It is not easy, or appropriate to provide a too brief answer, but..
i. I have just finished a 10,000 word introductory paper on Eutyches and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. He was condemned at Constantinople 448 by Flavian ONLY because he refused to condemn those who spoke of one nature after the union - as of course St Cyril does. He refused to do so unless the bishops of Rome and Alexandria instructed him to because he said he would be condemning the Fathers.
ii. At Chalcedon the issue was again whether or not 'of two natures' and 'one nature' was the Orthodox terminology, or 'in two natures'.
iii. The Acts clearly show that at Ephesus 449 Eutyches, and then his monks, were only received into communion on the basis of their accepting the faith of Nicaea and Ephesus I. Eutyches himself rejected any idea that the flesh of our Lord was heavenly, and the record of Constantinople 448, even though they had been edited by Flavian's office, still show clearly that Eutyches did confess that Christ was consubstantial with his Father, and with us.
iv. When Dioscorus confessed that he believed that Christ was 'of two natures' - an entirely Cyrilline concept - he was shouted down and the Roman legates insisted that the council choose between Dioscorus' (and Cyril's) 'of two natures', and Leo's (and also Nestorius', Theodore and Theodoret's) 'in two natures'.
v. The council did not receive St Cyril's Third Letter with the Anathemas.
vi. When the draft Definition was produced which contained St Cyril's 'of two natures' it was rejected by the Romans who insisted that a version be produced which had Leo's (and also Nestorius', Theodore and Theodoret's) 'in two natures'.
vii. St Cyril is excluded from Chalcedon because his terminology is rejected - Flavian had already condemned Eutyches for using St Cyril's 'one nature' terminology, and this together with St Cyril's 'of two natures' is not only not used, but is rejected as supposedly heretical.
viii. When the letter of Ibas was read out to the council it said, among other things, 'Cyril, however, while aiming to refute the affirmations of Nestorius, has been found to fall into the Dogma of Appollinarius, seeing that he himself has written in a similar way, (affirming) that "God, the Word, became Man," so that there could (in that case) be no distinction between The "Temple and Him Who dwells in it." For, he has written Twelve Chapters, as also, I think, your Piety knows, in which (he says)
"there is One Nature constituting the Divinity and the Humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ," ... But, how impious such statements are, your Piety will, even before we can declare it, have been quite persuaded.'
Yet after hearing this condemnation of the teaching of St Cyril, and of his Twelve Chapters, the council says, 'We have heard the letter of Ibas and it is Orthodox'. If the letter of Ibas is acceptable to Chalcedon then the Christology it is endorsing is not that of St Cyril, and the Christological statements it does make must be understood in the light of Ibas' letter.
Ibas also says in this same letter, 'Blessed Theodore, that preacher of the Truth, that Doctor of the Church', yet this is also encompassed in the same judgement at Chalcedon, 'we have read the letter and it is Orthodox'.
ix. I have confused you in my reference to the Three Chapters. The Three Chapters were the three judgements issued by Justinian long before Constantinople 553 and which he then insisted the Church accept. To accept the Three Chapters first meant to accept the condemnation of the persons and texts refered to in these three chapters. It was only later that the three chapters became confused with the persons and texts themselves, and so the condemnation of the three chapters came to mean the condemnation of the person of Theodore, and the writings of Ibas and Theodoret against Cyril. Of course there was a problem in that the letter of Ibas, which Constantinople 553 described as blasphemous had been accepted as Orthodox at Chalcedon.
The Western and North African Churches refused to condemn Theodore, Ibas and Theodoret. Vigilius endured several years of harsh imprisonment before, as an elderly and frail man he was forced to sign their condemnation. Others, such as Facundius, the metropolitan of North Africa, wrote lengthy works showing that Chalcedon had established the Christology of Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas as the measure of Orthodoxy, and that to reject them was to reject Chalcedon. Pelagius, a priest of Rome, also wrote against condemning Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas, and shared the imprisonment of Vigilius, but he was offered the papacy if he was willing to sign, and this he eventually did. When he returned to Rome to be consecrated bishop only two bishops could be found who would have anything to do with him. Indeed parts of the Western Church remained in schism over this issue until 700 AD.
St Columbanus, one of my favourite Western saints, wrote to the Pope and said that he had wished that Vigilius had been vigilant and had not rejected Chalcedon by signing the Three Chapters.
Clearly a large proportion of the Chalcedonian community believed that Chalcedon had established the Christology of Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas. No community should be judged by the excesses of the most extreme, but it is interesting that in Syria, where the teachings of Theodore remained popular - Ibas was translating his works in Edessa at the time of Chalcedon - some Chalcedonian monks celebrated Nestorius as a martyr and kept his feast day.
x. If the issues caused by Chalcedon were fixed at Constantinople 553, and I do believe that most of them were, then are you able to agree that Chalcedon was flawed?
This is all important because though I am able to believe that it is entirely possible for the Chalcedonian Definition to be understood in an Orthodox manner through the lense of Constantinople 553, nevertheless as an historical event I am not able to accept Chalcedon as an ecumenical council because I do not believe that in its context, rather than simply as a contextless text, it is able to be authoritative. I am not sure that the spectre of Theodore has finally and completely been put to death within Chalcedonianism because despite Constaninople 553 I have to consider that Chalcedon was at least sympathetic to the Theodorean Christology, as later history shows to be true.
As to Origen. Within Coptic Orthodoxy he was condemned by Patriarch Theophilus. I know quite a few EO and OO people who are interested in his writings, and of course they are not all equally speculative, or liable to criticism. If you are wondering whether the OO non-acceptance of Constantinople 553 affects our view of Origen then I'd have to say that within Coptic Orthodoxy at least, he has been under a cloud since the end of the 4th century, 150 years before Constantiople 553. And of course Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas had also been condemned at Ephesus 449, 100 years before the Chalcedonians condemned Theodore and certain writings of Theodoret and Ibas.
I do not wish to be polemical at all. I hate polemics. But I think it is necessary to show why there are problems with the Tome of Leo and Chalcedon, and none of the problems are to do with a wish to diminish the humanity of Christ, they are all to do with the consideration on the part of our Fathers that Chalcedon was a Nestorianising council. Personally, I grow increasingly disturbed at the damaging influence of emperors on the Church, as they tended to view the Church as a department of their own state, and therefore subject to their own will. Chalcedon and Constantinople 553 seem to show this clearly. Vigilius was essentially locked up for years until he signed the three chapters which the emperor had already issued 10 years before.