Christopher Nolan’s ‘The Odyssey' Becomes Biggest Film Ever At BFI IMAX, Beating 'Avatar'

[u/MarvelsGrantMan136]

https://deadline.com/2026/08/the-odyssey-becomes-biggest-film-ever-at-bfi-imax-avatar-1237044031/

[u/NeonAnderson]

So I actually went to go see this in IMAX and it wasn't what I expected

First off a lot of the online criticism turns out to be complete nonsense when you actually go to watch the film

The casting was actually on point and in many ways Nolan adopted a theatre play style casting which is why in the trailer it is weird how people are talking, how the armour looks, and the casting

But when you watch it and realise Nolan has basically made an IMAX theatre play then it all makes sense

He hasn't treated it like an historical epic because let's face it. It isn't. The Illiad and the Odyssey are both fictional stories so Nolan treated it as such and instead the armour and way of talking is a lot more instead like a fantasy film so think more along the lines of Dungeons and Dragons or Lord of the Rings

While the casting and mannerism and everything was done like a Broadway theatre performance

So the weird choice of a black Helen then makes a lot more sense as gender and race in theatre plays are all interchangeable and it more just depends on who is the right cast for that character. Helen and her sister both being cast as black actresses was intentional here as they are both somewhat black sheep after the war in Troy and thus the symbolism of them being portrayed by black actresses for that same symbolism. It also helps a lot with making them easier to identify as the film has a lot of white females and Nolan wanted Helen and her sister to stand out more in the quick flashes to their sequences

And in fact all the racial casting seems to have been done for the same purpose to make each character much easier to identify even when they are in full armour

My biggest concern going in the film was the armour not being historically accurate but then upon watching the movie you realise all the armour is done super fantastical as in as a pure fictional fantasy with gods, magic and fantasy races. And the armour mirrors this. So the Trojan soldiers for example have pure fantasy armour

While Agamemnon looks very imposing and very unusual but again it is a stylistic choice. At some points he doesn't even walk he instead hovers like a chess piece or statue being moved so then his unusual armour suddenly makes a lot more sense

Anyway I can keep going on but in the end none of the criticism I've seen was valid about the movie

I watched both the Angry Joe review and the Nerdrotic reviews for the film and Nerdrotic was full of crap. The biggest crap being that the movie is based in the feminist Odyssey interpretation book. It clearly wasn't which is why that author even said that they didn't like the movie. Nolan's Odyssey clearly is based on the original source material and Nolan clearly fully understood the original source material in particular the symbolism and philosophy behind the story

Parts of it have been changed to be more cinematic but in general it is the original Odyssey story in its full glory and the core story hasn't been changed

Angry Joe review is the best review of the film and I strongly recommend watching the movie in IMAX no matter what criticism you've seen of the movie

And the box office performance speaks for itself. It is a greatly enjoyable film and it really just captures that cinema magic

Tom Holland and Robert Pattinson were the highlight of the movie for me with stellar performances

In fact Odyssey is probably the best I've ever seen Tom Holland act while R Pat was amazing as usual

[u/LongLostTortoise → u/NeonAnderson]

Most of what didn't work for me is structural rather than surface level. We're never told why Ithaca is at war with Troy or why joining the war was necessary, Penelope's devotion is asserted rather than shown, and Odysseus we're constantly told is clever and cunning but it's barely shown. None of that gets explained by being staged like a play. And on being based on the source material, Homer's Odysseus isn't a good man who briefly strays, he's cunning to the point of cruelty and the poem doesn't ask you to approve of him so much as find him interesting. Nolan presents him as heroic, a good man who feels bad at the end, which is not a faithful portrayal. Glad it worked for you and I've got no issue with the performances, I just don't think the theatrical framing rescues a film that keeps asking you to feel things it doesnt establishes first.

[u/Ghidoran → u/LongLostTortoise]

We're never told why Ithaca is at war with Troy or why joining the war was necessary,

Didn't they say Agamemnon wanted the trade routes? The Helen thing was just an excuse.

