The Odyssey (2026) Review

Quick Synopsis: Odysseus, the Greek king of Ithaca, undergoes a long and perilous journey home after the Trojan War and encounters mythical beings as he attempts to reunite with his wife Penelope

I don’t think I need to see another Nolan film ever again. My problems with Nolan are well documented: his scripts often lack emotion, while his dialogue somehow manages to both overexplain everything and leave you wondering what anyone actually means (as perfectly encapsulated in this video). Of course, actually hearing that dialogue has always been another challenge thanks to Nolan’s sound mixing (a problem that’s cropped up throughout his career, but reached its peak with Tenet). The result has always been films I admire more than I actually connect with.

None of that is why I don’t want to see another Nolan film. I just wanted to lull you into a false sense of security. I don’t want to see another Nolan film because The Odyssey feels like what his career has been building towards. The fragmented timelines in Dunkirk, the sense of foreboding that hangs over Oppenheimer, the manipulation of geography in Inception, his exploration of mythic heroes from Batman. Everything has been building towards this moment. Seen in retrospect, the rest of his filmography feels like practice for The Odyssey. Homer’s epic demands a filmmaker obsessed with time, perspective, spectacle and impossible journeys, qualities Nolan has spent twenty-five years refining

The internet has spent an impressive amount of time arguing about the historical accuracy of a film based on a myth. Some of it has simply been misinformation, claims that Elliot Page is playing Achilles, despite actually playing Sinos. Some of it has been uglier, with people claiming Lupita Nyong’o is “too black” to play Helen of Troy (despite being one of the most strikingly beautiful actors working today, which feels rather relevant when casting Helen). Then there’s the debate over accents, with complaints that everyone speaks in historically inaccurate American accents, rather than the obviously much more historically accurate British ones. I didn’t invent that last argument, by the way. James Hibberd of The Hollywood Reporter was so annoyed by the accents that he wrote an entire article about it, arguing that the modern British accent is “traditionally considered universally pleasing and ‘just foreign enough'” to create a timeless quality. Apparently, the ancient Greeks were just waiting for actors to discover Received Pronunciation.

However, there is one criticism that does deserve to be taken seriously: Emily Wilson’s. Especially because her 2017 translation of The Odyssey formed the basis of Nolan’s adaptation. She argues that the film simplifies Odysseus, stripping away much of the complexity of the character and leaving little to say about the major themes of Homer’s work.

From the perspective of someone who has spent years studying the text, it’s a difficult criticism to dismiss. However, there is also a difference between experiencing The Odyssey as a scholar and experiencing it as a general audience member. Wilson has pored over every word of the original, examining it through historical context and the work of other translators and academics. A filmgoer is approaching the story very differently. They are not necessarily looking for every character, or comparing every choice against centuries of interpretation; they are experiencing the story Nolan has chosen to tell.

Let’s be honest, most audience members won’t leave the cinema wondering where Queen Arete is or which elements of the poem have been omitted. As historian Tom Holland (not the actor who appears in this film) has pointed out, there is no historically accurate version of Odysseus to recreate. He is a mythical figure. An “impressionist” interpretation of ancient history is arguably more valuable than a painstaking attempt to recreate every historical detail, because such accuracy is impossible. So with that in mind, how is the film itself? As you can guess from my second paragraph, I loved it. It’s long, you can’t deny that, but every scene feels like it earns its place. There is so much mythology packed into this story that removing anything risks making the journey feel incomplete. Some stuff you’ll be familiar with (the Trojan horse, the sirens, Circe), some you won’t (I can’t say because I don’t know what you’re familiar with). The impressive thing isn’t that Nolan includes these famous moments; it’s the way he reinterprets them. The Trojan horse isn’t simply a giant wooden structure waiting to be wheeled into Troy. The song of the sirens is not a beautiful melody, but a haunting lament for everything you’ve left behind. Circe’s transformation of men into pigs is one of the most disturbing versions of that event you could hope for, helped enormously by another excellent performance from Samantha Morton. Surely an Academy Award for one of her performances is only a matter of time?

