The Odyssey

THE ODYSSEY
Writer & Director ~ Christopher Nolan
2026, United Kingdom-United States-Canada-New Zealand-Iceland
Stars ~ Matt DamonTom HollandAnne Hathaway

Judging from the huge amount of social media discourse, Nolan’s adaptation of Homer’s ‘The Odyssey’ is like ‘Star Wars’ or the Marvel Universe for Greek mythology fanboys. That is: there’s a huge backlash for not being what they want, or not adhering to the granular detail, or, etc. Emily Wilson has emerged as a chief critic   herself, her contemporary translation of Homer being a key source for Nolan and widely recommended but was itself criticised. Allow me to clarify my reading by my objections to Wilson’s review. She writes:

“It has nothing convincing to say about time, memory, history, war, or about the relationship between one warrior’s glorious return and the lives of his family, adversaries, comrades, friends and neighbours. It lacks psychological, emotional, political and ethical depth.”

Which is the opposite of my personal reaction – in fact, I was surprised at its depth and evident layers whilst still delivering the big blockbuster set-pieces that Wilson apparently despises, that I expected it to be. While my personal taste dictates that I was happy it was so much a monster and horror film, it was the character nuances that stuck in the memory. The character list is huge and even if there is a sense of “oh, don’t I recognise that face?”, most get enough credence and grace notes for fleshing out and making their point. It was obviously political, about imperialism and ransacking other cultures: all that talk of “the sea people” and the protagonists not realising that they themselves are the threat, until they get to the giant Laistrygonians who barely let them get inland. The psychological, emotional, political and ethical questioning seemed evident as an ancient text used to reflect modern and timeless concerns: I was convinced it had enough to say about the toxic masculinity of men going to war, committing war crimes, PTSD, women left to take the burden back home, etc.; an anti-war film in the guise of fantasy epic.

What does strike me is that Nolan’s style of shuffling of plot and exposition makes this less episodic than anticipated (thinking of Harryhausen showcases), allowing for those themes to dictate much narrative flow.  In this way, the infiltration of Troy at first seems heroic, clever, later revealed as a horror. Any adaption is going to deviate and translate and condense, etc.

From the start with the Trojan Horse buried in the beach, it is always visually spectacular. I have seen social media threads using clips of Harryhausen’s work to disparage Nolan’s adaptation, saying it’s not as good, etc (No: it’s just different). And then you hear that the Cyclops was a 60-foot puppet and that they used moulding clay and animatronics, that the giants were achieved using different sized people and false perspective, etc., and all that is impressive also, and satisfying that it was hand-made in key monster elements as well as digital.  

I have seen many reactions saying that it does nothing for the women, but for me, it was the women and their performances that I remembered just as much as the Trojan Horse or Cyclops.  And how centred on women this is: they all have agency, not one fully crushed by patriarchy despite the culture. That is: it is Penelope letting her composure slip and snapping at her son Telemachus (who just wants to be a big boy like daddy) that startles; Lupita Nyong’o’s rage-and-tears face; and especially Samantha Norton’s Circe screaming her outrage and distrust of all men (“Back to your disguises!”) that is just as visceral and unnerving as the Cyclops. Even Charlize Theron as Calypso and Zendaya as Athena have fleeting but important images to portray (addiction, conscience). If Calypso is dreamy nurse, she is also addiction beach-dream, but it is she that lets him go only when he decides to face up and kick his lotus flower habit. Wilson writes that “Nolan’s Penelope has no dreams”, overlooking her allotted dream sequence, or the feminine fortitude in holding out against an army of boorish suitors for years. It is hard to take Wilson’s argument as a whole when there are these oversights that make it read as if she is just cherry-picking and willfully ignoring.

It seemed to me luminous with the frightful rage of women having to deal with the repercussions of men and their wars and battle-posturing. It is surely an interpretation that does the women justice, especially as this is the tale of one man’s returning home. …And, side-note: if you employ Mia Goth as a servant, you should expect trouble.

