Honestly, I like her translations fine, so I'm apt to believe whatever she tells me.

- No text -

It’s also true that her initial remarks were more favorable, broadly speaking. This Guardian piece is much more negative.

I for one thought the movie was spectacular. Condensing a twenty year epic into a 3 hour movie is going to leave stuff on the floor; but to complain about lack of sex and food? Though to be honest, I wasn't planning on reading Emily's translation before and with that quip I certainly am not about to now. But I will soon be re-reading a 20th century translation. Somethings I clearly misremembered from forty years ago.

I put this movie as Nolan's second best behind Interstellar. That's really high praise for me as I love his movies.

Personally, I thought Nolan was going for different targets: the power of myth in a pre-technological age, the value of a light in the darkness, the capriciousness of the gods, and paying for one’s sins even when committed in the service of duty.

Her criticisms are about as valid as those from the right before they even saw the movie.

Bizarre Janus-face to the derangement coming in the other direction.

EDIT: She can't possibly be that ignorant not to know what the source material for the ending was, if she wasn't too busy making LOTR quips.

For all of the lucid, expert opinion and worthy critiques on offer here--and there are more than a few--Wilson's main thesis amounts to "the poem is better." Fair enough; also, no shit, Dr. Wilson.

IMHO, "the book is better" criticism is certainly tempting--I'm guilty of it myself, sometimes right in this forum--but harping so much on details changed or scenes omitted is both tedious and beside the point of adaptation. It's one reason why literary specialists make lousy film critics. (Would anyone like to hear my complaints about John Huston's muddled presentation of Irish nationalist politics in his adaptation of The Dead? Yeah, I didn't think so...)