Movie Review: Yep. They’re back! ‘Alien: Romulus’ introduces next-gen Xenomorph foe Cailee Spaeny

posted in: News | 0

“In space, no one can hear you scream,” went the tagline for the original “Alien” in 1979, a terrifying thought on multiple levels.

There may indeed be a scientific rationale for a space scream to be inaudible, but isn’t it scarier to simply realize nobody’s around to hear you? That was the case for Sigourney Weaver’s Ripley, once she became the last one standing against the fearsome Xenomorph. Nobody could hear her scream — nobody human, that is — because, duh, everyone was dead.

In any case, hearing won’t be a problem here on Earth at any multiplex showing “Alien: Romulus,” the much-anticipated new installment to the “Alien” franchise (not a sequel, but we’ll get to that in a minute.) This is a very big, very (very!) loud, very jumpy horror flick, and the screams will come, and they’ll be audible. Which is precisely what “Alien” fans are surely waiting for.

And speaking of Ripley, no, neither she (nor Weaver) are present in this new version by Fede Álvarez, closer in feel to the horror roots of Ridley Scott’s original than James Cameron’s more action-focused 1986 “Aliens.”

But now we have Rain Carradine, played by rising star Cailee Spaeny (“Priscilla”), a new-generation Ripley in everything but name. Spaeny takes up the mantle of badass space fighter with aplomb, and is easily the best part of a movie that, like the 1979 original, is short on character development.

There are many other parallels (and winking nods) to the original (Scott is a co-producer here). But like we said, don’t call it a sequel. In fact it’s an “interquel,” which wouldn’t be a bad horror film title in itself. The dictionary explains that it’s neither sequel nor prequel, but rather a “middlequel” between installments, known as “quels.”

Just kidding! It’s not in the dictionary. But it’s worth noting that Álvarez, in placing his movie between existing versions to form a new trilogy, yet aiming also for standalone entertainment, risks some tonal confusion. Not that you’ll be able to hear your thoughts, should this occur to you.

The premise is new, sort of. Álvarez, who co-wrote the screenplay with Rodo Sayagues, has said he got the idea from a deleted scene from Cameron’s film, in which young kids were seen amongst workers in a mining colony, and wondering what their lives would be like when they reached their 20s.

At the beginning, we find out: life is bleak indeed in the colony on Jackson’s Star, owned by the worker-exploiting Weyland-Yutani firm.

Rain’s miner parents have died of lung ailments. They’ve left her a caring brother, Andy, who is actually a “synthetic,” or humanoid robot. The “human” element is crucial because it allows an empathetic David Jonsson, in the role, to connect to the audience in a way that otherwise only Spaeny does — the rest of the cast is given virtually nothing to work with.

In any case, the two are not long for Jackson’s Star. After Rain is turned down for a travel permit to finally escape dark colony life, she and Andy join a risky venture.

There’s an (apparently) decommissioned space station hovering above, and if they can raid it of hardware and other loot, they can bypass the brutal wait for permits and finally make it to a new home. And so, reluctantly, the two agree to join the others — Rain’s ex-boyfriend Tyler (Archie Renaux), his sister Kay (Isabela Merced), Bjorn (Spike Fearn) and Navarro (Aileen Wu) — on a bumpy flight to the Renaissance station.

Surely we’re not spoiling much to say that it’s best not to get attached to anybody.

Because, we all know what’s waiting up there, don’t we? It’s already been teased in the opening, with the rickety old station looking much like USCSS Nostromo, that ill-fated space tug in the original.

We hardly needed the hint, though. This is an “Alien” movie and it’s all about the Xenomorph, that terrifying creature who is diabolically “perfect,” able to survive in any atmosphere and to multiply, obviously, in the most disgusting of ways.

It’s not really a party — or a movie — until the creatures show up. And that, they do. Much has been made of this film’s use of practical effects, rather than a CGI-created universe. The actors have said this — as well as shooting in a linear fashion — helped them feel the genuine horror needed for their portrayals.

