“And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.”
Exodus 3:14 KJV
“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM.”
John 8:56-58 KJV
“And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.”
Exodus 3:14 KJV
“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I AM.”
John 8:56-58 KJV
I got goosebumps studying my Bible today.
In Genesis 28, Jacob has his famous vision of a ladder stretching into heaven, with angels ascending and descending.
He wakes up trembling with awe. On his own initiative, he sets up the stone he slept on as a pillar, pours oil over it, renames the place Bethel ("House of God"), and vows to give God a tenth of everything if God protects him on the road.
Fast forward twenty years to Genesis 31.
Jacob has spent two decades being cheated, exhausted, and trapped in Laban's household.
When God finally appears to tell him it is time to return home, He does not introduce Himself with an intimidating, distant title. He does not announce Himself as the Almighty or the Creator of heaven and earth.
He looks at Jacob and says: "I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a pillar and where you made a vow to me."
Do you realize what is happening here? God grounds His very identity in a runaway's memory.
For twenty long years, God remembered a desperate prayer spoken over a rock in the dark. He lets a flawed human encounter define holy ground, taking the name a frightened fugitive gave to a stone and adopting it as His own divine signature.
Now leap forward over a thousand years to John 1.
Philip brings his friend Nathanael to meet Jesus. When Jesus sees him coming, He says: "Here is a true Israelite, in whom there is no deceit."
Remember what the name Jacob actually means. Jacob was the deceiver, the supplanter. Jesus is deliberately invoking Jacob from the very first sentence.
Startled, Nathanael asks, "How do you know me?"
Jesus answers: "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you."
In Jewish life, sitting under a fig tree was the recognized place for solitary prayer, meditation, and wrestling with God in private.
Whatever Nathanael was carrying beneath that tree, whether an unspoken sorrow, a quiet wrestling match of the soul, or a prayer he thought had vanished into the silence, he believed he was entirely alone.
He had built no altar, poured no oil, and made no grand vows. He was simply sitting in the quiet with an ache he could not fix.
Yet that single sentence undoes him completely. Nathanael breaks: "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!"
Then Jesus ties the entire story together:
"You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree? You will see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."
Angels ascending and descending. That is word for word the scene from Genesis 28!
Jesus is telling him that the ladder his ancestors saw was never a stone staircase in the desert, and Bethel was never just a coordinate on a map. The ladder was always a person. The bridge between heaven and earth was standing right in front of him on a dirt road in Galilee.
The contrast between these two men is striking.
Jacob’s encounter was structured. He had oil, built a stone monument, named the place, and negotiated with a formal vow.
Nathanael’s encounter was raw. He was sitting in the shadow of a tree, empty-handed, carrying a weight he had no ceremony for.
Yet God claims both as holy ground.
He is the God of Bethel, the God who honors the altars you build when you have the strength to build them.
And He is the God of the Fig Tree, the God who sees you when you are too exhausted to promise anything at all.
@elonmusk Es increíble que la tecnología esté disponible pero las compañías sigan tomando decisiones obviando al consumidor y a la mejora de su propuesta de valor.
Early research suggests that sildenafil, the erectile dysfunction drug commonly known as Viagra, may help stop cancer from spreading, not through its well-known effects on blood flow, but by disrupting how tumor cells manage cholesterol.
Read more: https://t.co/frmD2Gg2B1
@withyeons It's curious that UGG boots were banned because they supposedly reduce immersion during the making of the film, yet no one seemed bothered about choosing a more coherent casting to actually enhance the audience's immersion.
@withyeons It's curious that UGG boots were banned because they supposedly reduce immersion during the making of the film, yet no one seemed bothered about choosing a more coherent casting to actually enhance the audience's immersion.
El guión y la cinematografía de La Odisea son impecables. Es una buena película que despierta emociones profundas, especialmente en los adultos que ya llevamos algo de tiempo en este mundo. Sin embargo, pudo haber sido mucho mejor. Las licencias creativas que se tomó Nolan, sobre todo en el casting, terminan distrayendo en varios momentos. Resulta irónico que en una película basada en una historia fantástica, con cíclopes, sirenas, gigantes y monstruos de seis cabezas, lo que más rompa la inmersión sea precisamente el reparto.
Entiendo la lógica: los premios Óscar hoy exigen cuotas de diversidad. Pero Nolan tenía el peso suficiente para iniciar una ola de cambio ignorando esos requerimientos y enfocándose simplemente en hacer la mejor película posible. En cambio, ha desperdiciado parte de su talento en complacer las políticas progresistas que no solo impulsa el movimiento DEI en Hollywood, sino que ahora también se imponen como condición para premiarte.
