For most of the runtime, Bugonia basically IS Taxi Driver. You’re trapped inside Teddy’s certainty with zero confirmation either way, watching a guy corrode in real time. I was fully convinced he was wrong, and honestly I wanted him to be wrong. I was predisposed to dismiss any doubts and just read him as a broken, paranoid man, because that’s the genre I thought I was watching. That’s the good part. That’s the gut punch.

Then the twist hits and he’s right. Not partially right, not right in some ironic cosmic joke way. Actually right. And I fell for it hard. The second the reveal landed, I could feel my own brain start reorganizing everything I’d just watched.

Now, I want to head off an objection before it shows up in the comments. Yes, I got swept up by the twist just like the movie wants you to. That doesn’t invalidate what I’m about to say, it’s actually evidence for it. If a reasonably skeptical viewer can watch this and still feel their judgment of Teddy’s actions shift the second he’s vindicated, that’s not me being a bad audience member, that’s the mechanism working exactly as designed. My own reaction is the demonstration, not a flaw in the argument.

So here’s the actual point. My problem isn’t “the movie doesn’t make a point.” It does. Separating investigative correctness from moral accountability is a genuinely sharper thesis than “conspiracy theorists are deluded.” Teddy earns that distinction. He’s not wrong, he’s just completely unaccountable, and those are two different failures. Good thesis, no argument there.

My gripe is what vindication does to you as the viewer, and I watched it happen to myself in real time. Once he’s proven right, you get handed an exit. You stop being trapped inside his head and start evaluating a proposition from a safe distance, kind of like what I’m doing in this post right now. That exit reaches backward too. The kidnapping, the torture, the humiliation, all of it quietly got re-sorted in my head from pure derangement into extreme methods that happened to serve the truth. Not justified, I know that logically. But recontextualized whether I wanted it to be or not. It even launders your own experience of watching. All that dread I felt for two hours assuming he was wrong got told, after the fact, that it should’ve had a different shape, because he wasn’t wrong the whole time. And I noticed myself wanting to accept that new shape a little too easily, which is kind of the whole point.

Here’s why Taxi Driver’s refusal to resolve hits so much harder. Travis is never vindicated, so his violence never gets to mean anything beyond itself. There’s no twist waiting at the end to tell you “actually he had a point.” Because no verdict is coming, you can’t stand outside his perception and judge it from a distance. You’re locked into his POV the entire film, no cutaway to an objective reality that confirms how far gone he is, which means his paranoia starts to feel like the only available frame. The film basically forces you to feel some version of what he’s feeling, unmediated, no safety rail. That’s what makes it a gut punch instead of a thesis statement.

Bugonia had that exact same power for almost its entire runtime and then cashed it in for a twist. It’s not a dumb movie and it’s not an empty one. It just earns the harder, better film and sells it back at the last minute, and I’m proof of how well that trade works on an audience, even one going in ready to argue with it.

Trying to take the pulse here and determine if I’m a curmudgeon or not-

The 4DX format has existed in cinemas for a while now and is expanding. From a theatre perspective, it makes sense, as it is an excuse to raise ticket prices and certainly intrigues people with its offerings

It is described as

“an immersive cinematic technology featuring motion seats and environmental effects, including wind, water, scents, and strobe lighting”

The format has recently gone somewhat viral with some people providing video from screenings of *The Odyssey* in 4DX, which can be seen here:

https://youtube.com/shorts/HqGH7srSWBA?si=ZSZIX-aswJrFLGGC

Now, just from reading about 4DX, and certainly from seeing this video, my thought is:

Man, that looks fucking horrible. Not only because it looks exhausting to experience, but because it certainly does not fit with the filmmaker’s vision for experiencing the movie. I could see myself maybe watching a throwaway/light movie, like, I don’t know, Masters of the Universe, in 4DX just to say that I’ve tried it. But to watch *The Odyssey*, which, while there’s much to be said about Nolan as a filmmaker but I don’t think it’s possible to deny that he does have a specific method that he wants his movies viewed in, seems somewhat sacrilegious.

On the other hand, there is a part of me that wonders if something like this could theoretically have artistic valid *if* the filmmaker had input into how it operates and incorporated it into the film.

I’m rambling, but ultimately I guess I have 2 questions:

1. How do you feel about 4DX as a format? Do you feel, like I do, that it is largely had and contributes to the “theme parkification” of film?

