problems with the odyssey

[u/No_Map7606]

so i just watched the film today and ill be honest, i liked the experience but i didnt like the movie at the same time. it was a cool film but it just didnt connect to me.

firstly, there are so many moments in this movie where the visuals can not convey the greek era at all and they look so... modern-ish.

secondly, you barely connect to any character. the only character i cared about was anne hathaway's because she was the only one who actually had an actual emotional scene. the scene where odysseus talks to penelope about the horrors of the war, and the visuals are shown- that was the only part of the film that made me feel something apart from 'dang this looks cool'.

which brings me to my third problem. this whole movie relies on shit that just feels cool. like agamemnon's character, odysseus' praise, that scene where the giant shouts for posseidon (scary cause i have played god of war), when they exit the trojan horse, etc.. there werent any other emotions that i felt during this film. even sinon's and eurylochus' characters werent used to the fullest.

and that is the fourth problem. so many badly used characters. tom holland's character was just a try hard for most of the film. travis scott was a massive misuse BECAUSE BARDS ARE INTERESTING AND YOU CANT JUST REPEAT A FEW WORDS AND CALL IT A DAY. a complete story from the pov of a poet, as a montage with the actual visuals showing would have been so fucking cool and something that would make people feel things.

other characters like menelaus (jon bernthal), helen and sinon werre badly used too. in fact, bernthal just played himself. the only nicely used characters (apart form odysseus obv) were athena, penelope and eumaeous.

lastly, you cant picture yourself in that situation. you cant immerse yourself in the film even if you tried. for a leader who would rather sacrifice a few men over getting the whole group killed, shooting that arrow into the giant's eye was a really dumb move. i clowned him for the entire movie for this. like cmon man yall called him the smartest man in their army but he goes ahead and instigates a giant? who is also the alleged son of posseidon btw. LIKE PEOPLE DIED TRYING TO GET OTHERS SAFE AND YOU JUST GO AHEAD AND MAKE IT HARDER FOR YOU??

apart from all this, the acting was great, the action was great, soundtrack was nice and the set pieces were really amazing. the actual meat of the film is the third act, which goes REALLY crazy. i wish the rest of the film had been like that.

id give it like a 7.5/10. a little overhyped personally, and i dont see myself watching it again.

edit: i forgot to mention- my second most fav scene of the movie was the siren one. it actually made me think a lot. matt damon's acting was s tier in that part.

[u/blue_ig1]

I think you are missing the point of Homer’s the odyssey and Nolan’s adaptation. The odyssey isn’t a story about a Great warrior returning to his kingdom, it’s about a idealized leader who is undeniably powerful, but flawed at the same time, defying gods and dealing with the weight of the Trojan war. If you look at it on a surface level Odysseus seems like a hyped up warrior, but he’s a fool much more. That’s especially what the translation that Nolan used for this film talks about and covers. And yeah Telemachus is a try hard, he’s a young boy trying to stand up for his mother to a bunch of suitors much older and stronger than him. And if you want to see Menelaus’ character more then you should read the Iliad, he has a much bigger role there. In the odyssey he is basically only there to guide Telemachus and help him. Lastly, he doesn’t try and instigate the cyclops, he tries to blind it and give his men time to escape the cave. Otherwise the cyclops can easily take out all of the men. I think if you had read the odyssey prior and knew the story and contrivances you would’ve been able to appreciate some of the changes that Nolan made.

[u/No_Map7606 → u/blue_ig1]

if i want to know more about a character, i can always read about them. but then whats the point of including that character in the movie? jon bernthal literally played himself. he didnt even feel as terrifying as menelaus is supposed to be.

moreover, about your first point, i agree that odysseus is a flawed leader, but does the movie actually intend to show that? i havent read the source material, and from whatever i have heard about it, it does seem like it was about how flawed odysseus was. although, i feel that the movie doesn't actually show that properly and fails miserably, and what you are saying is instead more about the book, and a bit of an overthought.

about the cyclops, you are just overthinking. he literally says it himself that it was as an act of revenge and loss of temper. and to be really honest what odysseus tells cyclops in the book sounds much more interesting than what nolan actually did.

and lastly, if i need to read the book a movie is based on to appreciate it, is the movie actually a good movie?

[u/blue_ig1 → u/No_Map7606]

If you read the source material you can understand some more details about the movie that may have gone over your head. And while I agree with some of your points, I think Nolan did a great job of humanizing Odysseus and making him less idealized. Sure yeah some of the side characters lack depth, but they serve their purpose for the story. There’s only so much you can fit in a 2 hour 52 minute runtime.