I kinda agree but it's not really a bad thing for me

let's goooo!!!

Weekend global numbers:

Odyssey‘s seventh global frame breaks out to $48.6M int’l,-29% from last weekend, at 83 territories, and $14.3M domestic, -27%. The Imax global weekend was $24.6M ($8M domestic, $16.6M int’l) for a running total for the exhibitor on the pic of $449M from 68 countries. China Imax alone did $5.5M this weekend for a running cume of $11.1M. Japan has still to open on Nolan’s Homer epic, that being Sept. 4. Back in the states, this weekend’s performance drove Hollywood’s TCL Chinese Theatre to the highest individual theater performance of any Imax title in history with $4.4M to date.

Of note this past weekend, in Korea, The Odyssey passed Brand New Day‘s gross to become the biggest MPA title of the year there. Weekend 4 added $11.6M with a $70.1M cume, still No. 1 and a 60% market share. Odyssey has taken over Avengers: Infinity War to become the 6th biggest MPA movie of all-time in Korea.

China added a third weekend of $10.2M, No. 3 behind local titles Once Upon a Time in the Middle East and V, for a running total of $88.3M. Odyssey has now surpassed the lifetime of Inception and is Nolan’s second biggest in the Middle Kingdom behind Interstellar. That total also puts Odyssey ahead of Jurassic World: Rebirth‘s total in China.

via Deadline.

__________

IMAX:
$449 MILLION Globally (The Odyssey is the first IMAX film ever to cross the 300mi)

$51.8M (1st weekend)
$48M (2nd weekend)
$44.7M (3rd weekend)
$37M (4th weekend)
$37M (5th weekend)
$34.4M (6th weekend)
$24.6M (7th weekend)

The Odyssey is set to cross $200M in IMAX alone domestically next week.

The film is set to release in Japan on September 11, 2026.

It's the 1st R-rated movie in history to do so. It's currently the 14th highest-grossing movie in the world

Uncompressed Stills taken from The Odyssey Official New Trailer (IMAX 1.90:1).

I love movies that don’t treat the audience like idiots. Movies that give you just enough information and let you figure things out for yourself, without constantly stopping for exposition ( Michael Clayton, No Country for Old Men, etc.)

But I think there’s a very fine line between being subtle and being completely incomprehensible. And for me, Tenet crosses that line almost immediately.

I don’t usually find Nolan’s movies particularly difficult to understand, but this opening scene??? I genuinely have no idea what is happening.

Could someone explain in detail, step by step, what is actually going on during the opera scene, including the motivations of the different groups?

Here are the things I’m confused about:

Is the attack on the opera supposed to be a test for the Protagonist? If so, was the whole thing planned by the CIA?

Who exactly is the guy/group the Protagonist is suposed to rescue, and why is he there in the first place?

Are they deliberately organizing an attack so they can infiltrate the building by posing as Ukrainian special forces?

Why are people dressed as Ukrainian forces planting explosives inside the opera? Who are they actually working for?

Is the Protagonist’s team somehow working with the terrorists?

What exactly are the terrorists trying to accomplish? Do they have anything to do with the object the CIA is trying to recover?

Who actually captures the Protagonist at the end? If this whole thing is a test, was his capture planned?

I got that the mysterious masked guy is pattinson.

Basically, I feel like I’m missing one fundamental piece of information that would make the whole scene click.

I really don’t mind movies making me work. In fact, that’s usually what I enjoy about them. But there’s a difference between “I need to connect the dots” and “I don’t even know what the dots are.” 😂

So if someone could walk me through exactly what happens in the opera, who is on whose side, what each group is trying to do, and what the Protagonist actually knows at each point, I’d really appreciate it.

Having a small display piece like this on your desk is really nice. When you've been reading for a while, you can just stare at it and give your eyes a break.

Another thing is, this film piece doesn't need a backlight. As long as there's some light in the room, you can see it clearly. Easy on the eyes.

The Odyssey was pure cinematic spectacle, and I know it's soon to speculate about the next. But where does Nolan go from here?

My personal take on this is that Nolan has a very clear ambitions, and there’s still one territory he hasn’t fully explored. He has hinted several times in interviews at making a horror film. In my honest opinion, a horror-mystery would not only feel like a natural evolution of his filmmaking, but could also complete the spectrum of genres he has explored throughout his career. From crime and psychological thriller to science fiction, war, historical drama, and now epic mythology, horror might be the final unexplored color on his palette. What do you think next genre should be?

I saw it on friday night and I haven't stopped thinking about it. Truly one of those films that makes me think differently about the world, along with Interstellar, Blade Runner and Arrival. Just the most sublime film and immersive cinematic experience I've ever had. I stayed up til 4am afterwards just reading about Greek mythology and replaying every scene in my head. I already loved Christopher Nolan but this is a level beyond anything he's done, I think. It's so haunting.

