Sign In. Life I Hide Spoilers. The internet is a funny place One star rating? Come on Clearly, you haven't watched enough films to know decent from terrible. I watched this film without having heard of it no trailers, spoilers or anything. I'm a sci-fi fan and thought this was a good watch. I found the characters to lack depth and their actions were questionable at times but the plot was believable and the acting decent. Special effects were good and made the movie believable in my opinion.
The movie was well shot and I thought the scenes with the creature were pretty cool. I don't get how people even compare this movie to "Aliens"; it's nothing alike. Overall, I thought it was pretty good. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote. Nothing can survive the vacuum of space, extreme cold and extreme heat, no water and food for years, etc It's called a "tardigrade" - this little creature can survive lethal amounts of radiation, 1 degree above absolute zero temperature, it can turn its body into glass to survive extreme dehydration, it can survive the vacuum of space and the pressure of many hundreds of meters underwater and survive above boiling temperature.
Coincidentally, shortly after learning about this fascinating creature I came across the movie "Life", and that's probably why I love it so much. What would happen if a hostile alien with the durability of a tardigrade and a lethality of a xenomorph decided to hunt us down?
I was thrilled at the prospect! Although some will fault some of the poor choices of the characters, I found them on par with the choices of "Alien:Covenant" characters, but I wasn't going to fault the movie because the premise intrigued me so much.
I for one, found it an exciting and thrilling movie!! The Good: Believable, big budget special effects. Some decent jump scares and squirm-in-your-seat horror.
The Bad: The characters were generic and boring. The acting was often spotty and not consistent with the situation more poor direction than bad acting I think. The Martian creature came from the soil on Mars where it had to hibernate to survive, yet it could survive freezing cold, burning heat, no oxygen, space vacuum and everything else the crew could throw at it.
And it pretty much ate everything including cooling fluid. Lazy science to aid lazy plot sequences.If I were to tell you that a growing group of killjoys wants to ban NFL cheerleading, would you guess that this group is on the political left or right? NFL cheerleaders need to go. Chicago Tribune sports reporter Shannon Ryan wrote, "The league has shown only that it regards cheerleaders as pieces of sideline eye candy. Only the well-educated could ask such a stupid question -- because only the highly educated deny that, with few exceptions, the only people who would like to see scantily dressed male cheerleaders are gay men.
He doesn't explain how being an NFL cheerleader is "demeaning. Did he bother to interview any cheerleaders? I did, and the consensus among cheerleaders is that it is one of their greatest life experiences. Jacie Scott, a black woman who retired from being a Dallas Cowboys cheerleader inwrote in response to Nancy Armour: "I spent four years as a cheerleader in the NFL, and the experiences that each year brought helped shape me into the woman I am today.
Is Homosexuality a Choice?
I saw countries I never imagined seeing. I made a positive impact in lives, young and old, and I did it all with something incredible women. I wouldn't trade my time as a cheerleader for anything. What is demeaning to cheerleaders is not cheerleading but people like Tom Krattenmaker, Shannon Ryan, Margery Eagan and Nancy Armour who have the conceit -- and meanness -- to label these women demeaned.
When she entered my studio, I was struck by how attractive she was 20 years after retiring from cheerleading, and by her modest dress. Regarding her dress, she explained that soon after retiring as a cheerleader, she met an Orthodox Jewish man, fell in love, converted to Orthodox Judaism and married.
Apparently, her religious husband, a successful businessman, didn't find this woman's cheerleading background "demeaning. Good thing he didn't go to Yale Divinity School. It was clear that even now, as an Orthodox Jew who dresses in the long skirts and long sleeves, she doesn't find cheerleading demeaning: She sent me a photo of herself from her cheerleader days. As she wrote to me: "I can't imagine my life without having the experience I did as an NFL cheerleader.
It was literally life changing for me. The friendships I made, the places we were able to go and the people we were able to meet can't be duplicated. The thought of that being taken away from young girls who dream of one day becoming a pro cheerleader scares me! Why do leftists have contempt for cheerleading and cheerleaders who, after all, choose to be cheerleaders -- and for virtually no pay?
A Vanity Fair piece on cheerleaders gave the game away: "The league profits from selling a retrograde notion of masculinity -- big, strong men, unafraid to take a hit, surrounded by enthusiastic, scantily clad women. Or as a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation article titled "Pro cheerleading 'should be abolished'" reported, former professional basketball player Mariah Burton Nelson said, "Cheerleading implies that women's proper role is to support men, smile at men and fulfill the sexual fantasies of males.
