Semantic search
The Odyssey 2026
I mean, it's Nolan. It's a great movie. He knows how to make movies. So the three hours pass like a breeze and are enjoyable. The cast is great, I particularly enjoyed Matt Damon, Robert Pattinson and Samantha Morton as Circe.
Agamemnon was absolutely breathtaking. He stole every scene he was in. (Until he started talking. I didn't like his voice. But those looks!)
The first half hour or so of the movie felt like an extended trailer. Which is very Nolan, but surprising and a little unsettling given the familiar setting and story. It gets more settled and classical later on.
I really disliked the body horror scenes around Circe. And the design of the monsters was... unsatisfying. Polyphem? Ok. Unusual and new. But then Scylla with the same beige color and skin-like texture? It looked like Ray Harryhausen. Which was fine in his time, but underwhelming in a 2026 AAA title. But it did give me a genuine jump scare.
I found the whole movie lacking color saturation. I have to compare it to 2004 Troy, which I find much more appealing as a Greek mythology saga movie. The Odyssey is a 2026 movie, binding it to our time in subtle ways, on the expense of the timelessness that Troy has.
(Spoilers in this paragraph) But what I really enjoyed was the novel twist to the plot, that I haven't seen before. That it was Odysseus who broke the old contract that was keeping society together. That this was the reason for the long way home. In a way this was the same core plot point as Oppenheimer. And possibly an important lesson for our age. That gave food for thought. But almost like a memory of the thoughts that Oppenheimer provoked. But I enjoyed these ideas explored in such a familiar setting.
Now that I spilled out my thoughts, let's see what others have written. And again, it's a great movie. Worth watching.
Croatia's goal was stolen! Portugal is scripted to advance
The feed for my Facebook reels is now full of videos analyzing the Croatian goal that wasn't counted, and with conspiracy theories about the whole World Cup being scripted for a Ronaldo-Messi finale.
And this is how easily social media radicalizes you. I have no idea how widespread either of these ideas are. Is there really a dominating public debate happening about this? I don't think so. But for me, looking at my Facebook reels, it would appear like this is the most important thing happening right now. And look at all these people making smart videos agreeing with me! And not a single one disagreeing!
I'm confirmed in my bias. Look, everyone thinks that the VAR was wrong. Everyone thinks Croatia was robbed of a chance to continue to compete. And yet nothing is happening.
I have two ways I can react: first, I could try to do something. Protest. Demand reform. Make petitions. Get involved with the relevant governing bodies and make changes. Obviously I don't care nearly enough to put in that energy and change the priorities in my life for that. And as I do that, I would actually feel the resistance in real life, notice how little support that idea actually may have. A reality check
The second way: I engage with these videos, write supporting comments, strengthen this belief and get sucked in by tapping on a screen, get more cynical about the world because although everyone believes the same as I do, nothing is changing, so it must be “them” who keep the real control and decide differently. My trust in institutions further erodes, seeing the obvious discrepancy between what everybody believes and between what actually happens.
The bubble wrap around me gets tighter, splintering society further. Shared spaces starve, because folks prefer the comforts of confirmation over confronting conflict. I mean, why even try to reach across the aisle if my tribe is so big? If we are the obvious majority?
And the designers behind the social media feed algorithms either know all of this and still pursue it, intentionally, because of the monetary advantages it brings, or they have given up on caring and handed the decisions over to an algorithm whose goal is engagement. The algorithm is unaware of any cost not modeled in its objective function. Like a paperclip maximizer, it is set up to maximize engagement or whatever the metric is, even if it breaks society. That would be either an externalized cost, or not relevant for this quarter’s metrics, or just invisible.
This isn’t about the Croatia game. This is about how we process crises and deal with controversies, from COVID and the January 6 insurrection to elections and institutional trust. It is about vaccines and raw milk, the support for Ukraine, the rise of authoritarianism, our response to climate change. This is about how our society is breaking.
Why do we allow social media algorithms to tear our social fabric apart? Is this just another complaint to feed my own bubble, getting confirmation from others, but not do anything about? What about you, will you just agree and move on? Or are we willing to put in the work and make a change?
