WARNING: Spoilers ahead...on a story 2.5 millennia old.

Finally got around to watching it this weekend. After the Mt. Everest sized stack of cash it made and all of the glowing reviews, honestly, it was pretty underwhelming.

First thing's first. The dialogue was AAAAAAAAAWFUL. Seriously? What the hell? It sounded like I was listening to dialogue written by a small team of junior high students. And not the junior high students that take honors English. I was fine with the choice to do American accents, although I would have preferred British accents for a movie like this cuz it just sounds classier. But that wasn't it. It was the actual words used by the actors to communicate to each other. It was just so dumbed down and sounded so boring and basic. I'm assuming it was a choice made on purpose to maybe connect with as many modern English speakers as possible, but it largely killed the film for me. I was actually kind of shocked how bad the dialogue was in this movie.

Another thing that kind of bothered me, although not nearly to the same degree as the dialogue, was over-acting. I felt like there were some performances that were dialed up a little too much. To the point where it kind of took me out of the film because I felt like I was watching an actor trying to shoot for an oscar a bit too hard. I think the main culprit on this one was Anne Hathaway. Alternatively, I think there was also an issue of under-acting. I'll get to that below.

Pacing. Despite having 3 hours to tell the story, I kind of felt like some things were skipped over too quickly. Other things that they spent too much time on could have been shortened to allow more time for things I think deserved the time more. Scenes didn't really punch the way I thought they should. In the book the scene where he comes back after 20 years and his dog is still alive but dies as he touches it and it recognizes him is really impactful, but it was just kind of glossed over in the movie with little to no emotion from Matt Damon. Same with Odysseus finding out Calypso had trapped him on the island for years. Not a lot of emotion there. Actually, I think the only scene Damon really sold was the siren scene. He did the opposite of over-act for most of the movie.

The film looks great. Gotta give it that. The cinematography is solid. And I'm not saying the film was bad (other than the dialogue which was truly awful). I just don't get the massive hype. Honestly, I still prefer the 90s made for TV version with Armand Assante. I think the dialogue was better. The acting was better. The pacing was better even though it's almost exactly the same length as this new version. And they did it without the star-studded cast the new film has. Obviously the new version has better special effects, and I do think overall better cinematography. I acknowledge maybe there's some rose-tinted glasses thing going for me with the 90s version as I grew up with it.

I guess I'd give this new version a B. Just a mid-range B. With a special handwritten in red ink note in the margins that the dialogue is an F.

Ok, crucify me now.

EDIT: You know what, I'd like to add a few things I did like, beyond the cinematography. I liked Odysseus' monologue about the siren's song. I liked his monologue about his point of view of his role in the war when he's talking to his wife. I liked that Athena ended up being a ghost of someone he watched get murdered at Troy (although I do not like Zendaya as an actress).

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 10 points 11 hours ago (1 child)

is it already time for us to dogpile on a really popular thing so we can feel superior

Having your mother's undying love and respect is what makes me feel superior. She's a hell of a woman.

As for The Odyssey (2026), I provided paragraphs of explanations for why I didn't think it was particularly good. And I ended my review by giving it a solid B, which is not a C, D, nor F.

I posted this because I want someone to explain to me WHY it was so popular. Your entire response fails to provide me with an explanation and just serves to complain about trolls and Lemmy in general.

It's normal to critique a movie. And obviously popular movies are going to be critiqued more. I am interested in why so many people can like a movie so much when, to me, it has so many shortcomings, especially the abyssmal dialogue. Is it a form of mass hysteria? Mob influence? Did the money behind the movie run a really effective propaganda campaign?

Most of the comments here so far feel pretty "mid" about the movie like I did. Which doesn't really reflect the 8.4 IMDB and 95% Rotten Tomatoes scores. Not to mention the almost $2B worldwide. I want to understand this phenomena.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -6 points 11 hours ago

    I do not owe you an explanation of why, you have the entirety of the internet, posts, and awards season to explain there. That's why I'm not focusing on your post.

    What I will say is that my point boils down to this. If you are a film buff and can think of other films, I'd much rather see posts about smaller films that you think are very good instead of posts about things being very bad. And hey, I haven't creeped on your history maybe it's full of posts like that and this was the luck of the draw that I had fiver or six super negative posts and your happened to be the one I finally snapped on, but it's tiring being here and only see negative.

    You say I need to prove why it's good? I say we should be showing examples of others that we want those to see. To use my Pink Floyd example, don't say "Dark Side of the Moon was terrible". Show people why you thought Astronomy Domine was great. That's how you welcome people to a community, not tear it down.

  • source
  • parent