The cast is one of the film’s biggest strengths. There are no real weak links. Robert Pattinson gives a deliciously sleazy performance that will make your skin crawl, somehow making every appearance both entertaining and deeply uncomfortable. Matt Damon is perfectly cast, and not just because this is another film where he spends the story desperately trying to get home. Somehow, that has become his very specific niche. As said earlier, Samantha Morton is excellent as Circe, bringing a genuinely unsettling quality to a character who could easily have become just another stop on Odysseus’ journey. The only criticism you can really make of Tom Holland is that his babyface means he doesn’t quite look like a 30-year-old, but that is hardly a fault with his performance.

Visually, this might be Nolan at his most impressive. Polyphemus the cyclops looks genuinely monstrous; the way he kills Odysseus’ soldiers brings to mind Francisco Goya’s Saturn Devouring His Son, not simply because of the violence, but because of the sense of something ancient and unstoppable consuming something helpless. The Laestrygonians are similarly nightmarish, not only because of their size, but because of the way they manipulate the landscape itself to trap and kill their victims.

This makes it the perfect opportunity to talk about one of Nolan’s greatest strengths: his understanding of scale. A low angle alone does not make something feel enormous; the audience needs something familiar beside it for comparison. This is partly why I think Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire did not work as well as it could have. The monsters were huge, but the films rarely gave us a true sense of that size. Nolan understands that difference. Here, everything that is supposed to feel massive actually does, from the mythological creatures to the buildings, landscapes, and entire worlds they inhabit.

Perhaps the most impressive thing about The Odyssey is not what Nolan builds, but what he allows us to see. The film takes us across coastlines, mountains and islands that feel almost untouched by time, and Nolan is confident enough to simply let them exist. The scenery becomes almost another character, shaping the journey as much as the people within it. Each location represents another stage of Odysseus’ journey, not just geographically but emotionally, giving the entire film a sense of scale and reality that artificial environments often struggle to replicate.

These are not historical places recreated for the camera. They are places that existed before the film and will continue to exist afterwards. Every mountain, coastline and cave has texture and history, making the journey feel less like a series of movie sets and more like an actual voyage across an ancient world.

For all Nolan’s strengths, emotion remains his greatest weakness. There is emotion here, but it comes mainly from the performances rather than the writing. The actors create feelings that the script itself rarely manages to reach. There are moments that should be devastating, but they are presented with such clinical precision that you end up more impressed than affected by what you are seeing. You understand what the characters are feeling, but you remain outside the experience rather than being pulled into it. There is an emotional distance between the audience and both the characters and the story.

The closest the film gets is near the end, when the fall of Troy is presented not as the glorious conclusion of an epic, but as what it actually was: the destruction of a city and a war crime. Even then, however, it does not have quite the impact it should. It is brutal, but in a film where soldiers are killed by living trees, transformed into pigs, or have their heads bitten off by monsters, the human horrors of war somehow feel strangely tame in comparison. You cannot present something as the tragedy that reshaped a civilisation if the audience does not feel its weight more than the fantastical violence surrounding it.

I meant what I said at the beginning: I don’t need to see another Nolan film. Not because I have lost interest, but because I genuinely cannot see how he could top this. The Odyssey feels like the culmination of everything he has spent his career working towards. Every other film now feels like a filmmaker refining the tools he would eventually need for this. Every obsession, every stylistic quirk, and every technical innovation finds the perfect material to justify itself.

I cannot imagine another Nolan film topping this because I cannot imagine another story that suits him quite this perfectly. But I hope I’m wrong. Because if Nolan somehow manages to surpass this, then we will have another one of my favourite films to add to the list.

Moana (Live-Action) (2026) Review

Quick Synopsis: The island of Motunui is struck by blight, leaving the inhabitants at risk of extinction. It’s left to future chief Moana to try to find demigod Maui and get him to restore the heart of Te Fiti. That’s a lot of names thrown at you, trust me, it’s much simpler than it sounds.