The left has contempt for masculinity and the male sexual nature that is part of it. The new emasculated man will not look at sexy women. And the new defeminized woman will not want to "support men," let alone appear sexy for them. The left claims to be pro-choice. But it demands the abolition of NFL and NBA cheerleading without giving women a choice to be cheerleaders -- just as it never gave Miss America participants a choice when it abolished the Miss America swimsuit competition.
Leftists believe they are morally superior people and, therefore, have the right to deprive anyone -- man or woman -- from choosing what the left disdains.It's been quite the year for historical half-truths in movies: First Argo inflamed debate about the actual Iranian hostage crisis. Then, Zero Dark Thirty was accused of glorifying torture's role in capturing terrorists. And now, some Chileans are wondering why a new arthouse film makes it seem as though their country was liberated thanks to a modified soda-pop jingle.
In the new film NOthe rule of Augusto Pinochet ends after Chile's voters get inspired by a peppy ad campaign designed by a skateboarding, politically agnostic ad executive named Rene, played by Mexican actor Gael Garcia Bernal. To the tune of a catchy theme song, Rene's ads promise Chileans a brighter, happier future without Pinochet and apparently one filled with horse-riding couples and sexy dancers. Voters take him up on it, showing up at the polls in droves and deposing the dictator with a 56 percent "No" vote in the plebiscite.
The movie was shot with a retro camera to give the appearance of authenticity and even included period footage of Pinochet and the ads themselves.Catalonia declares independence - BBC Newsnight
But in reality, the struggle to depose Pinochet and return Chile to democratic governance was a decades-long slog in which dozens of opposition leaders toiled to register voters, hammered out a platform, and persuaded bitter enemies to work together. Of course, NO is just realistic fiction.
Winning the Vote: A History of Voting Rights
The movie is something of a love letter to democracy -- it's produced in part by Participant Media, the same movie house behind other social-action flicks like Waiting for Superman and Food, Inc.
And the movie plot does adhere to a few realities. Chile's landmark plebiscite was a referendum in which citizens were given a choice over whether to end the dictatorship for the first time since the coup. Vote "Yes," and Pinochet would stay in power for another eight-year term; vote "No," and the country would hold free elections. Pinochet was one of the continent's most brutal rulers: His government "disappeared" about 3, of his political opponents, arrested more than 30, and cast away more thanothers to live in exile.
But after 16 years of living without democracy, it was surprisingly hard to convince Chileans to pick another alternative.
Rival anti-Pinochet parties had been feuding for years about whether a potential future new government would be pro-Western or Marxist. Many citizens were afraid to vote altogether, thinking it might cause them to be targeted, and some doubted the idea that Pinochet would honor the results of the vote.
In the weeks leading up to the vote, each side -- Yes" and "No" -- was given 15 minutes of TV advertising time each night. The pro-Pinochet side alternated between cloying propaganda and foreboding images warning of an apocalyptic post-Pinochet future. Meanwhile, the campaign led by a coalition of opposition parties -- the "No" -- did in fact concoct a positive, joyful ad campaign, and Chileans did, for a number of reasons, overwhelmingly vote down Pinochet. I sat down with the director of the real "No" campaign, Genaro Arriagada, to talk about what life was actually like leading up to the plebiscite.
Here are four surprising elements of that were left out or glossed over in the film version:. But the heads of the campaign didn't bring in a random local ad man to do it. Instead, American consultants helped the Chileans run focus groups, and they found a happy message resonated better than one centered on Pinochet's human rights violations. They proved that if you want to win, it's necessary to have a moderate message. And of course, we have some people to the far left who say, well, I don't agree with this, so they were put out of the coalition," Arriagada said.
Arriagada and his colleagues worked for years to bridge differences between 17 different groups who all had visions for what Chile should be after Pinochet.
Some wanted Pinochet supporters punished, but the No campaign organizers knew they could never win unless they assured regime backers of their safety after Pinochet's fall. Our conviction was that if we It was necessary to have room for everybody," he said. About building a country in which you can have a place. Even if you are coming from Pinochet or other parties, we are trying to build a fatherland for all.
But that moderation was not discovered in the last 30 days, or even the last year. It was a long, long road that took at least 10 years.This is a case of longstanding oppression.
Under the regime of General Francisco Franco, which emerged triumphant in the Spanish Civil War, Catalans were even denied the right to use their own majority language, Catalan. Pastor is the author of, inter aliaa book on the national question, the Spanish state and the left that in my opinion contains one of the best explanations anywhere of the historical development of the Marxist approach to the national question.
In the following interview he defends the Catalan referendum and addresses some of the major political implications of the October 1 vote. The interview was first published in Catalan. I have translated the Spanish text, which was published in Viento Sur.