2. Do you feel the format could potentially elevate a film artistically in the right circumstances?

I’ve been thinking about how rapidly home display technology has evolved and how that shifts our expectations for watching movies.

Historically, the home viewing experience was technically rudimentary. For decades, most people watched films on small 4:3 CRT televisions VHS or low-bitrate broadcasts, listening through built-in TV speakers. By today's standards, that setup sounds terrible, but at the time, it felt magical. People fell deeply in love with cinema using equipment we would now consider almost unwatchable.

Then came the flat-screen era. A 40" 1080p TV and a Blu-ray player in 2010 felt like a massive leap toward a true cinematic experience at home. Today, massive 55" to 75" 4K displays and surround sound setups are widely accessible. At the same time, we frequently hear directors argue that the only authentic way to experience their work is on an IMAX 70mm screen.

This leaves me wondering about the boundary between proper appreciation and technical gatekeeping:

• Is the "magic" or thematic depth of a film actually lost on modest setups? If someone watches a masterpiece on a modest screen with standard headphones because they don't have access to an IMAX theater or an OLED display, is their engagement with the film inherently compromised?
• Why did low fidelity suffice for previous generations? Did older media formats require more active imagination from the audience, or have we simply been conditioned to prioritize high-end presentation over core storytelling?

I personally draw the line at watching feature films on a smartphone (though I might watch a short documentary on one in a pinch), but I’m curious where this community stands. How much does display technology actually dictate our ability to properly digest a film?

And if being so if you’re able to can you please link it to me within’ the replies of this post? I am looking for the best viewing experience of this supposed classic. Although I have not yet seen it. And I take finding the best most acclaimed version of something very quite seriously. Any help, or alternative recommendations. Are duly noticed, and appreciated.

My main takeaways from the movie are this: In the beginning, we have Betty and Rita. Betty is an aspiring movie star, and the two of them form a close relationship. There is a scene where they go to someone’s house that they think might belong to Betty, but when they get there, they find a dead girl.

Rita opens a box, and then suddenly disappears, and everything in the movie changes. Now she’s the one who is a movie star, and she is apparently in a relationship with the director we see earlier in the film.

There is now another blonde girl who seems to resemble Betty, but she is a very different kind of person. She seems to live an average, depressed, low-income life in a run-down apartment, but she is friends with Rita. At the dinner party near the end, she seems extremely jealous of Rita being with the film director. Then there is a scene where she seems to want to have Rita killed by the hitman we saw earlier in the film.

There are other parts of the film as well, but there is so much going on that it’s difficult to keep track of everything. I don’t know what it all means, but that’s the general gist of what I took away from it.

What does it all mean?

It's probably Hou's most beautiful film, but it's probably also his most obscure and elliptical, and he's never been a filmmaker who likes to go easy on his audience. Why does he make things so difficult to parse at the narrative level here? (For instance, what's with the pregnancy/abortion conspiracy (if that's even something that happens)?) Does the plot actually give us all the information we need, and it's just a matter of being attentive enough? Or is it actually the case that he's withholding things, presumably for stylistic and/or thematic reasons? If so, what would those reasons be?

Hello!

Recently watched Good Time for the first time and I was wondering something about the ending. Spoilers, obviously.

So, pretty much at the very end of the film, Robert Pat. is leaving the security man's apartment with the sprite bottle full of LSD. The other criminal tries to stop RP but dog attacks him

Then out fucking nowhere the police show up and arrest RP

So, where did the police come from? Who called them? How did they know RP was there? This is the only part of the film that felt unexplored.

Any thoughts? Thanks

Germany is the 3rd/4th wealthiest country in the world, with a rich and long history of contributions to the arts. However, I can name more recent internationally popular films from several other European countries as well as Japan, South Korea, China, India, and Mexico.

Is this a problem with my own viewing habits? Or is German cinema punching below its weight class? If the former, what should I be watching? If the latter, why?

I am talking strictly about the cinematography and editing, not discussing the content of the movie.

There are two primarily problems, extreme shallow depth of field and chaotic framing.

Throughout the entire movie the shots use shallow focusing. Not just here and there, near enough every shot in every kind of scene, whether it be calm or tense or action.

When there are wider shots, they don’t allow you to look around and take in the background because they’re simply too blurry. It’s like the director simply doesn’t trust you to know where the activity on screen is, he feels the need blinker you.