Does all this elevate the film beyond any of its predecessors? Like so many franchises that depend on intense fandom, that truly depends from what vantage point you’re joining in. Fans of the original will appreciate the many respectful echoes of that film (and perhaps the fact that, thank the lord, there’s no longer a gratuitous skimpy panty scene.) Fans of Cameron’s take will appreciate the action that comes later in the film.

And while some will applaud the wild, outlandish, creative and possibly ridiculous swerve of those final minutes — not to spoil it — others may even laugh rather than scream.

It’s all good, though. In space, probably no one can hear you laugh, either.

“Alien: Romulus”

“Alien: Romulus,” a 20th-Century Studios release, has been rated R by the Motion Picture Association “for bloody violent content and language. ”

Running time: 119 minutes.

Two stars out of four.

Related Articles

Entertainment |


What to watch: Milli Vanilli scandal is retold, with no mercy, in ‘Girl You Know It’s True’

Entertainment |


Movie review: ‘It Ends With Us’ a bungled adaptation of romance novel

Entertainment |


‘Mr. Throwback’ review: The NBA’s Steph Curry stars in this mockumentary about hangers-on

Entertainment |


Review: ‘Kneecap’ is a rousing Belfast hip hop ode to native tongues everywhere

Entertainment |


‘The Instigators’ review: Actors, director elevate so-so crime-comedy script

Democrats trust Harris slightly more than Biden on climate change, poll finds

posted in: Politics | 0

By LINLEY SANDERS Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — As the Democratic National Convention approaches, a poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds that Democrats have slightly higher trust in Vice President Kamala Harris’ ability to address the issue of climate change than President Joe Biden.

The survey found that 85% of Democrats have “a lot” or “some” trust in Harris to address climate change, while about three-quarters say the same about Biden. That’s more true of Democrats under 45: about three-quarters of this group say they have “a lot” or “some” trust in Harris to handle climate issues, compared to about 6 in 10 who say that about Biden. Older Democrats are more likely than younger ones to trust either Biden or Harris.

The finding is an early indication that Democrats may be making distinct evaluations of Harris when it comes to key issues, rather than seeing her as interchangeable with Biden on policy, including issues like climate change where many Democrats are anxious and want to see government action. It also reflects the broader satisfaction Democrats have with Harris as their party’s standard-bearer, and gives her an opportunity to appeal to younger Democrats, who are particularly likely to be concerned about climate change. Harris faces Republican nominee Donald Trump in the November election.

Aaron Hash, a 43-year-old Democrat and union worker, said he listened to some of Harris’ speeches after Biden stepped down and thought, “those are the right words. I’d like to see actions to follow.” He believes that the Democratic Party is “still a little bit on the back foot” compared to the Republican Party when it comes to fighting for key causes, including climate change, abortion access and gun control.

But Harris, he thinks, could change that.

“I feel hopeful that we’ll see some meaningful protections put back into place,” said Hash, who works in chemical manufacturing in Washington state. “I would like to see Democrats hopefully maintain power in the (executive branch) and then take back Congress and pass some protections that were previously protected by Chevron,” referring to the Supreme Court’s recent decision that reduced the power of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency.

The problem of climate change is broadly recognized by Democrats. The AP-NORC poll found that 9 in 10 Democrats say climate change is happening, and most say the primary cause is human activities. About 7 in 10 Democrats say they have become more concerned about climate change over the past year. And they want to see government action on the issue: About 8 in 10 Democrats say the federal government is doing too little to reduce climate change, compared to about 6 in 10 independents and about 3 in 10 Republicans.

Younger Democrats are especially likely to feel the emotional weight of climate change. About 6 in 10 Democrats under 45 say “anxious” describes their emotions extremely or very well when they contemplate climate change, compared to about one-third of older Democrats. Younger Democrats are also less likely to say they are feeling motivated or hopeful about climate change. About 7 in 10 younger Democrats say “hopeful” describes their emotions as either “not very” or “not at all” well, compared to 45% of older Democrats.

