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.
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.
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 the 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 a good performance. It’s not the best he’s ever done, in my opinion, but he’s good enough to carry a large part of the movie by himself. There are other standouts from his crew as well, and Pattinson is his usual brooding self, which fits right in here.
It’s quite hard to write about further details without spoiling stuff, but one thing I can say is that the scenery is veet well done. If you go in expecting Greek summer weather, you’re in for quite the surprise. The backdrops were gorgeous as well. The CGI is also quite well made, 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 It 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.
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
Arrr!
The Odyssey trailers did not appeal to me much, so I’m confused by the praise it’s getting, is it because it’s actually good or normies just giving it 10/10 because it’s a Nolan movie. I watched Oppenheimer in theater and realized I could have saved the cost of the ticket and watched it at home without losing much, how does this movie compare to that, I’ve liked most of Nolans other movies except Tenet
I liked Tenet more than Oppenheimer, at least insofar as I feel like it benefited more from being on a big screen. Oppenheimer was a biopic first and foremost.
I’ll probably just wait for it to stream, I’m getting too old to be hyped up about most movies.
Things to do when bored: arguing about taste.
What’s more important than the score is the written reviews.
So many films with bad scores because people didn’t “get it”, or watched a film that wasn’t “for them”.
For example, I’ve seen critics write reviews for the third movie in a franchise, saying they didn’t understand what was happening, because they didn’t watch the first two.
The critic reviews are also partially made up. The site will interpolate >= 50% in whatever review system the reviewer uses as a good review.
My man, If you need your tastes to be affirmed by some magical numbers, then I don’t know what to tell you.
Upvoting this
It’s not about affirmation, it’s about feeling connected to some parts or the human race. Mostly people who are simular to ourselves. When you meet your friends, you probably discuss things you all like. Its universal.
We feel what we feel and we look for others to feel the same. Not affirm it, but to not feel alone in our feelings.
As much as I understand what you say, this is not one of those things for me. I just don’t care what other people like or don’t like. I am going to form my own opinion based on my own experience and information. I also don’t look at these ratings at all.
Fair enough. Have you found that the rating is wildly inaccurate when you view a rated movie?
I dont like almost any movie now these days but that’s because I think they are so silly, and that’s because I’m 50 years old. Movies are made for teenagers, so I’m not the right group.
I mean, it’s a binary: either you like it or you don’t (plus the neutral option). The ratings in the meme were portion of people who liked it and didn’t. So you will either always fall with the majority or minority (or won’t care if you feel neutral about it). There is no wildly inaccurate for that, there’s just how many others you agree or disagree with.
Assuming their sample population is representative, at least, because what it says about the population can be inaccurate (but “my friend group all agrees with the minority side” doesn’t necessarily mean it’s inaccurate for the pop since your friend group probably doesn’t represent the entire pop).
It depends. I think sometimes the joke goes over everyone’s head and then they catch up. Like a horribly rated comedy but the joke was that it was horrible and they leaned into it. But I don’t look at the ratings other than me looking and going “well I didn’t expect that” and moving on.
I really can’t remember a rating I remember. I know word of mouth. Like most of my coworkers didn’t care for Sinners but I thought it was decent. Same with One Battle After Another. I thought it was excellent. But it seems that most of the Internet thinks it’s crap.
It’s both. The old motherly advice “if your friends jumped off a bridge would you too?” still applies. Everything is intertwined.
Well yeah, I dont do anything my friends say. We often have different opinions about things too. But its how you deal with that. Some people fight over different opinions (common on Lemmy). Others have their own opinion without needing others to agree, and still remain friends anyway.
True enough.
The magic numbers are helpful to give you insight you missed something. I hated The Thin Red Line initially (I expected an action movie) but gave it a 2nd shot when I saw the high reviews. Enjoyed it more the 2nd watch.
All reviews are subjective personal opinions and if you personality enjoyed a game then they really shouldn’t get to you, unless of course there’s a despicable little niggling in the back of your mind that maybe you’re not having as much fun as you’ve convinced yourself you’re having, which doesn’t go away no matter how many times you try to slap it down with a wet flannel of weak excuses.
