The Odyssey

⚠️ Warning: This review contains major spoilers. If you haven’t watched the film yet, I’d recommend coming back after you have. It’s a journey worth taking with fresh eyes.

There are films you watch.

And then there are films you experience.

Last night I travelled all the way from my home to Thane because the film came highly recommended by someone whose opinion on mythology I respect immensely. I couldn’t find tickets anywhere in my area or rather on this side of the city. Honestly it completely slipped my mind that the movie was releasing today. I remembered Spider-Man was because of all the trailers that kept showing up everywhere. Yet something told me I had to watch this one this weekend.

I’m glad I listened.

For someone who has studied Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, I walked in wondering what Christopher Nolan would discard, what he would compress and what he would reinvent. I walked out surprisingly satisfied. I genuinely cannot think of a single major episode from the epic that I desperately missed. That, in itself, is remarkable.

Matt Damon is magnificent. He never plays Odysseus as an untouchable hero. He gives us a man worn down by war, by pride, by guilt and by the unbearable weight of survival. His Odysseus is at once cunning, vulnerable and quietly broken.

Tom Holland, unfortunately, never quite convinced me. He isn’t bad at all, but he felt miscast. Telemachus should still carry the uncertainty of youth, someone only just becoming a man. Holland, for me, looked and felt a little too mature for the role, making that coming-of-age journey less affecting than it should have been.

Anne Hathaway’s finest moment comes when Telemachus, exhausted by two decades of uncertainty, asks his mother to stop waiting and finally choose one of the suitors. It is an impossible conversation between a son desperate to save his kingdom and a mother whose hope has become an act of defiance. Hathaway plays the scene with astonishing restraint. She is bereft, and every glance carries twenty years of longing, loneliness and unwavering faith. It is one of the finest performances in the film.

John Leguizamo’s Eumaeus was another revelation. His loyalty hurt to watch. Here is a servant who never stopped believing. Twenty years of waiting. Twenty years of tending the estate. Twenty years of caring for the hunting hounds because someone had to believe Odysseus would eventually return. He was the personification of a dog’s loyalty. 

One scene has remained with me ever since I left the cinema. Eumaeus is killing puppies that are unlikely to grow into good hunting dogs. It is harsh, but entirely in keeping with the brutal realities of the ancient world. Then Odysseus quietly intervenes and saves one of those doomed pups.

That puppy is Argos.

Which makes their reunion twenty years later almost unbearable. Argos wasn’t simply an old dog recognising his master. He was a life Odysseus himself had once saved. The loyalty had come full circle. I knew exactly what was coming, and it still broke me. Homer wrote one of literature’s greatest scenes, and Nolan honours it beautifully by giving it an even deeper emotional foundation.

The Cyclops sequence is spectacular. Polyphemus feels ancient, terrifying and utterly believable. The scale is immense without becoming cartoonish. Yet what stayed with me even more than the monster was what followed.

Odysseus cannot resist engaging in revenge. His pride—his fatal hubris—demands recognition. That single moment condemns him and every man sailing beside him. The grey area of who truly is a monster is riveting. 

By the end of the story he has learnt the hardest lesson of all: sometimes survival belongs not to the greatest hero, but to the man willing to hide his own greatness. Had he not finally buried his ego beneath the disguise of a beggar, he would never have reclaimed Ithaca. The arrogance that doomed him before ultimately gives way to humility, and that is the true victory of his journey.

That is perhaps why The Odyssey remains painfully relevant today.

It is not really about monsters.

It is about war.

About men intoxicated by vengeance.

About the destruction pride leaves behind long after the battlefield has emptied.

One of Nolan’s smartest choices is how he treats the gods.

Zendaya is unmistakably Athena, but she rarely feels like a goddess striding down from Olympus. Instead, she seems to embody Odysseus’ wisdom, conscience and instinct. She appears whenever he is in danger of losing himself, almost as though Athena exists both as a goddess and as the voice that guides him from within. That makes her the only Olympian with a sustained human presence.

The male gods, by contrast, become elemental forces. Poseidon is the sea itself. Divine anger arrives through storms, waves and nature rather than men descending from the heavens. It is an elegant way of preserving the mythology while keeping the story rooted in human experience.