Then there’s the diversity of cast: firstly, historian Mary Beard  schools anyone thinking anything but an all-white cast would be historically inaccurate. I object to Wilson’s reading that it denies the diverse cast its credit when she writes:

“Most of the non-white actors – Zendaya, Lupita Nyong’o, Himesh Patel, Corey Antonio Hawkins, Travis Scott – play versions of the Black best friend, whose only role in the drama is to provide aid to the white protagonist.”

Which is disrespectful, reductive and disingenuous at the very least and a little too broad at worse. For example, it is surely Himash Patel’s eyes exuding the distrust and betrayal he feels that acts as a constant reminder of Odysseus’s hubris and folly, that his reputation maybe just myth.

There’s a very modern awareness colouring characters: Odysseus’s PTSD; Circe as a damaged survivor of sexual abuse; the egotism of a “Hero” defying the Gods; the committing of War Crimes. Unreliable narrator, tinnitus with the Sirens, starvation and abuse with Circe, addiction with lotus flowers, hallucinations of Hades etc. There is so much to translate and unpack that you may feel instantly out of your depth if you’re not a Greek scholar or familiar with all the characters. Social Media has so much informed discussion as to the nuance of the individuals, down to giving Polyphemus the Cyclops his due, that the whole only impresses upon reflection in its pursuit of nuance and multiple perspectives. Even so, if you do know it, you might be prone to feeling shortchanged.

Perhaps the pacing takes a while to focus, getting by on spectacle until Odysseus sets out. Perhaps you feel the omission of the text’s sex robs the tale of earthiness, humanity and character. But as an adaptation, there seems wisdom in fleeting over Odysseus’ seven years with Calypso, or his year as Circe’s lover, for the sake of film brevity. If you are invested in these myths, you may feel shortchanged – Athena gets short shrift and Zendaya’s casting may seem bland – but far more problematic is Calypso saying stay here one minute and now you’re ready to go the next, or the fact that this anti-war treatise ends on the thrill of a big action set piece slaughter. But let’s argue that this time Odysseus is killing the enemy within, cauterising the toxic masculinity problem having learnt his lesson and passing on the crown.

There’s so much to absorb, to enjoy, to annoy, to criticise that Nolan’s achievement has marked the zeitgeist surely as much as OppenBarbie-Barbenheimer. Genre-spanning, continuing Nolan’s exploration of guilt-ridden men, epic, dour, a brilliant achievement whose cinematic and cultural size, liberties and fun mean indifference is apparently inadequate as an option.

The Curse of Frankenstein

 

The Curse of Frankenstein

Director ~ Terence Fisher

Writers ~ Jimmy Sangster

1957 ~ UK

Stars ~ Peter Cushing, Hazel Court, Robert Urquhart, Christopher Lee

Although Hammer had taken the success of ‘The Quatermass Experiment’ as a hint that they should move into horror as a moneymaker, ‘The Curse of Frankenstein’ set the agenda. Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, updating Universal monsters, Terence Fisher directing and Jimmy Sangster writing, sumptuous set design by Bernard Robinson, Jack Asher’s cinematography, salaciousness and a lash of gore all went to make up Bray Studio’s Hammer Horror brand. Although it sounds like a sequel, ‘The Curse of Frankenstein’ is Hammer’s first Gothic Monster, the first British horror film in colour and Fisher makes sure you know it, whether it’s Cushing blue eyes, the multi-coloured liquids in the lab or a somewhat unnecessary close-up of a luxurious dressing gown. 

Mary Shelly’s novel is the landmark in the creation of the genres of horror and science-fiction, teen fiction and body horror, written when she was nineteen. Famously, it was the result of a writing competition between her, Lord Byron and Percy Shelley in the Summer of 1816. Its themes are of existential angst, societal rejection, ambition and responsibility, ego and empathy, running from parental obligation, victimhood and revenge, male ego, the patriarchy’s fear/disgust/misunderstanding of a woman’s ability to give birth (seeing it as a challenge to usurp), and others. All the earliest adaptations forgo the eloquence of the creature if not the suffering, and in this adaption, Jimmy Sangster takes full-blown liberties with Shelley’s seminal novel as others have. He makes it not about the whimpering, cruel rejection of your creation, but abusing it into sublimation, robbing it of agency, humiliating and tampering with it at your whim. Rather than an odyssey, this is a chamber piece about a narcissistic baron, his laboratory, his disapproving best friend and his unaware fiancé – in that order.

