First of all, I am aware of the hype and the problems people have been anticipating with the film, from the rumors about the casting and source material Christopher Nolan might have used. These are some of my opinions about the various things I have seen brought up:

(trying not to be spoilery, but FFS, the story is 3000 years old - I'm not going to pretend it's a secret)

The props being historically inaccurate, specifically the weapons, armor and ships.
My view on the issue: Not all that important in this case. It's more myth than history. It's like Shakespeare having a clock mentioned in the dialogue of "Julius Caesar." As long as it's not too weird or visually off-putting, I'm fine with it.

Verdict: No clue. Keep an eye on Shadiversity or some other historical weapons YouTube channel for a video if they are correct or not. Basically, the Trojan War is told in flashbacks, without any direct depiction of battles, just the sufferings of the troops, and the sack of the city, so there are no poorly depicted battles. A lot of the combat happens in the dark or poorly lit rooms, so I can't really judge the choreography either. The one issue I did notice was that every time Odysseus looses an arrow, he seems to be just shooting at a low angle, as if at an animal right in front of him.

There are black people and mouthy women
My view on the issue: For black people, see above, re: mythology as opposed to historical accuracy. For mouthy women, Hollywood's gonna Hollywood.

Verdict: All we really get is one scene of Penelope all of a sudden ranting about not being taken seriously as a monarch because of her sex, but like the persecution of Robert Oppenheimer for his innocent political views in Nolan's last film, he very specifically makes a case arguing against this idea throughout the film.

There are several specifically suspect casting choices, particularly WRT minority women. Nolan is bending the knee to the woke crowd and wokifying the Odyssey
My view on the issue: Trans women are men, Lupita Nyongo is a long way from having a face that can launch a thousand ships, and can't hold a candle to Diane Kruger as well as being an overrated actress, and Zendaya plays a character with the exact same personality in every damn movie I've ever seen her in. I liked Ellen Page.

Verdict: The current iteration of Page is actually well-cast for the role of Sinon. I had some concerns that the intent of the character was going to be stolen valor, that they were casting a, shall we say, less-masculine, person in a role that would strip Odysseus of the credit for the Trojan Horse. But Sinon is in two scenes, and looks hilariously like a boy dressing up in his dad's clothes, which fits the character & role. It's fine and I'm happy Page has this opportunity, given the self-inflicted mutilations that look like future casting is going to be difficult.
Nyongo's shortcomings in the beauty department kind of work, given how her beauty is addressed in the script. BTW, the screencap that has been making the rounds, of her wearing blue and screaming, is not her playing Helen, but Clytemnestra, watching her husband carry off Iphegenia. She has a rather small role and it isn't very important. Most of her scenes are dominated by her spouse, the faceless Agamemnon in the Clytemnestra flashbacks and Jon Bernthal as Menelaus.
Zendaya doesn't so much play Athena as Odysseus' vision of Athena. We don't have her pleading his case in the hall of Olympus or guiding Nausica (a causalty of adaptation) or Telemachus in aid of Odysseus, just appearing to Odysseus for some theological debates. Why, exactly, she looks more like a girl with resting cry-face than a warrior goddess actually has a functional diegetic answer. Basically, Odysseus isn't much a god-worshipper, possessing sensibilities that are relatable to a Hollywood screenwriter rather than a Homeric hero, much like Achilles in "Troy" and so when he envisions Athena, as the voice of one side of his personal mental conflicts, he sees her as a person he encountered in his past (in a flashback near the end of the movie). He is not devoted to Athena, because she is also a goddess of wisdom and Odysseus is one of the smartest characters in Greek mythology, it's more than she represents positive ideals to him. So Zendaya is acceptable for the role.
The rapper was perfectly adequate as the bard. He recited a handful of lines, in two different scenes. That's all.

