Ronald.phillips

In a week where horror folks will be overloaded by the return of Pinhead ("Hellraiser"), Art the Clown ("Terrifier 2"), and Chucky ("Chucky" season 2), the people at Marvel Studios have decided to endow upon us a television special that harkens back to the days of early sound monster movies with "Werewolf by Night." Composer Michael Giacchino, otherwise known as the man behind the scores for "The Incredibles" and "The Batman," has taken it upon himself to adapt the '70s Marvel comic into a love letter to the Universal Monsters for his directorial debut.

As the first of Marvel's "Special Presentation" department, "Werewolf by Night" presents an incredible opportunity for creatives to tinker around with characters and ideas that may not have enough leg room for an entire series or feature film, but fits just nicely into this looser mold. If Giacchino is going to take a crack at taking us back to the golden age of horror under the Marvel banner, this is an excellent way to test the waters and go wild with it.

Giacchino's project may just come in under an hour long, but when you look at most of the Universal Monster films of the era, a good chunk of them barely stretched over the hour mark. Even with those short runtimes, however, projecting monster movies during the '30s and '40s came with a tradition called cue marking, otherwise referred to as "cigarette burns." While 1930s film stock was usually in 1.37:1 aspect ratio, Giacchino's homage is in the more modern 2.39:1, but it appears that he's also tributing the ways in which they were initially shown.

Cigarette Burns Are A Mark Of A Bygone Era In Projection

In an interview with Collider, Giacchino talked about how he and editor Jeffrey Ford saw the inclusion of cigarette burns as a way for them to pay tribute to the era in which this would have been seen:

"As we were editing and stuff, my editor Jeff and I are such nerds for this kind of thing, and we were just like, 'Oh, we got to put in those things too. We got to put in the reel changes.' Because we always approached this as something that was being done in the '30s."

In a real blink-and-you-miss-it moment in the trailer for "Werewolf by Night," when Kirk R. Thatcher is yelling "death is coming for you," you'll notice a little blip in the right-hand corner of the screen.

In the event you're unfamiliar with what cigarette cue marks are, they were used by projectionists as an indicator of when to switch over to the next film reel. After all, a single film reel only carries a portion of the movie. According to Videocide, a single reel could hold about 14–20 minutes. In the decades to follow, the reels would be spliced together by the projectionist, then stacked on top of one another.

When the monster movies of the '30s and '40s were projected, however, there was usually a dual setup where the moment one reel was ending, another projector was set up to play the next one. They would usually appear in the top right corner of the frame during the last few seconds of the reel.

See if you can catch them all this Friday.

"Werewolf by Night" will premiere on Disney+ on October 7, 2022.

Read this next: MCU Superpowers That Don't Quite Make Sense

The post Werewolf by Night's Cigarette Burns Are a Love Letter to 1930s Horror appeared first on /Film.

In this article we’re going to cover the types of bank accounts, which ones you should have, and what each one can do for you.

The two main types of bank accounts are your checking and savings accounts. These two are the main types and are essential to a healthy financial life.

It’s important to know how to set them up and how to make them work for you to get the most out of them.

Checking Accounts

Your checking account is the backbone of your financial system. It’s where your money will first go before it’s “filtered” to different parts of your system, like your savings account, your investing account, and your guilt-free spending. That’s why I believe in picking the best account, then moving on.

As you know, checking accounts let you deposit money and withdraw money using debit cards, checks, and online transfers. I think of my checking account like an email inbox: All my money goes in my checking account, and then I regularly apportion it out to appropriate accounts, like savings and investing, using automatic transfers.

I pay most of my bills through my credit card, but the bills that I can’t pay with my card—like rent or my car payment —I pay directly from my checking account using automatic transfers. Checking accounts are the number one place where unnecessary fees are levied, and we’re going to fix that.

Savings Accounts

Think of savings accounts as places for short-term (one month) to mid-term savings (five years). You want to use your savings account to save up for things like vacations and holiday gifts, or even longer-term items, like a wedding or the down payment on a house.

The key difference between checking and savings accounts is this: Savings accounts technically pay more interest. I say “technically” because on a practical level, the interest on your savings account is essentially meaningless.

The interest rate on your savings account is not all that important. Let’s assume you have $5,000 sitting in a savings account as part of your emergency fund.

