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.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.

Review #2157: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them.

Cast: 

Eddie Redmayne (Newt Scamander), Katherine Waterston (Tina Goldstein), Dan Fogler (Jacob Kowalski), Alison Sudol (Queenie Goldstein), Samantha Morton (Mary Lou Barebone), Ezra Miller (Credence Barebone), Jon Voight (Henry Shaw Sr), Carmen Ejogo (Seraphina Picquery), Colin Farrell (Percival Graves), Ron Perlman (the voice of Gnarlak), Faith Wood-Blagrove (Modesty Barebone), Ronan Raftery (Langdon Shaw), and Josh Cowdery (Henry Shaw Jr) Directed by David Yates (#121-#124: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix / the Half-Blood Prince / Deathly Hallows - Part 1 and Part 2)

Review: 

Sometimes one just gets tired. They miss a film they probably could have seen or put it on their to-do list to throw onto the waste basket for the next year. This is one of those times, which is particularly amusing because I can say without a doubt that once Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 (2011) came out, I seemed to just go in and out of making excuses to really go back and watch those films once it was all said and done. Hell, I read the books as a teen, and somehow the idea of a "spinoff" film that retained the same director from that film adaptation to go with a screenplay by J. K. Rowling slipped my attention (I went back to try and jog my 19-going-on-20 memory and found that I somehow had time for exactly one theater release in the month that this film was released: Doctor Strange). Anyway, why don't we start making up for lost time: this is a spinoff film conceived with David Heyman (who had produced the film series) serving as a producer alongside Rowling (who had produced the Deathly Hallows films) that shares the title of a guidebook that Rowling had written in 2001 (which, well, was about beasts one might find in the wizarding world). Development started in 2013 and went on from there. The success of the film, which was planned to be the first of five films, would inspire two sequels Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) and Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022).

You know, some things are just unbearably average. I was 15 when I last remember watching all eight of that aforementioned film series (which is now labeled as being part of a "Wizarding World" franchise that inspires a blank stare), and I think he and me can agree on one thing: even the most inferior of the films (Chamber of Secrets? Order of the Phoenix?) rank better than this one, a sponge of doing things fine with the bare inspiration to look ahead. It has some of the curiosity required when it comes to wondering aloud why one would want to spend a second watching magic-sound phrases come out of folks (either British or not), and it does hold 133 minutes of attention with a handful of wonder-inducement, one can be fair there. There is something useful to find in watching folks try to engage with the idea of silly beasts possibly causing havoc in a 1920s New York that Redmayne can handle with the sense of interest with Fogler and Waterston, where even a magical parasite could be something really curious. And yet...why is it the film finds itself trying to wedge some sort of bubbling idea of war in the middle of things? (complete with a middling amount of screentime for Jon Voight, "Man Who Can Be A Ham") You can fool me with names such as "Newt" or "Queenie", but New Wizarding Orders with guys named "Gellert Grindelwald" that like to play disguise? That takes a bit more time to really stomach. Silly little plant looking creatures are a bit cooler than newspaper exposition. The performances are serviceable to the material, mostly in the case of Fogler, who provides the "take it in stride" balance to go with Redmayne and his, uh, spirited attempts at wonder that come and go with effectiveness. At least Farrell gets to dilly dally in obviousness a bit, especially when compared with a stone faced Miller. In general, this is a film that makes idle movement towards having fun but pushes a big cloud (parasite) and trying to maintain that line between wizards and "No-Majs" (blank stare). It is mildly fun, because those little antics involving a bank and magic tricks (it works out better in some ways to have people come and go) do make things come off interesting, and I do think there is something worth looking into when it comes to magic run amok that isn't trying to play too hard into things you heard already (except one line that I hated guessing). It is the kind of film that is crafted from cloth that could have received a bit more weaving to really hit its mark, but it does the basic necessities that will make those who were really drawn into it want to wonder what could be next without being a churner for the rest.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Messenger (2009).

Review #1133: The Messenger.

Cast: 
Ben Foster (Sgt. Will Montgomery), Woody Harrelson (Capt. Tony Stone), Samantha Morton (Olivia Pitterson), Jena Malone (Kelly), Steve Buscemi (Dale Martin), Yaya DaCosta (Monica Washington), and Eamonn Walker (LtCol. Stuart Dorsett) Directed by Oren Moverman.

Review: 
It feels hard to face the truth at times. The realities of life and how people deal with their actions and consequences can make for an interesting subject for a film to confront. With this film, the main focus in on casualty notification officers, with the main two being a trainee and his mentor, as they try to do their job - no matter how hard it may be, whether for the notifier or the person being notified. There is a dark but driving feel to the reality that it shows for these two and the people that they encounter in their mission that justifies its existence through a 113 minute run-time. It may fall a bit with pacing at times, but there is a sense of duty to tell a story worth wanting to see, being factual and punctual with showing emotion that never feels cynically manufactured in its episodic nature. Foster and Harrelson make for an interesting pair to follow with, where they are faced with trying to do the job they are assigned to do within the standards of the role while dealing with their own story-lines. Foster does a fine job with what he is given, balancing the trauma the character has to deal with while dealing the newfangled reality of his assignment - particularly the people he encounters. Harrelson stands out the most among the cast, having a hardened edge of sincerity and intensity that invites us to look at him with a inquisitive lens that keeps the movie moving along. Morton does fine with what's she is given for a role that occasionally invites focus of interest, and her chemistry with Foster is somewhat present, making for a few fair moments. Buscemi, with a presence of probably less than ten minutes on screen, does fine with showing a good range of emotion as one of the receivers of news from the main group. The movie is at its finest when trying to show honestly with the rough nature of the main duo's job, which makes the first half work a bit better than the second half, which isn't as too held together. The film has a few cliches to it, but it isn't anything that makes the material come off as anything other than fairly watchable. It isn't the kind of movie that had much success upon original release, having a limited run in few theaters before making just over a million dollars on a $6.5 million budget, although it did receive nominations for numerous awards, such as Best Original Screenplay at the Academy Awards for writers Alessandro Camon and Oren Moverman and Best Supporting Actor for Harrelson; in any case, this is a fairly decent film that manages to pull enough emotional honesty and focus from its main two actors to pull a victory out, and I'm sure it will work just fine for people in the mindset for something a bit different for a war drama.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.