Wonder if one did Roots with an all or entirely Caucasian cast? 😱 what Irish people were slaves! No one’s heard of the North African slave trade? The Barbary pirates? Barbary slave trade involved the capture of an estimated 1.25 million Europeans and 700 Americans, then selling them at slave markets, or ransom payments by America to purchase their freedom. At one point 20 percent of the U.S. federal purse! Which is why George Washington demanded the creation of a United States Navy! Why do they not make a movie about that? White makes and Women abducted and sold into slavery or sexual slavery in N.Africa to Moslem pirates? 🏴☠️
Finally a review I completely agree with. Felt like everyone and their grandmothers were ecstatic about this film, yet the first thing I said when leaving the theater was that the casting was so off.
The visuals? Fantastic. The film itself? Underwhelming beyond measure.
Blockbuster movies are all like that, often old stories rehashed with current actors, director's visions and studio/commercial interest needs. I don't go see those movies. The best movies are acted by not famous actors, in general they are foreign even though a lot of foreign actors are becoming world known. Some of the blockbusters are able to amaze though but if you are fond of specific text you are destined to be disappointed. If it brings forth an unexpected point of view you are lucky. But that is art for you, departure from one point and expansion of it (though l am not saying this movie is art...) The multiracial cast is a given lately after accusations of racism at the Oscars years back, and your criticism does not take into account the slave trade of the period. And if The White Arms Of Helen line was not respected, the line is not a To Be Or Not To Be transformed in Should l Leave Or Should l Go?, right? It does not change the original work if changed. An interpretation more adherent to the original text would have been too scholarly maybe to attract the spectator this does as it is and maybe a few of these will decide to read to original, which would be good service to the story...
Odysseus chose the opposite of Achilles' glory, and even Homer makes sure we know it. In the underworld, Achilles tells Odysseus he'd rather be a landless farmer, alive, than the dead hero we all remember him as.
That’s Homer saying Odysseus's choice was correct. If the movie feels like it's about real decisions instead of monsters, that's because the source material already was.
Odysseus chose ‘nostos’ while Achilles chose ‘kleos’ or glory and a short life.
Nostos was never meant to be the classic inspiring hero. Achilles was the classic hero and Achilles says that was the wrong choice.
It’s interesting as well how the general audience seems to enjoy the movie (given by its reviews and box office numbers) and are ignorant of the actual story of which it is based (here in the US it is, by and large, no longer taught in public schools). When people think of the Odyssey, I reckon they’ll think of Nolan’s twist of it, rather than Homers epic fantasy poem. They’ll think of PTSD ridden Jason Bourne who regrets his acts of valor rather than Odysseys the hero, the flawed, proud, yet brave and cunning man. And there are many in the culture who believe that it is a good thing, that The Odyssey is somehow inadequate as it is, and that it is our duty to modify the past to fit our palate of today. Could there be anything more Orwellian?
Wonder if one did Roots with an all or entirely Caucasian cast? 😱 what Irish people were slaves! No one’s heard of the North African slave trade? The Barbary pirates? Barbary slave trade involved the capture of an estimated 1.25 million Europeans and 700 Americans, then selling them at slave markets, or ransom payments by America to purchase their freedom. At one point 20 percent of the U.S. federal purse! Which is why George Washington demanded the creation of a United States Navy! Why do they not make a movie about that? White makes and Women abducted and sold into slavery or sexual slavery in N.Africa to Moslem pirates? 🏴☠️
https://youtu.be/swt2A6iHgNw?si=AdsJ7XNTo2sa8zn_
because such a movie wouldn't fit their narrative nor advance their agenda
Great review, you point out the things that actually matter (more than the DEI casting) and solidify why I'll never watch it.
Yeah, tried to think beyond the obvious flaws because ironically the other stuff bothered me just as much or more
Finally a review I completely agree with. Felt like everyone and their grandmothers were ecstatic about this film, yet the first thing I said when leaving the theater was that the casting was so off.
The visuals? Fantastic. The film itself? Underwhelming beyond measure.
Perfectly said brother. I'm quite stunned at the amount of positive reviews it's getting.
Rats! I was hoping for a dishonest review. 😢
🤣🤣 Might do that one next
Blockbuster movies are all like that, often old stories rehashed with current actors, director's visions and studio/commercial interest needs. I don't go see those movies. The best movies are acted by not famous actors, in general they are foreign even though a lot of foreign actors are becoming world known. Some of the blockbusters are able to amaze though but if you are fond of specific text you are destined to be disappointed. If it brings forth an unexpected point of view you are lucky. But that is art for you, departure from one point and expansion of it (though l am not saying this movie is art...) The multiracial cast is a given lately after accusations of racism at the Oscars years back, and your criticism does not take into account the slave trade of the period. And if The White Arms Of Helen line was not respected, the line is not a To Be Or Not To Be transformed in Should l Leave Or Should l Go?, right? It does not change the original work if changed. An interpretation more adherent to the original text would have been too scholarly maybe to attract the spectator this does as it is and maybe a few of these will decide to read to original, which would be good service to the story...
Interesting review. I’m watching it in IMAX this weekend.
Odysseus chose the opposite of Achilles' glory, and even Homer makes sure we know it. In the underworld, Achilles tells Odysseus he'd rather be a landless farmer, alive, than the dead hero we all remember him as.
That’s Homer saying Odysseus's choice was correct. If the movie feels like it's about real decisions instead of monsters, that's because the source material already was.
Odysseus chose ‘nostos’ while Achilles chose ‘kleos’ or glory and a short life.
Nostos was never meant to be the classic inspiring hero. Achilles was the classic hero and Achilles says that was the wrong choice.
It’s interesting as well how the general audience seems to enjoy the movie (given by its reviews and box office numbers) and are ignorant of the actual story of which it is based (here in the US it is, by and large, no longer taught in public schools). When people think of the Odyssey, I reckon they’ll think of Nolan’s twist of it, rather than Homers epic fantasy poem. They’ll think of PTSD ridden Jason Bourne who regrets his acts of valor rather than Odysseys the hero, the flawed, proud, yet brave and cunning man. And there are many in the culture who believe that it is a good thing, that The Odyssey is somehow inadequate as it is, and that it is our duty to modify the past to fit our palate of today. Could there be anything more Orwellian?
Qué más Juan como va todo!
Great Review, te recomiendo fuertemente el view de Jonathan Pageau en la película! Quizás la puedas ver desde otra perspectiva.
Un abrazo!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESIzQNfmAo4