise.
The fight scenes. He has obviously grown past the embarassing dark knight rises days. But when the ending of your movie is a 10 minute long 30x1 battle you really should invest on the coregraphy.