It’s rare for a BBFC certificate to fill me with a strong sense of foreboding. It normally happens when I watch a horror film and realise it’s rated 12A. But it’s what happened with this movie. It’s not called Moana; you may think it is because that’s how everyone talks about it, and it’s how it’s listed on the poster and the trailer, etc. It’s not even called Moana (2026). According to the certificate at the start, its official title is actually Moana (Live-Action). So from now on, when I talk about Moana (Live-Action), I will constantly give it its full title of Moana (Live-Action). Yes, it will get annoying and sound clunky the more I talk about my thoughts on Moana (Live-Action), but that just illustrates my point that it’s a terrible title.

I’ll admit, that was a longer discussion about the name of the film than I do in most reviews. I suppose I should talk about the film itself. Which is going to be difficult, because there’s nothing new to talk about. Annoyingly, I didn’t review the original; otherwise I could just copy and paste that review. I could probably get away with copying my How To Train Your Dragon review though. Much like that movie, I had memories of the original, but not enough to recognise subtle differences. But I did pick up on similarities. Of which there are a lot. I get it, Moana is fantastic, and people hold it in high regard, so you don’t want to mess with what worked. But the repetition of scenes, shots, jokes, etc, means that Moana (Live-Action) never feels like its own movie. It feels like what it is; an imitation.

If you haven’t seen the original, then you will love Moana (Live-Action). Okay, I’m gonna stop that running joke now because it’s really annoying me. Plus my editor told me to. What worked about the original still works here. It’s still funny, it’s still stunning to look at, and the music is still incredible. But if you have seen the original, then you can’t help but feel a little disappointed. This movie has a writer who wasn’t involved in the original, which is baffling, as there’s certainly not enough changes to justify paying someone. There’s a new song, and a few tweaks, but nothing major. Now that Moana 2 exists, it could have easily put the characters from that movie into this one. I’m not saying they should be new leads or massively affect the story, but would it have hurt to have them referenced? It also could have fixed a few problems with the original story; it really should have focused more on the island whilst Moana wasn’t there. At the moment, the film is so focused on WHAT she’s doing that it doesn’t demonstrate WHY effectively enough. What has happened on the island whilst she’s gone? Are they worried? Is the food situation getting worse? Do they think she’s dead?

None of these accusations of laziness can be levied at the technical crew and the performers. The Rock is still the perfect casting for his character. Catherine Laga’aia is scarily good considering her lack of big-screen experience. I have faith that her career will survive this; she has an electric presence and can only go up from here. While he wasn’t on screen much, when he was, I couldn’t help but notice how much John Tui resembled professional wrestler/nose-biter offer/mace survivor/all-round very scary man Haku. Turns out he has already played another wrestler; Afa Anoi’a, who was cousins with The Rock’s dad. Huh, small world. Anyway, he’s great in this too. Rena Owen and Frankie Adams also play their parts well. But again, none of the three islanders gets much of a chance to show what their characters are once Moana gets to sea.

It still looks breath-taking. Considering how much of it is blue sky and blue water, it would be easy for the visuals to be muddled and make it difficult to see what happens. That never happens here. Everything is clear, visible, and stunning. There’s almost nothing at all that looks fake; even the dancing tattoo looks real. Nothing about the visuals takes you out of the story.

The music still slaps. New song Along The Way slips so perfectly into it that you’d be forgiven for not realising it’s a new song. That sounds harsher than I intend it to. The Rock has improved his vocals slightly from the original film, but not enough to justify the internet becoming obsessed with You’re Welcome again.

Moana is not a bad film. On its own merits, in a vacuum, it’s superb. But it’s not released in a vacuum, is it? It’s released not only with the original existing, but with the entire success of this movie depending on people remembering the original existing and wanting to see it again.