If your bank offers you a 3 percent interest rate, that’s $150 per year, or $12.50 a month. If it’s a 0.5 percent interest rate, that’s $25 per year, or $2.08 per month. In short, who cares? $12.50 vs. $2 is not a huge difference when we’re talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars over our lives.

Before I read IWT, my personal finances were in shambles, and all my money was escaping me through late fees, overdraft fees, credit card annual fees. After reading the book, I was able to automate my finances  to  eliminate overdraft and late fees. By applying your strategies I moved into a better place and doubled the amount I pay toward my debt every month.

—JOE LARA, 29

Stop focusing on picking up pennies and instead focus on the Big Wins to craft your Rich Life. Now that I’ve set up my investing accounts and automated them, the amount I earn from one year of investing is worth more than 500 years of interest in a savings account. You heard that right. Don’t worry about micro-optimizing your bank account interest rates. Just pick great bank accounts and move on.

Before reading your book I had all my savings lumped into one Chase savings account and no investments. The burden of choice was holding me back from opening any new accounts and starting to invest.

—JONATHAN BAZ, 24

Why You Need Both Types Of Banks Accounts: Savings & Checking

The most important practical difference between checking accounts and savings accounts is that you withdraw money regularly from your checking account—but you rarely withdraw from your savings account. 

Checking accounts are built for frequent withdrawals: They have debit cards and ATMs for your convenience. But your savings account is really a “goals” account, where every dollar is assigned to a specific item you’re saving up for, like a house, a vacation, or an emergency fund.

You might think I’d encourage you to have your checking account and savings account at the same place. Surprisingly, I recommend two different accounts at two separate banks. 

Here’s why: Having your money in two separate accounts—and banks—uses psychology to keep your savings growing. One basic way of looking at it is that your savings account is where you deposit money, whereas your checking account is where you withdraw money. 

In other words, if your friends want to go out on Friday night, you’re not going to say, “Hold on, guys, I need three business days to transfer money to my checking account.” If you don’t have the money available in your discretionary (checking) account because you’ve spent your “going out” money, you’ll know it. Having a separate savings account forces you to keep your long-term goals in mind instead of just blowing them off to have a few rounds of drinks. 

Finally, in my experience, banks that try to offer checking and saving and investing tend to be mediocre at all of them. I want the best checking account, the best savings account, and the best investment account —no matter where they are.

Before, all my money went to shopping, paying my debt, and my credit card. I never saved. I always felt that I wasn’t making enough and maybe, just maybe, if I earned more I would start saving and be in a good financial situation. But I was wrong—no matter how much money I made, if I didn’t have a plan, I would always feel like I had insufficient money. Four months later, no debt for me. I have a savings account and I also started investing. I feel so much better and I can focus on improving my life  in  general  since one of the most important pillars in my life is on a good track.

—ROXANA VALENTINA, 27

Right now, you might be saying to yourself, “Why should I bother with a savings account? I only have $300.” I hear this all the time. It’s true, the interest you’ll be earning on that kind of money isn’t really that much.

To me, that’s the perfect time to start: when the stakes are low. Build the right habits when the amounts are small—with the right accounts, with automatic saving and investing—so that when your income increases, your habits are rock-solid.

We’re cutting our teeth with small amounts of money, sure. But as our savings accounts increase from $5,000 and $10,000 to $100,000 to $1 million and beyond, the habits really start to matter. Start now so that when you do have a lot of money, you’ll know what to do with it.

How To Setup Your Bank Accounts

I’ll tell you my favorite accounts in a few pages. But before you go about finding the specific banks and accounts you want to use, take a minute to consider the bigger picture. You want to pick accounts that work well with your personality. 

You have to know yourself: Do you value simplicity? Or are you the kind of person who wants to spend your time building a complicated system for a slightly larger payout? For most people, another option—“basic option + small optimization”—is perfect.

Most basic option (good for lazy people)

A checking account and a savings account at any local bank. This is the bare minimum. Even if you already have these accounts, it’s worth talking to your bank to be sure you’re not paying fees.

Basic option + small optimization (recommended for most people)

This option means opening accounts at two separate institutions: a no-fee checking account at your local bank and a high-yield online savings account. With the checking account, you’ll have immediate access to your money and free cash transfers to your high-interest online savings account. You can also deposit cash through your local bank. If you already have this setup, great! Just call to make sure you’re not paying unnecessary fees.