As for Nolan going woke, I have no idea what the man's politics are. Maybe he is willingly going woke. Maybe he is just making a cursory genuflection to diversity to get the critical acclaim and award-eligibility. Maybe he's actually being subversive regarding wokeness. For one thing, he makes a change to the suitors plotline, in a way that's very amusing, in light of certain racial tropes. The Odyssey does not constitute much proof of which of those directions he is taking, and advocates of all three can find circumstantial evidence.

It's not The Woke Odyssey, it's Nolan's Odyssey. It's about a hero agonizing over his past sins or tragedies and grappling over redemption/salvation with a surprise goal of leaving everything behind to run off with Anne Hathaway. And Matt Damon gets stranded somewhere, E. Page helps the hero with his scheme but isn't necessary to the plot, and there's an Indian guy with a beard on his team.

This version character-assassinates Odysseus
My view on the issue: Odysseus is one of my favorite mythological protagonists, with a lot less to apologize for than most. His voyage home was the result of being caught between dumbass minions and resentful gods, and he survived to make it home by being smarter or more tenacious than anyone else (also Athena's patronage, but see above wrt the goddess of wisdom & craftsmanship, whose favor those traits would earn). I am not going to be forgiving of violations in this regard.

Verdict: Flawed adaptation, not through malice or ideology, IMO, but due to Nolan imposing his own narrative on the story. Odysseus is superficially similar to a typical Nolan hero, being smart, flawed and among the best at what he does, and whose unorthodox approach to problems might draw a side-eye from his team. I can imagine that's what drew Nolan to this work. But Odysseus is a king, and he is on a mission and his sins are generally in the eyes of later ages, not the morality of his own time, so all the whining and whatnot of a Nolan hero are not in him.
In this version, the journey Odysseus endures is not his clash against the gods, where he comes out on top, it's a penitential ordeal in atonement for his sins in the Trojan War.
So, while I am not thrilled with the shape of the adaptation, I don't think it's ideological on Nolan's part, or out of any attempt to "fix" the epic. For my money, if that was the problem, given Nolan's flaws as a writer, I think he'd accidentally undermine his own message, much as he did the case in defense of Oppenheimer in the eponymous film.

That dialogue is very modern-sounding. Why are they saying "Dad" and "Daddy" in the Mycenaean era?
My view on the issue: As above, I don't necessarily have a problem with them going a little modern, especially if they don't have the skill to do properly epic or fantastic dialogue (see, for example, Amazon's Rings of Power). I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this issue.

Verdict: Not this time. In fact, this was a really bad movie to do it in. The major theme and moral of the work is very much an ancient times issue that does not jibe with modern society at all, and making the diction and vernacular modern does not support those themes at all.

It's interesting to me, when thinking about this film in my first reaction, that the comparison that sprung up was to the early, "good" seasons of "Game of Thrones" - an entertaining motion picture, possibly competently made (I'm just not into things like cinematography and pacing and visuals and lighting and whatnot - I might or might not like it, but I probably won't be able to tell you why), but a huge swing and miss when judged as an adaptation of the work on-page. And I realized that one of the strong themes in both works is the concept of hospitality, I think the Greeks called it xenia. It's a big deal in A Song of Ice and Fire, and the TV show very obviously did not understand it, or the significance, despite going so far as to invent a ritual of partaking of food & drink to signify that bond. In aSoI&F, the characters believe that violating the bonds between host and guest is one of the greatest transgressions in the eyes of the gods, and those who do so, will face punishment for it in their lives. The narrative itself is ambiguous about the role of the gods in punishing violations of xenia, but the sinners definitely suffer. And the idea behind this is that this rule is one of the things that binds society together, and allows people to deal fairly with each other, and restrains all-out violence. The transgressions break this aspect of society and lead to a general collapse of civility and amity, because no one can really be trusted, now that certain guarantees of safety can no longer be taken for granted.

