Emily Wilson is the only one of the four great Odyssey translators still alive (Chapman, Fitzgerald, and Fagles being the other three), and she has a lot of thoughts on Nolan's movie.

The entire piece is entertaining and well-worth reading, but the tl;dr is that it's an entertaining movie (her teens loved it) that doesn't serve the source material well.

She's not insisting on utter faithfulness:

Adaptations needn’t and shouldn’t follow the original with anything like the exactitude of a translation. Some of the best radically transform or resist the source material, providing what Harold Bloom called ‘strong misreadings’ of their ancestors. The most memorable creative responses to The Odyssey – such as Euripides’ Helen, Virgil’s Aeneid, Milton’s Paradise Lost, Joyce’s Ulysses, Walcott’s Omeros, Atwood’s Penelopiad, Madeline Miller’s Circe or Lisa Peterson’s play set in a modern migrant camp – reconsider the poem’s structure, narrative and values.

But in the end, this definitely did not strike her as a "strong misreading."

As they say at the awards shows, I was humbled to learn that Nolan has read at least the first line of my translation of The Odyssey into iambic pentameter. In at least one interview, he cited my version of the first line of the poem: ‘Tell me about a complicated man.’ But I would be ashamed to have written any part of this script. Sadly, Damon’s Odysseus isn’t complicated or wily or artful. One of Odysseus’ funniest (and most famous) tricks in Homer is to tell Polyphemus that his name is ‘No Man’. When the blinded giant screams for help from his neighbours, the other Cyclopes are reassured to learn that ‘No Man’ is hurting him. In the movie Odysseus doesn’t have to outwit Polyphemus because the Cyclops is a puppet who has no wits. Nolan’s grunting one-eyed giant is referred to as ‘it’, barely speaks, doesn’t get drunk and has neither neighbours nor a favourite sheep.

Later:

Nolan’s Odyssey lacks many of the elements that make the poem great. It has nothing convincing to say about time, memory, history, war, or about the relationship between one warrior’s glorious return and the lives of his family, adversaries, comrades, friends and neighbours. It lacks psychological, emotional, political and ethical depth. Its narrative structure is gimmicky. The writing is abysmal. None of the characters has convincing motivation for their actions or words. There are no sex scenes, and all the food looks horrible.

This isn't going to stop me from seeing the movie, of course, and honestly, it's about what I expected (though I'm disappointed at the Cyclops bit, since that's such a core and well-remembered moment in the story; it'd be like Hamlet without "Alas, poor Yorick").

Entire piece is entertaining and well worth the read, whatever your take on the film (or lack thereof, if, like me, you haven't made it to the theatre yet).