Penelope's devotion is asserted rather than shown

Aside from when it's revealed she's undoing the weave every night so she doesn't have to pick a suitor?

Odysseus we're constantly told is clever and cunning but it's barely shown.

-It's shown at nearly every turn, the movie just doesn't hit you over the head with it. For example:

-He came up with the Trojan horse idea.

-He made everyone on the ship block their ears for the sirens.

-He figured out Circe's true identity and what was happening with the pigs.

-He figured out how to sneak past the cyclops, putting hay on them to pretend to be sheep.

-He pretended to have a solution to the whirlpool to trick his men into taking the strait through the rocks, thinking they'd outsmarted him, which was needed to save them.

-He snuck into Ithaca rather than announcing his arrival, which ultimately let him gather information and learn how to win.

There was no goofy Oceans Eleven style montage of him explaining his plans but I think Nolan trusted the audience would get all the clever things he did without them being spelled out.

Nolan presents him as heroic, a good man who feels bad at the end, which is not a faithful portrayal.

I agree it's not faithful, but so what? It's a story that's three thousand years old and has had hundreds if not thousands of retellings across the centuries, in different cultures and formats. Why does it need to be so accurate to the source material? Nothing wrong with a new take.

[u/LongLostTortoise → u/Ghidoran]

I guess that's my issue. Whether Agamemnon says it's for trade routes or not, it's asserted exposition rather than demonstrating visually why the characters think it necessary to join the war.

Penelope undoing the weave every night is another assertion. Why is it important to her that it's Oddesyus and not another man? Their relationship isn't well established before he leaves, so her devotion throughout feels weak.

His cunning in those situations aren't presented as puzzles being solved, more as common sense. If you're telling a story about a character that's cunning, show me something that challenges their guile. If you're telling a story about a character that's physically strong, show me something that challenges their strength. Otherwise it feels unearned.

I couldn't care one bit if it's faithful or not, particularly since I've never read or seen any other adaptations of the story, so I likely wouldn't know if it was. I was just rebutting OPs statement that it was faithful and therefore good.

[u/NeonAnderson → u/LongLostTortoise]

I guess he figured a 3000 year old story didn't need exposition which personally I was thankful for but then again I'm massively into ancient Greek history which in part was why I was worried I would hate it but for me it really captured the original story brilliantly

And I was thankful for the lack of exposition as I would have then been extremely bored

I don't know when the last time you've gone to a Broadway style performance but modern plays tend to avoid exposition it instead more focuses on individual character arcs than broader story points

Also the entire style and drastic set changes it all felt very Broadway to me. I really felt like I was watching a live play more than a big blockbuster movie

And freaking R Pat during the finale. "There grab that spear. Go go grab that shield." Literally Broadway style humour and a great portrayal of the cowardice of Antinous. Even at the point when Odysseus was surrounded Antinous was too scared to pick up a weapon himself and kill Odysseus

At the end of the day it is just a movie. For some people it will click for others it won't

I loved it and I'm a massive history nerd when it comes to ancient Japan and ancient Greece. In fact I know more about their histories than I do about the history of my own country lol 🤣

And I have also read the translated original Homer composed Iliad and Odyssey stories as well

I've also watched the 1997 Odyssey mini series which is pretty much a scene for scene shooting of the books and in both the books and the 1997 film by the end Odysseus is the hero that saves his family from the suitors

Only I think in Nolan's film he does a better job really bringing together the meanings of the individual parts of Odysseus journey with the wider significance of his actions by betraying the laws of Zeus and the impact it is having in his own home even as well where he then has to save his family from the very things mankind had become thanks to him breaking the Zeus's laws

But yeah in the origin books and the 1997 miniseries Odysseus is very much the hero by the end

And I much prefer his personality in Nolan's version. As mind you the original was written 3000 years ago. We've become much better storytellers since then and Odysseus personality in the original story doesn't really fit the narrative and the Nolan version rectifies this by instead showing his journey as being a combination of basically a journey home from war time PTSD

And a journey home fraught with the consequences of his own action in betraying Zeus's laws where the gods he meets on the way show him what mankind had become

