Christopher Nolan's The Odyssey Falls Flat

In early 2026, months before the release of Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey, Matt Damon appeared on Joe Rogan’s podcast, and, among other topics, discussed changes in film-making in recent years. He notes that the typical modern audience is likely to be watching at home, so is more distracted than ever, probably scrolling on their phone. Studios, not wanting to show something complicated their audience won’t understand, have started telling filmmakers, “And it wouldn’t be terrible if you reiterated the plot three or four times in the dialogue…” Of course, Netflix is the main driver behind this, and we’ve seen their series like Stranger Things, viewed in homes, run the formula. One would think that a big-budget film, made for theaters, with a well-respected writer and director, would be able to dodge these guidelines – after all, viewers in theaters are still unlikely to have their phones out or be otherwise distracted. And to be fair, Nolan’s Odyssey does mostly avoid reiterating the plot, but concepts, the key themes, and background events are turned into nothing more than catchphrases to be endlessly repeated throughout the film.

Nolan’s take on The Odyssey centers on “Zeus’ Law”, Nolan’s name for xenia, the concept of hospitality – a natural choice of theme, considering the source material. We are introduced to Zeus’ Law minutes into the movie, during a conversation between Telemachus and Penelope, when Penelope calms her son’s fiery emotions toward the suitors: “Break Zeus’ Law, and see what they do to you if you give them that excuse.” We then see the prototypical application of Zeus’ Law in action. A beggar enters the palace and is immediately mistreated by the suitors; Telemachus rushes to ensure this stranger is offered hospitality, objecting to the suitors’ rough treatment, exclaiming, “We have to welcome him like we welcomed all of you!” All in all, a great way to show Zeus’ Law in action. But this is where the reduction to catchphrases starts to appear. Telemachus warns that Odysseus’ hospitality will not be equal to Penelope’s; in response, Antinous jokes, “He doesn’t follow Zeus’ Law?” Telemachus then explicitly tells us that “Zeus’ Law tells us to treat strangers as we’d be treated because they might be gods in disguise,” like a schoolboy reciting his lessons, just in case the viewer was too stupid to pick up on it the first two times. The phrase is uttered no fewer than sixteen times throughout the film – on average once every ten minutes, as if the audience will forget it entirely unless it is beaten into their heads.

The second place a catchphrase appears is also in relation to Zeus’ Law, but with the added context of background / off-screen plot points. In another early conversation between Penelope and Telemachus, we are introduced to “the people from the sea,” an insertion of the Sea Peoples’ invasions and the Late Bronze Age Collapse into the story. Penelope is worried about the morale of the citizens of Ithaca, who long for security against raiders. In addition to being another catchphrase (only eight occurrences this time!), this plot point is nothing but exposition throughout the entire movie. We are constantly told of the threat of the people from the sea – these are not just any old raiders; the Sea People bring catastrophic destruction and darkness. But we see none of it. The one naval raid we are shown is barely even a raid – Odysseus and crew land at a village, which is promptly abandoned by the villagers, due to their fear that the approaching sails were the Sea People. While the crew then takes the abandoned supplies and burns the village as retaliation for a perceived insult, nobody is even killed here. We are not meant to associate the Greeks, or Odysseus and his crew, with the Sea People yet; that moment comes in a realization near the end of the movie. For the vast majority of the movie, we have no concept of the Sea People except that they are apparently a gravely dangerous, imminent threat that everybody won’t shut up about. Then, when we are faced with a twist that makes us rethink the previous scene, we still end up with a concept of the Sea People that frankly does not match any of the exposition at all.

Could none of these exposition scenes have included some kind of flash imagery of catastrophic raids with a voice-over, similar to Odysseus’ flashbacks of Troy? Something to show us that the Sea People are an actual, real threat instead of just telling us over and over again? As the film stands, it’s unclear that the Greeks are even right to worry about the Sea People; we hear from Menelaus that “the attacks seem to be getting closer,” which does seem to imply that there are men running rampant in Greece, yet the only destruction we ever see is the original sack of Troy, and the fairly mild village raid. Nolan reveals, in consecutive lines, that the Greeks at Troy are the people from the sea, and that “The breaking of Zeus’ Law is spreading like cancer.” Presumably Nolan wants us to impose the flashback images of the sack of Troy on the Sea People, but this still falls flat for me – the vast majority of the men who fought at Troy returned home years ago, and are the very ones who are worried about the mysterious Sea People. Odysseus’ lost crew doesn’t fit here either; we do see them raid a village, but even assuming that is just a sample and Odysseus made quite a few raids before that time along the coast of the Hellespont, he and his crew have been fully out of action for years by the time we hear characters express concerns about the Sea People. It is impossible for them to be the current raiders, the existential threat that faces everyone in the film. Our entire concept of the Sea People boils down to people telling us “there are really bad guys coming everywhere!” and just never evolves, even when we supposedly get a deeper understanding of who they are, what they do, and their motivations.

