Eduardo Noriega partner

Rave and rant

2020.02.17 12:16 kokonuba Rave and rant

Rave: there's this TV commercial in Spain for a web where you can search for houses and apartments to rent or buy (or to sell your own house or apartment). Well, the commercial depicts this gorgeous spanish actor, Eduardo Noriega, giving different keys to different people, according to their lifestyles. There was this woman in her 30s, who said "all around me, my friends are having children. I don't even want to have a partner". Then, Eduardo gives her a key with a keyring that says "Reina de lo mío" (Queen of my own thing, if I translated correctly). Of course, a little after, you could see a couple with a baby, but at least there was a childfree woman whose stance was respected yayyy.
Another rave: I watched only one episode of Love it or list it Australia, and there was this couple in their 40s who wanted to renovate their house and then keep it or maybe sell it and buy another one. They said they had decided not to have kids, and they had a big, beautiful house where they liked to entertain people. The real estate agent said he was envious of their lifestyle (he had children). Hehehe.
Rant: everywhere you look (Twitter, TV), people mommy/daddyjack and/or babystalk all the time. I'm following a certain Twitter account because I like your contents, but I don't care about your children, nor do I want to see pictures of your (usually ugly) kid/s. Even men now introduce themselves as fathespouse/profession. It's like it was the greatest achievement you can accomplish. At least women give birth, but all it takes for men is having an orgasm.
Whatsapp too. There's this former coworker in our whatsapp group of former coworkers. She had a birhday barbecue last Saturday. One of the other people in the group said: Post photos! Of course, all the 4 pictures had her daughter in it.
In another group, one man posted accidentally? (I'm not sure) a photo of his toddler daughter in a costume. I was a bit scared, because she was also ugly and the costume and face paint didn't flatter her. Of course, cue those other people aaaaawing the kid. Guess who didn't say a word about her? Yours truly :D
submitted by kokonuba to childfree [link] [comments]

2018.02.12 18:19 SupermanAlpha After watching Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes) and Vanilla Sky

I've seen lots of people say that the original film is superior. Not much else other than it's better. I can't, for the life of me, figure out why. Don't get me wrong, I think Open Your Eyes is great but I think Vanilla Sky is a more refined film.
The main character is great in both films but I feel like Tom Cruise portrayed much more depth to the role. When Sofia first walks into his party, without uttering a word you can see the infatuation in David's (Tom Cruise) eyes. He's mesmerized by her. Captured. As the audience member we know this is a playboy that sleeps around yet something about her has hypnotized him. This isn't evident with Cesar (Eduardo Noriega). In Open Your Eyes it's more communicated that this is just another girl he fancy's.
Looking at the best friends from both films, I felt like Brian (Jason Lee) was more deep and realistic a character. He envied David and felt sorry for himself but never in a way that brought his friends down. More so he made light of his own misery in order to bring it to attention while allowing him to figure it out himself. Compared to the original where Pelayo (Fele Martinez) seemed more straight jealous and depressed about it. Both good portrayals but one a little more connective to the audience.
We have Julie (Cameron Diaz) who portrayed the girl on the side. Compared to Nuria (Najwa Nimri) who was a straight forward obsessed woman, I felt Julie was much more layered of a character. She was obsessed equally yet knew that if she pushed herself on David too much, he'd drop her all together so she played the role of someone that pretended to not care yet wasn't very good at that (in a good way) letting the audience and David know that she wanted more. There were many more layers to her and I really appreciated her acting in that regard.
I think Penelope Cruz was amazing as Sofia as she managed to play them subtly different in both films. She really impressed me in that sense. I feel like Cesar's dream that started after passing out where she wakes him up and says she loves him wasn't as powerful as in Vanilla Sky where she simply opts to give David another chance. This sent off a signal (why would she say she loved him) that something was off but I don't think it was intentional. As the audience we were supposed to still be fooled at this point.
The violent ending in the original was cool but no where near as cryptic as the ending Vanilla Sky went with (which really sold me better than a shootout). I liked that we got a face to the partners in the main characters business. In the original Cesar just talks about them. But in Vanilla Sky we get to see them. The soundtrack was much more powerful in Vanilla Sky. Finally I felt the overall surreal nature of Vanilla Sky was much more visually appealing and really capturing. There's something about the color palletes that really take me out of my environment and into the film (Blade Runner does this for me too).
Both films are awesome (Vanilla Sky is one of my favorite films of all time) and I am not knocking the original as it was the start of this great story. I just feel that the remake is actually more refined in every aspect. So what are you guy's thoughts? Which do you like more and why?
submitted by SupermanAlpha to movies [link] [comments]