In summary, it’s not bad, but it is disappointing. Disney need to stop remaking films like this. Either remake films which were badly received (and improve them), or remake films from decades ago which people will want to see live action versions of. Basically, Disney need to do a live-action remake of 1973’s Robin Hood (1973? Really? Wow. I assumed it was 80s). Not only will it look different from the original (the original Moana looked so life-like already, which is another reason a live-action remake is pointless), it will also make a shitload of money for two reasons:

  1. People LOVE the original.
  2. Furries.

Masters Of The Universe (2026) Review

Quick Synopsis: A reimagined He-Man is drawn into a fractured Eternia to unite rival factions and stop Skeletor’s chaotic rise to power

I’m going to be honest, I wasn’t going to watch this movie. The trailers did their job; I’ll give them that; bright, chaotic, and with a kind of sugary enthusiasm that makes you think, “maybe this will be fun in a post-modern way.”. But I have no nostalgia for He-Man; I probably did watch it at my nan’s when I was a child, I probably even had some toys, but nothing about it fills me with nostalgic warmth. Somewhat cynically, my opinion of the TV show is that it was a 20-minute toy commercial that occasionally got side-tracked by a plot. Which is ridiculous; it was 23 minutes.

Also, it stars Jared Leto. A man who, at this point, feels less like a casting choice and more like an industry-wide dare. You get the sense he only appears in films when someone in a boardroom loses a bet, or when a production needs a controlled demolition of its own box office prospects (a la The Producers). Or, less amusingly, when no one in the room is particularly interested in asking hard questions about certain reputations and behaviour towards women. His casting would have been acceptable if he did his usual “method acting” shtick and insisted on ripping his skin off and actually becoming a skeleton. Sadly, he did not. He also didn’t promote the movie at all once it came out, and he was barely mentioned in any of the marketing I saw. Bit weird.

But I did see it. And I’m glad I did. Master Of The Universe (MOTU, pronounced like the things from the 2014 Godzilla movie) is exactly what it needs to be. It doesn’t try to be profound. It doesn’t try to be ironic in a way that drains the colour out of everything; it adds colour, if anything. It lands in that narrow, difficult space where it can acknowledge the inherent absurdity of “He-Man” as a concept without sneering at it. Yes, it pokes fun at itself: it knows the name is ridiculous, it knows the world is ridiculous, but it does so with a kind of sincerity that feels oddly disarming. There’s warmth here. Proper warmth. The sort that suggests someone, somewhere actually liked the thing they were adapting (weird, I know). More importantly, there’s hope, and there’s not enough of that in modern cinema

It’s also full of actors who understood the assignment. Nicholas Galitzine continues to be so impressive that sooner or later I will remember how to spell his surname (considering in my review tags I’ve spelt his name two different ways in my time on this site, that’s easier said than done). Camila Mendes is badass, and Idris Elba does what Idris Elba always does: arrive, dominate, leave a lasting impression. Leto is a bit weak, but I think that’s down to the writing. Skeletor is a badly written character. Again, I will refer to Airplane! That movie featured an airplane (hey, that’s why it’s called that; I never made that connection before) nearly crashing because the pilots fall ill due to food poisoning. It’s a comedy, but the situation itself is serious. Can you imagine if the main conflict in that movie was about the passengers trying to find a lost shoe? It wouldn’t work. And that’s why Skeletor sucks. He’s not a threat; he’s like a meat sandwich in an office meeting: an overly hammy distraction. His character isn’t taking the situation seriously, so why would the audience? He’s too busy making stupid jokes or theatrical flourishes to be a threat, so every second he’s onscreen robs the film of any sense that it’s a story worth paying attention to.

Other than that, MOTU is a lot of fun. The music is surprisingly effective, especially when it leans into the main theme, which is deployed with a confidence that borders on triumphant. There’s even just the right amount of Queen sprinkled in: not enough to feel like a middle-aged man going through his vinyl collection, but enough to remind you that yes, this is a film that knows exactly what kind of ridiculous it is. It even handles meme culture better than expected. The “What’s Up” nod is there, acknowledged with a light touch, the kind that won’t alienate anyone who isn’t already terminally online. The same can’t be said of the Dolph Lundgren cameo, which does everything it can to tell the audience “this is a reference!”. I genuinely had no idea there was an 80’s He-Man movie (it’s possible I did, but I assumed anything I knew about it was actually about the Flash Gordon movie), but as soon as I saw that cameo, I knew there was, and I knew he was in it. It has all the subtlety of a headbutt, and is just as likely to cause brain damage.

