The Odyssey (2026).

Review #2561: The Odyssey (2026).

Cast: 
Matt Damon (Odysseus), Tom Holland (Telemachus), Anne Hathaway (Penelope), Robert Pattinson (Antinous), Lupita Nyong'o (Helen of Troy / Clytemnestra), Samantha Morton (Circe), John Leguizamo (Eumaeus), Zendaya (Athena), Charlize Theron (Calypso), Jon Bernthal (Menelaus), Himesh Patel (Eurylochus), Bill Irwin (Polyphemus), Elliot Page (Sinon), Benny Safdie (Agamemnon), with Corey Hawkins (Polybus), Niko Nicotera (Peisander), Elyes Gabel (Elatus), Iddo Goldberg (Amphimedon), Jamie Harris (Agelus), Mia Goth and Logan Marshall-Green (Melantho and Melanthius), Ryan Hurst (Mentor), and James Remar (Tiresias) 

Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, #062 - Batman Begins, #980 - Dunkirk , #1562 - The Dark Knight Rises, #1618 - Tenet, #2050 - Oppenheimer, #2322 - Interstellar)

Review: 

"Tell me, O muse, of that ingenious hero who travelled far and wide after he had sacked the famous town of Troy. Many cities did he visit, and many were the nations with whose manners and customs he was acquainted; moreover he suffered much by sea while trying to save his own life and bring his men safely home; but do what he might he could not save his men, for they perished through their own sheer folly in eating the cattle of the Sun-god Hyperion; so the god prevented them from ever reaching home. Tell me, too, about all these things, O daughter of Jove, from whatsoever source you may know them."

Once upon a time, there were old tales that people decided to freewheel their own interpretation to communicate to the masses (such as say, Samuel Butler, who stated a theory, whether 100 percent seriously or not, that the Odyssey was written by a Sicilian woman). As the seasons changed and the technology grew larger, you could see and hear other freewheeling interpretations of tales on a screen perhaps unfathomable to a person dated in antiquity. Some folks probably read the Odyssey in their youth or maybe read it online (the link I noted above is a centuries old public domain translation, which used the Latinized name of Ulysses), or maybe heard about it from other certain oral traditions (hey, Arthur was an institution for some kids), or with James Joyce's Ulysses, or, well, you get the idea. Various productions had been done of the work, with most being in Italy, such as the film Ulysses [1954] (a Dino De Laurentiis production with Kirk Douglas and others), the 1968 miniseries (known in its native country as L'Odissea), looser adaptations such as O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000), and recent ones such as The Return (2024), which started with no mythic beings or Gods with Odysseus back in Ithaca. Christopher Nolan wanted to be the guy to direct a movie that had never really been done for a large-scale production with the Odyssey, and it should be noted that he had been once tapped to direct Troy (2004), which had been loosely based on the Iliad. He wanted to tell it "in a fresh and modern way", which to him read differently from his perspective of middle age that he felt he has been telling in his films for years, simultaneously calling it a "family story, a love story, a revenge story, a war story, a coming-of-age story... a very strong foundational text". There were various inspirations that Nolan listed prior to the release, ranging from the various translations of the Odyssey (such as the Emily Wilson 2017 translation), the visual style and atmospheric tone of Kurosawa's Ran (1985) and the mythology-inspired films worked on by Ray Harryhausen such as Jason and the Argonauts (1963). It was shot entirely with IMAX film cameras, the first of its kind in a movie that already sounds like a crowd favorite*.

In a time of "apparent magic", yes, you basically get a tale of original sin. It basically is a grounded take of the sword and sandal epic with an earthy feel that feels more psychological than mythological. In some ways, it might seem bloated at 173 minutes, but actually it often feels more like a breeze to sift through as it dwells through the divide of a lead that wavers between an everyman and a superhero. The veterans of his campaigns walk the shore in life and death because only one man will end up by divine will back home and yet he still thinks defiance is the way to go. Men from the sea attack and all around a kingdom, the law of Zeus (okay, xenia) is not being abided by while others go on about a face, a fleet, and tricks to break away and burn Troy screaming to the ground. Amidst the prophets, giants, and nymphs is a story of a man realizing what his actual place is among the crumbling of foundation and realizing that what you want most may very well be what you already had (okay that came from a bit about the Sirens, but in fairness, what is a man if not one with the hubris to listen to them knowing they will survive anyway). It jumps around in the narrative with a type of curious enthusiasm that has a few moments that really do spark me to go "cool", namely with the Laestrygonian sequence (the giants clad in armor), complete with camera tricks (hey, the cyclops [Polyphemus] is cool to see too, and the witch realization is also darkly amusing, but still). Of course, the underworld sequence might be the real showstopper in seeing the true price of years spent getting on and trying to leave one particular blood-stained beach (and one horse*).

