NO SPOILER Hello I would just like to say that I really enjoyed it, I had low expectations especially because of the cast choices, but it really did capture my attention and Nolan did prove me wrong. The ambiance along with the treatment of mythological creatures in a very cinematic but still realistic way is very alluring, I really loved the portrayal of scene where there is a Temple to Athena, I know there will be a million dicrepancies on accuracy and what not having actually read the book, but what I really enjoyed most of all is the treatment of “the people of the seas” and the metaphor of them being themselves after the breaking of Zeus Law, all being a metpahor for how the loss of Values and Principles leads to the fall of civilization. It really felt like an excellent morality and history lesson, reminding of the original purpose and origin of the Epic and Myth. And a very interesting take on the people of the seas.
Oh and also yes agree on the armor being inaccurate but it was still very stunning and you have to admit the Frame where the gates of troy opened up and Agamemnon was just standing there, the gleam and silhoutte, it was amazing, felt chills watching it.
Yep, Agamemnon had a talent for making every scene he appeared in iconic
Of course I discovered “grandiloquent” too late for my piece on the film. Hopefully, another suitably extravagant opportunity presents itself soon.
I really enjoyed the movie. However, I think an opportunity was missed with the title. A better choice would have been Odysseus. The reason is that people unfamiliar with Homer’s original work, The Odyssey, may assume that what they watched was a direct adaptation of that epic. Of course, it is not.
Instead, the film draws from a much broader tradition of Greek and Roman literature that developed over several centuries. It blends elements from The Iliad and The Odyssey by Homer, Agamemnon by Aeschylus, and The Aeneid by Virgil. By placing the emphasis on Odysseus rather than The Odyssey, the title might have encouraged interested viewers to explore these classic works and discover the rich literary tradition behind the film.
I would simply say that this movie is not The Odyssey, but it is an enjoyable evolution of an original story that stretches back to approximately 700 BCE. About 250 years later, the Greek playwright Aeschylus expanded the tradition by dramatizing Clytemnestra’s murder of Agamemnon upon his return from Troy. More than two centuries after that, Virgil enriched the Trojan cycle by giving us one of the most memorable surviving accounts of the Trojan Horse in The Aeneid. Each of these authors inherited an existing tradition and added new depth, perspective, and meaning for a new audience. That is how I view this latest adaptation, a modern contribution, to a story that has been evolving since antiquity.
What I find most remarkable is that these stories continue to be retold in fresh and compelling ways. More than anything, they connect us to nearly 3,000 years of Western civilization, reminding us that great stories endure because every generation finds something new in them.
I enjoyed it. You have to remember a movie is always different from any book it is based on, because it relies on a visual emphasis rather than using the imagination of the reader.
That’s a very intersting take on it. I’ll keep that in mind when I watch it!
I haven’t seen it yet but based on what you say, indeed, Odysseus might have been a better title…
I also agree with you: I love that some stories continue to be told, retold and modified. The same goes for Arthurian legend, as well as Norse sagas. So many modern interpretations are continuing the ancient traditions, in new media.
I had not considered the title from that angle, but Odysseus really would suit the film better. It is less interested in reproducing the Odyssey than in exploring the character through several layers of classical storytelling. That kind of adaptation feels entirely appropriate for a myth that has been revised, expanded and reimagined for centuries.
I just came back from seeing it.
The cast did a great job, despite my initial misgivings. The settings were breathtaking and Polyphemus was done incredibly well. I also love how we only saw the sirens through the mist - it just added to their mystery. It was also so satisfying watching Antinous finally die. 
I admit, I cried when Argos died and got teary during all the Troy flashbacks. I agree with everyone else that Agamemnon’s armour was majestic and although not historically accurate, it really made him stand apart from the other soldiers.