And that's the underlying idea in Nolan's Odyssey. That breaking guest-right and abusing social trust undermines civilization and places it in peril. A recurring element in the story is references to the (possibly) historic Sea People, hovering over the Achaean civilization, which is about to enter its historical collapse. It would seem in this version, the Sea People invaded and brought down the Mycenaean civilization in the near future of the characters of this story, and Odysseus sees this as a punishment for the sins of the Achaeans in sacking Troy. Interestingly, this version has one of the more plausible depictions of the Trojan horse and explanations of just why it worked, I have seen in popular fiction. The ostensible reason why the Greeks built it, was as an offering to Athena, and a gesture of peace before sailing off. Although some Trojans looked askance, the prevailing view was that the Horse should be treated with respect, representing the common religion of the two sides. It was brought into the temple of Athena inside the walls of Troy, rendering the employment of it as a tactic of infiltration into a violation of that trust and goodwill.

The problem is making this clear to a modern audience. Many fans of aSoI&F, and most of the viewers of GoT, completely missed this concept, and only see the Red Wedding as either a moment of epic stupidity and misplaced trust or reliance of others' honor on the part of the victims, or a masterstroke of tactical brilliance on the part of the perpetrators. The dialogue discussing the event is altered in the screen adaptation to support these perspectives. The primary preternatural consequence of the Red Wedding is elided altogether, and most of the human acts of revenge as well. The Odyssey film understands the issue as well as GRRM did, but the contemporary vernacular creeping into the film undermines the depiction, IMO. Hearing people toss around the phrase "hospitality of Zeus" in modern diction or cadence, in juxtaposition with modern terminology, just makes the concept of xenia seem silly or outdated. Likewise with the reframing of Odysseus' religious perspective as a metaphor for an internal debate, and thus in essence, a kind of de facto agnosticism.

Like with Game of Thrones, the mix-and-match of source material and changes in service to an updated story don't really work together well. What's especially baffling with this ambiguous approach to the divine aspects of the story, is the choices of mythological elements and which adventures to be adapted. The Cicones are omitted, as is Odysseus's final stop in Phaeacia, the kingdom ruled by Nausicaa's parents. They also don't see Aeolus, much less get a bag of wind that knocks them back to the last save point, but they do encounter Polyphemus, the Laestrygonians, the Sirens, Circe and Scylla & Charybidis. They go to the underworld and speak with Teresias and Agamemnon. They have the holy cattle, but with no gods in the movie, their subsequent shipwreck is ambiguous. It could have been divine punishment, or just bad luck with the weather. But why bother with the ambiguity, if you're going to have a giant cyclops, and a witch who turns men into pigs, and a giant cliff monster plucking men off the deck of the ship? They also made the Laestrygonians entirely mythic, when that would have been one of the easiest encounters to render as a non-mythical event that would be exaggerated into a tale of fighting giants. There was no discussion or interaction, just giants in full plate armor tromping up and slaughtering the men, and hacking up the ship, rather than hucking rocks at the fleet. Polyphemus' sheep were inexplicably normal size, meaning the ruse by which they sneak past the blinded monster is less plausible, and the most famous aspect of the incident, Odysseus using the alias "Noman" preventing Polyphemus from obtaining aid, with completely omitted. Rather than a parting boast that allows the cyclops to name his tormentor when invoking his divine father's wrath on the perpetrator, Odysseus provokes it to pursue the escaped crew with a Parthian shot. It more or less fits with the characterization of Odysseus, but its part of a pattern of bewildering ambivalence in the approach to the mythology.

Overall, the movie is not "bad" on its own rights, at least not on first reaction, but I am not sure it would stand up to a deep dive or systematic examination of the script, and people better informed than I about the source material would probably have even more serious issues with the adaptational choices. As I understand it, Emily Wilson, a translator of the poem whose own work has been heavily criticized for its ideological distortion of the story, and was rumored to have been an inspiration for the screenplay, has repudiated the film and criticized its handling of the mythology. When your modern adaptation pisses off a feminist extremist on grounds of fidelity to the source material, you've really gone off the rails.

Also, it can be really hard to see with the dim, atmospheric lighting and the music and shouting can sometimes combine to make it hard to hear what was just said.

I'm not going to tell anyone not to see it, but book nerds might have a lot of problems with it.