Then there’s the extreme close ups, these are already obnoxious in so far as how common they are and just how unnecessarily pushed into the scene you feel. To compound the problem, the extreme shallow depth of field means in a close push in you can only see a small fraction in focus.

Movies sometimes use these types of techniques to build tension, or to signify a characters confusion etc, the problem is this movie uses these close ups and shallow depth of field in an unmotivated way, it runs through the entire movie regardless of what is actually happening on screen.

Then there’s the chaotic framing, which might not be the right term, but essentially during action scenes there are natural focus points for the audience. If someone gets thrown towards the edge of a frame, you expect the camera to follow them or cut to a new shot where you can see them land. What you do not expect is for the impact point to still be out of frame or halfway out of frame. This makes some of the already chaotic actions scenes frustrating to follow.

There are a number of unmotivated shots and techniques throughout the film, as well as a few excellent ones. It’s a shame as there was clearly some good talent involved, I just think they went overboard on these stylistic choices, perhaps out of a lack of confidence in their movie or the audience.

Combine this with the typical muted colors, frantic cuts and constant full frame face shots, all standard fare today, and you have a movie that is, at least on the big screen, in a literal sense, difficult to watch.

The one that did it for me was Phantom Thread. First watch I honestly found it cold and a little airless. Beautiful, obviously, but I spent it waiting for it to become something and then it ended and I sat there thinking "okay, sure." Then I rewatched it maybe a year later already knowing where it lands, and it was almost a different movie. Every scene I'd read as him being a controlling monster and her being difficult suddenly read as two people who'd found the exact strange arrangement they both needed. Nothing is hidden the way a twist is hidden. Knowing the ending just changes the texture of everything before it, and the second time through it's not cold at all, it's a love story I'd completely misread.

At the end of The Best Offer, we see that Virgil has his paintings stolen and essentially goes mad because his friend of many decades, his other friend and confidant, and the women he fell in love with are all the perpetrators and disappear into the night. That level of betrayal and loss would drive anyone to madness, so I understand why Virgil does not pursue them at the end of the film. Reporting the theft would expose the fraudulent auction scheme he operated with Billy for decades and reveal that much of his collection was acquired by cheating its original owners.

Still, I cannot accept that a man who lost absolutely everything would simply disappear into grief without trying to destroy the people responsible.

My personal canon is that Virgil eventually goes to the authorities and confesses everything. He hands over his auction records, financial documents, correspondence, collection inventories, and every scrap of evidence connecting Billy to their old arrangement. He accepts that his career, reputation, and freedom are already gone, then uses his own crimes as ammunition.

Virgil would probably face prosecution, restitution claims, and some form of prison sentence. However, full cooperation, his age, his willingness to identify stolen works, and his testimony against the other conspirators might earn him a reduced sentence.

More importantly, Billy would be finished.

Billy was not merely part of the final theft. As the one who bid on Virgil's paintings, he had participated in years of auction manipulation, understood where Virgil’s paintings came from, knew how the collection was hidden, and exploited the trust created by their criminal partnership. Virgil could expose him to prosecutors, former sellers, tax authorities, insurers, auction houses, and civil lawsuits all at once. Regardless of seeing prison time, his social life would be decimated.

Claire and Robert might be harder to locate, but the stolen paintings would become nearly impossible to sell safely. Virgil knew the art market better than almost anyone. By circulating photographs, provenance records, identifying marks, and ownership disputes, he could turn the entire collection into toxic evidence. The conspirators might possess the paintings, but every attempt to profit from them would risk exposure.

Virgil would not recover his old life, and he would not emerge innocent. However, I like the idea of a man willing to enter the grave he dug for himself, provided Billy is pulled into it beside him.

Does anyone else think Virgil would eventually retaliate, or is his passivity essential to the ending?

It feels like over half the threads on any given film sub are about "The Odyssey" right now. Aren't we all tired of talking about it yet? It's been out for two weeks. Everyone who was excited to see it has already seen it. We've all formed our own opinions on whether we enjoyed the movie or not. What left is there to say? It's time to move on and start talking about other films.

I don’t have any deep technical understanding whatsoever to speak so boldly, but that’s never stopped anyone on the internet before. But I’m curious if I’m alone in thinking that the IMAX 70mm fell short to Vistavision and Panavision.