Interestingly, Nolan ensures that the women of the epic retain their full presence.

Penelope.

Athena.

Circe.

Calypso.

The Sirens.

Helen.

Clytemnestra.

The women shape the narrative, while the male gods are largely transformed into the world around them.

Circe, in particular, is magnificent. Of all the women in The Odyssey, Samantha Morton’s Circe left the deepest impression on me. Despite her relatively brief screen time, she completely stole the film. Her performance is visceral, vibrant and seething with barely contained rage, yet alive with an intoxicating zest and verve. She embodies the witch with terrifying authority, commanding every frame she inhabits, while never losing sight of the loneliness and aching pathos beneath the power. It is a breathtaking balancing act that makes Circe feel both mythic and profoundly human. Perhaps the highest compliment came from Christopher Nolan and producer Emma Thomas, who revealed that Morton’s scene earned a spontaneous standing ovation from the cast and crew—“the first such reaction on a Nolan set since Heath Ledger’s performance in The Dark Knight. Watching her, it’s easy to understand why.”

Her speech exposing the true nature of men may be my favourite dialogue in the entire film.

“Turn back into your disguise as men.”

What a devastating line.

But it is everything surrounding that scene that stayed with me.

Circe has lived alone for years. Suddenly, a ship full of armed strangers lands on her island. We, the audience, know they are Odysseus’ men. She doesn’t. From her perspective, every ship could bring men who want to conquer, plunder, rape or kill. It reminded me of the conversations we still have today whenever someone says, “Not all men.” Of course “not all men”. But women like Circe have never had the luxury of knowing which men are safe until it is too late. Like all women. 

Then she strips away every heroic illusion. Men, she says in essence, all want the same things. They want to eat. They want to be fed. They want someone to keep house for them. They want sex. The transformation into swine is brilliant because it isn’t really about magic at all. It is about exposing appetites we spend our lives pretending are more sophisticated than they really are.

Ironically, that was the very first scene that came back to me when I got home after the film.

I’d made the long journey back from Thane. I walked through my front door absolutely starving. All I wanted was food and the comfort of home. I actually laughed to myself because Circe’s words echoed in my head. Strip away our ambitions, our careers, our philosophies, and perhaps she was right. Sometimes we really are just creatures longing to be fed and to find our way home.

I was less convinced by the Laestrygonians.

Turning them into towering medieval armoured giants certainly creates memorable imagery, but I missed Homer’s original vision of colossal beings hurling boulders upon the Greek fleet. Sometimes the ancient imagination is already cinematic enough.

Likewise, merging Calypso with the Lotus-Eaters is a liberty I understand, even if I didn’t entirely like it. For cinema it streamlines the narrative. For readers of Homer, however, the two represent entirely different temptations. The Lotus-Eaters offer forgetfulness. Calypso offers immortality and eternal comfort. They serve different purposes, and I missed that distinction.

The climax, thankfully, is never rushed.

Too many adaptations hurry once the hero reaches home.

Nolan does the opposite.

The rescue of Telemachus.

The reunion with Argos.

The reclaiming of the palace.

The death of the loathsome Antinous.

Every moment is allowed to breathe. Yes, Homer has Antinous as the very first suitor to die, but changing the order serves the rhythm of the film without diminishing the satisfaction of justice finally arriving.

The film also handles Agamemnon with remarkable presence.

His aura is so commanding that, for a moment, I almost mistook him for Ares—or even Achilles returned from the dead. Yet what fascinated me more was the tragedy surrounding his family. Agamemnon sacrifices his daughter for victory. His presence on the battlefield signifies complete ego. He overshadows everyone there. Anticlimactically, Clytemnestra murders him in his own home in revenge. 

Orestes then kills his own mother to avenge his father. Three thousand years later, that story still resonates because it asks who ultimately pays the price for men’s wars. More often than not, it is women.

Which is why one liberty genuinely bothered me: Helen and Clytemnestra are presented as identical. They were not. They were half-sisters.

