In brief
Sir Christopher Nolan’s latest epic, The Odyssey, roars at the box office while receiving glowing reviews from mainstream critics. Yet, Emily Wilson, who translated Homer’s original, delivers a scathing critique in the London Review of Books, accusing the film of gimmickry and superficial storytelling. She points out the absence of convincing motivation behind characters, poor food depiction, and a noted lack of psychological and ethical depth. Despite this, Wilson acknowledges the film’s role in sparking renewed interest in classical literature and praises it for bringing audiences back to theatres.
Sir Christopher Nolan’s latest film, The Odyssey, has turned heads with blockbuster sales and rapturous accolades from film critics.
However, it has not been without its detractors. Emily Wilson, the academic who translated a 2017 version of Homer's Odyssey that Nolan cited as an influence, has published a harsh review in the London Review of Books.
Wilson demands that the movie “would be ashamed” to have been produced, calling its narrative gimmicky and its writing abysmal. She observes that none of the characters display convincing motivation and points out that the film lacks sex scenes, good food, and emotional depth.
Despite the damning critique, Wilson credits Nolan with revitalising public interest in Homer’s classic and applauds how the epic has increased sales of translations of the poem. She also acknowledges that the film has drawn families to cinemas, comparing it to a colourful fireworks display yet admitting it falls short on psychological and political revelation.
Nolan’s own press statements revealed that he used Wilson’s opening translation line—“Tell me about a complicated man”—to shape his portrayal of Odysseus, played by Matt Damon. Yet, for Wilson, the movie’s grandiosity and superficial layering left her disappointed, describing it as half‑promised in its big ideas but effective at large visual spectacle.
Meanwhile, the flurry of positive reviews—from The Telegraph naming the film a “film of the year”, to Metro predicting a cinematic revolution, and the Times lauding it as a masterpiece—stands in stark contrast to Wilson’s scathing assessment.