To be fair, there are plenty of positives about the movie as well. The acting is impressive, the visuals appealing, the casting great. Travis Scott’s bard is a nice addition that enhances the atmosphere of the feast scenes, while paying tribute to the story’s origins as an oral tale. Robert Pattinson’s Antinous is the star of every scene he appears in; his portrayal is so thoroughly evil and detestable, but imbued with an unstoppable charisma that keeps your eyes glued to him. Lupita Nyong’o’s two characters, while only on screen for a short time, are potent and striking. The Polyphemus encounter, with his twisted face and leathery skin, is horrifying. Circe’s transformations, as well, are creepy, disturbing, and almost hard to watch. Benny Safdie’s Agamemnon, a hulking figure in all black, personifies the film’s representation of Greek culture: powerful, always seeking more, yet undone by the very actions he takes to ensure his success. The subversion of the poem’s theme of return is mixed with modern concepts of PTSD, leaving the veteran Odysseus as a strung-out drug addict, unable to face his past actions and failures. Unwilling to let himself go home, he turns to Calypso’s lotus flowers to numb his mind, losing years of his life. While this version of Odysseus is missing pretty much every trait we would recognize, it is still a compelling viewpoint and one of the more interesting aspects of the film. The addition of Sinon and the draft lots is a moving subplot, and provides us with two different twists in how we view Antinous: we first take a slightly more sympathetic view when we are told how he volunteered to take Sinon’s place, but Odysseus left him behind with instructions to care for Telemachus. We still have to reckon with his current behavior, but we think that maybe there’s a little more to this man. But the appearance of Sinon’s shade and the reveal of Antinous’ treachery slap us back into reality, doubling down on our disgust for the suitor.

But even with these phenomenal portrayals and additions, the movie continues to fall flat. The Polyphemus and Circe scenes, while visually striking, frankly seem pointless in the film. In the poem, the Polyphemus encounter sets Odysseus up for the rest of his journey – Poseidon’s curse of revenge for his son is the main factor that drives Odysseus on his path through the strange and magical isles, but in Nolan’s film, it is established that Odysseus is being punished by the gods as a whole for his role in breaking the peace and violating Zeus’ Law. The movie omits the famous “Nobody” scene, instead having Polyphemus pray to his father for revenge on nobody in particular immediately after his blinding. The reveal of Odysseus’ name is replaced with an arrow shot to the cyclops’ face, turning the rash decision that dooms his crew into a rash decision that means they need to make a mad dash across the island instead of strolling casually back to the ships. Odysseus’ men do blame him for the arrow shot, noting that they heard the beast pray to Poseidon, but this seems like a plot hole. If the cyclops can pray to his father and successfully call down a curse on Odysseus and his crew without even knowing a name, why did the previous prayer to Poseidon after the blinding not already do them in? Are we supposed to believe that Polyphemus is blinded, prays to his father for revenge to no effect, then is shot by an arrow and Poseidon curses the crew? Is Poseidon supposed to be a patient god who was going to let the crew go except for this one last straw?

Furthermore, in a movie that makes sure “Zeus’ Law” is ringing in our ears at all times, that constantly tells us that violating Zeus’ Law is causing a civilizational collapse, one would think that scenes involving brutal violations of guest-friendship might be used to explore the theme. When the crew reaches Polyphemus’ cave, we even get a mention of Zeus’ Law. Eurylochus worries that they haven’t brought goods to trade, but Odysseus flippantly dismisses the concern with a simple “Zeus’ Law.” Polyphemus enters and immediately proves Odysseus wrong by snatching up two of his men and eating them. That’s the last mention of Zeus’ Law or hospitality; where the poem continues exploring guest rights, in the film we instead transfer focus onto Odysseus’ rash decision that is barely consequential. Nobody seems concerned that Zeus’ Law has been broken; they don’t expect any help or revenge from Zeus Xenios, and there are in fact no consequences shown for breaking Zeus’ Law. The crew is simply upset with Odysseus for shooting the arrow and cursing them somehow. Similarly, Circe’s scene portrays her in a sympathetic light – she excoriates Odysseus and the crew, implying that they have violated guest-friendship and this is their punishment. But in reality the crew perform their obligations perfectly: they politely ask her for food, she politely obliges them, and then she turns them into livestock – a clear violation of guest rights. Circe’s excuse that the crew did not hurt her, but “They would’ve,” is exactly the kind of attitude that xenia cautions against. Treating others based not on their actions, but your worst fears about them, is not behavior that leads to a high-trust society, as Nolan insists Zeus’ Law does. But yet again, we don’t explore the consequences of violating guest-friendship. The most these scenes can say about Zeus’ Law is that it’s far better to violate the law than to be the victim; there are absolutely no consequences for violating the law, while the victim will probably end up (with one of his crew) dead.

