WARNING: Spoilers ahead…on a story 2.5 millennia old.
Finally got around to watching it this weekend. After the Mt. Everest sized stack of cash it made and all of the glowing reviews, honestly, it was pretty underwhelming.
First thing’s first. The dialogue was AAAAAAAAAWFUL. Seriously? What the hell? It sounded like I was listening to dialogue written by a small team of junior high students. And not the junior high students that take honors English. I was fine with the choice to do American accents, although I would have preferred British accents for a movie like this cuz it just sounds classier. But that wasn’t it. It was the actual words used by the actors to communicate to each other. It was just so dumbed down and sounded so boring and basic. I’m assuming it was a choice made on purpose to maybe connect with as many modern English speakers as possible, but it largely killed the film for me. I was actually kind of shocked how bad the dialogue was in this movie.
Another thing that kind of bothered me, although not nearly to the same degree as the dialogue, was over-acting. I felt like there were some performances that were dialed up a little too much. To the point where it kind of took me out of the film because I felt like I was watching an actor trying to shoot for an oscar a bit too hard. I think the main culprit on this one was Anne Hathaway. Alternatively, I think there was also an issue of under-acting. I’ll get to that below.
Pacing. Despite having 3 hours to tell the story, I kind of felt like some things were skipped over too quickly. Other things that they spent too much time on could have been shortened to allow more time for things I think deserved the time more. Scenes didn’t really punch the way I thought they should. In the book the scene where he comes back after 20 years and his dog is still alive but dies as he touches it and it recognizes him is really impactful, but it was just kind of glossed over in the movie with little to no emotion from Matt Damon. Same with Odysseus finding out Calypso had trapped him on the island for years. Not a lot of emotion there. Actually, I think the only scene Damon really sold was the siren scene. He did the opposite of over-act for most of the movie.
The film looks great. Gotta give it that. The cinematography is solid. And I’m not saying the film was bad (other than the dialogue which was truly awful). I just don’t get the massive hype. Honestly, I still prefer the 90s made for TV version with Armand Assante. I think the dialogue was better. The acting was better. The pacing was better even though it’s almost exactly the same length as this new version. And they did it without the star-studded cast the new film has. Obviously the new version has better special effects, and I do think overall better cinematography. I acknowledge maybe there’s some rose-tinted glasses thing going for me with the 90s version as I grew up with it.
I guess I’d give this new version a B. Just a mid-range B. With a special handwritten in red ink note in the margins that the dialogue is an F.
Ok, crucify me now.
EDIT: You know what, I’d like to add a few things I did like, beyond the cinematography. I liked Odysseus’ monologue about the siren’s song. I liked his monologue about his point of view of his role in the war when he’s talking to his wife. I liked that Athena ended up being a ghost of someone he watched get murdered at Troy (although I do not like Zendaya as an actress).
I watched it in my local cineme. Was OK, but thought to myself ‘its a nolan movie. It will be better on the second viewing.’
I went to Melbourne for my first IMAX experience for Space-tober. Then they released more The Odyssey tickets during the week I was there. Bingo. Got the largest GT theatre AND the sacred 70mm IMAX film showing. (Everyone says Nolan’s dialogue was tuned for the IMAX, and not home viewing. I still wished for subtitles at times.)
Sure, it was better on a second viewing, but I always feel like I’m walking on eggshells by saying it was my 3rd best movie I saw that week.
Digger was my first IMAX movie, so I may be biased by saying that was good, but I think I would have still liked it anywhere. Project Hail Mary was… chefs kiss. A MUCH better imax experience. Will glady go back every space-tember or space-tober for that.
Well I liked it a lot. Not for everybody I guess. Also don’t crucify ppl
It was garbage. Paced like a montage and way too loud. Weird changes that made the story less interesting like Odysseus being an amnesiac instead of telling his story at a feast away from his home. Some good acting, some really bad acting (John Bernthal, Matt Damon). Overall, I would not watch again.
I think I liked the Nolan Odyssey more than you did, but I agree that the 90’s version with Armand Assante was better lol. I just rewatched it and yeah, the pacing really is much better. Cinematography was better in the Nolan version, but it was made for theaters and the 90’s version was made for 90’s-style small TVs, so it’s hard to compare directly.
I think the 90’s version is a better adaptation overall, but Nolan’s version is a unique interpretation of the story.
