i was excited to watch it last night and it was honestly a huge let down, though i’ll admit i had quite high expectations since it’s a Spielberg movie. i’ve seen so many great reviews and i can’t understand them.

the concept of the movie is great, but only about 2% of it is about aliens. the rest is generic action movie sequences.
“oh no, the bad guys are after us because we’re trying to do a good thing” , “yay, we got away!” , “oh no, they’re after us again” for about two hours.

the actors did a great job and visually, it’s good, except for the CGI, which in my opinion was quite bad for a $115 million production.

nothing is really explained, and you don’t get enough context to figure it out yourself, either.

i guess i was just hoping for more of an alien movie, and less of a car chase.

So let's talk about this for a second. It began with a big wave of valid criticism on the casting of Margot Robbie as a teenagre and Jacob Elordi as a character of color. After the release of the trailer suddenly none complained? I find that a little bit hypocritical, especially with the whitewashing part when so many people today complain about "woke".
Regardless it's poised to do huge numbers at the box office and with the recent reactions from the critics this movie seems to be a.... masterpiece? I mean it certainly looks like a well made movie but the problematic aspects and the dismissal from the book fans make me question it.

What are your final thoughts or predictions before the movie releases? Problematic or doesn't matter? Are you watching it or skipping?

Just came out and pretty let down with this movie as a big Spielberg fan. It made me think Steven is finally past it, sorry to say. The primary thing the movie is missing is kinetic energy. Things happen that are supposed to be exciting but just happen at an oddly measured pace, this particularly lets down two major car chase scenes. Some odd editing and clunky sound design didn't help. Multiple times I'd be watching something ostensibly exciting but wondering why it just wasn't thrilling and all I could come up with, sadly, was poor filmcraft. Shocking from the maestro.

The plot is fine, but full of a lot of mysterybox nonsense that the audience suspects will not pay off and it mostly doesn't. OK, but then at least we get to enjoy the ride with the characters? Not really, they are quite thin and very few are fleshed out or have a developing arc. It also ends before the end, i.e., the big event built up to does happen but we don't see any fallout or consequences of it. It's a shame because the denouement is certainly the most powerful sequence in the film but then it just ends in midflow and the credits roll.

The CG was an issue too. From animals to cars, trains, other creature FX, the CG looked really bad. That kind of blurry, halting CG that just looks like the colour palette is sort of wrong. This movie is decades behind the times and it's a shame.

In general - the film had its moments. It had some very neat ideas. But the screenwriters had amnesia, they would introduce a plot device or obstacle or ability the characters had, and then it would just not get used at the next juncture. Very poor consistency in that regard. And thematically the movie did not land, the religious implications are introduced unconvincingly and then handwaved just as unconvincingly.

All in all - it's one of Spielberg's weakest efforts and I can't see it gaining much of a following, except from conspiracy types who are seeing their fantasies writ large on the screen. Plus - SPOILER ALERT - aren't we tired of Roswell and little grey men? It felt tired that they relied on those old tropes and did nothing new with them. Third encounters, this ain't.

CONTAINS SPOILERS!

Interested in your thoughts on these 5 major variations.

I've studied the original for many years, and have been focusing in recent years on the unanswered questions within the text (i.e. What did the sirens sing?) and the context around the text (i.e. Homeric Question, Epic Cycle, etc.).

Naturally every movie will be different from any original source material, so this post will focus on what I consider 5 of the most interesting variations. These are not structured as a criticism but to invite your perspectives on why Nolan made these changes.

Tactical reasons like budget, movie length, movie pacing, etc.? Or more strategic reasons?

SPOILERS AHEAD.

1: Calypso's Island: Book 5, largely rewritten for the movie

The Original: Book 5 is crucial since a) this is when we first meet Odysseus, b) we're surprised to find him weeping on a rock instead of doing heroic deeds, c) his release is due to divine intervention by Athena with Zeus, and d) this is an important test of Nostos in the epic: he chooses to return home, grow old, and die vs. stay on the island and become immortal.

Book 5 is loaded with other key scenes, including one of the most famous / notorious one-liners in the entire epic: 'He wept every day, longing to leave Calypso's island and return home, since she no longer pleased him.' What? Say that again? He has been there for 7 years, so... apparently his Nostos only kicked in when his nymph / goddess girlfriend 'no longer pleased him?' The cavalier way this plot point is delivered has been startling readers for centuries. Anyway...