Advanced setup + full optimization (perfect for people who read things like Lifehacker and The 4-Hour Workweek)

This setup consists of maintaining several checking accounts and savings accounts at different banks, usually to eke out the most interest and services that various banks have to offer. For example, I have an interest-bearing checking account at an online bank and a savings account at a different online bank.

Although you can set up automatic online transfers, having multiple banks means multiple websites, multiple customer-service numbers, and multiple passwords. Some people find this overly complicated—if you’re one of them, stick to a more basic setup, unless it’s very important to you to fully optimize your bank accounts. (Personally, I think this option is awesome.)

How My Bank Accounts Work

Here are the accounts I use and how I’ve set them up to work together.

MY ACCOUNTS. All of my money goes through my interest-bearing Schwab online checking account. Deposits happen through direct

deposit or by taking a photo of a check and depositing it through the Schwab app.

MY SYSTEM. My finances work on a monthly cycle, and my system automatically disburses money where it needs to go. I’ve set up accounts to draw from my checking account. For example, my Capital One 360 savings account automatically withdraws a certain amount every month from my checking account, as does my investment account (more about these in Chapter 3). 

For rewards, tracking, and consumer protection, I pay my bills using my credit card. The credit card is automatically paid in full every month by my online checking account. For cash expenses, I use the Schwab ATM card to withdraw money at any ATM nationwide. All ATM charges are automatically reimbursed at the end of the month. 

Generally, I use my Capital One 360 account as a receiver, not a sender: I rarely transfer money out of there unless I need to cover a temporary shortage in my checking account or want to spend savings money on something important, like a vacation . . .

And that’s how I do it.

Choosing Bank Account Type

Depending on what accounts you already have and what setup you’ve opted to go with, getting this part of your financial infrastructure squared away may be as easy as making small changes to accounts you’ve had for a while. Or you may need to open new accounts, which can be pretty overwhelming.

As usual with financial decisions, we have too many options, leading most of us to make less-than-ideal choices—like opening a bank account in college and then staying with that bank forever. There are some good accounts out there, but of course banks don’t always make these deals easy to find.

Most traditional banks offer different checking and savings accounts to serve customers with different needs and amounts of money. They start at student accounts, which are bare-bones accounts with no fees, no minimums, and few value-added services. These are usually perfect for young people. 

Next, they offer accounts that have nominal monthly fees. They also offer ways for you to get these fees waived, like using direct deposit (where your paycheck is automatically sent to your bank every month) or maintaining a minimum balance. If your employer offers direct deposit, these accounts might be a good choice. 

Finally, banks offer higher-end accounts with higher minimums—often $5,000 or $10,000—and more services, like commission-free brokerage trades (which you should avoid, since banks are the last place you should invest), “bonus” interest rates, and discounts on home loans.

These accounts are worthless. Avoid them. If you have that much money lying around, I’ll show you how to put it to work in Chapter 7 and earn more than any bank could give you.

You should research the options at a few different banks. You can compare these banks in less than an hour by going to their websites, or you can just use the banks I use.

Beyond just the type of accounts offered, there’s more to consider when choosing your bank(s). I look for three things: trust, convenience, and features.

Frequently Asked Questions About Types of Bank Accounts

What are the 4 types of bank accounts?

4 Common types of bank accounts:

• Checking account
• Savings Account
• Certificate of Deposit
• Money Market Account

What are the 7 types of checking accounts?

7 types of checking accounts:

• Traditional checking account
• Student checking account
• Senior checking account
• High Interest checking account
• Business checking account
• Checkless checking account
• Reward checking account
• Private bank checking account

Can I open 2 account in same bank?

Banks will let you have more than one account with them at the same time. There aren’t any hard restrictions for how many accounts you can open at a financial institution. Although you might be more inclined to go to more than one bank.

Types Of Bank Accounts is a post from: I Will Teach You To Be Rich.

In this article we’re going to cover how many savings accounts you can have. 

On paper it seems like a good idea to have multiple accounts, especially ones with higher rates. However, it’s usually a waste of time to be chasing the next highest savings percent rate.

Multiple Savings Accounts

There’s no limit to how many savings accounts you can have open. Typically, banks will allow you to open as many savings accounts as you want to.

