This review is late because I had to see the movie twice to figure out my review. I saw it in the “true format” (according to the director and others) – 70mm IMAX – and then I saw it again in Dolby Cinema (before “Spider-Man Brand New Day took over all the Dolby Cinema screens). I was thinking about seeing it a 3rd time in 70mm film, but I decided that was overkill. I liked the movie, but I didn’t like it enough to see it 3 times.
Yes, I liked the movie but not for the same reasons as other people liked the movie. I’ve read so many reviews about how “epic” the movie is. In my opinion, it’s not. It seems like – according to some people – a movie can’t be “epic” if it isn’t filmed in 70mm IMAX. So, I watched the movie in 70mm IMAX (although the presentation wasn’t great – see my other post) and then I watched it again in Dolby Cinema 1.85. I picked that aspect ratio because it’s the closest to 70mm IMAX aspect ratio.
Several people have posted something like the above. 70mm IMAX is 1.43 to 1 which means for every 1 tall it’s 1.43 wide (if it’s 100 ft tall its 143 ft wide). 1.85 for Dolby Vision you lose 42 from the top and the bottom (the width stays the same so 42 is cropped off the top and/or bottom of the picture). 1.90 for digital IMAX you lose a little bit more. 2.2 for 70mm you lose a lot more. Cinemascope 2.39 you almost lose 50% of the picture’s height.
After watching it in the 2 versions I will admit that there are a few scenes where the full height of the picture is better. However, there is A LOT of scenes where the full height of the picture is pointless. For almost every close-up of a person’s face there is some space at the top and bottom of the picture that could be easily cropped out. Plus, filming in 70mm IMAX – I’m told they had to create a special camera for it – has some disadvantages. There are some scenes where two or more people are walking and talking. The IMAX camera apparently doesn’t have a Steadicam, so the pan is bumpy. Sometimes the focus shifts back and forth depending on who is talking.
Another problem with the 70mm IMAX cameras is that – according to what I read – you can’t film for more than 3 minutes. Those long tracking shots you may know from Spielberg or Scorsese movies or those long shots in movies like “Lawrence of Arabia”. You won’t find any shots like that in this movie. Even in the battle scenes there are a lot of quick cuts.
Overall, I preferred the Dolby Cinema version I saw. You will miss a few shots that look better in full screen but there’s a ton of shots in Dolby Cinema with more color and more contrast, so they look a lot better. In fact, there’s at least one shot that you can tell was shot on a soundstage when watching it in Dolby Cinema.
In order for a movie to be truly “epic”, I think it takes a lot more than just cinematography. Heath Ledger was incredible in “The Dark Knight” – another Christopher Nolan movie – but there is no comparable role in this movie. There is no one in this movie that stands out. In fact, it sort of seems like they were more interested in casting some of the most popular actors and actresses working in movies right now. At least 3 of the cast – Tom Holland, Zendaya, Jon Bernthal – are also in the blockbuster “Spider-Man Brand New Day”. There’s also popular actors Matt Damon, Anne Hathaway, Charlize Theron, Robert Pattinson, Elliot Page, and not so known actors like rapper Travis Scott. Most of them have dramatic monologues but none of them are notable.
Another problem I have is with the sound of this movie. The sound plays an important part in at least one scene of the movie, but unfortunately, they only have a 6 channel (or 5.1 mix for Dolby Cinema). That scene isn’t as dramatic as it could have been in surround sound or Dolby Atmos. Plus, the music is basically the only audio playing in the surround speakers. Sometimes I couldn’t hear the dialogue because the music was drowning it out. The Dolby Cinema theater had a bunch of subwoofers in it which occasionally made the chairs shake but that was more distracting than helpful. “Lawrence of Arabia” in 1962 came out with 6 audio tracks for the 70mm version. Over 60 years later, sound in movie theaters have come a long way but not according to this movie.
I don’t remember ever reading the original poems written by Homer so I can’t comment about the way they translated the story for this movie – some people have commented about the changes and what has been left out of the movie – but the story in this movie is still very strong despite the problems with translation. One of the problems is that a lot of dialogue is modern day sayings that I don’t think people would have said back then. Another problem are some plot holes. For example, they say that some soldiers hiding in the giant horse drowned when the tide came in, but when they move the horse the urine and excrement that they say the horse is filled with doesn’t come out of it. Water can come into the horse but doesn’t come out?
Overall, I would disagree that this movie is “epic”, but I will agree that it’s a good movie. I compare it to other movie translations of famous source material such as “Romeo and Juliet” (1996) directed by Baz Luhrmann and starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes (John Leguizamo stars in that movie and this movie). That movie wasn’t faithful to the original “Romeo and Juliet”, but it was a good movie. I can’t say how faithful this movie is to the original poems (or books – I’m not sure) but it’s a good movie. Good enough to see twice but not 3 times.
Overall – 7 out of 10.
LOS ANGELES FILM REVIEW 