You must be great at parties :p
Sometimes it’s just fun to have someone that agrees with your opinion.
You forgot the “haha go woke go broke” and “fucking NPC” line. For some reason the people that take movie and game reviews too seriously are those right wing basement dwelling chuds
Odessey is a piece of shit movie. They even confess it’s made from “a female perspective”. It’s full of race swaps and gender swaps, pushing the same gay/trans agenda that we have seen for years from Hollywood now.
Also it’s incredibly lacking any colors appearently. It looks like brown mud, through the entire movie.
Nolan got told to make a diversity movie and it’s his worst movie because of it.
Some youtube channels who reviewed this shit movie:
-
The Odyssey is an Overhyped Pretentious Nightmare - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY3EgxurBL8
-
Odyssey Was Everything I Expected it to be…AND WORSE! - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6atY6ahfH1w
-
The Odyssey - Oh, Dear… - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkGOs3_q79I&t=153s
Admittedly, these are from youtubers I listen to, and Im sure there are others who love the movie. But I share the perspective of these ones.
The question was for people who actually saw the movie. Not looked at the cast and decided their opinion based on their fucked up culture war politics before it even premiered.
Not going to watch it even for free.
Keep up the good fight comrade. Soon you’ll be victorious
I’m a westerner, man.
Its just objectively a shit movie. If you want something a lot better, watch Gladiator.
As if it wasn’t completely obvious who you are and where you get your ideas lol
Edit: but you’re right I should have said solider, not comrades. I didn’t mean to imply you were Russian or being unauthentic. I do however think you’re at war with culture and totally unoriginal.
I’m afraid so. :) At least the kind of “culture” you like.
It’s fucking art dude. Why are you so terrified?
So I will admit I have absolutely no knowledge of this film. But why is a female perspective bad?
This is a masculine story about a masculine hero if you haven’t noticed. That’s why feminist perspective makes the movie awful.
This comment being downvoted just shows how many in the lemmy community has the same mindset as hollywood today. Movies being about diversity, gay, trans are good, but masculine movies about strong heterosexual men, thats the enemy for you guys. Its funny. :)
Not sure how that would make it bad, just different.
Middle Earth from a female perspective could absolutely be a good film - though I wouldn’t trust anyone to actually do it well. It would also be a very different story.
I can easily see how it makes it bad, and not just different. But we are all different.
I think we need masculine movies today. Top gun is an amazing movie, if you want an example. Making a version of top gun from a feminist perspective would be absolutely awful and not just different.
Masculine movies are good. I like them.
You need masculine movies to feel masculine yourself? That’s pretty sad
You need gay/trans/feminist movies to feel good about yourself? That’s pretty sad.
Now now — bang it out like Greek alpha males (no eye contact) you two.
Sounds like the conclusion is that we can’t have any films
It is fine to have masculine movies and enjoy them. A feminine movie existing doesn’t stop that. Both should be able to exist.
Yes exactly.
I haven’t seen it yet but I already hate your comment. What in the right-wing fuck is this and why is it getting upvoted? Go back to Facebook
Lemmy today seems like a hotbed for some of the shittiest bad faith takes out there.
Bad faith comment? Because you don’t agree with it? Please. I’m fine with your opinion about it, so maybe you can be fine with my opinion about it, since this is MY opinion about it. Get it?
I dont like your comment either. Right wing? I couldn’t care less about politics. Go back to Instagram.
-
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.
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 stilll be fun to 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)_/¯
For me it’s more, “I wonder why critics / audience disagree with me?” It’s an interesting thing to think about.
I try not to expose myself to any social media surrounding a movie before I watch it. No reviews, no trailers, nothing. Then I compare my experience with others, and it’s usually wildly different. It makes me wonder how much of a review is “inertia” from the environment surrounding the movie, rather than the movie itself?
As an example, I absolutely loved the film Chappie. I thought it was a great film, but the general population AND critics absolutely blasted it. I actually agreed with some of their points in the reviews, but overall I still like that movie a lot, and I still rate it 9/10.
If I’d seen the 30% rating beforehand, would I have even bothered watching the movie? Maybe not…
Chappie was great!