2015.12.19 19:27 wub1234 Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes)

In 1997, Alejandro Amenábar directed one of the greatest film ever made, Abre los ojos (Open Your Eyes in English).
This is a sensational and supremely dark movie which examines many interesting themes. And it also lays bare one of the most important realities about human nature, which was obvious to me at the time, and I've seen nothing over the 18 years since I saw it to convince me otherwise.
At the start of the film, we see two friends together. It has been made somewhat clear to us by this point that one of them is a wealthy and successful playboy. They're in a car together, the other guy is complaining that he has no luck with women compared to his friend and that he's nothing to look at. His friend tries to dissuade him, but he is insistent that he is average and cannot compare to the playboy guy.
To cut a long story short, the following happens:
Flashbacks reveal the following events: good-looking César is attractive to women. At his birthday party, he flirts with Sofía (Penélope Cruz), the girlfriend of his best friend Pelayo (Fele Martínez). Later on, he takes her home and stays the night, although they do not sleep together. The next morning, César's obsessive ex-lover Nuria (Najwa Nimri) pulls up outside Sofía's flat, offering him a ride and sex. On the way to her home, however, she crashes the car with the intent to kill them both. César is horribly disfigured, beyond the help of cosmetic surgery. Sofía cannot bear to see him like this and goes back to Pelayo.
(This plot is also mirrored by Vanilla Sky, but I refuse to watch that film).
We all try to intellectualise these things, but attraction is driven by looks. What happened in that film is entirely plausible, we all know that it's plausible. Penelope Cruz's character left Fele Martínez's character:
...for Eduardo Noriega's character.
This is entirely plausible because Noriega is much better looking than Martinez. In the film, Noriega is not a sympathetic character, and we feel empathy for Martinez, but at no point do we think or feel that was has happened is implausible or wrong. Equally, we feel great empathy for Noriega when he suffers a horrendous car crash and goes through a personal hell, but we do not for one second believe that it is implausible that Penelope Cruz's character leaves him once he's lost his looks and become disfigured.
The other important thing to note way in the world would the film have been cast the other way round. No-one would have put Noriega in the support role because it wouldn't have been made any sense. It would have been laughable.
Thus, we can and do try to intellectualise attraction, but ultimately it is driven by looks. Not only do we do this when we're trying to understand why someone is attracted to someone else, we also do it when we're actually attracted to someone ourselves.
Once we feel a physical attraction to someone, particularly when it's an intense one, we then try to justify why we're attracted to them, and fit their particular personality and character traits around our physical attraction to them. Probably men do this less than women, but I still think many men will try to see things in a woman that they're attracted to that aren't really there, or they'll overlook things that are negative purely because there is a physical attraction there.
It is true that other things can to some degree compensate for a lack of physical attraction, and if these things are present in abundance then it can produce a similar reaction. But if someone looks at you and feels that they're not attracted to you then you simply cannot turn it around.
That's what amuses me about PUAs and dating coaches. They say you should practice talking to women and analyse your results and the reactions you get with the intention of improving. There is no point in analysing what you have done. You should simply keep approaching until you find someone who is attracted to you, over which you will have little ultimate control. Because they will be judging you primarily, and in some cases almost entirely, on your looks.
This is why in my model of attraction, I consider looks to be the most important arbiter of the four critical characteristics, and game to be the least important (the others being social and economic status. It's also valuable to have common interests / intellectual connection with your partner, but you have no control over this).
Agree / disagree below.
submitted by wub1234 to PurplePillDebate [link] [comments]