the odyssey

james choice · 2026-07-08T09:45:02.034283-07:00

lupita nyong'o, one of the actors in the film, is asked in an interview what she'd want to say to homer. and she says: i'd ask, homer, you gave women almost no place at all in your book, but look, now in this film a bunch of women have screen time, what do you think? this one sentence drove the final nail into the film's coffin, so long and farewell. the woman is out here crying that "there aren't enough female characters heeere" about a book written 3000 years ago... is she an idiot or what. an even bigger version of the disgrace we lived through when rachel zegler shoved the snow white she played up the dog's ass is on the way. come on, nolan, you weren't the guy to sink into these kinds of embarrassments, damn it.

another piece of garbage film that nolan fanboys are, once again, hailing as the greatest movie of the century.

none of the positive comments written about it mention things like good storytelling, good acting, well-written dialogue, being a good historical film, or being a good literary adaptation. all of it is about the classic nolan showmanship, always the same stuff, all the scenes were shot in imax, no cgi was used, it's got this aura, the music was great, blah blah blah.

and nobody steps up to ask, why is agamemnon batman?

why does a story set in the 11th century bc have 5th century bc greek armor and clothing?

using practical effects instead of cgi is important, sure, but why isn't sticking to historical accuracy important in the adaptation of a historical literary work? when you point out that they should've used mycenaean armor and weapons instead of classical-era hoplite gear, the answer becomes "that's just how this adaptation is, that's the style," and then they lose their minds over the fact that they shot the whirlpool scene using actual jet skis to create a real whirlpool.

then go shoot a whirlpool movie, man, what business do you have with homer's literature?

and this is a literary work too. fine, you say it's fiction, let's not go looking for historical accuracy, but if it's not even going to be a good screen adaptation of the work's own original style, then what's the point? there's nothing of homer's actual work in this film, why is this called the odyssey?

what everyone needs to understand is this: this film isn't the odyssey adapted for the screen however nolan wanted, it's the odyssey adapted however nolan is capable of adapting it. this is the extent of what the guy can do. it works out fine when it's a space movie or a batman movie, but when it comes to bringing the late bronze age aegean world and classical literature to the big screen, all his limitations come pouring out.

batman-armored agamemnon's aura, gorgeous soundtrack, imax technology, special effects, a bunch of hollow nonsense.