IDK why people hated the accents so much. Ancient Greek folks didn’t speak English with a British accent. Having Telemachus call his dad “dad” was fine with me.
So, I was going to respond to a comment OP made, but decided to expand on it beyond that context. I think way folks may be missing is what the Odyssey is, and that’s where the comment started j
As far as that goes, the Odyssy was never realistic. It’s an epic, written long after the events would have happened, as a form of entertainment rather than historiography. It’s supposed to be unrealistic because it’s the equivalent of a graphic novel.
The characters are meant to be damn near demigods. They’re the distant past heroes, their stories told orally for generations, then written down in a new form. It simply isn’t about realism. If it was, the sirens and the cyclops wouldn’t be there.
You have to look at Odysseus as captain america, or black panther. Not quite superhuman in the way of someone like Hercules (the Marvel version or the older myths), but peak human capable of feats that would destroy “regular” people to do just once.
Thus, trying to filter any version of the Odyssey as historical fails. You can’t make a realistic movie of it because it’s never been realistic, nor the Iliad that precedes it. These are stories of gods, men, and those in between.
Trying to compare it to something like Band of Brothers, where you find a mostly reality grounded story that’s a fictional pastiche set during a historical event, just isn’t giving credit to the source material.
This needs to be compared to Clash of the Titans.
The immersion break of “dad” is more about the audience’s expectations of any far past setting using theatrical formality than any unrealistic placement.
Think about it. If you see your father fall to the ground, grasping his chest, what are you going to scream? Father? Dad? Daddy? Papa? Most people don’t call their parents mother and father unless speaking about them distantly. Even then it isn’t universal.
The choice in terms of movie values is a difficult one, because Nolan has to be aware that the audience is going to be jarred by their preconceptions when a character supposedly alive over a thousand years ago doesn’t have a British accent, and a posh one at that. But that’s no more realistic than dad. It’s a preconception, not an objective and direct translation of what someone in the time the Odyssey is set in would have said.
People habe suggested “oh brother where art thou” as a superior version of the Odyssey. I don’t disagree, but I would point directly to the language used in that movie. It’s vernacular English, and not even particularly accurate for the setting it’s in. The accents aren’t realistic, they’re as overblown as a theatrical British one. But we set that aside because the film is amazing in its own rights.
I’m not saying the Nolan Odyssey is a perfect film. Hell, I even agree that it doesn’t measure up to its hype. But I think OP’s criticisms are as much or more about the preconceptions of the moviegoers as the movie itself. I would agree with the rating of B though! It has flaws (and one of the comments made mentions the jank that’s due to IMAX filming necessities where you can only record so much at once points to the one I notice most in IMAX movies), and it has a very Nolan style. Nolan isn’t really who I would pick to bring the Odyssey to the screen because you do end up with a little too much style creep, but I also think it’s a worthy addition to the litany of greek myth based movies.
Holy shit a good take on the movie!
I like recommending the Emily Wilson translation of The Odyssey, which was recommended to me recently and I even went through the translator’s notes. She specifically says The Odyssey was not originally written in a grandiose form, but just rather regular speech for the time and Shakespearean or Victorian or whatever English is just as far from the ancient Greek as modern day English is, so it’s actually better to use common English for the reader’s understanding rather than some just as anachronistic form of the language that’s also stylistically wrong.
So “dad” is just fine. Telemachus was a teenager. Do we think they did not have anything other than official “I’m addressing the king, I must use only the bestest of words” speech to use in their day to day lives in ancient Greece? I somehow doubt that.
There are few common men with names in those poems. Most characters that are named, have intimate relationships with gods. Odysseus can kill 108 suitors with a bow and arrow because for decades he’s been making sacrifices to Zeus and Athena and in his current endeavor, Athena herself is aiding both her and Telemachus. But the gods don’t just love him for making sacrifices. They love him BECAUSE he’s strong and (usually) wise and cunning. They most often bless those who have already blessed.
I’d give it a 7-8 out of 10. Replace Jason Bourne and the stupid ass 70mm film, and it could be much better. I didn’t even mind Spidey as Telemachus, Telemachus HAD to be played by someone who’s believable as a weakling towards the beginning of the movie and grows up (partially at least) to be a proper man. I’m sure they could’ve found someone better, but it’s not nearly as bad as people make it out to be.
The immersion break of “dad” is more about the audience’s expectations of any far past setting using theatrical formality than any unrealistic placement.
