Oh brother, where art thou or nothing

Movies you haven't seen:

91% 89%

"this might be good, idk... nah, probably not."

I have. I enjoyed the heck out of it, it's a retelling definitely intended for modern audiences with some things removed and additional historical context added.

It's an excellent telling of an old story that reminds you that the Iliad was not truly glorious, and those that go to war will not come back the same.

Does he manage to get back to earth in this one?

What's more important than the score is the written reviews.

So many films with bad scores because people didn't "get it", or watched a film that wasn't "for them".

For example, I've seen critics write reviews for the third movie in a franchise, saying they didn't understand what was happening, because they didn't watch the first two.

I swear rotten tomatoes and IMDb fucked up movies and tv more than anyone talks about. You can’t REALLY make an review of a work of art, even if it is corporate produced tripe, with a percentage scale or */10 system, and before anyone comes at me I know it’s been done for decades but it was never a be all and end all thing, critics wrote articles about things and you might disagree with their sensibilities and go see it specifically because a particular critic didn’t like it, the opposite is also true.

At some point though we crossed a line where no one actually reads the criticism and internalizes it, instead they just look at the number and make it either a personal attack or validation. Thats a really bad way to experience art of any kind.

This isn’t a complete thought I feel, but I hate the reality of film and television criticism today, not because critics are worthless, because that’s just silly. If you like something Peter Travers said was dog shit go find a critic that speaks to your taste it’s not difficult and doesn’t mean your favorite movie actually sucks.

My partner and I walked out of The Odyssey after ten minutes and got a refund.

WAY too loud. Excruciatingly, painfully, unnecessarily loud. And yet I still had trouble hearing some of the dialogue. We were in an AMC Dolby theater, and I don't think I'll ever go to a Dolby branded theater like that again.

I'm not sure how to split the blame here between AMC, Dolby, or Christopher Nolan, but I'm mad at all three for the ringing in my ear that's still there several hours after we walked out.

Can't comment on the movie itself as we barely saw any of it. Might see it at a different theater but I'll be bringing earplugs just in case, though I may want a refund there too if it's still so loud as to require earplugs.

Nolan really not helping his reputation at being an outright sadist when it comes to sound.

I watched it, did not care for it. To dark, there were so many points i could not see what was happening, WAY to loud, actually hurt my ears, and, i just did not enjoy it as an experience. Actors are all fine, but there were times where the writing felt clunky or out of place ngl.

My man, If you need your tastes to be affirmed by some magical numbers, then I don't know what to tell you.

Nope, I'm still pissed off at Ridley Scott's Napoleon for changing things historically. It was a fun movie and really entertaining but it pissed me off so I couldn't fully enjoy it.

I'm assuming this movie will be the same, so I'll pass until I learn to let things go

Is anyone else getting a little uncomfortable having their confirmation bias put in the spotlight like this?

I have a very simple system. If the movie was made for legitimate artistic reasons, then I think it was worth the effort to make it. If the movie was made to sell tickets, I don't bother.

I decide which artistry is legitimate.

I have so little incentive to go to the movies these days that any negativity, deserved or not, is just enough.

I think the best approach is to find reviewers whose tastes largely align with your own. Their reviews can serve as a good reference when you’re looking for a movie you haven’t seen yet.

There are simply too many criteria you could apply. The "Cinesiasts", for example—who like films like Citizen Kane or works by Ingmar Bergman, Aki Kaurismäki, and the like—naturally know a great deal about their field. However, that by no means means their reviews would be a good reference point for the general public, who simply want to be entertained and don’t place too much value on artistic merit or the most elaborate technical skills of filmmakers.

Things to do when bored: arguing about taste.

I never trust the critics over normal viewers, lol. I am NEVER the second guy down

Historically I never had the patience but I've watched a ton of movies over the past couple years (easily 300+) and initially I agreed with audience rating. Although I'm far from an insufferable cinephile and really don't care about underlying theory and whatnot, I definitely find myself agreeing more with critic rating now. Of course there's plenty of exceptions where I disagreed with both. Movies can be fun or awful for you regardless of what anyone else thinks.

That being said, I think Roger Ebert's reviews usually nail it. That man was a connoisseur of weird enjoyable movies and quick to call out corporate crap.

Seeing it on Sunday!

I do have an issue with the amount of stars in the movie, especially Zendaya, but I'll try to keep an open mind.

I don't care about the historical accuracy or the racial makeup of the cast, all I care about is whether it's a movie I enjoy watching.

The Odyssey trailers did not appeal to me much, so I'm confused by the praise it's getting, is it because it's actually good or normies just giving it 10/10 because it's a Nolan movie. I watched Oppenheimer in theater and realized I could have saved the cost of the ticket and watched it at home without losing much, how does this movie compare to that, I've liked most of Nolans other movies except Tenet

See also: everyone driving slower than me is an idiot, everyone driving faster than me is an asshole.

Disney movies like zootopia 2 are 100% but v for fucking vendetta is like 70? Wtf RT

Read the "professional reviews" and are like "my daughter liked it so 10/10"

Just came home from watching it. I've read it quite a few times, both out loud to students and by myself, so I didn't go in completely blind so to speak.

Still, it managed to confuse me a few times, especially a few conversations, and at some points, a little who's who. (Might just have been me, though. See below).

Still, overall, it was a pleasure to watch. Damon gives one of his best performances. It's perhaps not the best he's ever done, but he's good enough to carry a large part of the movie by himself. There are other standouts as well, a few from his crew, and Pattinson is his usual brooding self, which fits right in here. Casting Tom Holland as Telemachus perhaps wasn't completely fair to his capabilities, but he did well enough with his limited time and lines.

It's quite hard to write about further details without spoiling stuff, but one thing I can say is that the scenery is very well done. If you go in expecting Greek summer sunshine, you're in for another thing altogether. The backdrops were gorgeous. The CGI is also quite well done, imo.

Anyway, to be completely honest here, I have issues with my spine and right leg (the ischias nerve) so I'm pretty heavily medicated and that might have put a positive tint on the whole thing, I don't know.

(tl;dr) Still, in my opinion, it's very much worth watching, and if you can afford it, it's worth watching it in a movie theatre because of the effects and sound.

Edits: I had to repair my broken and not very sober English after the fact.