I can’t think of a reason why you would need more than one savings account. 

Do me a favor: If your bank account offers one rate and another bank starts offering a slightly higher rate, don’t change accounts. Half the time, those rates are simply introductory teaser rates that will drop after six months. 

I’d rather take a slightly lower interest rate if it’s at a bank I can trust to give me great service over the long term. 

But there are a lot of dorks who spend every waking hour online digging up the best interest rate and switching to it immediately.

“OMG!!!!” they say. “Ally Bank increased its rate from 2.25 percent to 2.75 percent!! Now it’s 0.02 percent higher than Capital One 360! I’m going to switch accounts right now!!!” If you do this, you are a moron.

Do you really want to spend each month figuring out which bank is offering a slightly better rate? That’s a colossal waste of time for most of us, since a 0.5 percent difference equals just a few dollars per month more in interest.

 Plus, interest rates change over time, so rate chasing doesn’t even make sense. I plan on sticking with my bank for the next few decades, and I’m sure you have better things to do with your time. So focus on the Big Wins, not on rate jumping.

The Best Savings Accounts (Including the Ones I Use)

As we’ve seen, a lot goes into finding the right accounts. Here are a few options that I’ve found work well for many people—along with my own personal picks.

The Best Savings Accounts

I would not encourage anyone to use a standard Big Bank savings account. Online savings accounts let you earn more interest with lower hassle. And because you’ll be primarily sending money there, not withdrawing it, what does it matter if it takes three days to get your money?

Capital One 360 Savings (capitalone.com/bank): This is the savings account I use. It lets you create virtual sub-savings accounts, in which you can specify savings goals like an emergency fund, wedding, or down payment for a house. You can also set up automatic transfers to other accounts (“Transfer $100 on the 1st of every month from my checking account to my savings

account, and send $20 to my investment account on the 5th of every month”). There are no fees, no minimums, and no tricky up-sells or annoying promotions. It’s not always the highest interest rate, but it’s close. Capital One 360 Savings is just a simple savings account that works.

Ally Online Savings Account (ally.com/bank): Also recommended. This no-fee savings account also lets you create multiple savings accounts, which will help your automation system. It has solid interest rates and works great.

Other savings accounts to consider: Marcus by Goldman Sachs and American Express Personal Savings.

Banks To Consider	Banks To Avoid
Ally Bank: ally.com	Bank of America
CapitalOne360: capitalone.com	Wells Fargo
Schwab: schwab.com
Marcus by Goldman Sachs: marcus.com
American Express Personal Savings: americanexpress.com/personalsavings/home

Now you’ve got all the information you need to open a new checking or savings account. It shouldn’t take more than three hours of research and two hours to open each account and fund it. 

If you need to transfer money from an old account to a new one, your new bank will help you arrange the transfer. I recommend you keep your old account open with a small amount of money in it in case you have any automatic transfers that are still trying to draw from your old account. Set a 60-day calendar reminder to close the old account. And we’re off to our next step!

I didn’t know how to put money toward my goals. I had one savings account and would constantly reallocate my money in my mind. After reading the book, I opened different accounts to put money toward the things I wanted to spend money on—not just emergency savings and retirement, but travel and giving  to others.

—EMILY CRAWFORD, 33

Frequently Asked Questions About Multiple Savings Accounts

Is it a good idea to have multiple savings accounts?

Many consumers usually only need one savings account. However, having multiple accounts — at the same bank or different banks — can be useful for managing different savings goals. Since there is little to no downside in opening multiple savings accounts (it doesn’t impact your credit) it can be a good idea.

Is there a downside to opening multiple savings accounts?

You might pay more fees. Some banks require a minimum in the savings account and failing to meet that minimum will incur a fee. The more you split your money, the more likely that you’ll be paying these fees.

Can I have two savings accounts in same bank?

It depends on your banks but generally no. You can usually only have 1 active savings account (unless your banks states otherwise).

How many different savings accounts should I have?

Have at least one checking account and one savings account. Use your savings for an emergency fund and goals, then use your checking account for spending and expenses.

Is it okay to have 3 savings account?

It’s generally not a good idea to have more than 3 savings accounts since they can be timely as to manage the more you have. Also if you don’t use the account it’s possible your banks might mark your account dormant if there is no activity.