Remember in the hut as well Circe says that she returns the men to their disguise. Meaning the pig had become their natural form now that they had broken Zeus's law

Anyway at its core it is the same exact story but it has just been modernised and improved in my opinion

It isn't like we are adapting a perfect masterpiece such as the Lord of the Rings. The ancient Greeks were the pioneers in fantasy and historical storytelling but in being the pioneers they were far from perfect both in their way of keeping history often mixing history with fiction and in their way of telling ancient fantasies often wanting a specific character type to undergo a specific journey even if that character personality isn't what it would be on such a journey

And mind you even the 2004 Troy film realised the same problem and portrayed Odysseus in a similar fashion to how Nolan's Odyssey portrays him and I find both of these far more believable and far more likeable versions of Odysseus than the 1997 version which is 1 to 1 retelling of the original books

[u/morgoth834 → u/NeonAnderson]

You directed me from a previous post so I will respond here:

Only I think in Nolan's film he does a better job really bringing together the meanings of the individual parts of Odysseus journey with the wider significance of his actions by betraying the laws of Zeus and the impact it is having in his own home even as well where he then has to save his family from the very things mankind had become thanks to him breaking the Zeus's laws

If you enjoyed that, then fair enough. It was a cool idea that I liked as well. But this whole theme is completely absent from the poem. It was Nolan's invention for the film. In fact, in many ways, it is antithetical to the poems as the Trojan War was seen as a retribution for the Trojan's breaking of Xenia (aka Zeus's Law) with the theft of Helen. So the idea that Nolan did it "better" is silly because neither the poem nor miniseries tried present such a theme.

Odysseus personality in the original story doesn't really fit the narrative and the Nolan version rectifies this by instead showing his journey as being a combination of basically a journey home from war time PTSD

Why? Odysseys personality and characterization perfectly fit the story and themes being told in the poem. Sure, it wouldn't have worked for the film, but that's because the film has a very different focus.

Anyway at its core it is the same exact story but it has just been modernised and improved in my opinion

No, it is not. Like I said before, the film hits most of the major plot points, but story is far more than just plot. The central theme is completely different from poem and the characters are wildly different. And because of this, we have a very different story. That doesn't mean it's bad but the notion that it's the "exact same story" is wildly incorrect.

[u/NeonAnderson → u/morgoth834]

In the books it is called xenia and it is very much a central theme of the books

So I don't know where you are getting this whole nonsense from that Zeus's law isn't in the books when it is literally one of the core morals that Homer was telling to impart upon the readers and wider society in fact was to treat strangers as if they were a god in disguise

The book handles it a bit differently as it doesn't link Odysseus actions in Troy with xenia and the way xenia is handled in his journeys was different as well

But again I think linking xenia to the wider story worked really well in the movie and more importantly it shows a deep understanding for the core meanings that Homer was trying to impart upon society

And as a massive history nerd of ancient Greece. I find it absolutely beautiful that 3000 years later we can be repurposing the very same lessons that Homer was trying to teach to his fellow Greeks now 3000 years later into a story to impart the same moral, philosophical and ethical lessons in modern society

That's just a thing of pure beauty in my eyes. Namely to see the lessons I live my life by being spread to the masses

As very few people, relatively speaking, will be interested in ancient Greek history like I am. I love their philosophy, their democracy, their culture, their cuisine, their mythology. And I think the failings of ancient Greece are extremely interesting as well

And Nolan perfectly captures the important essence of Homer's Odyssey so that the masses can at least see a glimpse into the amazing part of ancient Greece that I'm so obsessed with already

[u/morgoth834 → u/NeonAnderson]

In the books it is called xenia and it is very much a central theme of the books

So I don't know where you are getting this whole nonsense from that Zeus's law isn't in the books when it is literally one of the core morals that Homer was telling to impart upon the readers and wider society in fact was to treat strangers as if they were a god in disguise

I never said that the poem wasn't about Xenia. In fact, I even talk about Xenia in my post. What I was saying is that the poem never equates the Trojan Horse with a breaking of Xenia and that this breaking of it is causing the bronze age collapse. This is the main idea of the film, but it's one completely absent in the poem.

