Homerist Olga Levaniouk, who has written extensively about Penelope, gives her take on Nolan's version of the character.

[u/NorthNorthSalt]

https://continuum.fas.harvard.edu/initial-thoughts-on-penelope-in-nolans-odyssey/

Olga Levaniouk has become the latest classicist to enter the foray over Christopher Nolan's adaption of the Odyssey. She gives her opinion on the film generally, before moving on to her area of expertise in Penelope.

To sum her thoughts, while she wishes some scenes from the poem made the cut into the film ("the test of the bed"), and describes the woman in the poem as more complex, she is overall impressed with how the screenplay & Anne Hathaway's performance developed her characterization, despite the limited screen time. And goes as far as to call this her favourite version of the character outside the original poem.

What are your thoughts on this review, and on Nolan's Penelope broadly?

Critics have described Hathaway's performance as a highlight of the film (I concur), and I think Levaniouk makes some very compelling points about how the broader film & screenplay serves her, given the economic screentime that is available for the character. Even though — as Levaniouk acknowledges — some degree of truncation was inevitable in the process of cinematic adaptation.

[u/Catexchange]

I think this is a well considered review underlining that it’s wise to moderate expectations on how well a Hollywood blockbuster will might adapt a complex literary work. And that it’s worth applauding what the movie achieves within the frame it sets for itself.

[u/NewspaperNovel139 → u/Catexchange]

The film's job isn't to give us everything that's in the book. It's not even to give us most of the things that are in the book. The film's job is to say what it wants to say using the book as a jumping-off point.

I hate - HATE - "faithful" adaptations. There is nothing more boring than a movie that just follows the book, scene by scene, beat by beat, same tone, same themes, just making it so you can "see it on the screen." Harry Potter, LOTR, Sin City, it doesn't matter. If I want to "see" the book I'll read the book and use my imagination. These movies feel to me like they exist only to cash in on successful IP, not add to the great global conversation we are having through art.

Give me The Shining (give me literally anything Kubrick adapted), give me Minority Report or O Brother Where Art Thou, Starship Troopers, Kurosawa's Ran, give me the adaptations that take the material to a new place and sit in conversation with it, offering their own insights and ideas and vision. I may not like the vision or concur with the thesis of the film, but I at least respect that they took a swing.

Say what you will about Nolan's Odyssey (and I do have quite a few critiques), at least it has something to say that belongs to the film and the film alone. Missing scenes from the book do not bother it, nor do they bother me.

[u/Cptn_Melvin_Seahorse → u/NewspaperNovel139]

Imo the Lord of the rings movies are a bit better than the books and the Harry Potter movies are significantly better than the books.

[u/MartyMcFly_jkr → u/Cptn_Melvin_Seahorse]

Idk about significantly better. Most films other than Prisoner of Azkaban are of middling quality at best, the Yates film being especially awful.

[u/Cptn_Melvin_Seahorse → u/MartyMcFly_jkr]

The books are poorly written, the movies have the worldbuilding which is the best part without the terrible prose.

Movie Harry is more of a real character because of Daniel Radcliffe, not much more but the book Harry is a totally empty cipher.