A review in The Guardian has dismissed a short, AI-generated take on Homer released under Elon Musk’s auspices as a bland and inconsequential rejoinder to Christopher Nolan’s celebrated film The Odyssey. The seven-minute clip, produced by Musk’s Grok AI, arrived after a public spat in which Musk criticised Nolan’s casting decisions without having seen the film.
Background
Nolan’s film won wide critical praise and strong box-office returns, but prompted an online reaction from Musk, who complained about what he characterised as "wokery" in the casting of Elliot Page as Sinon and Lupita Nyong'o as Helen of Troy. He subsequently declared he could produce a more authentic version of the story using Grok AI, and later released the short episode that purported to demonstrate that claim.
What the clip shows
The short opens on a sequence in which Odysseus is said to be feigning madness off-screen to avoid going to the Trojan War. In the episode, Palamedes and Agamemnon put Odysseus’s infant son Telemachus in the path of a plough to test the ruse; Odysseus immediately intervenes to save the child, thereby revealing he is not mad. Reviewers noted the scene relies on a familiar mythic motif but did not find the AI rendition compelling.
The Guardian’s assessment
The review called Grok AI’s interpretation "meaningless" and compared it unfavourably to Nolan’s epic, describing the AI output as more akin to a screensaver than a substantive piece of storytelling. The critic also observed that the clip’s release came long after public attention had moved on from the controversy, and suggested Musk showed little inclination to concede the broader debate over the film.
Broader reactions
Critics framed the episode as an odd, petulant gesture from a high-profile tech figure rather than a serious artistic intervention. The release has prompted commentary about the limits of AI-driven creative rewrites and about prominent individuals attempting to insert themselves into cultural conversations by commissioning automated content, though the reviewer primarily focused on the short’s artistic shortcomings rather than wider industry implications.