r/themovieloversclub

Nuff Said!

Yesterday I went to the cinema to see The Odyssey. I don't like Nolan's films, so I wasn't expecting much. I thought I would like it even less. Though, in any case, I didn't like it. Some of the reasons have already been pointed out by many people, and were known long before the movie was released. The costumes, beyond being anachronistic, are boring and rather cheap-looking. The armor looks like costumes, and there is a scene where Telemachus wears a sort of leather kilt that is absolutely ridiculous. Everything is bathed in a rather depressing sepia tone. The Mediterranean light is not put to good use, partly because the film wasn't shot there. And the idea of using actors of different races seems questionable to me and, above all, unnecessary.

​In any case, none of this is of great importance. The main flaws of the film, in my view, are two.

​In the first place, the characters are seen from a distance, so to speak. None of their personalities are developed, not even Odysseus's. It is true that in the original work a distance is also sought between the reader (or listener) and the characters in the story, and the characterization is rather schematic. Eumaeus is a loyal servant, and that is all we need to know about him. Of Calypso, we only know that she is in love with Odysseus. And of the crew members, we know nothing at all. In the poem, this is not a flaw, because the simplicity of the characters is compensated for by other things: the rhythm of the verse, the richness of the language, the vividness of the descriptions, and the quantity and variety of episodes, digressions, and interwoven tales.

​But in a movie, literally, characters are seen up close. We distinguish their faces, we hear them speak. We have them right in front of us. They are not simply evoked. That is why it seems problematic to me, for example, that Odysseus's companions are nothing more than interchangeable extras. If I am going to spend time in the company of those characters, I want to know them a bit, care about them, feel affection or dislike for them. In cinema, unlike in literature, there is nothing to distract us from the action. All resources (cinematography, sound, music...) are at the service of the action. And for the action to be interesting, the characters must be too. I don't mean that they have to be complex or that all of them, even the most secondary ones, must have a fully developed personality. But they need to have, for instance, a recognizable and expressive face, or a particular way of expressing themselves—something, in short, that makes watching them on screen entertaining. And the more time we have to spend with them, the more care should be put into their characterization.

​The second major problem, as I see it, is that Nolan doesn't seem to be clear on what story he wants to tell. Let me explain. The film, in general, is a fairly faithful adaptation of both the plot and the structure of The Odyssey. However, there are several significant changes. The main one, it seems to me, is that the gods have practically vanished. In the poem, they intervene constantly. In the movie, Zendaya appears playing Athena, but she doesn't really intervene in the action. From time to time she appears to Odysseus as if she were something he imagines or that only exists inside his head, limiting herself to acting as the voice of his conscience, a bit like Jiminy Cricket. In the poem, however, Athena is a fundamental character. She speaks to Telemachus through Mentor so that he travels to Sparta in search of news. She transforms Odysseus into an old man so no one recognizes him at home, and rejuvenates his appearance so Nausicaa finds him more attractive. As for Poseidon or Helios, in the film it isn't really clear whether they are truly to blame for Odysseus's misfortunes. Since Athena never intervenes directly in events, and since it isn't clear whether she actually appears to Odysseus or if it's just his imagination, it isn't clear either that the other gods are involved in the story.

​It seems that Nolan wants to get rid of the supernatural component to make Odysseus the sole person responsible for his own destiny. However, he doesn't dare to completely dispense with the supernatural and the fantastic, because then he would have to leave out the adventure with the Cyclops, Scylla and Charybdis, the stop on Circe's island, and the descent into the underworld. By the way, curiously enough, he uses a fantastical device (amnesia-inducing lotus flowers) to explain why Odysseus stays so many years on Calypso's island instead of returning home to his family. I suppose he does this to make the character more sympathetic to us. But to me, it seems to impoverish him.

​And I see it as a missed opportunity, because Nolan seems interested in presenting Odysseus as a veteran with PTSD. At one point, toward the end of the film, he tells Penelope that he didn't feel worthy of coming home because he was consumed by remorse over being the main cause of Troy's destruction and the massacre of its inhabitants (having had the idea of the horse himself). Well then: it would have been much more interesting, I think, to incorporate this idea into his story with Calypso. To have the character spend seven years on a deserted island unable to bring himself to return home because he feels he is a different person, that the war has made him worse, that his loved ones wouldn't recognize him, and that he is no longer worthy of being a king and living in a palace. I believe, furthermore, that this reading is suggested in the original work: it doesn't seem coincidental to me that the first time we encounter Odysseus is precisely on Calypso's island. In reality, The Odyssey is not about a man trying to go home, but about a man who has stopped trying to go home, but who finally tries again.

​Lastly, I don't understand what Sinon's story adds to the film either. I don't quite see the character's function, or why so much importance is given to his relationship with Odysseus. In any case, I would have preferred it if, during his descent into the underworld, Odysseus had spoken with Achilles, as in the original work, and Achilles (the man who preferred a glorious death to a long, happy life) had confessed to him that nothing he did was worth it, and that he would rather be a living slave than a dead hero.

the movie starts out with two kids playing in his fathers mortuary and these other kids come in and bully him by locking him in a casket and set on fire being badly burned but not dead. decades later he decides to come back and kill their off springs.

one is a college kid killed and hung from the bathroom shower rod gutted

the second is a black boy killed and hung on his parents front door

the 3rd is a girl hung up on a car lift in her dads mechanic shop gutted

the 4th is killed and cut up and put in a locker at the high school where his dad works

the 5th is put in a casket alive like he was and is set on fire.

i cant remember who saves her but before she gets hurt she is saved and pulled out and the movie just ends because the guy is stabbed by the man saving the last girl

Personally, I’m not usually into romance movies, but I’d make an exception for *Dracula; A Love Tale. I found it surprisingly interesting, and the story genuinely got to me. Overall, I thought it was a great movie and definitely worth watching, even if romance is t usually your cup of tea.*

*Triangle* completely held my attention from beginning to end, and that’s one of its biggest strengths. The mystery and the atmosphere kept me invested, always wanting to know what would happen next.

That said, once I understood the mechanics of the time loop, I felt the story itself wasn’t as strong as its concept. Melissa George delivers an excellent performance and carries the emotional weight of the film, but the supporting characters feel more like pieces of the puzzle than fully developed people.
For me, *Triangle* is one of those movies where the concept is stronger than the dramatic execution. I really appreciated the symbolism and the mythology behind it, but I wanted more depth in the overall story and its characters.

Overall, I’d give it a **7/10**. It captivated me throughout, but I didn’t find the narrative as powerful as the premise.

10/10

Nolan never misses….From the cast to the soundtrack, everything delivers.
Before watching it, I thought a movie packed with so many big actors had plenty of ways to go wrong.all the fact that it’s based on a classic story, and I wasn’t sure it would live up to the hype.
I was completely wrong….. the movie is so so good

You should definitely give it a shot

In my opinion, it's one of the most unusual, original, and surprising films in this genre. It's interesting and touching, but made with a great deal of self-awareness and humor. It's definitely not a boring, predictable, cookie-cutter biography. What do you guys think?

Once Matthew McConaughey left the comfort of romantic comedies behind, he embraced roles with real depth and complexity. And the results spoke for themselves. He wasn't just starring in unforgettable films. He was defining them. That's how McConaissance was born!

** Just watch the scene with Clooney and the horses. You can see exactly how he feels from his facial expressions. He doesn't have to say a word, and that's the art of acting at its best.