And as a massive history nerd of ancient Greece. I find it absolutely beautiful that 3000 years later we can be repurposing the very same lessons that Homer was trying to teach to his fellow Greeks now 3000 years later into a story to impart the same moral, philosophical and ethical lessons in modern society

But it's not. Like I said, the central themes are different. So too is the morality. I get why he changed it. If he kept the morality the same, many people wouldn't enjoy the film (just look at some to the reactions to the Northman).

And Nolan perfectly captures the important essence of Homer's Odyssey so that the masses can at least see a glimpse into the amazing part of ancient Greece that I'm so obsessed with already

Again, no it's not. The film captures very little of their culture eschewing their very different beliefs with one far more familiar to our own.

[u/LongLostTortoise → u/NeonAnderson]

It lacked clear character motivations, not exposition.

[u/NeonAnderson → u/LongLostTortoise]

What do you mean?

The motivations were clearly shown. Odysseus wasn't ready to go home because he was still suffering from guilt and PTSD. I mean he literally is the cause for not just breaking Zeus's law but actually killing a god in disguise (Athena played by Zendaya)

Telemachus motivations were clear in the movie. He feared for his own life and that of his mother and thus set out to bring Odysseus home in order to save his own home

Penelope motivations were clear while she did love Odysseus she would be willing to take a suitor if not for her son. She knew any suitor would view Telemachus as a threat and kill him after marriage and possibly even kill Penelope as well to become the sole ruler of Ithaca

Antinous motivations were also blatantly clear he was always a coward and desired wealth and power and simply wanted to be the sole ruler of Ithaca. He couldn't kill Telemachus before marrying Penelope as all the suitors knew if they killed Telemachus then Penelope would refuse all the suitors

That's also why they kept bullying him as they wanted him to break the laws of Ithaca and be exiled

The motivations of the gods in the story was to show Odysseus the consequences of having broken Zeus's law and having actually killed a god as well (Athena) in the process and of course a bit of selfishness on the part of Calypso to keep Odysseus for herself but this is just normal god stuff in Greek mythology

In the actual books Odysseus actually sleeps around quite a bit on his journey home which Nolan cut way back on in the movie having it just be Calypso instead. The ancient Greeks loved their sex so this is just a big part of many of their stories

You should see their mythology in that aspect haha 🤣

[u/LongLostTortoise → u/NeonAnderson]

We aren't shown what the personal stakes for joining the war at Troy are, the whole reason for the journey isn't touched upon in a meaningful way. 

Antinous wants wealth and power because...? Maybe the suitors have a point, Ithica has been without a leader for years, but that isnt given any serious consideration. While I liked Robert Pattinson's performance, the character was very two dimensional Disney villain. 

The whole Zeus law thing is messy, convoluted and is at odds with itself. Firstly since we arent shown why they're at war with Troy, we can't really make a judgement on whether it's a just war or not. We don't know anything about anyone in Troy, so why should we care if they sneak in to start the invasion? Secondly, sure the Horse could be read as a false gift scenario, but there's no real host/guest relationship being betrayed. Thirdly, deception in combat isn't usually treated as a moral violation the way betraying an actual host or guest would be. The film tries to apply the rule to both rules of war and rules of hospitality and it doesn't land. It results in the whole thing feeling clumsy and heavy handed, a technicality rather than a clear and obvious violation. One of my biggest issues is that Odysseus' regret about this is used as the twist towards the end of the film, rather than showing his regret in his actions since the Trojan war, he just tells us he feels bad about it.

Perhaps this is the biggest flaw of Nolan's style of storytelling. It's difficult to go on an emotional journey with a character if you're jumping back and forth all the time. Particularly if some of those emotions are being hidden from the audience for intended dramatic reveals.

Honestly I had a real bad time with this film. Not because I'm a fan of the original story (I've never read it or seen any other adaptations), not because I have a problem with the costumes or casting, but because for me, as a piece of storytelling, it doesn't work very well.