So I saw The Odyssey... (Some spoilers ahead)
I'm not going to beat around the bush or spend half the review building up to my opinion.
So here it is. Is it a good movie in the sense that it's entertaining, keeps you hooked, and makes you want to see how the story ends? Yes. In that sense, it is good.
Are all the criticisms regarding the casting, dialogue and other creative decisions still valid despite it being "good"? Absolutely.
It opens with a black rapper playing a bard telling the story, before quickly shifting to what is quite possibly the most ridiculous sequence in the entire film. It's the clip that's been doing the rounds online and gone viral, where Elliot Page's character runs like a 10 year old boy, or Woody from Toy Story, while still very clearly resembling a female, towards the Trojan Horse, only to be almost immediately impaled by Trojan soldiers.
The film then shifts into the story being told through flashbacks, which is true to the original Odyssey.
You quickly forget about Elliot, though the character does appear again later, as the focus shifts to the rest of the cast, many of whom do a very good job. Anne Hathaway is good as Penelope. Tom Holland is good. Robert Pattinson, playing one of the suitors occupying Odysseus' palace, probably gives one of the standout performances.
Matt Damon also does very well in his portrayal of Odysseus. The story flows well, but it doesn't take long before you're constantly reminded that certain decisions were made to tick several DEI boxes. It simply cannot be disputed.
There's one scene where an Indian actor and a black actor, playing warriors, approach a villager and reveal that they are "Greeks of Ithaca." That might be acceptable in a theatre production, where taking liberties with casting is far more common and accepted because you're there to watch a live performance rather than maximise historical authenticity. In a film like this, however, it should simply be more historically accurate.
And yes, the same goes for Helen of Troy. It's an immediate facepalm moment because, despite what some of her fellow cast members have said in interviews, you can easily think of countless actresses who would have been more suitable for the role. And yes, by that I mean someone who fits the historical context, because Helen of Troy simply would not have been Sub Saharan African.
Zendaya as Athena? Also a bad choice, and yes, I'm sorry, but it's for the same reasons.
As mentioned earlier, Elliot Page's character makes a comeback, sort of, and there's a scene where Matt Damon's Odysseus describes "him" as the greatest warrior he's has ever known. Yes, what you saw in that viral clip of Elliot is supposed to be one of the greatest Greek warriors. You can't help but cringe during that scene, knowing Matt Damon is delivering those lines with a completely straight face.
But I still said the movie was "good", so why am I complaining?
Because it could have been great.
It could have completely immersed you in that world, but because of DEI and political correctness, it never quite gets there. That's the issue. It's not because these people were the best choices for the roles. They weren't.
In fact, I'll go further than that. Given Christopher Nolan's reputation and influence in Hollywood, he could have done what Mel Gibson did with some of his films. He could have hired an all Greek cast, or at least had 70 percent of the actors played by Greeks. He could even have had them speak Ancient Greek with English subtitles. In a world that valued historical authenticity and common sense, I genuinely think that film could have broken records.
Instead, Nolan seems to have completely abandoned the historical authenticity he stuck to in Oppenheimer and gone full woke in pursuit of awards, excusing it as a retelling for a "modern audience", whatever that is supposed to mean. The fact there isn't a single Greek actor in this film is genuinely mind boggling. It's no wonder there wasn't even a premiere in Athens.
So yes, The Odyssey is somewhat of a good watch overall, but only good. That doesn't take away from the very legitimate criticisms, and I've only touched on a few of them. There are many more, including the costume design and some of the dialogue being used. Yes the use of "dad" and other modern day phrasings of words is annoying to say the least.
The scenes with Elliot Page are genuinely laughable, and some people will dismiss the entire film on that point alone. Honestly, I don't blame them.
Does the movie deserve all the praise from the critics? No.
Does it deserve all the 10 out of 10 ratings from a supposedly unbiased audience? Absolutely not.
It's also nowhere near a 1 out of 10. But that doesn't really matter, because Nolan has made enough decisions that many people will see it that way regardless.
@ASonNamedBort Las clasificatorias al mundial deberían utilizar el sistema suizo. Al igual que la fase inicial del mundial. Inclusive se podría utilizar en toda.
@bryan_johnson@ByzGeneral But you were also doing other harmful things. I think you should be getting sun. It’s not the same to produce vitamin D by sunlight than ingesting it. You should also eat meat. Good meat of course.