The first pairing of life-long friends Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee. Cushing is fantastic, able to exude charm even through his selfishness and mercenariness. Cushing’s ability to treat the fantastical and tosh with sincerity cannot be undervalued. The step into confrontational colour gore is nicely declared with Cushing smearing blood on his jacket (and a find symbol for his bloody obsessive nature). Unlike his co-star Paul Krempe, Cushing thoroughly embraced this in Hammer, seeing it as a fairy-tale world. Cinematographer Jack Asher can be greatly credited with the whole look of Hammer, and certainly the precise colour from the startling close-up bright blue of Cushing’s eyes to that jacket bloodstain turning pink over time. But this is not to forget production designer Bernard Robinson, whose laboratory set is surely as iconic as Whale’s 1931 version. 

Lee’s performance is perhaps a revelation, forgoing the charisma and elegance that would later give him such presence for the clumsy, lumbering coordination of the monster. There is a pathetic uncoordinated physicality that he was not called upon to deliver or necessary after the malevolent baritone elegance of his ‘Dracula’. To avoid being prosecuted by Universal, Le’s creature make-up designed by Phil Leakey is a world away from the iconic, brilliant and cartoonish Jack Pierce designed Karloff visage: Leakey’s make-up is true to the report of being taken from a hanged man whose been ravaged by the birds. It is a performance that dominates despite its comparatively brief screentime due to that nasty make-up and Lee’s natural commanding aura.

Otherwise, Krempe gives a solid but uninspired performance as Victor’s mentor, there is a young Melvyn Hayes, a sultry Valerie Gaunt and a charming Hazel Court, exuding warmth and turning what little she has as Victor’s cousin-fiancé into a sympathetic character. It is through her that the era’s repression of female autonomy and patriarchy’s dominance come through.

Hammer’s novelty was to highlight that, make no mistake, Victor Frankenstein is the true villain with the creature the jigsaw manifestation of his ugliness, forced into life. And despite the presumed finality of the ending, it is Cushing’s Frankenstein that made for a franchise. From a reported budget of £65,000 ‘The Curse of Frankenstein’ made a box office of $8 million, a success that led to Hammer’s Gothic Horror agenda and seven Frankenstein sequels. Jack Asher said that Fisher only did two takes due to Hammer’s demanding scheduling. When taken into consideration, this conveys just how punk, professional and talented this team was to produce such performances, elegance and influential horror.

FrightFest 2025 - Day 4

 

 

 

FrightFest 2025 - Day 4

 

 

 

213 BONES

Director: Jeffrey Primm

Cast: Colin Egglesfield, Dean Cameron, Toni Weiss, Liam Woodrum.

USA

 

At first, there’s the promise of a straightforward non-postmodern slasher providing horror comfort food, but it becomes quickly apparent that this has all the subgenre’s weaknesses too. Predominantly, it hinges on a thoroughly unconvincing bunch of college student victims, and its not clear how they managed to get this far in their studies as they don’t appear to have any critical thinking at all. It goes through the motions, the kills are humdrum and then the killer with the ridiculous motivation is unmasked and the audience goes “Wha?”

 

 

TOMB WATCHER

Director: Vathanyu Ingkawiwat

Cast: Woranuch Bhirombhakdi, Thanavate Siriwattanagul, Arachaporn Pokin Pakor.

Thailand

 

It has the chief elements to appeal to the Gothic sensibility: a big remote house, portraits of the dead wife and the corpse of the dead wife itself on the grounds. All the couple have to do is put up with the husband devoting to the dead body for one hundred days. The trouble is that the husband was cheating on the wife, and she wants the hundred days to exact her revenge from beyond the grave. Cue the long-haired Asian ghost and no one believing the haunted wife driven to near-insanity. It is a standard, traditional ghost story, but it looks good and carries out its tropes with elegance rather than excess, at least until its ending where it goes a little loopy. 

 

 

The DESCENT

Director: Neil Marshall.

Cast: Shauna Macdonald, Natalie Mendoza, Alex Reid, MyAnna Buring.

