Boxing isn't just associated or correlated with lower IQ and higher crime commission rates -- we know it is causal to those effects.
It results in about 10x more brain damage than football.
These kids will have a higher incidence of Parkinson's, earlier onset dementia, stroke, and a host of other TBI (traumatic brain injury) related disease. Even sparring with sparring equipment including head gear results in brain inflammation and any brain inflammation causes brain damage.
Is it really helping kids to give them lifelong loss of cognitive function?
As another reviewer noted this was something widely understood to correlate for a century, but today the science has made the association starkly clear, the mechanism understood and the causality clear as well. With each drop of thee points in IQ by three points the likelihood of committing violent crime goes up.
The more upset Trump haters are, and these are some very morose Trump haters -- the Better!
Oh Trump had 6 bankruptcies among the 722 corporate entities he helmed. Oh wow! Do the writers of this show even know that puts him in the top 10% most successful in the real estate development and hospitality industries?
Oh Trump said he could shoot someone on fifth avenue and everyone throws a fit when it turns out this is something progressive icon Fiorello LaGuardia said.
Seriously if this show weren't so morose it would be fun to watch just for the extreme butthurt it demonstrates. Don't you guys realize conservatives LOVE the whining and crying you guys are wallowing in?
Trump pops a kids balloon on the show. Wow that is great writing!
Actual reviews pan this terrible film, yet the "critical reviews" section is all unkown reviwers who give everything a ten for clicks
Seriously, read the LA times review. I agree, it is a muddled mess. It is Lifetime ,movie level attempt at metaphysics, and frankly, lead by actors/actresses who can't act.
As Variety mentions the press notes for this film don't lead with the setting, plot notes, etc, but led with the following:
*"first completely vegan set."
* The cast is 50% female and 41% people of color, with a 45% women crew.
Oh wow, virtual signaling is bad enough but that is really really pitiful. No wonder all the major outlets did not pick this up and it ended up free on
Vimeo. It is idi otic. simple minded, has laughable cringe worth script and delivery, and beyond tedious.
This film is difficult to review without spoilers. Let's just say the premise is interesting and promising, but shortly thereafter falls into predictable derivative tropes interrupted by a series of somewhat implausible twists.
Is there a caegory for worst lead actress in history?
If so Amber Heard wins. I mean really I agree with the concencus
here, she destroyed one of the best characters ever written. How did she make Nicalo six one of the most seductive femme fatals ever written in a novel so vaccuous?
Complete revisionism, it was never about morality, it was about Hart's judgment and arrogance
This film is stunningly bad and really purveys a completely false narrative when it comes to Hart. Making his problem seem to be about what it was not. Hart's problem was in fact stunningly bad judgement which was highly relevant to his qualification as president candidate.
Lets set the record straight. Hart was "front runner" really only before the primaries, only during the exploratory phase when the party wanted to draft Mario Coumo and Hart was virtually unknown except for his airbrushed photo. Hart only polled well against OLD Democrats. Physically old and old idea ones like Mondale and Mario Coumo. When they were out, Hart actually became the "old guy." He was not going to beat Dukakis in primary votes or in primary delegates even before he destroyed his own candidacy. The lost prince narrative is completely bogus.
Even if he won the primary, Hart was also never going to be president. The 1988 electoral vote spread was Electoral vote 426 to 111. George Bush won a higher margin of electoral votes than all but five other elections in US . In fact no US election since the 1998 George Bush landslide has the winner won by as much popular or electoral votes as Bush did in 1988. Clinton never got that proportion of popular or electoral votes, Bush's son did not, Obama did not, Trump did not.
Go to Wikipedia and put in 1988 presidential elections and look at the map of electoral votes.
The ONLY thing actually interesting, dramatic or meaningful about Hart as a US poltical figure was him having affairs while married, denying it while under the deep scrutiny of national electoral politics.
This was not a private citizen, or even solely a legislator this was a guy running for president who was carrying on affairs while doing so. He showed profoundly bad judgement, an amazing amount of arrogance and to top it off betrayed everyone who supported him. He was not "set up."
As far as the press, the press mostly covered for him, never reporting a string of lies and rumors until he was caught red handed --twice.
