The Odyssey (Christopher Nolan)

[Chaplin]

We actually have an IMAX 70mm theater here in Austin, but it's not even showing there until August 14th. And even then, it's only open availability is 3:30pm on the 19th and 20th.

I'm seeing it tonight in pseudo IMAX, but if I like it enough, I may try to go to one of those showings in a month.

 

[oaken1]

There was a showing right after work at the theater just down the hill, so I gave this a go. I was pleasantly entertained. Very dark, bleak messaging, in the writing and visuals, excellent acting work, and an enjoyable, non-traditional story approach. Wasn't bothered for a second by casting or modern language choices.

I started to think it's not nearly as good as Gladiator, but the reality is that it just isn't the same kind of movie as Gladiator, like at all. Gladiator was clearly made as a fun entertaining action flick. For as much action as there is in the Odyssey, that's not what it is.

agree... this is not an action movie..its an "epic" story...just a different scope.
Im hoping to catch it in IMAX, just not sure we have one big enough here locally

 

[Chaplin]

Definitely made for a large screen. Still working on my thoughts about it. I did like it and it is a cinematic achievement.

 

[Stout]

We actually have an IMAX 70mm theater here in Austin, but it's not even showing there until August 14th. And even then, it's only open availability is 3:30pm on the 19th and 20th.

I'm seeing it tonight in pseudo IMAX, but if I like it enough, I may try to go to one of those showings in a month.

A major criticism I do have of Nolen is the sound at his movies. I think it's dumb to design a movie specifically for an expensive and exclusive format when it makes for crappy sound in other theaters. I have hearing loss, and his movies are even harder to hear than any others.

 

[Chaplin]

I don't think this has any spoilers, but I'll spoiler it anyway:

Spoiler

Had some time to think about it, and it really is quite an accomplishment. The practical effects he used, along with all the different locations, were a marvel to experience and look at. Acting was great all around, it's obvious Matt Damon is going to get a nom this year. John Leguizamo should as well, but not sure he will.

Tom Holland was fine, but I consistently felt it was Tom Holland playing Peter Parker playing Temeculus. I wish they would have given him more than just slightly longer hair, but I would guess he stinks at growing facial hair. Robert Pattinson does play villains well, but he was a walking cliche the entire movie, both he and Corey Hawkins were just straight villains. I thought maybe, just maybe, there was a point where they were going to show a little bit of depth with Pattinson, but no. He was the ultimate moustache-twirling villain with no mustache.

But a meticulously made film, I'm not sure where I would rank it in Nolan's filmography, but probably pretty high. I'm a sucker for period epics, and we don't get a lot of those anymore. So I would put this up easy against Dunkirk for sure. In fact, I like this a little bit more because the story (while adapted) is still more self-contained than Dunkirk was. It's also more interesting and exciting than Oppenheimer, which was a fantastic film in its own right.

 

[AsUpRoDiGy]

A major criticism I do have of Nolen is the sound at his movies. I think it's dumb to design a movie specifically for an expensive and exclusive format when it makes for crappy sound in other theaters. I have hearing loss, and his movies are even harder to hear than any others.

He does that on purpose so you have to watch it several times to pick up on the dialogue lol