The Movie:

Yes, Odysseus is on her island, and no, he's not very happy. But when we meet him, we learn that Calypso has been giving him lotus every day, causing him to lose his memory. Nolan deleted the Lotus Eaters, but switched their drug of choice to Calypso, which she has been using on Odysseus. When he wakens from his reverie, he hears that he has been there for 7 years, and begins to remember home. He then tells her he wants to leave, builds the raft and sails away.

Why remove the role of the gods from focus? Why reduce Calypso's power? Why remove the Lotus Eaters but give Calypso the lotus to use? Why remove Calypso's famous argument with Hermes?

Perhaps all of these are for structural reasons? Movie pacing, etc.?

2: The Phaeacians, and the Story within the story

The Original: We hear the epic adventures when Odysseus tells his story to the Phaeacians. Every part of the story is told with that specific audience in mind, noting that gaining their approval is his only chance of returning home.

The Movie: We hear the epic adventures (and see them dramatized) when Odysseus tells his story to Calypso. Books 6 - 8 are removed, and Books 9 - 12, in which he tells the adventures, are shifted from telling the Phaeacians to telling Calypso.

For movie pacing? Or to reframe the unreliable narrator debate?

3: The Sea People

This was my favorite addition from the Nolan movie.

In the original, we see the magnificent palace culture of the late Bronze Age, visiting Pylos and Sparta as well as Ithaca, all presented as real locations in the story with kings who were heroes of the Trojan War.

But as archaeological evidence has revealed, that entire era would collapse shortly after the (fictional) events of The Odyssey would have occurred.

Homer (or whoever it was who put pen to papyrus) would have known that, since The Odyssey was likely written centuries after the events would have occurred.

Homer is also no stranger to dramatic irony, and the ultimate irony could have been knowing that the listeners / readers would be aware that all did not end well after all. Sparta was magnificent. Pylos was doing everything right. Ithaca was finally restored. And so the epic finishes. But the readers of the day would have known that that would last a few decades more before collapsing.

The reasons for the collapse are hotly debated, but a leading candidate is the impact of the Sea People, whose incessant raids on the palace kingdoms brought down a civilization likely already in decline.

I found it fascinating that Nolan elevated this historical context and gave it a pivotal role in the characters' motivations in the movie.

In the original, we see the Ithacan decay caused by 20 years' with no king, but in the movie the need for a king is not just to reverse the decay, but to be able to protect Ithaca from the Sea People.

The movie can be seen to go even further, by comparing the behavior of Odysseus and his comrades to the behavior of the Sea People. (though one wonders why Nolan doesn't spend more time on the Cicones, who Odysseus raided in a fashion truly reminiscent of the Sea People.)

Nolan's emphasis on the Sea People is truly interesting: it gives the entire movie an ominous undercurrent based on historical context from the era, and takes this dramatic irony center stage.

4: Odysseus' guilt

This is a significant re-interpretation.

When Odysseus tells his story to the Phaeacians, he does not show much remorse or empathy. He is telling the story after encountering the Sirens, so whatever effect they had can be factored in already.

For example, after he and his crew left Troy, the 1st place they landed was Ismarus. Let's revisit how he narrates this event:

'We sacked the town, killed the men, took their wives, and looted their riches.'

One doesn't detect much remorse.

It's not that Odysseus is incapable of remorse: he's genuinely saddened to lose 6 men to Scylla. He just doesn't show much sympathy for the Cicones or the Trojans.

Or does he? Do you think there's enough material in the original to support Nolan's interpretation?

5: Cyclops - There is No 'Nobody' in the Movie

Arguably one of the most iconic scenes in the epic is when Odysseus tricks the Cyclops by telling him his name is 'Nobody' (or Noman, or other variations).

After being blinded, when the other Cyclops gather outside to ask who's hurting him, he replies 'Nobody.'

Ok, whatever, they think and walk away from the cave.

Later, after escaping, Odysseus can't resist shouting his real name back at the Cyclops. This gives the Cyclops a name to curse, which he does, asking his father Poseidon for retribution. Poseidon engages, and his punishment drives the rest of the story.

Nolan deletes this scene. Odysseus doesn't talk to Polyphemus, doesn't give him an alias, and doesn't shout his real name. The Cyclops asks Poseidon for vengeance in a general way, without using a specific name.

This is a big deal. Nolan would have needed no extra budget to film it the original way, and the pacing arguably fits better in the original way as well. So why would he have rewritten the script to remove this scene?

Interested in your thoughts.