How Many Savings Accounts Can I Have? is a post from: I Will Teach You To Be Rich.

In the article, we will fundamentally break down how banks make money. Banks earn their money by lending the money you deposit to other people. 

For example, if you deposit $1,000, a Big Bank pays you a small amount in interest to hold on to that money, then turns around and lends it out at a much higher percentage for a home loan. 

Assuming that everyone repays their loans in full, the bank makes a huge return on their money for simple arbitrage. But here’s how they really make tons more money.

Traditionally, banks make money from the difference between the interest rate they pay for deposits and the interest rate they receive on the loans they make. They also earn money from customer fees and interest on the securities they hold.

How Banks ACTUALLY Make Money – The Truth

FEES, FEES, FEES. In 2017, banks made more than $34 billion from overdraft fees alone. For example, if you’re using a debit card and accidentally buy something for more money than you have in your checking account, you’d expect your bank to decline the charge, right? Nope. They let the transaction go through, and then helpfully charge you around $30 for an overdraft fee. Even worse, banks can charge you multiple overdraft fees in one day, leading to horror stories of more than $100 in fees levied in a single day.

NO MORE OVERDRAFTS

One overdraft fee wipes out your interest for the entire year and makes you hate your bank more than you already do, if that’s even possible. More than half the people I’ve spoken to during my personal finance talks have had at least one overdraft. 

One night, I was out for dinner and my friend—let’s call her Elizabeth— started asking me questions about overdrafts. They got increasingly complex, which weirded me out because I wondered how she knew so much about them. 

I asked her a simple question: “How many overdrafts have you had?” She got quiet, which of course made me want to to interrogate her more (welcome to my twisted mind). I learned that she’d incurred more than $400 in overdraft fees over four years of college by simply not paying attention to how much money she had in her account. 

The sad thing is that she could have negotiated her way out of the first few fees and then set up a system so that it never happened again. For more on negotiating bank fees.

Remember, your bank’s fees can be more important than the interest rate it offers: If you have $1,000 and another bank has a 1 percent higher interest rate, that’s a difference of $10 per year. Just one overdraft fee equals three times that amount. Costs matter.

Bank of America institutes new fees for what seems to be no reason, sometimes unexpectedly. Like $5 maintenance fee on savings accounts? It’s not like the interest offered is even worth it. Not to mention their $12 fee for checking accounts that don’t have deposits of $250 or more. I know the amounts seem  small but I know for some people $5 to $12 is a lot of money and can be the difference in paying bills. It always seems like those with the lowest balances end up paying the price.”

—BRIDGETTE SALLEY, 26

Bad Banks: What are the worst banks

This infuriates me. I absolutely hate when sophisticated financial firms take advantage of people who don’t understand the complexity of these financial products.

And people still stick with banks who have proven bad patterns of behavior.

I asked some of my readers who’d chosen to stay with horrible banks like

Wells Fargo or Bank of America—why? Their answers:

I’ve been with Wells Fargo for like 20 years . . . so it’s just one of those things where “it’s always been that way” and I don’t think about it.

I have 8 accounts with WF, and although I hate them and what they stand for, the idea of moving those accounts seems like a gigantic, annoying time suck.

I’ve changed banks before, but it was a struggle to get the ball rolling. It’s almost like an emotional attachment.

No matter how many times I say to switch to a better bank, most of my readers don’t give a shit. It’s fine! Stay with the bank that’s going to open fake accounts under your name, charge you near-extortionate fees, and figure out a way to screw you today—or five years from now. God.

I’ve been with Schwab for years thanks to your recommendation. Service is always great —the few problems I’ve had are always cleared up.

—RICK MCCLELLAND, 27

I switched to Schwab YEARS ago based on your recommendation and haven’t looked back.

—RAIHAN ANWAR, 29

On your recommendation, I moved to Schwab. I’ve used them all over the world (including in Pakistan at what claims to be the world’s highest ATM).

—SAAD GUL, 42

WHY HAVEN’T YOU SWITCHED BANKS YET?