That distinction matters. Helen’s legendary beauty was singular. It launched a thousand ships and became the spark for the greatest war of the ancient world. Making her visually identical to Clytemnestra may simplify casting, but it diminishes something essential about the mythology. Some liberties are worth taking. This wasn’t one of them.

The music deserves special praise. It is extraordinary. Not conventionally beautiful, but elemental. It feels less like a score and more like something unearthed from the Bronze Age itself. During the Sack of Troy it pounds with the relentless machinery of war. During Circe’s transformation of men into swine it abandons melody for something ritualistic and deeply unsettling. It doesn’t merely accompany the story; it feels like the pulse of myth itself.

One aspect that deserves special mention is Nolan’s decision to shoot The Odyssey entirely on analogue IMAX 70mm film, making it the first feature in history to do so. In an era dominated by pristine digital cinematography, the image possesses a warmth, softness and organic texture that feels almost otherworldly. The grain breathes, the light glows and every frame carries the tactile beauty of something physical rather than manufactured. It lends the film an ancient, timeless quality—as though we are witnessing a myth remembered rather than a story recreated. It is deeply unfortunate that only a handful of IMAX 70mm cinemas worldwide can present the film in its full 1.43:1 glory, because this is not merely a technical achievement; it is an artistic one.

I absolutely revelled in this film. Christopher Nolan has not merely adapted Homer. He has understood him. He understands that The Odyssey is not ultimately about monsters, magic or even gods.

It is about what war does to people.

About the terrible cost of pride.

About vengeance consuming generations.

About the wisdom that only suffering can teach.

Odysseus begins the story desperate to be remembered as the greatest hero alive. He ends it willing to hide his name, bury his pride and walk home as a beggar if that is what it takes to reclaim his family and his kingdom.

That is the journey.

That is why Homer’s epic has survived for nearly three thousand years.

And that is why Nolan’s film feels so profoundly relevant today.

In an age still consumed by wars, wounded egos and men who mistake pride for strength, The Odyssey reminds us that the greatest victories are not won on battlefields.

They are won over ourselves.

Democracy Cannot Survive if It Stops Listening

There are moments in the life of a nation when politics must step aside and humanity must take over.

This is one of those moments.

For more than two weeks, Sonam Wangchuk—an engineer, education reformer and one of India’s most respected public intellectuals—has been on an indefinite hunger strike at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar. His fast is in solidarity with students demanding accountability after repeated examination failures, including the NEET-UG paper leak controversy and wider concerns over the integrity of India’s examination system. Among the demands being raised are the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, comprehensive examination reforms, and accountability for failures that have affected millions of students and, according to the protest movement, contributed to immense psychological distress for many young people. (Reuters)

As I write this, reports indicate that Wangchuk has lost significant weight during his fast, prompting medical concern and even intervention from the Delhi High Court, which has directed authorities to monitor his health and act if medically necessary. Yet the larger political response remains one of silence rather than engagement. (Reuters)

Whether one agrees with his demands or not is almost beside the point.

What matters is that in a democracy, peaceful protest deserves to be heard.

Not necessarily accepted.

Not necessarily agreed with.

But heard.

This Is Bigger Than Left or Right

One of the saddest developments of our times is that every issue is immediately forced into a political box.

If you speak, you are labelled.

If you question, you are branded.

If you protest, you are presumed to belong to one camp or another.

But democracy is not meant to work that way.

You can be right-wing.

You can be left-wing.

You can be a centrist.

Or you may reject political labels altogether.

Yet if citizens undertake a peaceful democratic protest, particularly one involving a hunger strike, the government of the day has a constitutional and moral responsibility to engage with them.

Engagement is not surrender.

Dialogue is not weakness.

Listening is not defeat.

It is democracy functioning exactly as it should.

We Have Seen This Before

Many people have forgotten what happened during Anna Hazare’s anti-corruption movement.

Whether one agreed with every demand or not, the government led by Dr Manmohan Singh did not pretend the protest did not exist.

There were discussions.

There were negotiations.

There was communication.

The administration recognised that when a citizen undertakes an indefinite fast, particularly on an issue that resonates with millions, silence is not an acceptable response.

The government engaged because democratic governments are expected to engage.