Of particular interest to Canadian socialists attempting to understand the Quebec national question is the fact that Pastor speaks as a leftist in the dominant nation, Spain, who advocates a vote for independence in the dominated Catalonia. I am not an independentist, but I recognize that the attempt to federalize the Spanish state has proved impossible.
And I recognize that there is no desire for a federal agreement among the majority of the Spanish parties. In that context, I would have no choice but to vote yes. It would be desirable if the yes to independence were to lead to some kind of confederal arrangement or a free state associated with the various peoples in the Spanish state, although not with the Spanish state as such.
And in that context, arriving at a confederal arrangement. I defend the option of separation in order to allow negotiations between equals. Yes, because I think that this time he acted hastily, given the position of Podem Catalunya [the Catalonian Podemos], and the fact that the debate on the referendum was still going on in the communes.
There are two factors. On the one hand, there is a basic problem which is that although Podemos has been talking about plurinationality, it still holds to a vision in which the idea of the Spanish nation prevails over others.
And I think that there is an underestimation of the evolution of a major part of the Podemos electorate. Perhaps they overestimate the weight that is still exercised by a Spanish nationalism that pays little attention to the fact that recognizing the plurinational reality also means recognizing the right to decide.
4 Things the Movie 'NO' Left Out About Real-Life Chile
Perhaps there is the weight of electoralist considerations in opposition to the consistent defence of the right to decide. Perhaps they were thinking that outside of Catalonia defending participation in this referendum would not be understood. But there are recent articles and studies indicating that among the Podemos voters there is a growing oppenness toward being consistent, that is, that there are indeed several nations, and that the Partido Popular [PP] government is blocking the exercise of a referendum, and given that the path to an agreement is closed the only type of referendum that is possible is this one.
Is Podemos also a prisoner of the complex of not being sufficiently Spanish? There is a certain fear of being accused of having placed themselves on the side of those who want to break up the unity of Spain. That is the discourse of Pablo Iglesias, that they are in favour of a referendum but that they would defend remaining in Spain.
There is a fear of appearing to oppose the idea of the unity of Spain. On the other hand, we see that the entity that does the most to challenge that unity is the PP itself.
Of even greater weight is the fear of being consistent with the defense of plurinationality, and not only in cultural terms as the [Social Democratic] PSOE says but in political terms. That is, recognizing Catalonia as something differentiated from the rest of Spain.
He says it means legitimizing the Catalan right wing.Elections Fall The Nineteenth Amendment and Beyond Spring Examining Reconstruction Fall African American Women in Leadership Summer The Evolution of Voting Rights Summer Frederick Douglass at Winter Excavating American History Fall Jazz, the Blues, and American Identity Summer American Women in Leadership Winter African American Soldiers Fall American History in Visual Art Summer Alexander Hamilton in the American Imagination Winter Disasters in Modern American History Fall American Poets, American History Spring Gettysburg: Insights and Perspectives Fall Great Inaugural Addresses Summer The Revolutionary Age Winter Electing a President Fall American Reform Movements Winter Religion in the Colonial World Fall American Indians Summer The Cold War Spring New Interpretations of the Civil War Winter Three Worlds Meet Fall Shaping the American Economy Summer Turning Points in American Sports Spring Andrew Jackson and His World Winter The American Revolution Fall People choose to be gay.
They are making an immoral choice, which government should discourage. Sexual preference is biologically determined. Government should protect gay people from discrimination because homosexuality is an unalterable aspect of their identity.
These two answers have something in common: With both of them, the science conveniently supports the moral decision. Perhaps sexual preference can be changed — and people have the right to engage in gay sex and have homosexual relationships if they choose to do so. The fourth option, that gay people have no choice but to be gay, but should be punished for it anyway, is morally unthinkable.
A gay man is more likely than a straight man to have a biological gay brother; lesbians are more likely than straight women to have gay sisters. Ina study published in the journal Science showed that families with two homosexual brothers were very likely to have certain genetic markers on a region of the X chromosome known as Xq Genes regulate the production of amino acids, which combine to form proteins.
The existence or absence of a protein can have an effect on things like alcohol tolerance or mood. Alcoholism runs in families not only because there is a genetic component to alcoholism, but also because children learn how to cope with stress by watching how their parents and their older siblings behave in stressful situations.
If you come from a culture where alcohol consumption is forbidden, it will be difficult for you to become an alcoholic, no matter how your body metabolizes alcohol.
Children learn to behave aggressively when they witness aggression being rewarded. If you grew up in a family or as part of a culture where aggression was not well accepted, you would be less likely to be aggressive.
You would learn, from an early age, how to control your aggressive tendencies. People adhere to cultural constraints of monogamy despite being attracted to people other than their spouses. In some societies, homosexuality is accepted, in others, it is frowned upon but tolerated, in yet others, it is a serious criminal offense, possibly punishable by death.