Did the OP edit his post? There’s no mention of “dad”. Only that the entirety of the dialog was bad.
That was from comments, not the initial post. As I said, the comment you’re responding to was started as response to a comment in a thread.
Edit: go team venture!
Not the commenter you’re replying to, nor have I seen the film, but I’ve seen the dad line complained about a lot. But a lot of it seems like bandwagon hating something popular (I don’t mean OP’s post which is thoughtful)
It doesn’t have to be historically accurate because it’s not a real historical telling of the events.
But that doesn’t mean it can’t be historically authentic. Sorry for being a movie goer with expectations, but I’d expect Nolan of all people to have a higher standard.
I’m not certain about your semantics here.
What’s the difference between accurate and authentic here?
In most usages, they’re almost synonyms, or outright synonyms. When accurate leaning more to the “precise in detail” with authentic leaning more to being “real” or verified, as in authentic parmesan, or authentic roman coin.
Now, I suspect you may mean authentic as in conveying a feeling commensurate with something. But I’m not certain, so I figured I’d ask rather than assume.
If you’re using that type of meaning, I’d still say that that’s totally subjective, the same way using dad instead of father would be. Conveying a vibe is so totally based in individual perceptions and assumptions that no film maker can ever cover everyone. What “feels” ancient greek to me is unlikely to match your sense of it completely. It’s unlikely it would match even halfway. As a rough example, maybe ornate armor feels more authentic to you because it stands out and has familiar imagery, but plain armor feels more authentic to me because it lacks narrow era specific errors, or maybe that it’s less obvious as a prop.
My expectations of a film aren’t the same every time. I have them. And leaving without a sense that my time was wasted applies as universally as it gets. So there’s no need to apologize.
Accurate; everything and everyone looks, talks, and generally is exactly how it is for the time period the movie is set in. This isn’t necessary because the Illiad and the Odyssey is a fantasy retelling of an actual event and is in itself not a historically accurate portrayal of the the events.
Authentic; it’s a good representation of the story it’s adapting in a way the author meant it. Nolan’s odyssey sure as hell isn’t that.
Thanks for the clarification :)
I’m not sure I can say much about authenticity with it being so subjective. I don’t necessarily disagree with your take, I’m just not sure I agree either lol. I can say that determining the author’s intent is impossible beyond rough guesstimates and what little was said, but that it doesn’t factor into my personal opinion for anything Homeric.
It simply isn’t about realism.
Sure movies don’t have to be realistic, but they have to be entertaining.
Having era authentic production can be a part of what appeals to people.
The immersion break of “dad” is more about the audience’s expectations of any far past setting using theatrical formality than any unrealistic placement.
He’s not complaining about that. The movie has straight up some atrocious on the face dialogue. It has little subtext and leaves little for the mind to imagine. Good dialogue is the opposite. People like to infer what the character is saying over what they actually mean.
And from what I can tell, if it was trying to emulate the illiad’s style of prose, it fails at it.
Nolan has some really good movies, but I’d get his brother or another writer to edit his writing for the big screen.
Era authentic?
It’s the Odyssey, which era? The era when the Trojan war was supposed to have occurred? Homer wrote his version? When his version was translated to English? And which translation?
Neither the Iliad or Odyssey are historiography. So any film based on them in inherently incapable of authenticity. They’re fiction, written so long ago that it’s hard to be certain when the events of the story are supposed to be from. Homer, if he was the actual author and stuck with some kind of accurate oral writ, would have been writing through the lens of time as much as Nolan did. Homeric descriptions of combat were, and I’m saying this as someone that’s trained in fighting of various sorts, laughable. They’re absolutely not more accurate than any movie based on Greek mythology I’ve ever seen.
Well there’s evidence the siege of Troy actually happened in the bronze age. Homers illiad and odyssey are also definitely refering to the bronze age era.
My point being - It should been at least interesting. I found it boring to see the same greek armor being used for everything, when we know they were a diverse bunch, let alone for something that supposedly took place thousands of years before. You wouldn’t have complained if Nolan used era authentic armor, but it would have added to the charm.
Homeric descriptions of combat were, and I’m saying this as someone that’s trained in fighting of various sorts, laughable.
