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?
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
You are aware that the Odyssey is a work of fiction, right?
When Odysseus pulls out his light saber it really puts me in the story againt the one eyed Megatron.
Starscream: Who are you?
Odysseus: I am nobody!
Starscream: Megatron, help me! I am being attacked by nobody!
Freddy Faz Bear: Hor hor hor hor hor
But it is in and of itself a piece of history.
Changing a story that is thousands of years old is wrong.
Go ahead and make the movie, but be faithful to the original work.
Nah, it’s in line with myths and traditional stories. Would a faithful adaptation be cool? Sure. But retelling and reimagining ancient stories is tradition.
Every retold story is slightly different. Readapting works in the public domain is a tale as old as time.
Bonus points for the Odessy as a tale told in song until history began. Other works were lost, and the Odessy itself is likely just “the best parts” of the original.
The original is still there, though, unchanged. If you need to be completely faithful to the original version, why bother making one at all?
I never trust the critics over normal viewers, lol. I am NEVER the second guy down
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.
Hey, I go to a lot of AMC theaters, I feel very strongly that it was the “Dolby” theater. I’ve had similar experiences there (but haven’t walked out). It might be a perfect storm of scenarios making it uniquely worse, but I can definitely say everyone in our group has all had the same experience at Dolby theaters.
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 partner and I actually walked out after 10 or 15 minutes because it was so painfully loud. Asked for (and received) a refund.
Infuriating that I can’t trust movie theaters to maintain reasonable volumes. I shouldn’t have to bring earplugs to a movie.
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.
I agree they both fucked it up, but my main problem is how there seems to have been a clear shift in how they “weigh” reviews after both IMDB and RT were bought by large corporate entities (Amazon and Fandango, respectively).
I can’t help but feel like a lot of the movies coming out from those companies or their subsidiaries (…and at least some number of politically expedient allies) somehow manage to get higher overall review scores on RT and IMDB than they maybe deserve.
For example, that shitty right-wing nationalist churchslop movie “Young Washington” got relatively high scores on RT…
…and IMDB…
…but not on Letterbox’d…
…which is one of the main reasons I shifted to checking Letterbox’d for reviews… but unfortunately, another day to shift to a different platform be coming soon again.
In Darknet Diaries Ep 27: Chartbreakers, Jack Rhysider describes how cheap and easy it is to buy your way to the top of the Apple Podcasts rating chart or onto the New York Times bestseller list.
After listening to this, it’s pretty easy to extend the logic to every other rating platform. Paying for review manipulation is basically part of the marketing budget.
I want to be clear I don’t disagree at all you’re correct. Corporate control of art means they will go to any lengths to ensure profit.
But also, I really kinda glossed over the overarching problem, which is that the film industry is now driven by reviews and vibes reviewed by c-suite folks that answer to shareholders and don’t give a fuck about the actual film or show or whatever
This has always been true with the plastic arts but we’ve reached a zenith.
I will die on the hill that art cannot be considered a financial investment. It by definition has to take risks and investment people cannot handle that
This Patrick Willems piece does a really good job of digging in to why so many streaming “blockbusters” are so shitty these days.
Tl;dw: The streaming companies have the metrics, and are now essentially making movies that hit certain beats to satisfy what they perceive as customer requirements, rather than movies that exist for their own sake.
Art by corporate committee, a fucking travesty
Yeah fedi needs a letterboxd. I kind of wonder if bookwyrm would be a good inspo for it.
I think NeoDB is a good start. Just needs a larger community l
I’m on it 🫡
You can’t REALLY make an review of a work of art,
They are not reviewing work of art though, they are reviewing products.
Yeah these ratings are worse than useless. Oh The Abyss 14% better than Amelie?? Fuck off, Poindexter.
They’re completely disconnected from my own opinions and when I see then before watching a movie they just distract me by wondering what tf other were watching.
You can’t map.reduce this shit, it’s totally subjective
it’s totally subjective
Yet we agree that there is such a thing as one movie being better than another, broadly speaking. It’s not something to boil down to a percentage, but you might as well show more detail when you have the data.
Personally, I use ratings to estimate whether a movie that I’m interested in is worth my time. Especially Rotten Tomatoes is super useful for this because the critics score is basically a distilled thumbs up or down.
it’s totally subjective
Yet we agree that there is such a thing as one movie being better than another
I mean I wouldn’t say that, it’s kind of the opposite of what I was saying actually. But if reviews form a kind of aggregate metric you find useful then that’s good for you.
Elsewhere I even talked about how frequently I disagreed with Siskel and Ebert’s thumbs ups/downs, but the text of their reviews at least showed me I would love a movie they thought was bad.
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.
I have so little incentive to go to the movies these days that any negativity, deserved or not, is just enough.
You don’t have to go to the movies to see a movie
Yeah, even without piracy, I don’t care to wait a month or two to see something that peek my interest
That’s fair
Arrr!
Disclaimer: I have only seen the trailers. Multiple things were from substantially incorrect regions or time periods. They could have at least tried.
Also, I bought a Nolan movie to watch at home once, and the sound balancing was complete garbage. It was disappointing that he let his pretentiousness make his movie unwatchable. Maybe someday he’ll understand what art is for.
Unless the people in my life that watch more movies than I do say it’s really good, I won’t see it, but also won’t be reviewing it for Rotten Tomatoes.
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.
Simpler than that. The movie was made because Nolan saw the Titans movies and thought, “someone should make a not ‘ass’ version”.
understandable but like, aren’t 99% of movies made to make a profit?
Yes that’s true but I have a pretty simple algorithm for movies that were “made to sell tickets”
- franchise movies, especially if the story ended already
- comic book movies
- remakes
- movies based on a property that doesn’t translate well into movies(video games, certain kinds of books)
Hm…I can see your angle but some of those can be fun to still watch.
Movies can’t always be about deep thought 100% philosophical question of life. That’s tiring for me.I do want to point out that “legitimate artistry” doesn’t equal “deep thought 100% philosophical” all the time or even most of the time.
Like I think Indiana Jones is legitimate artistry. Same with The Terminator. Or Alien. Or Mad Max. Even Sinners is legitimate artistry. Get Out.
I haven’t seen it yet, but I get the impression that “The Odyssey” was made because Nolan thought the subject matter was interesting.
People have made cool movies for the love of the game forever. I think the big difference is “did an executive come up with this idea in a boardroom?” Or “did a real creative person come up with this idea?”
Thanks for explaining your standpoint.
Hereby I stand corrected :)
Are there any movies you like which are an exception to those?
I liked Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy… Actually just the first 2.
The primary target can be X or Y or a 50/50 split.
Someone can have passion to make a movie but also wanting more € to make more movies.
Or get rich from the (maybe) one-hit wonder ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Things to do when bored: arguing about taste.
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.