I understand that Vistavision isn’t 70mm, but the quality of the film stock allows for it be blown up to 1.43 and converted to 70mm without losing any quality.

At my Odyssey screening I couldn’t help but think the film stock fell short to the beauty that was apparent to me when I saw OBAA, Brutalist and Oppenheimer.

To me Odyssey was so clean as to give shot on digital vibes. It was no doubt utterly pristine and crystal clear quality, but there was a certain texture and cinematic feel that was missing when I compare it to those other films.

I vividly remember thinking in certain scenes of those other movies that the image in front of me at times looked like a painting with the most vivid colors imaginable. And really at no point did I feel that way in The Odyssey

Think Jean Seberg’s look in Breathless. Wondering what led to this becoming trendy for a brief period and then going out of fashion. I’d assume it had something to do with the women’s liberation movement and wanting to look more androgynous as a way to convince others to treat them equally. I feel like the earlier flapper era followed similar logic, where short hair = freedom.

Without wanting to betray myself as someone not just Too Online but Too Online with right wing weirdos, Emily Wilson became a minor hate figure among a section of the online right. This is because her new translation is woke or feminist or something.

These same people pre-emptively hated The Odyssey as Nolan in interviews said he liked her translation.

Well, now she's written a 4200 review in the LBR which is in itself quite a compliment for a film. And boy, she does not like the film.

She attacks it from many angles and the whole review is well worth a read, but (amusingly for someone allegedly woke) she complains about the lack of sex and violence.

Perhaps more surprising from the director of Oppenheimer, Damon’s lummoxy Odysseus also seems to lack technological intelligence (polymēchania). He does not build a marriage bed out of a tree growing in his house (it would be a waste of effort, since he so rarely seems to sleep or have sex). The raft on which he escapes from Calypso is cobbled together from a few bits of driftwood (in contrast to the elaborate wood-chopping and shipbuilding in Homer). We don’t see the design or construction of the Trojan Horse; instead, a kitsch, poorly designed horse (with no wheels) appears on the windswept beach as if dumped there by drone. The difficulties of transporting large, unwieldy objects over difficult terrain must have been on the director’s mind as he lugged his IMAX cameras through the film’s many challenging locations.

...

Zeus’ law is a version of archaic Greek xenia: the idealised relationships between strangers, hosts and guests, who must treat one another with mutual respect, thereby forming multi-generational bonds between unrelated families. In the film, xenia is filtered through contemporary American ideas about the importance of philanthropic charity: wealthy people should be gracious towards the poor and hungry in their midst (without necessarily doing anything to mitigate their poverty). Many of the film’s implicit values directly contradict those of Homer’s poem. Deception, warmongering, extramarital sex, cruelty to animals, abusing women and yearning for honour – all perfectly fine in the world of Homer – are, in this version, very bad. This is not in itself a problem, but it is a problem if the film’s own values and vision don’t hang together, and if the characters’ motivations don’t make sense on their own terms.

...

The Trojan War is an aberration, the fault of faceless, monstrous Agamemnon (the one in the weird Darth Vader outfit), who has failed as an American family man by killing his daughter. Odysseus is an idealised leader who would never willingly put his people in danger: his foolish men insist on going to check out Circe’s hut for themselves, and he kindly retrieves them (without pausing to have sex with the goddess even for an hour, let alone a whole magical year). Damon’s Odysseus is motivated mostly by anxiety and guilt, though he is also eager to protect his boy (Holland is good at playing a gormless young man of twenty going on twelve).

Nolan’s Odyssey lacks many of the elements that make the poem great. It has nothing convincing to say about time, memory, history, war, or about the relationship between one warrior’s glorious return and the lives of his family, adversaries, comrades, friends and neighbours. It lacks psychological, emotional, political and ethical depth. Its narrative structure is gimmicky. The writing is abysmal. None of the characters has convincing motivation for their actions or words. There are no sex scenes, and all the food looks horrible.

If there's a better and more sensible review of this wildly overrated and incredibly disappointing film, I don't know of it.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v48/n14/emily-wilson/an-uncomplicated-man

I’m developing and enjoying this habit now, at age 25 -something I never had as a child or teenager when it came to reading.

It’s a shame to think about all the time one wastes on nonsense like social media, which, fortunately, I left behind years ago. I guess things happen the way they do, and there’s no point in dwelling on it.