Related Articles

National Politics |


Donald Trump asks judge to delay sentencing in hush money case until after November election

National Politics |


Ruling that bounced Kennedy from New York ballot could challenge him in other states

National Politics |


Trump, Harris duel for voters with budget-busting tax proposals

National Politics |


Presented with rise in border crossings, Kamala Harris chose a long-term approach to the problem

National Politics |


Trump shooting hasn’t spurred calls for new gun restrictions. Here’s why

Alex Campbell, a 29-year-old Democrat in Philadelphia, said there is “a lot of existential dread” among Millennials and Gen Z about what the world will look like in 50 years. Campbell gives Biden credit for passing the Inflation Reduction Act, and he thinks Harris would expand on those efforts. He hopes that by having a younger Democrat at the top of the ticket, she might care more about the importance of addressing climate change immediately.

But Campbell is pessimistic that, even if elected, Harris could make significant progress on climate change without Democratic control of Congress. Like other Democrats, Campbell worries about the role of the Supreme Court in further eroding environmental protections.

“I would probably have more hope with Harris,” Campbell said. “Because she is younger, I think she will be more aggressive in her policy proposals. But at the end of the day, if there’s no House and Senate that are going to pass these bills, it doesn’t really matter.”

About half of Americans say the outcome of the presidential election in November will be extremely or very important for the issue of climate change — and the issue of climate change is especially resonant for Democrats. About three-quarters of Democrats say the result of the 2024 election will matter for climate change, compared to 44% of independents and about 2 in 10 Republicans. Older Democrats are slightly more likely than younger ones to say this election is extremely or very important for climate change.

Nikolas Ostergard, a 21-year-old construction worker in Utah, said he thinks Harris is a stronger communicator than Biden is, and he believes that will allow her to make “an even better impact” on issues that matter to Democrats, including climate change. As a Democrat who will participate in his first presidential election in November, Ostergard is still waiting to hear Harris articulate her own environmental policy plans. He is hopeful that she “will listen more” to the public than Biden did.

“At first, I thought it wasn’t going to be much better with (Harris) because she was Biden’s vice president. But, it does seem like she is taking different approaches, so my hope has gone up,” Ostergard said. “My hope for Harris’ policies is better than it was for Biden’s. And definitely way over my hope for Trump’s policies.”

The poll of 1,143 adults was conducted July 25-29, 2024, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 4.1 percentage points.

Minnesota Aurora withdraws from NWSL expansion bid process

posted in: News | 0

Minnesota Aurora has backed off its bid to become a professional women’s soccer club for the second time in three years.

The amateur team sent a letter to its 3,080 community owners this week notifying them that Aurora will withdraw its attempt to become a National Women’s Soccer League expansion franchise in 2026.

“The process is extremely complex, and while we had a strong investment group, circumstances out of our control kept us from pursuing the bid at this time,” the letter said. “There remains strong interest by investors to support Minnesota Aurora going pro.”

Aurora, which also paused a bid in December 2022, was pursuing a deeper-pocketed ownership group to join the NWSL, the top U.S. flight. It is expected to be a competitive auction-style process to become the league’s 16th team.

“(Although) the NWSL isn’t happening right now, we are committed to building a healthy and sustainable organization that will grow so we can continue to explore all opportunities available to us in the future,” the letter said.

Aurora has had strong fan support for matches played at the Vikings’ TCO Stadium for the previous three years. The team has produced three consecutive undefeated regular seasons, but has fallen short of an overall league championship each postseason.

“We are constantly in awe of the support from you, our owners, our fans, sponsors and supporters,” the letter concluded. “Stay tuned for updates over the next few month. … The future is very bright for the Aurora community.”