Yeah, it’s a myth. To be honest it fails in my eyes there as well. It’s not a very epic myth, everything feels so small. I wanted to see a grand Troy being seiged by hundreds of thousands of people. I get that it’s trying to be more grounded, but I thought it wasn’t supposed to be realistic.
If you are going to represent an epic, why not go all the way? Why is it grounded in only some places but doesnt care to be grounded in history?
Yeah, the inconsistency is definitely a flaw. You either stay grounded, or don’t. You otherwise insult the audience
Tom Holland was super distracting in this film. Idk, I just see him and I don’t see Telemachus, I see Spiderman. He’s too recognizable.
Zendaya was less bad, but same problem.
Maybe if they didn’t always cast these two in the same films the comparison wouldn’t be so easy.Maybe if they didn’t always cast these two in the same films
You mean Spiderman? Because that’s the only other movie series they are in together.
edit:
maybe you have Zendaya confused with Mark Walberg?
Yeah I’m a big dummy and like another commenter I thought he was in Dune as Timothee Chalamet’s character. I retract that statement, lol.
Wait, that’s Mark Walberg? Then who the fuck is Zendaya??
Yeah, but there have been FOUR Spiderman movies starring Tom Holland and Zendaya in the last 9 years. So even though it’s just Spiderman, the zone is getting flooded with Tom Holland and Zendaya.
Holland and Zendaya are also main characters in the Dune movies.
Holland isn’t in any of Dune movies
I assume they mean Timmy Chalamey, even though Timmy and Holland look nothing alike over than both being soft-faced white boys (despite being in their late 20s or early 30s)
If you were to describe tom holland and Timothy chamalamadingdong (I don’t know how to spell) you would not have any distinguishing descriptors for their appearance besides darkness of brown hair color and maybe their eyes (I really don’t know or care what color their eyes are).
You’re right, I’m stupid. No idea what I was thinking.
Yeah, Holland and Zendaya are having that effect where they’re just in too much stuff, specifically together, that it kills the immersion. I’m not a particularly big fan of either actor.
Both of them had lame deliveries of their lines. It’s like having them barely recite Shakespeare. They are in over their head, and offer no depth to what should be more.
Visually it was great.
The acting was wooden and underwhelming.
The sound was poorly mixed, being both too loud and not loud enough.
That’s 2.5 hours and $10 I’m never getting back.
The sound was poorly mixed, being both too loud and not loud enough.
Also known as the Chris Nolan Special
Also known as mixing for dynamic range
Of a fucking multi-million IMAX theater! I don’t have that kind of gear lying about! Mix the sound for normal people, or even rich people, sound systems! Hell, mix it for non-IMAX theaters! Other movies do it fine, why not his?
He’s got some deluded fucking zealotry about the purity of the experience, keeping IMAX standards throughout to the detriment of more casual viewing experiences.
From the man who makes Batman movies.
That’s exactly the problem with this whole movie. His ego takes higher priority over the art.
Sums up most Nolan movies for me. Look good but that’s about it. Actually screw that they don’t even look that good, mostly grey and washed out.
$10 to be mildly entertained for 2.5 hours – that’s not bad value. Not as good value as an underwhelming novel that you got from Kobo on megasale, but better value than putt-putt on a simple tourist trap course.
That reminds me of another factor that made it underwhelming: I was seeing a lot of breathless hype about it from friends and in certain places online.
There wasn’t nearly enough substance there to live up to the hype I’d seen.
I was expecting something to keep me engrossed start to finish, that I would walk out wanting to see again repeatedly. I was expecting an experience like what I have with most Coen brothers movies, or some of Tarantino’s stuff, or In Bruges, or Hell or High Water.
Instead, it was about as underwhelming as the Star Wars prequel & sequel trilogies.
- Hype: 10/10 frontrunner for best movie of the year
- My experience: 6/10, and one of the most underwhelming movies I’ve this year
You guys go to the cinema for only 10$ ? I spent 35$ equivalent 😭
I have a local option, a small three screen theatre with reasonablly priced snacks even. The big corps charge out the ass like that but small towns get Magic Lantern theatres, pretty sweet.
I liked the acting but I can understand why some people would think that way.
Sounds like most big budget movies these days.
You must have went to a shitty theater if the sound was poorly mixed. In the first dining hall scene, I was so impressed with the talking ALL around me. It sounded like the people behind me were talking.
The loud bits were very loud, but I felt it was intended because one part is a screaming cyclops and another is a thunderstorm at sea. It’s supposed to be loud. I never heard any spots that weren’t loud enough though.