Today, many observers—including political leaders from across the spectrum—have drawn attention to what they see as a stark contrast between that approach and the response to Sonam Wangchuk’s ongoing hunger strike. (The Times of India)

The comparison is not about glorifying one government or demonising another.

It is about asking whether democratic norms should remain consistent regardless of who occupies power.

Students Deserve Better

Every examination paper leak is more than an administrative failure.

It is a betrayal.

Students invest years of their lives preparing for competitive examinations.

Families sacrifice financially.

Young people postpone careers, relationships and dreams.

When examinations are compromised, it is not merely a question paper that leaks.

Faith leaks.

Trust leaks.

Hope leaks.

This is why so many young Indians have found themselves standing beside Wangchuk.

Not because they agree on every political issue.

But because they believe accountability matters. (AP News)

My Voice, Too

Today I wanted to attend the CJB protest at Azad Maidan.

Life had other plans.

There was a death in the family.

I attended a funeral instead.

Sometimes grief rearranges your priorities before you have a chance to make your own choices.

But not being physically present does not mean remaining silent.

So I am writing.

Because expression matters.

Silence helps nobody.

I Remember the Delta Wave

Perhaps this affects me more deeply because I remember another time when ordinary people screamed into the void.

During the Delta wave of COVID-19, I lost my aunt.

I nearly died.

My sister nearly died.

Hospitals were overwhelmed.

Families begged for help.

People cried out in desperation.

Many of us felt unheard.

Many of us felt invisible.

Those memories never truly leave you.

They remind you that institutions exist for people—not the other way around.

When citizens cry out, the system must listen.

If it doesn’t, it slowly loses not merely efficiency but legitimacy.

The Cost of Refusing to Listen

History teaches us that democracies are not destroyed overnight.

They weaken gradually.

One ignored protest.

One dismissed concern.

One silenced voice at a time.

The tragedy is not disagreement.

Disagreement is healthy.

The tragedy is indifference.

When governments stop responding to peaceful dissent, citizens begin to wonder whether peaceful methods still have meaning.

That is a dangerous place for any democracy to find itself.

My Hope

I am not asking everyone to agree with Sonam Wangchuk.

I am asking that we defend something even more important.

The right of peaceful protest to receive a meaningful response.

That principle should not depend upon who is protesting.

Nor should it depend upon who is in power.

Governments change.

Democracy must endure.

If we fail those who peacefully seek accountability today, tomorrow there may be nobody left willing to believe that peaceful democratic action can still make a difference.

And that would be a loss far greater than any political victory.

Democracy does not die because people disagree.

It dies when those in power stop listening.

Three Days Apart

A partner going away for three days should, on paper, seem unremarkable.

People travel for work every day. They attend conferences, visit clients, take flights, stay in hotels, and return home. It is an ordinary part of adult life.

Yet for many people, such situations do not feel ordinary at all.

Three days can seem insignificant. A long weekend. A brief work commitment. Something that should barely register in a healthy relationship.

But relationships are not built on calendars.

They are built on histories.

And personal history often teaches that distance is never just distance.

For some, early experiences of love and loss create lasting associations between separation and heartbreak. Distance becomes synonymous with loss. Separation becomes the first chapter of every ending.

As a result, daily contact can become deeply important. Even a brief meeting, a touch, a glance, or a few words may provide reassurance.

Not because of possessiveness.

Because of fear.

Fear that love might disappear in the spaces between meetings.

Fear that absence might become indifference.

Fear that someone loved might simply drift away.

When relationships are built around extraordinary consistency, daily presence can begin to feel less like a habit and more like a law of nature.

Yet relationships evolve.

Sometimes intimacy that once felt effortless begins to fade. In some cases, betrayal follows. While infidelity can be deeply painful, what often proves even more unsettling is the gradual drifting away that precedes it—the sense that something precious has been slipping away long before it is recognised.

Such moments force difficult choices.

A relationship may end.

Or it may transform into something different.

For some couples, that transformation involves opening the relationship. For others, it takes a different form. Whatever the path, major changes often reshape not only the relationship itself but also future connections and expectations.