Related Articles

Soccer |


Late goal ends Minnesota Aurora season in 2-1 loss to Indy Eleven

Soccer |


Minnesota Aurora has ‘unfinished business’ going into USL playoffs

Soccer |


Minnesota Aurora finishes third straight unbeaten regular season with 14-0 rout

Soccer |


Aurora clinch playoff berth with 7-0 win on the road against Bavarian United

Soccer |


Women’s soccer: Minnesota Aurora blank Chicago Dutch Lions

Donald Trump asks judge to delay sentencing in hush money case until after November election

posted in: Politics | 0

By MICHAEL R. SISAK Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) — Donald Trump is asking the judge in his New York hush money criminal case to delay his sentencing until after the November presidential election.

In a letter made public Thursday, a lawyer for the former president and current Republican nominee suggested that sentencing Trump as scheduled on Sept. 18 — about seven weeks before Election Day — would amount to election interference.

Trump lawyer Todd Blanche wrote that a delay would also allow Trump time to weigh next steps after the trial judge, Juan M. Merchan, is expected to rule Sept. 16 on the defense’s request to overturn the verdict and dismiss the case because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s July presidential immunity ruling.

“There is no basis for continuing to rush,” Blanche wrote.

Blanche sent the letter to Merchan on Wednesday after the judge rejected the defense’s latest request that he step aside from the case.

In the letter, Blanche reiterated the defense argument that the judge has a conflict of interest because his daughter works as a Democratic political consultant, including for Kamala Harris when she sought the 2020 presidential nomination. Harris is now running against Trump.

By adjourning the sentencing until after that election, “the Court would reduce, even if not eliminate, issues regarding the integrity of any future proceedings,” Blanche wrote.

Election Day is Nov. 5, but many states allow voters to cast ballots early, with some set to start the process just a few days before or after Trump’s scheduled Sept. 18 sentencing date.

Merchan, who has said he is confident in his ability to remain fair and impartial, did not immediately rule on the delay request.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office, which prosecuted Trump’s case, declined to comment.

Trump was convicted in May of falsifying his business’ records to conceal a 2016 deal to pay off porn actor Stormy Daniels to stay quiet about her alleged 2006 sexual encounter with him. Prosecutors cast the payout as part of a Trump-driven effort to keep voters from hearing salacious stories about him during his first campaign.

Trump says all the stories were false, the business records were not and the case was a political maneuver meant to damage his current campaign. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is a Democrat.

Trump’s defense argued that the payments were indeed for legal work and so were correctly categorized.

Falsifying business records is punishable by up to four years behind bars. Other potential sentences include probation, a fine or a conditional discharge which would require Trump to stay out of trouble to avoid additional punishment. Trump is the first ex-president convicted of a crime.

Related Articles

National Politics |


Ruling that bounced Kennedy from New York ballot could challenge him in other states

National Politics |


Trump, Harris duel for voters with budget-busting tax proposals

National Politics |


Presented with rise in border crossings, Kamala Harris chose a long-term approach to the problem

National Politics |


Trump shooting hasn’t spurred calls for new gun restrictions. Here’s why

National Politics |


Americans give Harris an advantage over Trump on honesty and discipline, poll finds

Trump has pledged to appeal, but that cannot happen until he is sentenced.

In a previous letter, Merchan set Sept. 18 for “the imposition of sentence or other proceedings as appropriate.”

Blanche argued in his letter seeking a delay that the quick turnaround from the scheduled immunity ruling on Sept. 16 to sentencing two days later is unfair to Trump.

To prepare for sentencing, Blanche argued, prosecutors will be submitting their punishment recommendation while Merchan is still weighing whether to dismiss the case on immunity grounds. If Merchan rules against Trump on the dismissal request, he will need “adequate time to assess and pursue state and federal appellate options,” Blanche said.

The Supreme Court’s immunity decision reins in prosecutions of ex-presidents for official acts and restricts prosecutors in pointing to official acts as evidence that a president’s unofficial actions were illegal. Trump’s lawyers argue that in light of the ruling, jurors in the hush money case should not have heard such evidence as former White House staffers describing how the then-president reacted to news coverage of the Daniels deal.