For all of the stuff I say about the movie, it really is one to look upon familiar faces and find a few fun moments in Damon leading the way in the unraveling of civilization, at least if you go with someone having enough hubris to believe that they really are the, shall we say, Oppenheimer of their times. Basically, you have a complicated hero that you know is going to reach some type of home (his kingdom, wife with the stature of Hathaway, however you want to interpret it) but not necessarily will be a better man for it, and in that sense, Damon makes for a curious cipher that either grows with you or just withers away in elusiveness, and I found it was a case of the former most of the time, which I suppose is helpful when talking about the wavering road of hero or fool. Some could contend that Holland might be easy to gloss over amidst the seasoned presences around him. Well, that's a bit silly to me, mainly because that's the whole point: this is a foolish young prince that is between a rock and a hard place: old enough to maybe take on actual responsibilities but not in the position to actually rise from "son of Odysseus" (to a certain point, anyway). In that sense, Holland does pretty well with showing the vulnerability of being out of one's depth, of literally being a face in a long crowd, especially when contending with the likes of Leguizamo, who really does sink into his role with weary curiosity.  Pattinson and Morton each sell the moments that they take part in more so than the mostly okay times encountering Theron or Nyong', with Pattinson in particular seemingly having plenty of fun in towering overconfidence (as one does when citing a James Woods character* as inspiration). I just wish the film stuck the ending better, because amidst a flourish of inevitable "hey, the man of the house is among us" realization is a finish of trying to sell the closing of the loop of a man who can't really go "home" (as one does when fiddling with the ending of the original tale in, what, divine intervention?) that just...sits there as an ending more than anything. As a whole, making The Odyssey was a task that required a director willing to stamp their own interpretation on what is so special about a long trek back home in a time of myths and monsters, and I think Nolan made a pretty good rendition worth viewing on the best screen possible. It's not a great movie, but being a pretty good time is just as useful for me anyway.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Any thoughts about the casting of say, Nyong'o or Page? Yeah, conservative grifters whining about it can either watch the movie for themselves or piss off. The movie is full of Greek characters, do we care if most of them are played by Americans or Brits? No? 

*Or the dog reunion, because, hey.

*Not to be confused with the current James Woods

*It's a hard 8/10 in that I would rather go 8/10 for a movie that teeters at 8.5 rather than having subsequent regret in giving a 9/10.

The Wolf of Wall Street.

Review #1567: The Wolf of Wall Street.

Cast:
Leonardo DiCaprio (Jordan Belfort), Jonah Hill (Donnie Azoff), Margot Robbie (Naomi Lapaglia), Kyle Chandler (Patrick Denham), Rob Reiner (Max Belfort), Jon Bernthal (Brad Bodnick), Matthew McConaughey (Mark Hanna), Jon Favreau (Manny Riskin), Jean Dujardin (Jean-Jacques Saurel), Joanna Lumley (Aunt Emma), Cristin Milioti (Teresa Petrillo), Aya Cash (Janet), Christine Ebersole (Leah Belfort), Shea Whigham (Captain Ted Beecham), Katarina Cas (Chantalle Bodnick), Stephanie Kurtzuba (Kimmie Belzer), P. J. Byrne (Nicky Koskoff), Kenneth Choi (Chester Ming), and Brian Sacca (Robbie Feinberg) Directed by Martin Scorsese (#990 - Taxi Driver, #992 - The King of Comedy, #1276 - Mean Streets, #1463 - Raging Bull, #1496 - Goodfellas, #1544 - The Departed, and #1559 - Hugo)

Review:
"If you look at what occurred in the world of finance—many times now and it will probably happen again—you really have to ask the questions: Is dishonesty acceptable? Aren’t people expected to go too far?”