INVISIBLE MONEY SCRIPT	WHAT IT MEANS
“It’s a headache to switch banks.”	Honestly, I get it. You’ve got your account set up and it works. Why not just stay? My analysis: You don’t have to switch, but if you spend about one day doing it, you’ll ensure that the foundation of your financial system is solid. The banks I recommend are more convenient, cheaper, and offer better rewards than Big Banks. As you grow your income, you’ll know you’re working with the best.
“I don’t know where else I would go.”	This is irrelevant. Just read the rest of this chapter and I’ll tell you the best banks.
“This was my first bank ever.”	I’ve only heard this once, but it was so ridiculous I had to include it. Do you have a lifelong love of your first thumbtack? What about your first garden hose? No? So why are we talking about how you cuddle up with your “first bank ever”? GTFO.

Frequently Asked Questions about How Banks Make Money

How does a bank make its money?

Banks earn their money by lending the money you deposit to other people. The other main ways they make money are from interest on loans and fees associated with their services.

How does a bank make most of its profit?

Interest income and fees are the primary way that most commercial banks make profit. In 2017, banks made more than $34 billion from overdraft fees alone.

How Banks Make Money is a post from: I Will Teach You To Be Rich.

Ribs are a “project” dish—or they have that reputation. Perhaps it’s their intimidating appearance: a big rack of bones. Perhaps it’s because they’re part of that culinary tradition know as “barbecue,” which can be overwhelming if you are used to doing all of your cooking indoors or don’t have a grill. But you can…

Read more...

Commentary: People are surprised that I don't own an EV, but here are my reasons, some admittedly better than others.

YouTube's Premium paid subscription includes benefits like ad-free viewing, video and song downloads for offline consumption, and background plays. Now, it might also be shifting video streaming in 4K resolution (currently free for all users) to the premium tier. TechCrunch: Over the weekend, users across Reddit and Twitter noted that YouTube had been asking them to upgrade to the premium tier to watch videos in 4K. It's not clear if the change is part of a limited test, or if the company is thinking about capping free users to 1440p resolution. Google declined to comment on the story when contacted by TechCrunch. The company has tried various methods to convert free users into paying ones. One of the most notorious ones was showing them up to 11 unskippable ads before the start of a long video to let them have an uninterrupted experience.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Fallout 76 is now free to play for a week as developer Bethesda marks 25 years of the apocalypse, survival RPG by also offering a range of giveaways and sales, and launching new quests for Fallout Shelter.

RELATED LINKS: Fallout 76 Mutations, Fallout 76 Perk Cards, Buy Fallout 76

The post Devil’s Workshop – Movie Review (4/5) appeared first on Heaven of Horror.

There was an issue involving Gloria's estate. I had to call Bank of America, which is where the estate account is held. 

Most people can agree that Viserys Targaryen (Paddy Considine) isn't all that great at his job. Yes, he's managed to avoid any major wars, but he's been remarkably complacent about the growing rivalries inside his own family. After over a decade, you'd think he'd have done a little more to force Alicent (Olivia Cooke) and Rhaenyra (Emma D'Arcy) to put aside their differences. His decision to marry Alicent at all (his daughter's best friend rather than the daughter of a major ally) was particularly silly and poorly handled. 

And yet somehow, by "Game of Thrones" standards, he's one of the best rulers we've seen on screen. Unlike Daenerys, he hasn't burned down King's Landing. Unlike Cersei, he hasn't alienated all the other houses and accidentally unleashed a puritanical religious mania throughout the city. Unlike Joffrey, he's not a full-on sadist. Besides Bran, whom audiences only got to see as king for a couple of minutes on-screen, the character Viserys parallels the most from the original series is Robert Baratheon (Mark Addy). 

Much like Robert, Viserys is the first king we've gotten to know in his show, and him staying alive seems to be the only thing preventing total chaos from being unleashed. Much like Robert, ruling the Iron Throne seems to have aged Viserys poorly; throughout the prequel's constant jumps through time, it always feels like a minor miracle that Viserys is somehow still alive. There are a lot in common between the two characters, but if last night's episode is any indication, Viserys may be the better ruler overall. 

The Many Callbacks To 'The Kingsroad'

As you may recall, the second episode ever of "Game of Thrones" features a scene where Joffrey needlessly antagonizes Arya and her lower-class friend Mycah. Things quickly get out of hand: soon Joffrey is swinging a real sword at Arya, then Arya's direwolf comes in and chomps at Joffrey's wrist. It feels like a satisfying moment to see Joffrey get taken down a peg, but unfortunately the aftermath of the event makes it clear it wasn't worth it. When Cersei hears what happened, she demands that Arya's direwolf gets put down as punishment. When Arya's direwolf is nowhere to be found, she demands that Sansa's direwolf, Lady, gets killed instead. 