Many people who have experienced multiple relationships discover recurring themes. A desire for shared life. A need for presence. The comfort of knowing that someone loved will return home at the end of the day.

For queer people, these challenges can be complicated by family dynamics and social realities. A partner may be welcomed into one household while the same acceptance is not possible in another. There can be limits, boundaries, and compromises that heterosexual couples rarely need to consider.

When a relationship eventually includes living together, daily companionship can feel profoundly reassuring. Shared routines replace negotiated schedules. Presence becomes woven into everyday life.

Over time, life settles into a rhythm.

And perhaps that is why a sudden work trip can feel larger than it should.

Because it is not merely three days.

It is a reminder that life is changing once again.

Modern relationships are often shaped by work. New jobs bring rotating shifts, exhaustion, ambition, opportunities, and responsibilities. Couples may still share a home while seeing less of each other than ever before.

They sleep at different times.

They wake at different times.

They pass one another in hallways like travellers changing trains.

The relationship remains, but its shape changes.

Trust can further complicate these transitions. Even relatively small breaches of honesty can leave lasting cracks.

Trust is a fragile thing.

Once damaged, even slightly, ordinary events begin to feel threatening.

A work trip becomes more than a work trip.

A delayed message becomes more than a delayed message.

Silence becomes louder than it should be.

The mind begins supplying stories where certainty is absent.

When physical intimacy has also diminished, fears that might otherwise remain quiet often find a voice.

Questions emerge.

Has desire disappeared?

Has attraction changed?

Will distance create opportunities for someone else to occupy a place that once felt secure?

The mind starts constructing endings before anything has actually ended.

There is another layer to this dynamic.

Many long-term relationships eventually adapt to periods of separation. Partners travel independently. They pursue individual interests. They spend time apart while maintaining a strong emotional bond.

The longing may remain.

The missing may remain.

But distance becomes part of the relationship’s reality.

Yet accepting distance in one relationship does not necessarily make it easier in another.

Different relationships are built on different foundations. Some are rooted in independence. Others are rooted in shared space and daily presence. The loss feels more immediate when the closeness has been more immediate.

Perhaps what many people fear most is not the trip itself.

It is the possibility that it represents a broader shift.

A future in which work becomes the organising principle of life and love must fit itself around whatever remains.

The arguments in favour of work are easy to understand.

Work matters.

Financial stability matters.

Career growth matters.

People should not be shamed for ambition.

Yet many people live according to a different philosophy.

They do not look at a larger salary and see the meaning of life.

They look elsewhere.

At shared meals.

At conversations.

At affection.

At loyalty.

At the people who make a house feel like a home.

This difference in priorities can create tension.

Not because either perspective is wrong.

But because they speak different emotional languages.

One person may feel energised by achievement and advancement.

Another may feel most fulfilled by connection and presence.

Both desires are real.

Neither cancels the other out.

The challenge is that love often asks people with different emotional priorities to build a life together.

And that can be difficult.

Perhaps three days apart will prove to be nothing at all.

Perhaps there will be longing.

Perhaps there will be relief when the journey ends.

Perhaps life will resume its familiar rhythm.

Or perhaps such moments force a confrontation with something larger.

That love cannot be measured by proximity alone.

That seeing someone every day is not a guarantee they will never drift away.

That distance is not always abandonment.

And that the heart often reacts not only to what is happening now, but to everything that has happened before.

Maybe that is what these journeys are really about.

Not the destination.

Not the work.

Not even the three days.

They reveal the choice that exists at the centre of every meaningful relationship.

Fear urges us to treat uncertainty as evidence that love is already slipping away.

Faith asks something harder.

To accept that no amount of closeness can eliminate vulnerability, and no amount of vigilance can guarantee permanence.

Love has never been the absence of risk.

Love is the decision to remain open despite it.

So when someone we love walks out the door for three days, the real question is not whether they will leave.

It is whether we will allow fear to write the story before it has been lived.

The deepest act of trust is not believing that loss is impossible.

It is believing that love is strong enough to deserve our faith until proven otherwise.

And sometimes, that faith is as simple—and as profound—as trusting that the person we love will choose, once again, to come home.