Male homosexual behavior was expected in ancient Athens. Today, ritual male homosexuality plays an important role in some cultures in New Guinea. Your upbringing can influence what you find desirable and what you find repulsive. Most Americans would be probably be nauseated if they learned that, when they thought they had been eating beef, they were, in fact, eating dog, even though there is nothing inherently unhealthy about dog meat. What you have learned about homosexuality as you were growing up will affect whether you consider engaging in homosexual acts to be desirable or disgusting.
That argument is based on the assumption that sexual preference is purely biological; therefore, it has no place in a discussion about the possible causes of homosexuality. Ina study published in the journal Science seemed to show that the hypothalamus, which controls the release of sex hormones from the pituitary gland, in gay men differs from the hypothalamus in straight men.
The third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus INAH3 was found to be more than twice as large in heterosexual men as in homosexual men.
This study was criticized because it used brain tissue obtained at autopsies, and all of the homosexual subjects in the study were believed to have died of AIDS. This study, which also used brain tissue from autopsies, did not reveal any significant difference between the size of the INAH3 in gay men and straight men. It did, however, show that in gay men, neurons in the INAH3 are packed more closely together than in straight men.
PET and MRI studies performed in have shown that the two halves of the brain are more symmetrical in homosexual men and heterosexual women than in heterosexual men and homosexual women.
These studies have also revealed that connections in the amygdalas of gay men resemble those of straight women; in gay women, connections in the amygdala resemble those of straight men. The amygdala has many receptors for sex hormones and is associated with the processing of emotions. Some studies have shown that the corpus callosum — the main connection between the two halves of the brain- has a different structure in gay men than in straight men.
However, other studies have found no difference.While it is true that some kids will only vote for the one their friends vote for, and only some will vote for good reasons, the exact same is true for adults. Also, while kids are are given many responsibilities that adults have, such as paying tax for the things they bought and to care for their younger family members through in their case it would be their younger siblings rather than their kids but they have none of the rights.
I understand that most children don't have a lot of life experience and don't know a lot about politics. However, some of us DO know about politics and feel very strongly about our beliefs. I feel that it isn't fair that we don't have a say in who runs our country.
We have to live here, we are owned by our parents and our opinions don't matter. The phrase, "children should be seen, not heard" is also extremely offensive to me. Maybe shut up and listen to people younger than you? Most adults think that what children think is nonsense and doesn't matter.
What if a child actually had a great idea? You wouldn't know unless you listened. I probably sound like an idiot right now but I just had to get that out.
Children should be allowed to vote under certain circumstances. There should be a sheet that children need to fill out saying why they voted for the candidate. There should also be an age limit, say around for the minimum age. If children do vote, they should have at least have paid attention to the candidate's campaign. Children are people who are expected to follow laws, pay taxes, and endure punishments just as adults are. Although the punishments for not abiding by laws may not always be as severe for children as for adults, the fact that they are subject to these same guidelines means they should have a say in them.
Everyone has heard of "No taxation without representation". Children are taxed everyday when they buy clothes at the mall or ice cream at a store. Adults are taxed, and generally more than children due to also having an income tax, but at least those 18 and over have a say in how much they are taxed and what the government spends the money on.
Children should definitely have a voice in this matter, and could be a contributing reason to one reason we have extensive funds going to healthcare but not toward schools. The ones who need and are forced to go to school, children, are not given a voice in government which could allow them to receive more funding. Meanwhile, the elderly having voting power show up to vote at higher rates than any other group which is the primary cause for the biggest block of American government expenditures going toward Social Security.
Medicare also draws in some of the most funding out of any program. I'm not saying that every child will show up to vote to send more money to schools, but allowing them the opportunity to do so will not hurt. Many adults argue that children are too immature to vote seriously, but I figure that the majority of children who do not care about voting legitimately will just not show up to vote at all.
Just as adults are given the freedom to NOT vote, children should be given the freedom to vote. Who has the authority to determine what is a "bad" vote, when everyone is supposed to be "equal"? Maybe allowing children to vote will catalyze more adults to show up to the voting booth to cancel out children's "bad votes".
Not giving any group of people a voice in government allows their desires and needs to be oppressed. When concerning the law, if a child is allowed to be tried as an adult, that means the Court is saying that the child was acting with the responsibility of an adult; but when it comes to the voting booth, these same person is suddenly assumed to not be capable of making responsible decisions. That is giving the children the responsibilities of being an adult but withholding the rewards that come with adulthood.
Children should have a say in what laws they must follow and the officials who govern them. Everyone's opinion should count. Kids are our future so let them vote. Let them decide their own future they have a say in this world they have rights and liberties.