If you want to watch the Odyssey, May I reccomend O’ Brother, Where Art Thou, or The Warriors.
Come out and plaaaaay aaaaaaaay.
Warriors is based on the Anabasis.
The Warriors is such a god awful film. I love it so much.
“My dad is coming home!”
- Spider Man, The Odyssey 2026.
The first time he said “dad” my girlfriend turned to me and said “dad?”
Then we quickly realized the direction the movie was going as far as vocabulary. That we were getting a classic tale told using modern vocabulary. I’ve seen that in other movies and it’s not a dealbreaker for me. But that modern vocabulary combined with just badly written dialogue did not sit well with me.
And I don’t think Tom Holland was the right person for the role. Which is also my opinion for a few of the other actors in the movie.
We need more Romeo + Juliet like takes.
Watch Andrew Scott perform Macbeth, the dialogue is part of the art and completely necessary.
Then we quickly realized the direction the movie was going as far as vocabulary. That we were getting a classic tale told using modern vocabulary. I’ve seen that in other movies and it’s not a dealbreaker for me. But that modern vocabulary combined with just badly written dialogue did not sit well with me.
I’m not going to try to convince you to like the Odyssey, but you may want to revisit your reasons and biases for disliking it. Ever heard of the “Tiffany Problem” or “Tiffany Effect”? I think you’re experiencing it in regards to the dialogue here.
“Dad” is recorded in writing as early as the 1500s, and some linguists believe it predates that. There’s nothing “modern” about the word.
I mean whether “Dad” is a modern word or not, it simply didn’t SOUND right in this movie. And this is a complaint quite a few people have about this movie, so there’s weight to it. Maybe it’s just that modern movie goers expect “father” instead of “dad” in a movie set in the past, whether historical or fictional.
It was like nails on a chalkboard. It didn’t sound right.
Did you look up that Tiffany Problem I mentioned? You’re describing precisely it.
When the Odyssey was written people always said “father”.
That is a hell of an assertion. We have an extremely small sample size of written word from that time period. Do you really believe that children only ever said “father” in their tongues of that day? You think babies went right from incoherent babble to “pater” in ancient Greek?
Even among the written samples we have, your assertion just doesn’t hold up.
“Dad” and “dada” have variants in dozens of languages stretching back to ancient languages, including ancient Greek (tata), Latin (tata), and Sanskrit (tatah).
They didn’t even speak English then lol
It’s true, this is from the original -
“πὰρ δʼ αὐτὸς κλισμὸν θέτο ποικίλον, ἔκτοθεν ἄλλων μνηστήρων, μὴ ξεῖνος ἀνιηθεὶς ὀρυμαγδῷ δείπνῳ ἁδήσειεν, ὑπερφιάλοισι μετελθών, ἠδʼ ἵνα μιν περὶ FATHER ἀποιχομένοιο ἔροιτο.”
I think you’ll find in the original text it was:
“πὰρ δʼ αὐτὸς κλισμὸν θέτο ποικίλον, ἔκτοθεν ἄλλων μνηστήρων, μὴ ξεῖνος ἀνιηθεὶς ὀρυμαγδῷ δείπνῳ ἁδήσειεν, ὑπερφιάλοισι μετελθών, ἠδʼ ἵνα μιν περὶ **PAPA** ἀποιχομένοιο ἔροιτο.”
That was the line from the trailer that convinced me the move wasn’t worth watching.
I went to this movie for three things: the spectacle, the cool sounds, and watching serious actors act seriously. It delivered on all those fronts when I watched it.
What spectacle?
The big boats being rocked by big waves, the big armored guys’ attack in the forest, Polyphemus. The pillage of Troy. It looked cool.
The Big armoured guy attack was the most confusing and jump-cut happy five seconds I’ve seen yet. That was a big boat, not even a ship by today’s standards. It wasn’t that impressive. I desperately want to get my hands on the IMAX resolution cut of the movie to ‘get’ what Nolan was trying to say.
Did you really ask just to have an excuse to shit on their personal experience?
It does look like that doesn’t it? I thought I was having a conversation in that second comment. I did not want to invalidate their personal experience.
Fair enough :)
What serious acting? Serious over acting maybe
Shot with an IMAX camera and hardly any IMAX theaters to watch it in. Makes no sense. I thought the movie was at least as good as the Armand Assante TV mini-series back in the day.