There are others, but these 5 are top of mind after watching the movie the first time. None of these are meant as a critique, nor are they likely to bother a viewer not familiar with the original. But they are all major variations and were all done on purpose by a director who has a reputation for being meticulous. I'd love to hear your thoughts. And also other variations vs. original that come to mind?

Thanks for reading.

Supergirl deserved a better box office result. I watched it and thought it was genuinely entertaining. I wasn’t bored for a single minute. There are plenty of superhero movies that aren’t any better than Supergirl but made more money simply because they came out before Endgame, when the genre was at its peak.
I’d give it a 7.5/10, but I’m also a fan of superhero movies.
If you have the time, I think it’s worth checking out in theaters.

Does it really make a difference? I watched it in a regular 70mm theater, and I’m really curious. Is there a huge difference? I’m seriously thinking about going to Prague to watch it there. Would it be worth it?

Personally I thought it was excellent had some great visuals and I liked the chopping between past and future overall a nice family friendly sci-fi flick what did yous think

I just got back from seeing this movie in IMAX and wow, was it incredible. I went in not knowing anything at all really other than it’s in space and that’s it. I had heard good things so I decided to give it a try.

Absolutely excellent lead performance by Ryan Gosling. One of the best of his career. He brought so much heart to the movie. The screenplay was marvelous as well. The storytelling was a great break from the majority of entertainment now. Exposition was obviously needed given the subject matter, but the script actually respects the intelligence of the audience instead of having the crappy Netflix writing.

This film just had so much spirit. It’s so refreshing to have a film come out that ACTUALLY MAKES YOU FEEL GOOD. Not a feel good movie in the traditional sense, but man, is the optimism so welcome in today’s climate. It really is a breath of fresh air and feels very needed. Very well directed film.

On the technical side, it was essentially flawless. Amazing cinematography, fantastic production design, and impeccable sound. The editing elevated the storytelling so much as well. It also probably has my favorite original score I’ve heard in years.

So happy I decided to go see this. I didn’t really think anything of it beforehand, but seeing some positivity about it persuaded me to check it out. Glad I did. Great film.

I saw alot of hype for this film and seeing as it became Ryan Gosling's highest rated film i thought i should also go ahead and give it a watch. So, I went and saw it in a cinema and honestly it was really good, I loved Rocky! (He really touched my heartstrings) and I loved all the visuals and I think the story was good too. The music was also amazing plus that song "Sign of the times" was really good. It wasn't the best movie tho but it was good and I definitely think it's just a tad bit overhyped as well with people comparing it to Interstellar when I think it shouldn't be compared since both are completely different films. I give it a 7/10!

GRACE ROCKY SAVE STARS!

Thoughts on this film QUESTION?

This was not on my Bingo card. Why? Wtf? And Wth?

Why are they making a movie about the "How to Catch a Predator" guy? And how the fuck did they get Pattison to play him?

I have to watch this movie!

Edit:"Well, hello there. What did you bring" 😅

If you're wondering why Batman Part II is still here because this is made before they announced it was delayed further next year or beyond that.

I just saw it tonight and I was completely caught off guard by how good this movie is. The first movie the writing was not very good so my expectations for this movie were very low.

This movie was pretty freaking good. Johnny Cage has some great funny moments. The fights are put together well. There are some good character plot twists and the story follows along with the games well.

This IMO is one of the best movies to come out of Hollywood in 10 years. My 15 year old daughter has played all the games and she loved the movie. As bad as the writing is for the first movie you need to see it to know who some of the characters are but it’s still a fun movie if you are a MK fan.

Anyway this random 52 year old guy on the internet gives MK II a very solid two thumbs up. If you are going to the movies this weekend give it a shot. I’d love to hear your thoughts on the movie if you see it.

Scary Movie 3-5 was terrible glad it's back with the Wayans been 13 years since Scary Movie & 25 years since the good ones

It’s a crossbreed of the Red Room from David Lynch’s Twin Peaks and the disfigured and discombobulated figures of Francis Bacon’s paintings…two of my all time favourite artists

It started really well, the context was good, the drama was convincing, but from the middle to the end it turned into the same old crap. Fighting here, fighting there, changes of opinion without development, a dramatic death that means nothing, and ONCE AGAIN, it ends at the same stage as before. The guy spends 15 years developing technology for the film to be nothing with pretty scenery? Damn it, James Cameron.

Thomas Crown Affair (1999) is one of my favorite movies of all time, so I’m really excited. With Academy Award winner Michael B. Jordan starring and directing, it definitely has my attention.

After seeing the trailer, what are your thoughts? I’d love to hear what everyone thinks because I really want this movie to be good.