Lastly the film scene with the discussion in the Washington Post newsroom about covering "rumor" is bogus. At that point the Post KNEW hart was an inveterate liar and dishonest to his core lying continually about many aspects of his own life and bogus myths he had created.. He had even been lying about his AGE constantly claiming to be 1 to 4 years than he actually was routinely filling out forms with different ages and birthdates. What was going on at the Post was the junior editors and reporters were all Democrats and in love with Hart.
The films conceit that that Harts problem was a tabloid phenomena followed by the mainstream press getting down in the mud is just an inversion. This problem was all Harts. By the way his own campaign staff blamed Hart and Hart alone -- and still do.
The "boy" is narcissistic utterly dishonest even before addiction
There are scores of films about addition that are much better than this. Frankly the addicted character is a nastily piece of work when not on drugs, and even before his habit.
Really it is a "made for TV level soap opera.
The humor in this film is about 90% puns. My French is not native, but it is fluent and highly practiced, and I caught most of them even if they were cringeworthy.
If you are watching this at below fluency in French, or dependent on poor translation subtitles most a the attempts at humor are going to go past you.
It is 2019 and by now we know there are some actors like Depardieu who we thought were great but are in fact mediocre, and who in fact simply take so many roles that they are occasionally in really great films despite in fact in they are not great actors. De Niro is a good example of this too.
Picks and chooses influence efforts according to its own bias
This is not a serious effort. The data, the science, show that people are MORE independent minded and rationally skeptical than ever as education levels have risen.
Sure there are sophisticated efforts, and use of big data, but the makers of this documentary ought to have spent more time looking at the actual results, when we know for a fact that these even increasingly powerful mechanisms actually work less and less well.
The peer reviewed work shows people are LESS, not more, influenced by social media, than they were by television a couple of generations ago. And despite TV seeming powerful in the 1970's people were less influenced by TV in the 1970's than they were included by radio in the 1940's and the printed word in the 1920's.
What we know for a fact is people don't really buy or change their vote on what they read on facebook, twitter or social media. This documentary ought to have looked at the actual studies on how little these influence efforts work
Missed opTotally ignores the even greater corruptive synergy of charities and foundations with poltical parties (6:1 to the benefit in the US of the Democratic Party)portunity
What a shame. this Documentary starts with a look at the increasing influence of foundations and charities, looks at how they relate to for profit corporations -- and then ignores the much larger role they are playing in political sphere.
EG the "Citizens united" ruling gets a lot of press and ire, but foundation and non profit money into poltical issues is more than 30 TIMES the amount of citizens united type money per year, and citizens united type donations are not tax deductible, and they are also 100% transparent with the FEC showing the contributor and the recipient. Whereas 501c3 money givers are hidden.
There is new data for example out of stanford (hardly right wing) showing the gun control lobby, which is funded about 80% c3 charity, outspends the NRA 17:1.
Biased documentary blames the pharmaceutical business for an issue that they are taking advantage, but which is caused by increasing left PC attacks on resilience.
Certainly the pharmaceutical business is taking advantage of the increased anxiety, lack of emotional resilience we are seeing as a neurosis and pathology.
But this documentary fails utterly to address the causal factors, which an increasing number of therapists and researchers are seeing as rooted in modern PC, outraged/offended by everything, everyone is a winner, indoctrination coming out of our schools. Kids who have been thought no resilience, who have no idea or exposure to real competition develop deep anxiety when exposed to the real world.
Lead Actress gets a "10" but director did an aweful job.
I am sorry but Barry Jenkins seems to have sleep walked through this mess. it is shocking considering this is the director of the near masterpiece "Moonlight." Not to mention that that Beale street is one of Baldwins better and more original works.
Despite the problems with directing and adaptation though, the lead actress' work is a tour de force. KiKi Layne is extremely talented and more than carries the film.
More of Floki's Jonestown, with someone in iceland doing what we all would do to get out of that narrative; Ivar's attrocious acting, Bjorn the lovelorn. WTF?
Well friends, just when you are thinking: 'how far can our once, if not Shakespeare, passable acting and lots of fun series fall' -- it falls even more.
