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).
It doesn't have to be historically accurate because it's not a real historical telling of the events.
But that doesn't mean it can't be historically authentic. Sorry for being a movie goer with expectations, but I'd expect Nolan of all people to have a higher standard.
I'm not certain about your semantics here.
What's the difference between accurate and authentic here?
In most usages, they're almost synonyms, or outright synonyms. When accurate leaning more to the "precise in detail" with authentic leaning more to being "real" or verified, as in authentic parmesan, or authentic roman coin.
Now, I suspect you may mean authentic as in conveying a feeling commensurate with something. But I'm not certain, so I figured I'd ask rather than assume.
If you're using that type of meaning, I'd still say that that's totally subjective, the same way using dad instead of father would be. Conveying a vibe is so totally based in individual perceptions and assumptions that no film maker can ever cover everyone. What "feels" ancient greek to me is unlikely to match your sense of it completely. It's unlikely it would match even halfway. As a rough example, maybe ornate armor feels more authentic to you because it stands out and has familiar imagery, but plain armor feels more authentic to me because it lacks narrow era specific errors, or maybe that it's less obvious as a prop.
My expectations of a film aren't the same every time. I have them. And leaving without a sense that my time was wasted applies as universally as it gets. So there's no need to apologize.
Accurate; everything and everyone looks, talks, and generally is exactly how it is for the time period the movie is set in. This isn't necessary because the Illiad and the Odyssey is a fantasy retelling of an actual event and is in itself not a historically accurate portrayal of the the events.
Authentic; it's a good representation of the story it's adapting in a way the author meant it. Nolan's odyssey sure as hell isn't that.
Thanks for the clarification :)
I'm not sure I can say much about authenticity with it being so subjective. I don't necessarily disagree with your take, I'm just not sure I agree either lol. I can say that determining the author's intent is impossible beyond rough guesstimates and what little was said, but that it doesn't factor into my personal opinion for anything Homeric.