It's a dark, frustratingly unfair resolution, one that only serves to foreshadow the growing divide between the Stark and Lannister houses. Perhaps even more so than Jaime throwing Bran out the window, this sequences of events is a clear sign of the war that would eventually break out just a handful of episodes later.

Sound familiar? The characters and the exact circumstances are different, but this basic scenario has already played out nearly 200 years earlier within the Targaryen family. Except instead of Ned's kids accidentally hurting one of Cersei's kids a little too harshly, this time it's one of Rhaenyra's kids maiming Alicent's. 

Much like Cersei, Alicent refuses to accept the idea that her son was in any way responsible for what happened. (Aemond is no Joffrey, but he still handled the situation terribly.) With both women, their reaction to the incident highlights the tensions in their marriage: both Viserys' and Robert's gut reaction is to deny their wife's demand. The difference, of course, is that Viserys follows through. 

The Chad Viserys

Did anyone else's stomach drop when Alicent demanded one of Rhaenyra's kids' eyes get carved out? She commands Cristin Cole to do it and the guy seems perfectly willing (because Cole is the worst), and for a moment it seems like we're getting a repeat of "The Kingsroad." This show's made it abundantly clear that it's more than willing to let things play out in agonizingly unjust ways, so for a second it actually feels like we're about to watch a grown man maim a child under the guise of law and order. 

Luckily, Viserys puts a stop to it. Not only does he declare the matter settled, but he also announces that if anyone else ever questions the legitimacy of Rhaenyra's kids ever again, they'll have their tongues cut out. It's a reminder of one of Viserys' best attributes: the guy really does love his daughter, and he's going stick up for her no matter what. Yes, even if that means pretending as if her three black-haired children aren't obviously bastards.

It's a moment that reminds us just how poorly Robert would handle his similar predicament two hundred years later. Yes, his wife demanded the death of Lady, but as "House of the Dragon" makes clear, Robert didn't actually need to listen to her. He could've put his foot down and forbade the pointless killing of an innocent animal. Viserys, for all his faults, was able to stand up to his wife when he knew she was going too far. 

Is Honor Overrated?

The other "Game of Thrones" character who comes out of this episode looking a little worse is Ned Stark (Sean Bean), who was the one who undertook the execution of poor Lady. Ned isn't happy at all to kill her, but he grits his teeth and does it anyway because that's what his king orders him to do. It's not like the show lets him off the hook for this, exactly — the difference between honor and the right thing is a constant dilemma Ned struggles with — but it's something that comes across a little differently after watching "HotD."

Ned may have handled the situation as honorably as he knew how, but maybe the morally correct thing to do was to ignore his honor altogether. What if he'd done what Rhaenyra did, and defend her family members through any means necessary?

Both Viserys and Rhaenyra are far less honorable than Ned. They both know damn well that Rhaenyra's kids are bastards, and Viserys seems plenty aware on how wrong it is to cut someone's tongue out for pointing out that blonde hair + blonde hair =/= pitch black hair. And yet in the end, it's the two characters' shameless disregard of honor that saves the day. 

The situation that plays out in "Driftmark" is perhaps more complicated than the situation in "The Kingsroad." Aemond is more sympathetic than Joffrey and Rhaenyra is far less sympathetic than Ned. Of course, that's the main difference between the two shows so far: whereas "Game of Thrones" had the Starks to root for, there is no clear-cut good family to root for here. Neither Rhaenrya or Viserys are as honorable as Ned Stark, but if this latest episode is any indication, that's probably for the best. 

Read this next: 11 Game Of Thrones Parallels In The House Of The Dragon Premiere

The post How Viserys Targaryen Just Proved Himself a Better King than Robert Baratheon appeared first on /Film.

American gothic fiction author Anne Rice (who passed away in December 2021) is most famous for her 1976 debut novel "Interview with the Vampire," a terrific vampire story centering on Louis de Pointe du Lac, a vampire who tells the story of his life to a reporter. Following an acclaimed 1994 feature film, the novel was adapted into a series at AMC and began premiering on the network and its streamer AMC+ in October 2022. It's the network's first adaptation of the author's work, but it won't be the last.