Not sure where we are going to go with Iceland. Really that last death there was supposed to be tragic or heartbreaking? Compared to what? Staying in that squalor of starvation? vengeance cycles that make Sicilian vendettas seam pale? or worst of all being stuck in a narrative cycle that feels like it was written by a five year old?
I think that poor Icelandic girl's death there is unintentionally ironic portrayal of how badly we ALL want to get ourselves and one of the few people who can act, Floki portrayer, OUT -- PLEASE god, OUT of Iceland.
The drama and murder at Alfred's court is even worse. Seriously, Alfred could be representing the viewer too in the tantrum. In his vase because of his brothers murder, in our case because of how tropey that was handled.
Then we get Bjorn and besotted Harold's love triangle with some woman who has demonstrated zero reason to be a compelling prize. Does she have land? no. riches? No. A title and inheritance? no. A good conniving mind for a power struggle? no. Young enough to bear a bunch of children? Doubtful. Is she even loyal? Nope. Exactly why would either of our Viking leaders want her or be whining about it at all?
And of course we have to be treated to Kattagatand and an actor playing Ivar who can't act for his life. A dozen actors who can act (ok a half dozen), in the show and we have to sit though this wild eyed loser? His brother is worse for not just killing him. I mean please!
None of us went into this expecting top quality drama. the show is fun with some decent intrepid exploring, raiding, a couple of decently done set piece battles per season, yes some good looking people. sure it has a completely bogus portrayal of women as fighters (the peer reviewed history says NO such thing at all). It has plot holes galore. But it was not until this season insulting to the audience. Yet now it is
Completely ignores that both sides used big data and influencers
Firstly this entire "docu-drama" completely ignores that both sides used social media big data exploiters. It ignorers the fact that lots of influential institutions with a direct self interest in remain (including for example BBC itself which content analysis studies have shown used "experts" opposed to Brexit at an 3:1 ratio) also positions themselves as neutral despite strong anti-brexit self interests and messages.
It also implies that people voted based on facebook or twitter, when while liberal voters tend to want to be with the "pack," this is not the case for independent or conservative voters who are much less likely to vote based on perceptions and psychological need to be within groupthink norms.
Lastly the producers of the film themselves have a direct self interest in remain. The fact is a majority of people in the UK do not have such a self interest. But the elite today are no different than the feudal lords. Feudal lords were the expert class of their day. They after all were the educated and literate. Does that mean their decisions were in everyone's interest? hardly. They had a self interest in preserving their class over their nation and all its classes, just as the makers of this propaganda film do.
Oh Brexit was a product of propaganda? Well what is this film if not propaganda from the other side??
Sadly expose sends R.Kelly sales way up. The criminal courts are where this needed to be solved, not a Docum. that serves as an advert for Keely
Look the problem is the COURTS, especially the jury members who refused to convict R. Kelly, because they thought he was targeted for his race.
When it comes to this documentary I suggest people google news articles showing R, Kelly is helped by this documentary and his recording sales are up as a direct result. Billboard reports his sales are up, he is up more than 50% on Spotify in just three days.
The fact is his audience has never been mainstream, it has ALWAYS been people who enjoy songs about denigrating women. His behavior is no different than similar genre artists who kill or shoot someone for "street cred." They are not harmed by their fans knowing their behavior -- they are helped by it
That is why Vic Mensa could be arrested for committing THREE gun felonies last year. Three. And go up in the charts. Why Cardi B can say she wants gun control but thinks her kids rapper father should not be charged with gun crimes after himself committing TWO gun felonies in the last year alone.
To people saying this is in all news and an "eye opener"...have your eyes bee that tightly clamped shut? There are scores and scores of major rap artists who are major gun criminals and serial abusers of women -- both in their music and in the lives they lead..
Where wsa the outrage when he won three Grammys in 1997 whee he had just dispicalbe songs and his interest in very young women was already known?
The most forumulaic and conservative super hero film of the decade
Come on now, this is on long toy commercial. I wanted to like it, I was hoping it would be somewhat fresh, but it is without a doubt the most formulaic super hero movie I have seen in a very long time -- and since I have teens I have seen them all.