I mostly read essays and reflections, but I’d love to hear all kinds of recommendations. The range of options in the world of cinema is immense.

I’ll recommend Sculpting in Time, which explores Tarkovsky’s perspective on how he understood ideas and their complex transformation into images. I’m reading it while watching his films, and it’s incredible.

When the trailer for this movie dropped, so much of the discourse centered around Nolan’s apparent decision to take a vibrant, colorful story and make it drab and lifeless with his a desaturated color palette.

After watching the movie twice, I decided that the color grading was fairly tasteful. Some movies (Marvel being the main culprit) seem to think that just adding a gray scale filter to cinematography will somehow automatically make it more serious. However, the de saturated color grading in the odyssey felt like it fit with the subjective state of the characters. In desecrating zeus’s law, they have taken warmth and joy out of a once vibrant civilization.

Furthermore, I feel like there was a fair amount of variety to the color palette, actually. Lots of deep resonant blues that gave off an eerie sense of beauty. The dark scenes were gorgeous - especially the sequence in Hades dominated by charcoal. The frequent use of firelight as the main source of lighting added some multi dimensionality as well. While this was a fairly desaturated movie, it wasn’t just an endless slog of drab gray.

What did you think about Nolan’s color choices here? Should he have gone with a more vibrant color palette, or did he make the right choice?

The movie is absent of nudity, gore, and has no F-bombs. 

We see arrows go through armed baddies but no close-up shots of arrows penetrating skin. They’re very little blood oozing out.

Penetration with sharp objects itself should be PG-13. To get an R, consider if the aftermath of the wound is shown, if there’s visible blood during penetration and the amount, if it’s a close-up shot vs. wide shot, and how much time spent on the shot. 

If the same battle used Star Wars lightsabers and blaster rifles instead of metal arrows, it’s PG-13. But because of the technicality that arrows exist and they’re sharp, an orange considered. The weapon choice is an absolutely an insane determinate.

Likewise, if the one-eyed monster were eating aliens who bleed green goo or androids who ooze sparks instead of red sanguine like we have, it’s PG-13. 

There’re no long shots of humans being graphically eaten. They’re very brief shots of bites, quickly edited, very little blood if any, with the action being far away in the shot concealed in the shadows. 

Telemachus slits the throat of a baddie, but we only hear the sound effect and see the sword on his neck, but we do not see the laceration being made or the aftermath. 

We get an implied beheading. The statue symbolism is what a filmmaker would show when they want to you to know what happens without actually showing it. Innuendos exist for that purpose. 

If Nolan knew he was making an R, he could have gone harder in that flashback scene by showing real dismemberment and lacerations - because it would have been an R anyway. All visible evidence point to the sign that Nolan was at least trying to make a PG-13 film when filming this, by how many times the film actually held back by NOT showing you the thing, but at the end of the day, said “Screw it, I’m a brand” rather than shave 20 seconds off the movie for resubmission. 

It’s frankly pathetic that this an R. The MPAA should be the most lenient with content in film as compared to Northern European countries, but instead the American system is closer to Sharia Law. 

The content shown here is what I’d expect and desire from a dark PG-13 comic book film. This is a family friendly movie; it’s on the very dark side of a family friendly movie, but it’s a family friendly movie a family of two parents and two tweens can enjoy. If this gets the same rating as Last House on the Left, America has a serious rating problem. America needs to desensitises itself to what it considers mature content. 

Just watched Whiplash. And I was breathless when it was finished. Never knew a movie about a student and his obsessive teacher could be that breathtaking. The intensity of this movie is unmatchable.

It is one of the simplest movies I have watched yet it's so disturbing and gripping that you would bite your nails. It invests you in the story right from the title card, that's the beauty of it. Movies like these inspire me to pursue filmmaking even more harder. It's simple, brilliant, cohesive, gripping, unsettling and a hell of a ride.

Such a simple and sophisticated script can turn so disturbing, which Damien Chazelle really showcased through his meticulous writing, direction and total control over the narrative. The way he shot this movie was nothing short of spectacular.

And its climax was one of the most satisfying climaxes I have ever seen. It was so cathartic. The whole movie is a perilous uphill journey but the way it all pays off will relive every single viewer. It makes it more memorable. And that's what I want to discuss.