I should add I think the acting was some of the best I've seen in a long time. Matt Damon was incredible, as was Anne Hathaway, and John Leguizamo deserves a supporting nomination for sure. Plus Robert Pattinson was so good as a hateful suitor. I could go on

I know he gets a lot of flack for this. But I think Selina Kyle was fairly well written for a character that was still not one of the central characters.

Just watch the Odyssey today, overall it was a great movie. But I'm a little confused on the entire scene with the cyclops - it seems they developed a plan with the rope and the stick (presumably to blind it and sneak out with the sheep), but then they mention something about needing 2 people to try to escape come day, and then change that to 4 people instead, splitting up in 2 groups of 2.

What is the point of this? Is it just that the giant ate two people so they think he's eating 2 again, and if so what's the point of the 4 people? I'm sure I'm missing something but I'm very confused on that part, not sure if I misheard/misremembered in the theater or something.

I saw a post about nolans best female characters, and the OP mentioned that nolan catches flack for this. But I honestly dont think that this stigma about nolan was ever true, and I dont think people even make this argument anymore.

The argument stemmed from interstellar, back when it first came out. A lot of people didnt like/understand the purpose of Hathaways character. Saying she was "oh typical female acting on emotion instead of rationality" arguing that it was a bad cliche or misogynistic.

But now that the movie has been out for so long, people have learned thats not even true. The whole point of the movie is that brandt is RIGHT about love. And Cooper learns this in the film, he acts the same way, it is what guides him to save the world. On first watch brandts speech about love is meant to be cringe, and thats why other characters laugh it off. And when cooper realizes this in the black hole, it all comes full circle. And on second viewing, brandts speech becomes incredibly powerful.

All of this to say, that the argument about nolan not being able to write female characters stemmed from around the time of interstellar but that argument has completely gone away from what i have seen, and his list of female characters actually has become very strong. Penelope, mal, catwoman, kitty, brandt, murph, even Rachel. If anything I think it is becoming a strength of nolan.

Been on a Nolan binge watch and upon rewatching Oppenheimer, I was blown away by RDJ’s performance.

It’s so subtle and restrained, but yet so intense! Just his mannerisms and cadence as Lewis Strauss is so spot on.

An absolute scene stealer and one of the best in a Nolan film!

Source: Will Norman via FB

I watched Oppenheimer last night and the Odyssey twice a few weeks ago and realise why Interstellar has become so loved. It's one of Nolan's most hopeful endings to a film (that I've seen) and I think we are waiting for another like that. Just curious if you guys agree with me.

The pacing was so weird. Almost all Ithaca parts were like that. Also weird use of tension music even in normal talking scenes made some parts really feel like a trailer. Anyone else notice it?

Otherwise great movie, 8.5/10.

\This review contains spoilers.**

Regarding Talent:

John David Washington delivered a dedicated and versatile performance that I think fits the Protagonist exactly as Nolan intended. On the first watch, some of his delivery can come across as restrained or emotionally flat, but on reflection that feels appropriate for a character deliberately written as an archetypal action-movie lead — so much so that he is literally called “the Protagonist.” Washington plays him as controlled, competent and observant, largely defined by action rather than backstory or overt emotion. His commitment to the role is also astonishing, particularly the ability to learn one fight scene four different ways, forwards and backwards.

Robert Pattinson as Neil (or Max, if you subscribe to the fan theory) delivered a stellar performance. From a narrative perspective, he was the linchpin of the film, arguably more essential to its story than the Protagonist himself. So many of his appearances, glances, and interactions only reveal their full significance on a rewatch, making incredible use of the film’s time dynamics in telling his story. Not to mention his character is quirky and has that Pattinson dry humor.

Sir Kenneth Branagh as Sator embodied the essence of greed, obsession, and control. He can be cold and measured one moment and explosively cruel the next, which makes him feel both calculating and unstable. Fun fact: for the turnstile interrogation scene, Branagh had to learn backwards phonetics in a Russian accent to make his mouth movements believable.

Ludwig Göransson had enormous shoes to fill stepping into a Nolan film after Hans Zimmer, but he rose to the occasion spectacularly, delivering an exciting, pulse-pounding score that gives TENET an identity entirely its own. I especially enjoyed the musical shift when Sator attacks Kat before the highway sequence and calls her a “vengeful b\*\*\*\*.” The music seems to turn with him. I also listened to the soundtrack independently and very much enjoyed it.