It is literally childish as if made for a audience of five-year-olds. Did the film's makers assume their audience was less intelligent than the typical audience? The dialogue is laughable in parts and everything is telegraphed with a neon sign.
The entire theater enjoyed it; ignore the whining critics who get upset at anything not formulaic
I took my kids 14 and 17-years-old with a bunch of their friends as a late Christmas vacation treat. Let me say that they all loved the film. I'm 40 and I enjoyed it.
OK, these comic book based films are all over the place the last 15 years or so as Hollywood runs out of ideas. But they are virtually always mediocre to poor acting (eg Guardians, Suicide squad) or passable acting but extremely formulaic (Black Panther)
Venom is fresh, non formulaic (although it does have an actual story line), the effects are great without being the only qualifier in the film, and the acting is more than first rate. With the exception of a few Batman films with actual actors (eg Christian Bale) it stands virtually alone in having an actual actor in the lead.
It is difficult to screw up le Carré, but this clunker manages to do just that
What a complete mess. I mean really, entire exegeses on the evils of communism are not needed and not in le Carre's books and other adaptions for good reason. Yet the makers of this film decided to weigh down and divert with their own views of part of the background of Constant Gardener.
Skip this one.
A film that could never be made today in our infantile perpetually offended and outraged crybaby culture
Five Easy Pieces could never be made today in our infantile perpetually offended and outraged crybaby culture. Nicolson would go to jail for harassing the waitress. Especially since we know that that scene was not filmed with any intent of irony.
Someone suggested that all the low ratings from the professional critics and viewers here are the result of some kind of bias.
Seriously recoiling and critiquing lousy film making, so bad that the message is -- "I love Romeo the Nazi" -- is an expression of bias?
I think virtually all of us panning this film *want* to give it a high rating for the story it is attempting to tell. But the clichés, terrible scripting, absolutely abysmal acting do not do credit to the story of attitudes toward biracial children in Nazi Germany (or virtually anywhere in the world where they were mostly seen as genetic and social threats).
The bravery and resilience of the young woman simply do not come through at all. It was an opportunity to present her as superior in every way and instead the writers decided to overlay a sanguine and utterly not credible "Romeo and Juliet" nonsense over the story, obliterating the meaning and actual genuine drama.
We get no explanation, none at all as to why this brave young biracial girl would fall in love with a Nazi who shows no real trepidation at being part of the machinery that will kill Jews, a lot of other people, and destroy Europe.
FYI the young actress, Amandla Stenberg, is actually a good actress. Abby Cornish once again proves she has lucked into a couple of roles, but in general she is at best a mediocre to poor actress.
All the fans are talking about how Vikings becoming terrible and this episode is an example
First of all: Get Floki out of the decrepitude that is Iceland. Iceland is going to suck for another 1,000 years. People there will generally starve, be subject to waves of disease and famine, and inbreed to an unbelievable extent. The actor playing Floki is one of the few people who can act on the show. Get him out of Iceland.
2) Stop opening more and more soap opera story lines. This is not game of thrones. The actor playing Ivar cannot act. He cannot. Every scene in Kattagard is cringeworthy.
Essentially everyone with any acting talent has been written out or marginalized. Gabrel Byrne .. off to Valhalla. George Blagden..off to heaven. Linus Roache... off to hell. Jonathan Rhys Myers...off to purgatory.
We are stuck with the cast members who can't act their way out of a paper bag!
If you watch know that the swamp is filled with people just like this who got Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and Obama elected as well, then this is a useful documentary.
Unfortunately the implication by the documentary makers (several of whom have direct connections to the DNC, including producers who are DNC activists) is that Stone is some kind of outlier. Nothing could be further from the truth. But the makers are themselves part of the same swamp so they are going to imply this is a phenomena solely of the other side. Only a moron would believe that.
Everything a nuanced documentary about a complex subject should be
This documentary is everything a nuanced documentary should be.
Too often we view and judge by our own current sensibilities. An institution such as Bordentown at the time of outright segregation, Jim Crow, Integration and today can be seen out of context with profoundly different lenses. "A place out of Time" addresses those points of view in an intelligent and balanced way.