"It’s interesting, because I have been doing this since I was 13. I am almost about to turn 40, and I am looking back at some of the stuff I’ve gotten to do, and at the center of it is this amazing accidental collaboration that I’ve gotten to have with Marty.”

There have been quite a number of director-actor teams over the prevailing decades of cinema, and one could only hope to make one as worthwhile and engaging for both on and behind the camera as Martin Scorsese with Leonardo DiCaprio. They haven't worked with each other as much as another certain duo involving Scorsese, but their five films together have served each other well in terms of audience appeal and curiosity over people at the prime of who they are in direction and acting. Both were well-regarded names before the 21st century had even started, and their first collaboration together would be with Gangs of New York (2002). This is the fifth film that they had made together as star director and actor (with a sixth collaboration reportedly coming sometime in this decade). DiCaprio had wanted to make this film since 2007 when it was brought to his attention by producer Alexandra Milchan, finding interest in its portrayal of people addicted to obtaining wealth by any means necessary and the "author's singular transparency"; this would also attract Scorsese to the project as well to direct alongside produce with DiCaprio and others, while Terence Winter (most known for his writing work on The Sopranos and developer/writer of Boardwalk Empire) was brought in to write the screenplay.

Undeniably, it will spark thoughts of Goodfellas (1990), Scarface (1983), or especially Wall Street (1987). Sometimes one has to embrace the madness that comes from a movie like this, a film with no shame or qualms about showing the nature of depravity within trying to make money alongside uncompromising honesty that makes for a strange wild movie that certainly proved different from viewer to viewer in enjoyment. The film is based on the book of the same name by convicted felon Jordan Belfort, and if you believe what you hear from him, what occurred in the memoir was actually toned down in regards to the levels of debauchery (which already seem high), but we are talking about a movie that fudges with some of the real names (such as Danny Porush, Gregory Coleman, Ira Sorkin, and even Belfort's two wives). If the subject depicted on screen found the film to be fairly accurate, can one really go wrong? If you hear it from his partner Porush (fellow convict and apparent gold-fish consumer), one wonders just exactly was accurate in the incidents depicted. Or how about from the attorney that prosecuted him? Just what does want from a biographical black comedy about excess with fraud? You know Belfort is a felon, and I know he is a felon that now does motivational speaking, yet here we are. Who are we kidding though? It is a movie about people who can't help but want to make money (and lots of it). I think maybe this is a barometer film for those who look at films for their content or about what they really say as a whole, where one could really either find to be a blistering roar of humor within ethical malaise, or perhaps a film bloated on purpose too much for its own good to mean anything. We could go through the wheelbarrow of things to describe al day, whether that means little people being tossed, yacht crashing, shaven heads for big money, etc, etc. I think I fall into the former category, because I did like what I saw here, but there always seems to be something gnawing in my mind that knows it is just pretty good rather than great. If I want a film with more balance towards the authorities with fraud, I could just pass a glance to an American Greed rerun. It is wild, crude, unbalanced, and everything in the book of what makes a film ripe for unrestrained potential. One obviously starts with DiCaprio in highlighting the biggest strength. Simply put, he does a great job in generating a sort of feral charisma, a man you can find yourself yelling along with in the breakroom even when you the viewer knows the result of said practice-making. His asides and voiceovers throughout the film help as well in generating a fascinating performance, one that dazzles the viewer in his range in where he progresses in the pursuit of money and vices that come from such ravenous appetite, and perhaps it isn't surprising that he equated Belfort to being like a "modern-day emperor Caligula". Hill was so desperate to work with Scorsese and play that part that he took a significant pay-cut to do so. Clearly, it seemed to pay off well for Hill, who is such a rapid-fire presence of excellence, one that seems exactly in his element to be part of the pursuit for money as a creature of brashness and budding one-two act with DiCaprio, one that can make eating a goldfish not seem like a hammy moment. Robbie works well in those moments spent with DiCaprio that are dazzling in allure for what is needed in a film building people up in currency beyond just the money on the table. Chandler is the carefully smooth figure in authority, driven in those little moments without needing to be a bigger focus - the sequence on the yacht with him and DiCaprio is a skillful one to see the wheels turn in cat-and-mouse play. Reiner, the TV star-turned-director-turned-occasional actor, does well in handing in some blustery sense that is needed. Bernthal lends a deliberate coarse hand that works with the other associates seen mostly for the first half alongside the other associates of growing wry sellers. McConaughey isn't in the film long, but the chest beating and humming scene is easily the sparkplug scene that rolls the film along rightly, while others lend supportive hands for dubious measures in Favreau, Dujardin and Lumley. As a whole, it is definitely a film to set a whole day for to see the mayhem of moral bankruptcy for three hours that will reward those who find its intent useful without thinking it as unsubtle. If you are into what the film is selling, go right on ahead for one of the most interesting features to sit through for its era from a prime duo worthy of seeing on screen to do it.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Ford v Ferrari.