MOTU is (at the moment) a box office bomb. That’s a shame, especially when Scary Movie is doing so well and is nowhere near as good. It’s probably failing because it hasn’t reached an audience outside of “Middle-aged men who remember the cartoon”, there’s been no attempt at crossover appeal. Plus, the fact it made a “He/Man” pronoun joke in the trailer means the internet now hates it for being “woke”. Which has led to people who spend 8 hours a day complaining about how “you can’t make jokes anymore, people are too easily offended” spending another 8 hours a day complaining about a joke in a movie trailer, and then the other 8 hours attempting and failing to learn the definition of irony (it’s when you’ve ironed your shirt enough that it’s noticeable, but not enough that you completely the job, so it’s not fully ironed). This movie deserves better. It’s one of the most joyful times I’ve spent in a cinema that hasn’t involved [redacted], [redacted], or [continue to redact. Oh my god, we’re still redacting; there’s so much here, this is diabolical]. It’s fun. It’s bright. It’s oddly sincere in a way that sneaks up on you. And in a cinema landscape increasingly allergic to joy unless it’s attached to an existing multiverse spreadsheet, that alone feels worth something.

It may not be around for long, so if you’re even slightly curious, catch it while you can. Worst-case scenario, you get a couple of hours in the dark away from the football. Plus, remember: cinemas do have air conditioning. So why not spend your time sitting in a dark, cool room being entertained.

That came out wrong.

How To Train Your Dragon (2025) Review

Synopsis: Watch the original. It’s that.

This is a difficult review to write. Not for the usual reasons, but because I’m going to find it difficult not to repeat what I said in the Lilo and Stitch review. Much like that, I am not a massive fan of the original, but I recognise it’s good. I remember more of it than I do Lilo and Stitch, though. Although I don’t remember enough of How To Train Your Dragon (HTTYD, pronounced Hit-tuh-tie-da) to recognise any differences between the two adaptations.

I remember enough to recognise the similarities, though, and there are a lot of them. There are a lot of shots which are pretty much the same as they were in the original. I get that you don’t want to mess with iconic moments, but this “just do everything exactly the same” means that the new HTTYD never feels like its own movie. It seems like it exists just for people who are fans of the original, letting them see what their favourite moments are like in live action.

So, how does it look? Honestly, it’s a mixed bag. The dragons themselves look much better. With one (chubby) exception, all the dragons look scary and like the kind of creatures you’d run away from fast. You understand why they inspire such hatred and fear, why the islanders feel they need to kill them on sight. Until it happens, there’s no indication that these things can be reasoned with, let alone tamed. Brings me to one narrative issue: everyone gets trained to ride dragons WAY too fast. They go from “wait, you can ride dragons?” to “swooping in and saving the day” without even a montage.

My other issue? It’s too dark. Not in terms of tone, I mean visuals. The night scenes for this do for your eyes what Tenet did for your ears: render them something you can’t depend on for your enjoyment of the movie. It feels like you’re watching it wearing sunglasses for some of it. The daytime scenes are fine, they look magnificent.

The performances? Mason Thomas could easily lead this franchise if they wanted to redo the sequels as live-action. Although he does remind me way too much of Matthew Baynton at times. Nico Parker is great, too, but her character is let down by some indecisive writing. Gerard Butler is the only returning performer, which makes sense, as he already resembles a Viking.

In summary, HTTYD is good, VERY good at times. But it’s also pointless. Gus Van Sant’s 1998 remake of Psycho was heavily derided for being pointless and just a shot-for-shot remake. HTTYD is the same. It’s made just to show they can, rather than any artistic need. I do love how they kept the director, although it is concerning that in the 15-year gap between the two versions, he seems to have added nothing to his repertoire in terms of shot construction and visual storytelling.

The final battle is f*cking badass though.

The Journey

I wrote this years ago as part of a script competition. Completely different genre (fantasy) from what I normally do, and the main character is a child, and they’re always hard to write, but hope you enjoy it. Some of the dialogue is a little on-the nose but I think the concept works. Of course I wrote it, so it’s super depressing and bleak at the end.