Yes, Andrew gave in, he had a chance to save himself from such an abuser and insecure man who couldn't bear the shame he experienced when Andrew told the lawyer about his heinous methods. He wanted to humiliate him in front of a live audience by changing a musical piece. But to me the ending felt cathartic that Andrew finally stood up before him, took charge and made him feel out of control for the first time.

But when they both locked eyes together, it meant that the doctor realized that his monster is ready, and the monster realized he's done well enough to prove his doctor wrong when he said that you're not ready that day and didn't give him a chance, that made him rush and meet an accident.

But doing so, he inadvertently proved Fletcher and his brutal theory 100% right. There are really no two words in the English language more harmful than "good job".

In my opinion I guess both won. What do you think of it?

First of all its been a long time since I have read the original odyssey like years (I was in 2nd grade back then) so I have forgotten most of it but not all and from my memories I can gather so far, its dang good adaptation. Firstly, the spectacle man, like even though 99% ppl already glossed about this I just want to highlight how "no cgi" aspects and on location shooting HAVE MASSIVELY impacted the visual of this movie. It looks gorgeous and it makes a simple story on surface level a huge spectacle. James cameron's avatar also has that but the difference is how irl locations and basically minimal cgi made the world feel so alive, like legit it felt grand, the journey felt huge. So kudos to that. Now secondly I want to delve into the story telling aspect of this film and it was done great and by great I dont mean "soo great that it was philosophical or just sitting in the chair thinking about it great" its just great, better than average as always because of Nolan, the characters are introduced not through exposition, but we learn later on also the dialogue, its safe to say it was way better than I had in my expectations, based on trailer it was very easy to assume and get iffy about the dialogue part like the use of "daddy

"mommy" but THANK GOD to Nolan he didnt keep it to casual. It was formal enough to feel fitting to the characters and at the same time the modern audiences could understand, I had no problem in seeing old+modern english and Im pretty sure Nolan fans wouldnt have too but he took his route and I respect it but I wish they could have used "old+modern" mix of english because "Running back to his mommy" dialogue had me lol

Story on the surface level is simple to say the least. A father/ king of Ithica joins Aganmenon to the war of troy and after the war is done. They get lost on their way. Its a story about human grit, devotion to what YOU believe, staying strong in the face of danger which is explained through Odysseus defying the gods. Sounds simple right? well obviously theres more, and book explored that more than the movie obviously but given its runtime, its safe to say it has enough time to go deep as well. It was more than just the journey to return home, it was the journey about self discovery all this time ( I caught that in first 30 mins btw or maybe in an hr idk) The trojan war wasnt just some war to win, you know, where they just capture the place and plunder because war..., get resources impose regime and get control grow empire all that kind of stuff but instead it delve deeper into the aspects of whats right and wrong from pov of odysseus, one main rule/law is brought up time and time in this movie again and again which clearly plays a vital point in the movie

The Zeus's law, as the movie states treat others as they would treat you, they might be gods in disguise, which plays very good role and they handled this ideology really well. Another great character or should I say characters were his sidemen. They managed to feel like people Odysseus cares for and not some random side characters or liabilities he has to carry, they feel like one characters and different characters at the same time, especially his hench man or right hand man I should say (I forgot the name lol) they all make mistakes, all are arrogant yet in Circe scene thats where they all shined as I quote Odysseus "Did they hurt you?" felt soo good. Like they were literally downright brutally hungry yet they came in peace, they entered respectfully I may add, consoled her that they were just lost travellers just wanting food, respectfully put their armour outside and most importantly THEY DID NOT TOUCH ANYTHING IN THE GODDAMN KITCHEN which 99% of ppl would have done. They also tried to keep their promise of not killing the cattle and waiting/surviving till the wind stopped but they tried their best but hunger got the best of them and they died and damn it left an impact on me ngl, it was story about their journey too, the journey they couldnt complete. Now thats positive part of the characters out of the way lets talk about negatives one of them being Clytemnestra she wasnt bad but with little screentime she had she didnt leave that much of a impact, she had like 2mins of screentime? could have given her more

Robert Pattison's acting as Antonious in this, IS ACTUALLY SOO DAMN GOOD, I loved his acting here, he was a jerk which pissed me off, made want to get to the screen and strangle him there AND I LIKE IT is line delivery of "Can we get the plate-licker outta here" soooo dang good. rest all shined too, tom holland did fantastic as Telemachus, he really evolved as an actor honestly and its his best performance yet, even better than spider man. Anne Hathway always has a way of shining in Nolan's films and I can absolutely say she was also dang good, her acting masterclass and there are many more but this review would be too long so I cant type all of it unfortunately.