Review #1302: Ford v Ferrari.

Cast: 
Matt Damon (Carroll Shelby), Christian Bale (Ken Miles), Jon Bernthal (Lee Iacocca), Caitriona Balfe (Mollie Miles), Tracy Letts (Henry Ford II), Josh Lucas (Leo Beebe), Noah Jupe (Peter Miles), Remo Girone (Enzo Ferrari), Ray McKinnon (Phil Remington), and JJ Feild (Roy Lunn) Directed by James Mangold (#912 - Logan)

Review: 
I do not consider myself a big fan of racing. Granted, I do partake in flipping channels to see a race from time to time, but I can't say I know much about the 24 Hours of Le Mans or really much about manufacturers (one can do that when being on their feet to travel anywhere). Granted, one doesn't really need to do sports to enjoy sports dramas, and this film proves that assessment well with its execution. It has a dynamic cast that sit into the 1960s trappings without any hesitation and plenty of charm to go around to drive a fair rendition of the fact to make something worthwhile for 152 minutes without losing itself. The 1966 edition of Le Mans had already inspired a book with Go Like Hell: Ford, Ferrari, and Their Battle for Speed and Glory at Le Mans (2009) and a documentary with The 24 Hour War (2016), but this manages to inspire curiosity for its main subject without seeming trapped in too many familiar territories. 

It is a crowd pleaser, but it is a convincing crowd pleaser that works to gain attention for more than just parts involving cars going around fast (which is of course a great attraction in of itself). Undeniably, the highlight is Bale, capable of charm and eccentric nature that rolls well whether with Damon or his on-screen family. Damon is also well on his game too, relaxed yet endearing with delivering with the auto drama with conviction that serves the material with dignity. It really could just be a buddy film between these two, really, complete with grocery fights and wrench throwing. Balfe and Jupe also prove fine in the family aspect that gives a bit of depth when it comes to seeing a racer back home off the element. On the other side of the auto drama involves Bernthal, Letts, Lucas, and Girone in trying to capture the Ford-Ferrari rivalry (alongside micromanagement conflict, naturally), and each do their roles alright. For a film that doesn't really drive home an adversary but more so just drives conflict (specifically with Lucas' character) with a bit of amplification, at least one can see the passion behind trying to show a tense war of manufacturers trying to make their cars run fast and run well for a whole day on a world stage. It makes you care for a race like this much in the same one can get caught up in the moment when they watch their first ever auto race. If you never watch another race like this, at least you can say you had the privilege, which certainly rolls in this film's favor. It is a film about ingenuity in the fact of having the guts and talent to challenge the standards (in this case, racing), and that can be something you can find in plenty of sports films. It sure does prove to be a good time for while it lasted, that much is for sure.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Baby Driver.

Review #971: Baby Driver.

Cast: 
Ansel Elgort (Baby), Kevin Spacey (Doc), Lily James (Debora), Jon Hamm (Buddy), Eiza González (Darling), Jamie Foxx (Bats), Jon Bernthal (Griff), Flea (Eddie "No-Nose"), Lanny Joon (JD), and CJ Jones (Joseph) Directed by Edgar Wright.