Someone should do a classy British dub where all the characters have the thickest Geordy, Glaswegian, Scouse and Norn Irish accents.
This is Welsh erasure, and it will not stand.
The Cornish are pissed off too, but fuck 'em.
I don’t think the Cornish can be pissed, most chill people on earth.
Go down there and tell them that pasties are just shitty pies. That’ll get 'em riled up.
Pfft, they’re too busy shaggin sheep to get riled up
haven’t watched it, probably won’t. i watched dunkirk and tenet, and got the feeling nolan lost his mojo. i just find myself sitting there realizing “this movie is not making me particularly give a shit what happens next”
crucify me too
He still had me at Dunkirk for the most part. I don’t even remember what happens in Tenet.
No one is sure what happened in Tenet
People ran. In many directions.
Something something bootstrap paradox but with inverted time instead of time travel
Oppenheimer was solid.
Other than that nuclear explosion. God damn, there is just no excuse even if you want practical effects.
Right? Good god man it’s the first nuclear explosion 💥.
He had a good run, but yeah, he lost it. By lost, I mean his brother didnt work on these new ones with him, right?
Christopher Nolan is incredibly overrated IMHO. Wooden characters, thin script, over reliance of gimmicks of editing and bombastic music. I can’t see why anybody likes his films all that much.
Hot take: Interstellar was mid af. I burst out laughing in the theater at the book shelf scene. He needs to hire a writer because he’s not a very good one himself.
That is a hot take. I liked that movie a lot. Oh well. I hope you found other movies you like.
When I watched it in the theatre all those years ago, I thought it was pretty solid. Then I watched it again a couple years ago and did not think it aged well. When I first saw it, I thought the black hole imagery and TARS robots where fantastic. On second viewing everything was meh.
The star of the show was the CGI. Absolutely beautiful rendering of a black hole. God that story was awful though. They tried to write around the fact that absolutely nothing comes back out of a black hole and that made it a terrible story. Should have leaned into the physics and made it like event horizon or something. Or a wormhole or idk anything but that.
Prestige was amazing. I liked Memento a lot too.
Pretty based take.
Speaking for myself, I found it bland but entertaining for most of the ride. Then the last act hit wherein Dr. John Odysseus morbs all over the suitors with his Odyssey skills and I lost all fucking respect.
Might as well have been branded like the cashgrab Marvel movie it turned into near the end.
He literally kills all those mofos one by one in the original poem. It would have been butchery to leave it out.
Books can get away with things movies can’t. They’re two different forms of storytelling.
It was just cringe in this movie. It was too far beyond believable given all the other context of Odysseus throughout the movie. I think maybe it was also the way it was shot. Lots of quick cutting away, lots of people running around screaming in a relatively small room. No one actually stopping him. It just kind of broke any immersion the film had for me.
So the 1997 version is on YouTube. I just skipped to the same scene. It’s still kind of silly, but there are FAR less suitors in the room and his son helps slay the shit out of them. So I think part of what makes this scene bad in Nolan’s version is there are WAY too many of them in the room and Tom Holland spends the whole thing barely taking out one guy upstairs.
Even in the context of the nightly feasts, Nolan’s version has way, way too many suitors in that hall. Like, it doesn’t even make sense to be able to have a nightly feast for 20 years with that many freeloaders. The number should have been toned down and I think that would have solved the problem.
Batman naming every weapon that falls from the ceiling…
That scene was pure comedy
Ok. So what the actual shit is with a room packed with dudes getting morbed by a single dude using a bow and arrow INDOORS? I was actually laughing at that part. In a remotely realistic scenario Odysseus would have killed one MAYBE two of them before they swamped him.
Both the 90s tv movie and the book are a little fuzzy in my mind cuz it’s been a long time for either for me, but I’m pretty sure in both of those Odysseus had gotten word to the servants still loyal to him regarding his plan and they helped morb the shit out of all the baddies. It wasn’t him doing it alone cuz lolz no way.
Spider man yelling DAD! Through the hole in the ceiling killed me
Be curious of your take on “The Return”
It’s the last third of Nolan’s film but is twice as amazing at times.
This looks absolutely sick based on the trailer - I’ll give it a watch soon.
Thanks for the rec!
Been meaning to watch this, mainly because Ralph Fiennes has never let me down.
