The Odyssey (2026)

 

At this point there's probably little that I could say about the Odyssey that would change your mind one way or the other. I have seen the most diverse opinions on this film that I can think of in the last 5 years or so. On the Lambcast we had one or two people who were enthusiastic, one person who is moderately positive on the film and one person who outright thought it was terrible. These are generally well informed people and so the wide variety of opinions seems to suggest that a lot of what influences people about this movie has less to do with the filmmaking and everything to do with personal perspective.

Myself I was only vaguely familiar with the story of Odysseus and his journey back from the Trojan War. I must have watched an earlier version somewhere because so much of the story is familiar, and I doubt that that is simply because I remembered it from my sophomore year in high school. My point of view is probably strongly influenced by the fact that I respect Christopher Nolan as a filmmaker and I have been enthusiastic about every other film that he's made so far in his career. I can't say that the Odyssey is his best film, I'm not even sure it's his most ambitious, but it does have a broader scope than most of his other movies and has a lot of those elements of a travelog that makes historical epics seem so interesting.

I'll start with what I think is the best thought out segment of the movie, and that's the insertion of the Greek soldiers inside the walls of Troy through the subterfuge of a gift horse statue. Even people who have never read The Odyssey or unfamiliar with its companion piece The Iliad, are likely to know the story of the Trojan Horse in which a small platoon of Greek soldiers hides inside a massive figure of a horse left for the Trojans as a gift by seemingly departing Greek troops. Once inside the walls of Troy the soldiers come out, open the gates and let in the host of Greek soldiers who have returned to the city under the cover of a moonless night. The horse in this movie looks like something the Trojans would actually want to have in their Temple to commemorate the end of the war. It's actually a sculpted wooden figure assembled from the Timbers of the ships that the Greeks left in pieces on the shores of the Trojan Empire. It doesn't look like a creaky piece of junk furniture but rather a statue put together by artisans that looks beautiful and has been polished to a degree that it will reflect the sunlight or the moonlight. The thing that makes Nolan's telling of the story so much better is that we see inside the horse as Odysseus and his fellow Warriors struggle not to drown in the high tide, crush one another as they await their chance to strike, and try to remain silent when the horse is being moved or probed with swords. The Trojans are portrayed as being much less naive and simply not as thorough as they might have been. The trick is accomplished but it requires the pack of soldiers to endure close quarters with human waste, no real supplies, and only a hope that their trick will work.

One of the ways the Greeks try to ensure that the trick is accepted as a gift is by leaving a soldier behind to explain the purpose to the Trojans when they discover the statue. Sinon has not been told what the figure is, and dies for having the audacity to have remained behind to tell the tale. Here is one of the points of disagreement that we had in our discussion on the film: this Soldier is played by the transgendered actor / actress Elliott / Ellen Page. One of the guests on the show said that it was the best performance in the film, but Paige looks like a hundred pounds of nothing in comparison to the other soldiers / actors in the scenes. The bravery that is conveyed on the screen has more to do with the willingness of somebody of that stature to appear in this role when they are dwarfed by the other performers on the screen. Nolan has loyalty to his cast of actors, and having used Page before seems to have felt obligated to cast the performer in the film in spite of the obvious misplacement.

In my mind the best performance was by Robert Pattinson, playing Antonius, the lead suitor of Odysseus's wife Penelope. He is an unctuous , condescending youth who takes advantage of Zeus's law about courtesy and treatment of strangers. He along with dozens of other suitors treat Odysseus' home as their own while mocking the son of their host, in order to provoke a fight that would justify their own violence. I'm not sure how the structure of the original Odyssey works but here we continuously move back and forth between the Journey of Odysseus and his men and the travails of his family. 

In the adventure where Odysseus and his men are captured by the Cyclops, we are denied the dialogue that is featured in the original story. This Cyclops is portrayed as nearly silent, speaking only near the end of the episode when the sailors and soldiers are making good their escape. The visualization of the single eye makes it look more like this is a birth defect rather than a creature who evolved with a single eye. I found that a little distracting, although the image is creative and frankly quite disturbing. It is however not as disturbing as the episode when Circe the witch on her own private island, turns Odysseus's troop into a herd of pigs. This was visually the most creative moment in the movie, and the one most likely to give you nightmares. Samantha Morton plays Circe and she is a sympathetic figure in spite of her malevolent acts toward the soldiers.

Calypso is represented on screen by Charlize Theron, who is largely wasted providing exposition but not much more. Matt Damon plays our central figure Odysseus, who doubts his own heroism and as presented seems much less the leader than has been seen in previous versions of the story. Still he is a stalwart presence and he has several emotional scenes that have the appropriate impact on the story and the audience. Again for context, people on the podcast seem to dismiss his performance, but I'm willing to bet that he'll be nominated and maybe even be the favorite for the Oscars next year.

Tom Holland plays the son of Odysseus and Penelope, and at first he appears to be feckless, but as the story goes on his performance gets more authentic. John Leguizamo is the wise herdsman left by Odysseus in charge of the livestock,  and 20 years later nearly blind, is another standout in a supporting role. Maybe it's just the fact that he cares for the dog that is holding on to its life and in the hopes of his master's return, that makes him an incredibly sympathetic character.  The fact that Antonias kicks the dog, reinforces the notion that we should hate him. Anne Hathaway is very sympathetic as Penelope who has to convey her distraught in concealment while seeming to be strong on the outside.

The film is 3 hours long but I never felt its length and that's another testament to the work of Christopher Nolan. The movie is spectacularly shot in IMAX and I saw a presentation on an IMAX screen as well as a 70 mm screening. It's clear that the film wants to be a contemporary epic like Lawrence of Arabia. However great it looks though, it never reaches the emotional depths of that 1960s Epic, and although I think there is a very good theme about the morality of how we treat our enemies, it never leaves the same impression that a film like Lawrence did

Ocean's 8

It's been more than a decade since this franchise had an entry. The purpose of a re-boot like this is of course money, but that does not mean that there can't be something worth watching as a result. The Three Soderbergh films were sort of a mixed bag. The first was delightful, the second one strained and lacking the light touch of the first and then the third one coming close to the first in deftness. He is an Executive Producer on this film but this is really the baby of writer/director Gary Ross. Mr. Ross has been hit or miss for me as well, penning and directing the great "Seabuscuit" and "Pleasantville", but also writing "The Tale of Desperaux" which I wanted to love but did not. With this outing however, we are on solid ground.

Maybe it is a high concept twist to put together an all female crew to mimic the skills and character points of the male version, but for the most part it works. The plot set up is a little clunky in tying the cast to the other films, but in the long run, marketing is what got this film greenlit in the first place so it is essential from that perspective. From a story point of view, not so much. Nothing that happened in the previous films is relevant to anything that happens here. They only serve as a model for the twists and diversions a heist picture must make to create some suspense and make the film entertaining. For the most part, Ross and his team follow the template well.

There is an extended opening section where we meet the main character, Debbie Ocean, Danny's sister. We see her being released from prison after making a persuasive plea for parole. The guards aren't taken in because they know from first hand experience that she is still a hustler. There are several moments where we get to see her strut her stuff and establish that she is a clever thief and capable of pulling off the confidence games that are going to be part of the heist that serves as the center of the film. Sandra Bullock can play these moments effectively, and there are a couple of times when she needs to be a bit cold-hearted, she does that well too. The rest of the opening section involves recruiting the team and setting up the crime. Like the other films, we are only given enough information to keep us going in the right direction, while still being able to be surprised along the way.

The one weakness that I see in the film that is fairly obvious, is that the other members of the team are drawn in a sketchy manner. Wheras character development was a big part of the men's version of this plot, the women end up simply reflecting some stereotypes from crime films. There is a cool counterpart played by Cate Blanchett, a mysterious hacker played by Rihanna, and a meticulous fence in Sarah Paulson.  Mindy Kaling gets the nerdy counterfeiter part and there is a street smart pick pocket. The only member of the team that really develops some character is Helena Bonham Carter, a clothing designer that gets drawn into the plot. Her part was better fleshed out than any of the other cast except Bullock.

You have to make a few allowances for heist films. Nothing ever follows the plan, that's part of the fun, but things can't fall into place with the degree of certainty that happens in most films of this ilk. If you can let those moments go and just sit back for the ride, you will enjoy the little treats along the way, and the song score helps as well. This is a refreshing crowd pleaser that lacks the angst of some of the bigger films out there, but it will go down well with a cold beverage on a summer night. 

Interstellar

For seven weeks now I have avoided reading any reviews of this film because I wanted to experience it with a clear and open mind. This would usually have been a film that would have been an opening night must for me, but circumstances have put it off for a substantial period. I can now add my two cents to the discussion, although at this point most of you will have formed your own opinions. "Interstellar" is maybe the most ambitious, intelligent and creative science fiction films made in the last fifty years. It has no fantasy elements to it, and it is deeply seated in the hard science realm of quantum physics, but it is more than anything a story about human beings rather than technology.

The Nolan brothers have a pretty clear opinion on how our science dollars are spent. The idea that short term objectives should take precedence over long term goals is an anathema to them. An early scene at young Murphy Cooper's school tells us exactly what foolishness comes from being narrow focused. It also shows how dangerous the conspiracy theories that thrive on the internet are. There is also a healthy bit of skepticism concerning federalization of the education process. Almost none of this is important to the plot but it is essential to the sensibilities of the film maker. This is a "can do" civilization and we need to keep that belief in something greater alive.

