this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2025
18 points (100.0% liked)

movies

148 readers
123 users here now

A community about movies and cinema.

founded 1 day ago
 

Odd Thomas (2013) is certainly an odd movie, and it never lets you forget that.

It’s a film adaptation of Dean Koontz’s novel, also called Odd Thomas, which is part of an eight-book series—an entire literary universe. The story follows a clairvoyant who can communicate with the dead and solves crimes in the process. Specifically, he speaks to the dead to uncover crimes committed by the living.

Typically, films targeting this kind of subject matter lean into a dark, brooding antihero. But what I found refreshing about Odd Thomas is that the main character is a sunny, optimistic guy who loves his town and his girlfriend.

Anton Yelchin, the late actor, plays Odd Thomas, and it’s clear in this role just how much potential he had. He oozes charm and likability. Willem Dafoe, as the town’s local police chief, provides both humor and gravity. I also have to give credit to the love interest, played by Ashley Summers, who sees past Odd Thomas’s oddities and recognizes him as a man with a heart of gold.

What fascinates me about this movie are two things. First, it had a $27 million budget but was a complete dud at the box office, earning only $1.3 million. I remember when the movie came out, I was completely unaware of it. There were no trailers, no advertisements—I don’t even think I saw it in theaters. Apparently, the film faced a lot of legal trouble and delays, but it found an appreciative audience once it hit Blu-ray and streaming services.

The second notable thing is how polarizing the film is. Critics didn’t like it; it has a 37% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which means it’s deemed “rotten” there. However, on IMDb, it has a 6.8/10, and on Letterboxd, it’s rated 3.1/5. There’s a broad disagreement between critics and the audience. Why the discrepancy? I think critics were expecting something scary and ominous, but fans of the Odd Thomas books know that this isn't supposed to be horror. It’s a light, sunny movie with dark undertones. What’s interesting is that critics who are familiar with the books agree with the audience—they understand the tone and feel of the story. Unfortunately, many critics approached it with preconceived ideas about what the film should be, rather than letting it exist on its own terms.

That’s a shame because the world of Odd Thomas is fantastic. It’s a unique, enjoyable, and fun exercise in world-building. The ghosts and supernatural elements can be creepy, but it’s Odd Thomas’s understanding of this world and his humor that makes it a fun romp. Anton Yelchin sells it perfectly.

The real tragedy of this movie is that it bombed at the box office, meaning we won’t get adaptations of the next seven books. Even if Odd Thomas had been a success, we likely wouldn’t have seen the rest of the series, because Anton Yelchin, who essentially made the film work, tragically passed away in 2016. That’s too bad because Odd Thomas was an original idea, and in a world dominated by remakes and superhero franchises, it could have been a great supernatural franchise, much like Harry Potter. If you love Harry Potter, you’d probably love Odd Thomas.

One good thing that came from watching Odd Thomas is that I now want to read Dean Koontz’s books. I’ve never read one before, but after seeing this movie, I’m interested in checking out the Odd Thomas series. The whole series is available on Amazon for about $90, and I’m seriously considering picking it up.

Do I recommend this movie? Absolutely. It’s fun and could be something you share with older children (over 10 years old) or teens. It would also make a wonderful date movie. Check out Odd Thomas—it’s fantastic.

https://youtu.be/UbHQ/_Rk-T1Q

@movies

top 1 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

The books were and are one of my favorite series, of any genre. And the last book is tied with the final discworld book as the best ending of a series, ever.

I liked the movie, and I agree that Yelchin did amazing in it. And they did a great job of bringing the story to life.

I'm just not certain a movie is the right format for Odd. Part of what makes the character and the books great is the feel of them, the way it evokes imagery, and when that imagery is already there, all you have is dialogue, and much of what goes on in the books is narrated, not dialogue.

So, how do you bridge that and make it into something under two hours? The audiobook version runs more than twice that, so even cutting out visual descriptions that are no longer necessary, you just can't cram in the right pace and feel.

It could maybe be a series, assuming you could get it filmed quick enough that the actors don't age out of being realistic.

I think that's why the movie didn't fly. If you're a critic, and you're not already familiar with the books, all the stuff that's not in there makes what's on the screen janky. There's too much missing.

My wife ran into that. I was enjoying the movie, even with the changes made to make a movie happen (like one of the more important ghosts not being part of it), but she was lost as hell. She said it seemed like half a movie, and I agree, even though I enjoyed it.

That being said, it wasn't a bad translation of the book. They stayed as true as they could while keeping it at that length, with the limitations of the real world with legalities placed on it. It was no fight club, but it wasn't queen of the damned either.