I know right! One of my favourite movies, actually. I remember it fondly.
RT lost its credibility a long time ago and IMDB just results in the bell curve effect where most things end up at 3.5/5 which is too accurate/condensed for most people.
You need to follow a couple or even just one film critic who makes quality reviews on their own if you want good information.
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.
You can’t REALLY make an review of a work of art,
They are not reviewing work of art though, they are reviewing products.
Toy Story is 100%
What does that mean? Does it mean it’s the best movie ever made? Nope, it just means everyone at least kinda likes it. It’s Toy Story, it’s a good movie. Though I wouldn’t say it’s the greatest movie of all time. Just a decent movie.
The way the scoring works means that if everyone thinks a movie is better than average, the movie gets a perfect score.
If 75% of the critics think something was the greatest movie ever, while 25% didn’t like it, it’s a 75% score. It might be a movie you’ll think is the greatest movie ever too, but you might give it a miss to watch movie that 90% of the critics thought was just ok instead.
So if a studio is making a movie to try to get a good score, they will make it so it doesn’t offend anyone, and have it universally be considered ok. The way these sites measure movies encourages mediocrity and playing it safe.
Good to see a fellow ball knower out here
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 🫡
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.
There’s too much media now. Used to be, a few good movies came out every couple months. Now between all the studios and streaming services and other formats, we exist within the cone of a firehose of content. No one has time to read and internalize reviews, they’re just looking to filter the firehose to a binary watch/don’t watch
I view the rating as marketing these days. There are so many awful movies with good reviews, that I’m 100% convinced that they use bots to push the rating up, trying to increase the sales.
Since people generelly trust the reviews, it works.
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.
Kinda why Siskel and Ebert was popular back in the day. Siskel approached criticism as being about trying to encourage film makers to make better movies. Ebert was about indicating whether he thought the audience would like the movie. So they would debate. One of them or both would often be wrong. But from the discussion you could get an idea about whether it’s a movie you might enjoy.
There just isn’t anything like that now. You’re going either hear someone tell you it’s the best thing ever, or it’s the worst thing ever. Someone will review it as if it’s supposed to be art while someone else will tell you if it’s got good action scenes in it. These will all be ones or zeros that are added up to produce a rotten tomato number. We don’t even really know what perspective someone is reviewing something from.
You’re right, it’s all subjective so there’s no way to know whether you’ll like a movie until you’ve watched it yourself.
Actually reminded me of Ebert’s review of The One. He roasted it while accurately predicting that a basic person like me would love it.
If you just saw 1.5/5 you’d think wow what a stinker and miss out on this incredible brainless vibe piece sitting at the border of 90-00 dripping in pre-cringe cool, just before everything would get way too gritty and serious.
Yeah it depends on what you want from a movie. My favourite Siskel and Ebert review was for the third Inidana Jones movie. Siskel didn’t like it because there wasn’t enough depth to the father and son relationship. Ebert recommended it because, well you got to an Indiana Jones movie for the action, and the action scenes were good.
So I’m Ebert’s side on that one, because yeah I’m going there to see Indy on horseback go up against a tank. Sure maybe the father and son relationship didn’t have a lot of depth, but that was because their conversations kept getting interrupted by action scenes. Which is what I’m there to see.
So it’s not that Siskel was wrong, I just don’t care about what he was criticizing on that one. If it were more of an arthouse drama kind of thing, then I would care about his criticism. But the discussion indicates the father-son parts of the movie weren’t bad, just there wasn’t a lot. Too me there was enough of that for an action movie, so it’s a good movie.
Hearing the different perspectives meant you could decide which one you care about most and gave a better indication of whether you will like the move.
90% on rotten tomatoes? I don’t know what that means.
I was specifically thinking about Siskel and Ebert while reading this post yeah. I actually loved their reviews.
Funnily enough I very frequently disagreed with their opinions, but between the two of them they explained so well what made the movie appealing or not, that I was able to make up my own mind based on the text of the review even if the “rating” was not one I agreed with.
And then of course the more you read a reviewer and get to know where your opinions line up and where they differ, the more useful their reviews become. Same thing with IRL friends ofc.
How can you be wrong about an opinion?