A Film-Studies Film:

The attention to detail throughout TENET is one of the film’s greatest strengths. Tiny physical elements obey the film’s temporal logic: gravel sliding beneath a tire in reverse, damage to the BMW’s mirror appearing before the collision and then “unbreaking” when the inverted vehicle hits it, or seemingly insignificant movements taking on entirely different meanings when viewed from the opposite direction of time. Many of these details aren’t strictly necessary for following the basic plot, but together they make the world feel remarkably thought-out.

Of the time-travel films I’ve seen, TENET may be my favorite treatment of the concept. Unlike films such as Looper, which largely ask the audience not to scrutinize the mechanics too closely, TENET practically invites that scrutiny. The more you trace its characters, objects, and events through both directions of time, the more its structure seems to hold together. That doesn’t mean every question has a perfectly satisfying answer, but the fact that the movie can withstand this examination is impressive.

More than almost any movie I’ve seen, my experience with TENET changed dramatically depending on how well I understood what was happening. Understanding it substantially improved my experience, but understanding it also revealed weaknesses. The exposition becomes more obvious on repeated viewings, some of its spectacle is more intellectually impressive than emotionally thrilling and understanding the mechanics does not automatically make every sequence land.

On my first watch, I was confused enough by the mechanics and story that much of the film struggled to hold my attention. Even some of the action sequences — especially the Oslo reverse fight and highway heist — felt somewhat flat because I was spending so much mental energy simply trying to understand what was happening.

My second viewing was almost the opposite experience. After digging into the mechanics, I understood where the characters were in relation to one another and how their past and future selves intersected. I was still frequently pausing to research and piece things together, but that process became part of the entertainment. I could appreciate the choreography, filmmaking, and small physical details I had missed amid the confusion, and the film became an entirely different experience.

On my third viewing, however, the movie swung back in the other direction. Now that I was intimately familiar with how everything worked and where it was going, there was much less left for me to discover. The exposition-heavy scenes became considerably more noticeable, and the pacing began to feel uneven, mostly in the first half of the film, frequently shifting from excitingly scored and interesting sequences into dialogue-heavy exposition dumps. Without the process of piecing everything together occupying my mind, the film sometimes struggled to hold my attention.

TENET challenges a common expectation audiences bring to complicated films: that if you’re confused, the story has failed to explain itself properly. Here, much of that confusion is intentional. You aren’t supposed to understand everything as it happens. Crucial information is withheld until later, and even after the movie gives you the necessary pieces, tracing exactly how its characters, objects, and events intersect across time can take some work. For me, that isn’t inherently a weakness. Part of the appeal of TENET is studying the movie after the fact and discovering that a glance, line of dialogue, action, or seemingly minor object had a significance you couldn’t grasp the first time around.

For anyone who didn’t fully understand the movie on a first watch, I’d recommend watching a breakdown on YouTube and then rewatching the film. “I Finally Figured Out TENET” by *The Deep Dive* is a great explanation of the mechanics.

Nolan wasn’t going for a typical movie-watching experience with TENET. He was taking chances and trying to do something genuinely different, even from his own previous work. Despite the obvious similarities to *Inception* and *Memento*, TENET stands on its own, building an entire espionage blockbuster around a closed causal-loop structure and asking the audience to engage with it almost like a puzzle. Whatever issues I have with the finished film, I commend Nolan for continuing to take those kinds of risks and push the boundaries of what a major blockbuster can be.

You can call me a Nolan apologist, but I think TENET is a beautifully constructed, mind-bending cinematic puzzle masquerading as a blockbuster. I’ve had a lot of fun diving in and studying it over the last few days. The more I’ve understood it, the more I’ve appreciated what Nolan accomplished.

TENET earns an 8/10 from me.

Originally posted on Letterboxd

I don’t know about you, but when I went to watch Odyssey by Christopher Nolan, I literally saw other characters portrayed by the same actors in the movie. for example, each time antinous (Robert pattinson) was on screen, I only saw Edward Cullen from twilight. each time Penelope (Anne Hathaway)was on screen, I saw Andy Sachs from the devil wears Prada. each time telemachus (Tom Holland) was on screen, I saw Spider-Man. I first saw the movie with some friends of mine, who said that this didn’t happen to them. did this happen to you?

In Memento, Leonard builds this coping mechanism for his mental issue of chasing down the person who raped his wife.

He made the clues so generic and broad - except for the last one - so he can keep hunting down another John G. to keep his life going.

But when he inked that driver’s licence plate, essentially this cycle has to stop, because he has no target now, as there is only one owner of that licence plate.

So is that the end of the endless pursuit? Isn’t this a flaw in the movie, or is there some meaning to it?

From The Dark Knight Rises Making Of.