A seemingly terminal malaise has settled over the Earth as blight is decimating agriculture and the population of the planet has been diminished by a variety of  circumstances. Matthew McConaughey is Cooper, an engineer and former NASA pilot who has been relegated to the role of farmer, as has most of the world in trying to cope with massive famine. He and his ten year old daughter Murph, discover an anomaly with gravity that leads them to a secret plan to save civilization in one form or another. The team is lead by another father/daughter combination physicist Professor Brand, Nolan regular Michael Caine, and his daughter played by Anne Hathaway. They need Cooper to lead an expedition to a different star system that is being explored for habitable planets. Of the dozen scout ships sent forth only three appear to have survived and found somewhere promising. Because travel through a worm hole in space allows them to reach those destinations in relatively short times on a human scale, the passage of time on Earth will be longer and Cooper's family will grow old before he will ever make it back. This is the point where most of us who have only a passing knowledge of science need to have some exposition. The pacing of the first act is leisurely with a building sense of dread. Once the mission starts, there are some pauses in the action to bring everyone up to speed on the physics. This becomes a time travel story in the sense that different groups will be experiencing time in different ways during the course of the story. I'm sure there are experts out there who will nit pick the science here the way that was done for "Gravity" last year.  As a viewer of the film, I felt sufficiently informed to be able to follow the ideas up through the climax of the film. Once we arrive at the final explanation, I did feel a little lost, even though I could follow the story line. The pace of the movie picks up and with that urgency, the exposition becomes more visual in nature and as a consequence more abstract.

We are told early on that love is the only thing other than time and gravity that transcends space. The purpose of this movie is to show that this is true. Cooper undertakes this mission reluctantly because he sees it is the only possibility of saving his family. Saving humanity matters of course but it is the survival instinct and the love of one's children that drive us to reach a little further. It is a theory that is expounded upon by a late arriving character in the story. It is also told under harrowing and unpleasant circumstances, but it is nevertheless true as Cooper will reveal. The complexity of love and the ability of that emotions to drive our actions is front and center in the story and it usually makes sense. There are some places where the story telling depends on withholding love and then letting love solve a puzzle that don't always work but they still seem to be honest ideas.

In many ways this film is a counter weight to "2001: A Space Odyssey". Kubrick's view of space travel and human evolution is cold and calculating. In that story we seek knowledge because of our intellect, here we are doing the same thing out of desperation. In "2001" it is the machine that betrays us, in "Interstellar" the betrayals are human in nature. The Discovery travels through space without contact on another planet, The Endurance travels through time and space, encountering planets and other explorers in attempting to seed another galaxy. "Space Odyssey" begins at the dawn of man, "Interstellar" begins at what appears to be man's sunset. The psychedelic trip though time in 1968 was a metaphysical journey without any clear explanations, a similar event in the current film is all explanation (although admittedly not well understood). Human evolution in the Arthur C. Clarke story is a result of extraterrestrial intelligence intervening to make it possible, the Nolan brothers have the audacity to believe that human beings might be the ones who are responsible for our own advances. Both stories feature artificial intelligence in the form of on board computer systems, but "Interstellar" makes those characters, mobile and warm. The idea of sacrificing a computer is objectionable to Brand when faced with the need, because of the personification of TARS. Dave and Frank pay lip service (get it?) to HAL being a member of the team, but TARS and CASE participate in the actions and behave as team members, even to the point of making a "2001" joke.

Christopher Nolan is nothing if not ambitious. This is a story with creativity grounded in science. A fantasy writer can invent any kind of planet and populate it with whatever creatures they choose. "Avatar" is a good example. James Cameron makes dragons and tigers and bears of a different sort. Nolan has to conceptualize two worlds  for the explorers to visit that need to seem realistic and dangerous. Neither of the two planets is very hospitable to humans but not because the indigenous life forms are going to eat us. The ecosystems of the two worlds just are not going to work for human habitation. The water laden planet that absorbs so much of the time for our team is actually spectacular to look at and to contemplate. The frozen world that hides a secret is equally well conceived and  even more believable. Neither one will take us out of the science based story that we are in, they reflect the realities of our choices much more.

The human dangers are the one place where there might be some questions about the story telling. There are two different acts of humans that are questionable from a moral standpoint. I don't want to give away anything that could be a reason for suspense or emotional surprise to the audience but I will say that both of these choices seemed questionable to me. in a longer film, the ideas might be the basis for discussion and the central focus or theme of the picture, in this context they feel a little too much like plot bridges to create drama. They work, but they may do so at the expense of the heart of the real story here.

Cooper frequently jokes with the mechanical members of the crew over their honesty and humor settings. He turns them up or down as necessity dictates. Using a similar measurement, this film is near a ninety-five percent on the creativity and thoughtfulness scale and only slightly lower, say ninety percent on a story telling standard. The actors are all excellent and the cast is really filled with people who know what they are doing. A couple of the performers play against type and do well. Hathaway and McConaughey are the show and I thought they were both effective at conveying the characters, especially at moments of emotional depth. Jessica Chastain is usually excellent, here she was merely satisfactory, having been cast in the most thankless role in the film. Young Mackenzie Foy is the brightest spark in the movie although her character's truculence is a bit off putting, you can easily believe her intelligence. "Interstellar" was a wonderful experience and a great intellectual challenge that is carried off with authority.