UK

 

Even after all this time, you’ll be likely to jump at least once again. Perhaps the attacks are edited to the incoherent side, but what mostly struck me once more this time is how much David Julyan's forewarns the tragedy from the very start. You are so invested into the girls foolishly going deeper and deeper underground that you almost forget that they’ll be monsters. Marshall has so far never captured this classic status again.

 

 

BONE LAKE

Director: Mercedes Bryce Morgan

Cast: Marco Pigossi, Maddie Hasson, Alex Roe, Andra Nechita.

USA

 

Perhaps the opening promises something less graceful, just to get the attention, but what follows is a slick, silly and thoroughly entertaining romp. The great performances are essential to above-average characterisation, which is important when the fragility of couples is the whole discourse: Diego and Sage are thoroughly convincing as a decent couple struggling to get over themselves. Perhaps not quite as twisty and surprising as it thinks, but its thoroughly engaging, gorgeously shot and played and all you have to do is sit back and enjoy.

 

REDUX REDUX

Director: Kevin McManus, Matthew McManus

Cast: Jim Cummings, Derick Alexander, Raphael Chestang, Debra Christofferson

USA

 

Emotion-led lofi scifi is often a good place to find something fresh in the genre, and this excellent multiverse tale impresses with how packed with emotional grounding it is. From grief making our protagonist pursue a hellbent mission to visit all the dimensions to kill her daughter’s murderer to a streetwise brat finding her limitations, the measured pace allows the loneliness to surface even when foregrounded and tent-poled by action set-pieces. Although mostly a two-hander there’s uniformly great acting, lowkey and immersive atmosphere, pleasingly clunky dimension-hopping freezer unit, a script only interested in the characters with little need to linger on backstory, allowing the existential and relationship questions to dominate. Proof again that an indie film with single well written conceit and a solid agenda of investigating the human condition can generate full-blooded, unsettling and rewarding entertainment.

Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves

 

Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves

Directors ~ John Francis Daley & Jonathan Goldstein

Writers ~ Jonathan Goldstein, John Francis Daley, Michael Gilio

2023, United States-Canada-United Kingdom-Iceland-Ireland-Australia

Stars ~ Chris Pine, Michelle Rodriguez, Hugh Grant, Justice Smith, Sophia Lillis

 

That this feels like ‘Guardians of the Galaxy: fantasy version’ only goes to show the James Gunn template is now the one everyone tries to follow: it’s easy to forget how fresh Gunn’s original ‘Guardians’ felt at the time. But actually ‘Dungeons & Dragons’ was a property long in development and the witty-banter ensemble dynamic is already embedded in the D&D gameplay, so it’s perhaps unfair to relegate its essence as bandwagon-jumping.

The narrative ~ script by Goldstein, Francis Daley and Michale Gilio ~ apes the more improvisational We Need A Plan! progression of the game. BrianTallerico sees this as a chief failing, but improvisation is the crux of the source material, and demands for more nuanced artistry surely shouldn’t get in the way of something so good-natured. Embraking on a quest and being dumped into chaos is a standard and familiar narrative ~ after all, the game drew upon and generated many archetypes and tropes ~ so much so that it won’t alienate non-D&D audiences, and there’s Easter Eggs here for the fans.

It's just plain enjoyable without the sense of neediness that most films of this trend have. Pine can do this in his sleep (solid, charming without being overbearing), Michelle Rodriguez offers some substance to her archetype of a Barbarian Amazon. With Regé-Jean Page as the saintly but humourless good guy, the film pokes fun at the po-facedness of many fantasy films. Playfulness is the watchword, not earnestness. Hugh Grant enjoys himself and surely has charming-slimy-selfish-articulate-plotting villainy down pat by now (that accent goes a long way). In fact, everyone appears to be having a good time and it is never left limping with seriousness. Oh sure, we get lessons on self-confidence, working together, accepting yourself and your mistakes, etc, but mostly these are fleeting character-colouring rather than doorstopper performative.

Fun is the agenda here, and it offers it with fat but formidable dragons, some crunchy fight scenes that follow the contemporary accent on choreography rather than brute-force, and (my favourite) questioning revived corpses. Initial word-of-mouth was that it was better than expected, as general anticipation was low, but it’s surely one whose reputation will grow. A film that is fun without being stupid.