It is also strange to base the whole film around Odysseus’ guilt and punishment for starting the apparent hot new trend of violating guest-friendship. It is clear that Odysseus believes this is his fault, Penelope believes this is his fault, and the gods themselves believe this is his fault – why else is Odysseus being punished? Unfortunately, it is obvious that Odysseus most definitely did not start the era of Zeus’ Law violation with the Trojan Horse. It started ten years earlier, when Paris, Menelaus’ guest-friend, ran off with Menelaus’ wife. The Trojans violated guest-friendship and found themselves in a war because of it. The Greeks do not have any guest-friendship obligations toward their enemies in war; in fact, they are obligated to avenge this breaking of Zeus’ Law. Nolan makes it clear, however, that this violation is only “Agamemnon’s excuse to break Troy’s control of the trading routes,” ignoring Zeus’ Law and framing the whole war instead as a ruthless grab for power and money. Nolan presents the Greeks’, and specifically Odysseus’, role as the enforcer of xenia as an evil, civilization-ending act. The only interpretation as a viewer is to assume that violations of Zeus’ Law are to be taken in stride, with a “turn the other cheek” attitude. But Nolan then makes the inexplicable decision to portray Odysseus’ slaughter of the suitors in an unambiguously good way, showing the shameless violators of xenia getting their just deserts. The scene runs absolutely contrary to everything the film has spent the last two hours drilling into us. Odysseus takes the exact same role here as he did at Troy: using trickery to enter the domain of those who have violated xenia, then taking revenge on the violators by slaughtering them all. What is the audience supposed to think after watching this? Are we supposed to reframe our vision of the sacking of Troy to think “actually that must be good now”? Clearly not; it is baffling that out of all the changes between the poem and the movie, Nolan decides to keep in the one thing that destroys any point he has been trying to make. The scene isn’t even satisfying; it’s not the ‘80s anymore, fight choreography consisting of “one guy kills a whole group because they stand around and attack him one at a time” is just lazy and boring, and it takes all enjoyment out of the scene – at least Antinous seems to be just as agitated with his fellow suitors’ approach as I was.

Immediately after viewing the movie, I was discussing some of my concerns with my friends and family, who mostly dismissed them as purist gripes, justifying the right of an artist to change the story in their adaptation. I want to be clear that changing the story is not my issue at all. The problem is that Nolan has changed parts of the story to meet his new themes, then also left parts unchanged that directly contradict his new themes. He has made changes that render certain plot points unnecessary, while still including those plot points without any changes to make them relevant to his version of the story. If anything, he should have made many more changes to the story. As it stands, the film seems half-assed. Nolan has just taken a classic story and had characters directly spell out a new theme to us, without even considering how the actual film interacts with those new themes.

The final straw in the movie is Nolan’s dialogue. “You are the people from the sea…” “The breaking of Zeus’ Law is spreading like cancer. Our Age of Bronze is collapsing!” I don’t think anything more needs to be said here, this is just ridiculous.

Perhaps my expectations let me down here; from all the talk I expected that The Odyssey would actually be a good movie. To be fair, it may well turn out to be a movie that, like its Homeric brother Troy, is fun and entertaining, with terrible dialogue that everyone ends up enjoying as memes (Antinous’ line “Will somebody get these beggars out of here?” seems well on its way on that front), but which fails to deliver any meaningful ideas. It is certainly a good movie in the sense that the execution is top-notch. As I said previously, the acting is amazing, and I think “Director Nolan” fulfills his role in turning the screenplay into the best movie it could be. But “Writer Nolan” fails at almost every turn, leaving us with an incoherent, contradictory film that constantly tells us one thing while showing us another.