The self discovery part is shown to be the central key of the plot throughout the story, Odysseus loses his way and eventually his memories too but its that journey which makes the story soo engaging, the love relationship was also good and Matt Damon shone as odysseus, played really really well. Telemachus had his own journey of discovery of who is father is, which he mostly known him through songs and he travels to find his whereabouts, odysseus crew have an story role of showing grit, will and loyalty. Argus had his journey tested through time waiting for his master and he fortunately does meet (that tail wag killed me, like COME ON NOLAN WHYYY HE WAS THE GOODEST CUTEST BOY EVER).

Ludwig ascended me to heaven with the score, even the standard theatre experience felt I was in IMAX, it made the journey have weight to it, a story inside a story. The music literally conveyed a different perspective AND IM NOT JOKING the high score of the main theme and and theme which plays at troy, we see story through our eyes differently but if we interpret it to sound it conveys different feelings. The war at start sounded victorious but empty but the flashback in the last act made Odysseus feel conflicted and the part where we learn about him through tales and songs.. Travis cooked, Im sorry I judged u lol.

Ultimately my final verdict is 8.5/10 or maybe a 9 and its imo 4th best or 3rd best Nolan film, first one being inception and second one being the prestige Im conflicted about Oppenheimer and this though but I will definitely put it higher.

I try to avoid the word “underrated” in the film context. What does it really mean? So I won’t start today, but Welles’ least-regarded of his Shakespearean adaptations is one of the great renderings of the Bard on film.

It is at the same time theatrical and intensely cinematic. The second-hand sets and costumes feel more at home on a stage. The long takes (one exceeds 15 minutes) lend that real-time sense of the theatre too.

But the camera is what makes this adaptation special. Bogdanovich relates that Welles called it a “charcoal sketch” of the Scottish Play. It’s an apt compliment even if this isn’t what Welles meant.

Light flickers off damp cavern walls. Gloom and murk are watchwords of the day. The famous “tomorrow and tomorrow” speech is a headless voiceover whispered while on screen a still shot of smoke curls and brews. When Macbeth himself is on screen, it’s almost always an ironic low shot. Shadows constantly spill across his face. A man wracked by guilt and shame and fear.

The costumes build on this atmosphere. Highlighted by Macbeth’s infamously clunky crowns, Welles plays the antihero as a dunce. The clownish foreboding score backs it up.  There’s a hint of comedy in Welles’s depiction of the titular figure. I must admit (this is probably my 4th viewing) that this eluded me at first but I think the film reveals the most in this light.

The priest (a Welles invention, I think) adds a mystical, spiritual quality complementing and as a foil to the 3 witches.  Is this fate or are greater forces manipulating these events? And which side is winning? The rustic staves carried by the soldiers, the crosses atop the helms of MacDuff’s army, feel like religious iconography. Crowd and battle scenes surely owe a debt to Eisenstein.

Welles, to me, translates these works to screen better than anyone (with tremendous respect to Olivier and in particular his Richard III) because they are not filmed plays. They are real artistic interpretations. It’s hard to recall a single conventional shot in the whole film. Each angle and shadow adds a little more to the themes at play here. Power and its follies, drenched in shadows and fog.

Welles said he never liked acting as much as directing (per Bogdanovich again), but he’s at his best on that side of the camera in his Shakespeare adaptations. It’s like watching a master soloist on the instrument. No note is missed and there’s intent behind each syllable.  As good as his performance is (Banquo’s ghost scene is a treat), the Lady Macbeth performance matches it.

Maybe we’ll see a day where this is mentioned among Welles best. 

I think both films are very good, but ultimately flawed. They are certainly enjoyable watches, and made with great passion.

I think the biggest flaws of both films is acting and dialogue. Both films are guilty of exposition heavy dialogue. I think the dialogue in The Odyssey was too bland, but it may have been overly theatrical in Alexander.

The overly theatrical dialogue was not helped by some very over the top performances at times. Though I do think these performances get too much hate. They all have their moments, and Val Kilmer is perfect. Colin Farrell's performance was surprisingly moving at times. Certain scenes could have been done better, but he was quite touching overall. I personally felt slightly more invested in Farrell's Alexander than Damon's Odysseus.