Review: 
Admittedly, I took some time before getting to see this film (roughly three weeks after its release), but I figured that it would be worth the wait. This is a fairly cohesive action flick that is fast and efficient in its style and pacing, with the characters and music corresponding to that. It has a level of mayhem and excitement that is undeniably interesting to watch, taking elements from other heist flicks and making them feel fresh and reliable to see carried out on screen. It has its shares of thrills, but it also is a movie that doesn't sacrifice the plot to get to the highs that it rises to, with fine editing from Paul Machliss and Jonathan Amos and cinematography from Bill Pope as well. It's a movie that can have some nice blend of music (like "Brighton Rock" by Queen, for example) but also have some nice scenes with Elgort and Jones in sign language. Elgort certainly fits in line with the movie, having a cool but careful demeanor that certainly makes him easy to watch, and his chemistry with James reflects that, with their scenes together working fairly well. The other core four (Spacey, Hamm, González and Foxx) are also pretty good together, with Spacey and Hamm having their own kind of arcs that have payoffs that the movie earns. Foxx does a fine job with this unhinged but always watchable character, and Gonzalez does a fine job with her role as well. The climax of the film is like a roller coaster, having a few twists and turns (much like other good flicks of its genre) that manage to keep one on their toes at what happens next. There is a good amount of flash to the film, but it has a substance of reality and reliability that makes it shine as an acceptable and unique action flick with enough wit and class to spare.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Sicario.

Review #753: Sicario.

Cast
Emily Blunt (Kate Macer), Benicio del Toro (Alejandro Gillick), Josh Brolin (Matt Graver), Daniel Kaluuya (Reggie Wayne), Maximiliano Hernández (Silvio), Victor Garber (Dave Jennings), Jon Bernthal (Ted), Jeffrey Donovan (Steve Forsing), and Raoul Trujillo (Rafael) Directed by Denis Villeneuve.

Review
Sicario (a term for hit man) is a tough movie to write words about. It's a good movie, I can say that much. But I can also say that it is not for everyone. The movie certainly had a mystique on me, given that it was the first R-rated film I saw in theaters. The movie had gone into full release in October, yet I was watching it in November, with not much of a crowd (six, including myself) but perhaps that made the movie a little more isolated and intriguing. The movie certainly deserves its R-rating, but it also deserves accolades as well. What we have here is a tense and brutally effective thriller that is both unrelenting and interesting to watch. The main three are brilliant in their own ways. Blunt is certainly a lead character we can identify with as an audience to follow with. As for del Toro, he always seems to lurk around but still manage to be interesting and entertaining to watch, especially as his story comes full circle. Brolin has a grimy charm to him that makes him enduring to watch as well. The movie isn't really about hunting down a villain as much it is about seeing the progression of our lead as she sees the methods Brolin and his team uses, especially with regards to del Toro. The movie works because the drama and action balance each other out really well, especially at the end with del Toro. It's a great movie to look at, especially the night vision scenes. Ultimately, this isn't a movie for the faint-hearted, but it is a good movie to watch for some entertainment that may make you think hours after you watch.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Fury.

Review #694: Fury.

Cast
Brad Pitt (Don Collier), Logan Lerman (Norman Ellison), Shia LaBeouf (Boyd Swan), Michael Peña (Trini Garcia), Jon Bernthal (Grady Travis), Jason Isaacs (Cpt. Waggoner), and Scott Eastwood (Sgt. Miles) Directed by David Ayer.

Review
When it comes to World War II movies, we watch regardless of the era. Whether it is Patton, or Sands of Iwo Jima, or The Dirty Dozen, or various others, it's a subject that is endless. And this just happens to be another one, though this one is influenced by evens, which I guess makes the movie less susceptible to criticism of inaccuracy. And what we have here is a movie well fit for war. Watching war movies takes a little endurance because the subject matter has to hold itself to a standard while taking the brunt of horror. In that case, this movie works just fine for it. The performances are well done, and I like Pitt's tone. I was a bit surprised that LeBeouf does a pretty fine job, mostly because he really seems into this role. The action and effects are well done, which is good because had the effects not been up to par, it would've made for a distracting mess. The movie has just enough edge to make for a brutal, but ultimately functional movie. If you're not a fan of war movies or a fan of happier times, I'd suggest anything else. But for the rest of the audience at home, this is up their alley.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.