I always envisioned Circe as being younger and more beautiful looking but I think Samantha Morton did a good job. I just wish we got to spend a bit more time with her. Calypso’s island Ogygia was nothing like I imagined. Where were all the trees? And I would have liked to have seen a bit more of the complicated relationship between her and Odysseus (perhaps her offering him immorality?) I thought it was an interesting choice to mix the Lotus-Eaters storyline with Calypso’s and maybe took away from Odysseus’ misery at being kept prisoner and away from home for those 7 years. Lastly, I think the medieval-looking armour of the Laestrygonians was quite ridiculous and just looked very out of place.
Wow. Very interesting. Thanks! That sounds worth watching - even with the kooky knights.
SPOILERS ALERT
Friday night I watched the movie for the second time. On occasions, I like to return to the movie theater and watch a movie again. Knowing what is happening next helps me catch those nuances in the dialogue I didn’t get the first time around.
I enjoyed the movie immensely; however, do you think it can be considered a blockbuster? I found it a bit slow and at points hard to follow. The whole situation with the suitors is hard to understand at first. So yes, a bunch of men want to marry Penelope, but what exactly is going on? Have all those men been living there for 10+ years? Why? The men must rotate, right? They get old, tired, and leave, and younger suitors join the craziness. The movie moves in time with Odysseus but the scenes with Penelope are always on the same time period, right?Same with the scenes at the beach with Charlize Theron. If one didn’t know that Odysseus spent most of his time stranded on an island with a nymph, I doubt that one could figure it out. Same with the lotus leaves: is it clear that the nymph is making him eat lotus leaves to forget his desire to return home? I doubt it. (And by the way, once you realize that Odysseus spent most of the time in the arms of Charlize Theron, your perception of the story changes completely.)
Great acting, beautiful cinematography, powerful images. I may watch it again on IMAX 70mm once tickets are available.
By its scale, budget and financial success, I think you could certainly argue that it is a blockbuster. In terms of length and storytelling pace, though, I am with you. It asks for far more patience than the average crowd pleaser and often trusts the audience to fill in major gaps for themselves.
The sound was certainly blockbuster sized, perhaps several sizes too large. It was incredibly powerful, but there were moments when the volume overwhelmed the scene rather than strengthening it. I left impressed by the scale, but also slightly battered by it.
I agree with you about the Calypso scene. It kind of just dumped us in the middle of the situation, without any further context.
If I hadn’t already known the story, I think I would have been completely lost.
And you make a good point about the suitors.
Interesting thoughts from Emily Wilson…
Thanks Liana, I saw the headlines talking about this article but had not seen it. I understand Wilson is the first woman to translate the Odyssey to English. Yesterday, I listened to the “Instant Classics” podcast with Mary Beard and Charlotte Higgins giving their initial reactions to the movie, the episode is titled “Instant Verdict”. They had a lot to say. They referenced Wilson’s translation multiple times but the recording was done before this article was published. I bet they will talk about it in future podcasts. They dedicated another episode of the podcast to the movie and it’s title “The Pedants Revolt”, haven’t listened to it yet.
Here’s the original review by Emily Wilson: Emily Wilson · An Uncomplicated Man
Reading her review, it seems like she doesn’t like Christopher Nolan movies in general… it didn’t strike me as a very nuanced review apart from “Christopher Nolan movies are flat, too masculine and not intelligent enough”. Ok, it was was more nuanced than that, but that’s the gist I got from Ms Wilson.
I’m not reading anything more about Odyssey. In my world, there is definitely “Odyssey fatigue” and I haven’t even seen the film yet.
I plan on seeing it next week. I’m very curious! But yes, saturation is definitely there…
If its anything like the film Troy it will be completely useless without the God’s
God’s of Classical Civilisation Greek & Roman especially The Iliad & Odessey cant give any promise to Homeric Tales without them
That’s my humble opinion. My Ba & Masters were in Classic Civs and I found Troy very dull without showing cause of happenings. How can one describe or indeed invalidat The Judgement of Paris for instance without Aphradite’s jealousy of Athena? Sorry didn’t mean to go on. I just feel omitting the God’s is only telling half the story