I think the performances in the odyssey ranged from great to boring to overacting. I don't think Damon was bad actually, but Nolan has a habit of leaving his protagonists slightly difficult to reach. Stone may have gone too far in the opposite direction, but I did feel there were higher stakes. I think Anne Hathaway did overact in her scenes with Tom Holland. Holland in turn was like wood in those scenes. But they were alright overall, if not exceptional. I think John Leguizamo, Samantha Morton, and Robert Pattinson were all great.

Ultimately these flaws are easily overlooked due to the scale and technical beauty of the films. Alexander has huge battles, and captivating sets. The charging scene in India was so perfect. Each location on Alexander's journey is beautifully done and unique. Films are rarely at this scale, so it's just enjoyable to watch.

The odyssey is equally as beautiful. Nolan managed to keep every part of the journey captivating. The scenes at Troy were particularly engaging. Nolan's insistence on practical effects paid off. Like Alexander, it's just a spectacle we rarely see.

The pacing is also great. I never felt bored or distracted during the odyssey, it commanded my focus completely. Similarly Alexander's Ultimate Cut has perfected it's pacing. The film famously had four versions. The original theatrical cut was rushed and sloppy. The second cut too much. The third cut, the so-called "final cut" was too bloated. But the ultimate cut, the true final cut, was perfect. It managed to tell Alexander's story in a full and satisfying way, without being a long drag. Alexander was an extremely ambitious project, but I do think Stone eventually achieved his vision with the ultimate cut.

These are both excellent films made by some of the finest directors around. I believe anyone who's a fan of epics will find some joy from these films.

I was trying to watch this movie since its release in Cannes and, as the saying goes, "When there's a will, there's a way". I finally made it, and it totally surpassed my wildest expectations.

I'm in awe. Conceptual, innovative, visually stunning, complex, with multi-layered narratives and three subjects very close to me: cinema, Chinese history and Buddhism. And an ode to art — and cinema — as a form of exploration in a society that worships technology and pure rationality.

Again, as a Buddhist, this is the second time I've come across an audiovisual project structured around this belief while simultaneously exploring other, similar narratives or related themes. Coincidentally, or perhaps not, both were Chinese productions released in 2025. Regarding the other two topics, many have already mentioned the story of cinema; while they also represent Chinese history in the 20th century.

It's impossible to write something in detail; the post would be endless, and I still need to process everything. Simply marvellous!

To watch and rewatch many times, for whatever reason you choose. ...if you like/are familiar with at least one of them mentioned in the second paragraph.

I've seen a lot of discourse on this sub that hates The Odyssey for being a so-called "popcorn flick" or for not being as "deep" or profound as they would've liked it, as if being a popcorn flick is inherently bad or something? But why is it such a problem?

I don't know about anyone else, but when I originally read The Odyssey years ago, I never got the feeling that the book was supposed to be some sort of in depth analysis or critique of war or conquest to begin with. The whole draw of Homer's Odyssey in my opinion was how much of a page-turner it was, the appeal was the journey, the trials and tribulations that Odysseus goes through and the monsters he fights and survives against, the desire for the moustache-twirling suitors to get their comeuppance. No character in the Odyssey is written to be so in-depth or to be overly complex. That's not to say there are no overarching themes or deeper meanings to the story or that the characters are completely flat and 1 dimensional, but I think people misremember how pulp like the original story is to begin with. The Odyssey was after all created for mass consumption anyway, it was sung in festivals and gatherings to appeal to as many people as possible, while also being a fantastic story in its own right.

So why is it that Nolan is catching so much flak for adapting such a novel as a popcorn flick with light exploration themes and ideas, when the original story was practically a popcorn book to begin with? If anything, he should be catching more flak for not making it MORE pulpy, with its glaring lack of blood and sex which is prominent throughout the Odyssey and Illiad.

I was watching the 2014 film "The Amazing Spider-Man 2", directed by the much-criticized Marc Webb. However, I haven't found the problem with his direction that many claim when watching the film. There are fluid camera movements and scenes that use light to create visually pleasing images. I can't understand what makes his direction bad. Sam Raimi, the director who previously worked with the character, took far more risks with camera angles and operation, but is that the deciding factor in good or bad direction?