Rice's comparatively lesser-known fantasy trilogy "Lives of the Mayfair Witches" has also been greenlit by the streamer — the show has received an eight-episode order and stars Alexandria Daddario in the lead. Anne Rice's works are getting a major revival at AMC, and her readers have a lot to be stoked about. Here's all we know about the exciting "Mayfair Witches" adaptation.

What Is Mayfair Witches About?

Anne Rice's "Lives of the Mayfair Witches" follows the classic fish-out-of-water plot with an added supernatural twist. The story follows a young neurosurgeon Dr. Rowan Mayfair (Alexandria Daddario), who one day discovers she's the unlikely heir to a family of witches (via Deadline). 

The rest of the description reads: "As she grapples with her newfound powers, she must contend with a sinister presence that has haunted her family for generations." The story is essentially about a family that deals with witchcraft and the occult through four centuries. There are three novels in the fantasy series, and the AMC adaptation will probably adapt the events of the first novel, "The Witching Hour," for its first season.

Meet The Cast Of Mayfair Witches Led By Alexandria Daddario

The powerful spellcasters of New Orleans will be led by Alexandria Daddario (whose latest credits include "The White Lotus") as Dr. Rowan Mayfair. A brilliant practitioner of neurosurgery, Rowan's life changes forever when she discovers she's the heir to a powerful family of witches. Daddario stars opposite Harry Hamlin ("Clash of the Titans"), who will portray the family patriarch Cortland Mayfair. His character is described as someone with a voracious appetite for money, power, and life. 

Other cast members include Tongayi Chirisa as Citroen, Beth Grant as Carlotta, Erica Gimpel as Ellie, Annabeth Gish as Diedre, and Jen Richards as Jojo (via Deadline). British actor Jack Huston ("Boardwalk Empire") was tapped to join the series as Lasher, a powerful shape-shifting entity who has been bound to the Mayfair witches for "hundreds of years." Lasher is famous for being one of Rice's most mysterious characters, so it'll be interesting to see how Huston tackles the role. 

As for the team behind the show, Esta Spalding ("The Last Letter from Your Lover" and "On Becoming a God in Central Florida") is writing and executive producing AMC's "Mayfair Witches" along with Michelle Ashford ("The Pacific" and "Masters of Sex"). Spalding will also serve as the showrunner of the highly-anticipated series.

When Will Mayfair Witches Be Available To Stream?

The eight-episode season is expected to premiere in 2023 on AMC and its sister network AMC+. While we don't have a trailer for the adaptation yet, the network has released a glimpse of "Mayfair Witches," featuring some of its major players in action (via TV Line). The fantasy trilogy from Anne Rice has stood the test of time for its elements of family secrets and the power of witchcraft — and it'll be intriguing to watch the story come to life on the silver screen.

Here's a fun fact: "Mayfair Witches" takes place in the same universe as Anne Rice's "The Vampire Chronicles" novels, and with AMC bagging the rights to most of the author's books, it wouldn't be an exaggeration to anticipate some major crossovers in the future. Can we say that the Rice-verse has finally dawned upon us?

Read this next: The 15 Best Horror TV Shows Of All Time

The post Mayfair Witches: Everything We Know So Far About the AMC Anne Rice Adaptation appeared first on /Film.

A good old-fashioned ghost story, "Mr. Harrigan's Phone" is bound to surprise folks looking for a more traditional modern horror pic. There are no jump scares; no CGI ghouls; no lengthy chase sequences that turn out to be dumb-ass dreams. No, the horror in "Mr. Harrigan's Phone," adapted from the short story by an up-and-coming writer named Stephen King (you've probably never heard of him) comes from the situations the characters find themselves in. It's a type of slow-burn, psychological horror. The type of thrills and chills that don't register at first, but come creeping back when you're in bed, awake at night, unable to sleep, and the darkness starts to creep in.

Written and directed by John Lee Hancock — not exactly the first name you think of when it comes to horror movies, unless you're terrified of Michael Keaton's accent in "The Founder" — "Mr. Harrigan's Phone" is one of the most-faithful King adaptations in recent memory. It sticks almost religiously to King's text, making only a few minor alterations here and there. As a fan of the story, I was delighted about this — but I also recognize it's not going to work for everyone. As Halloween season approaches, viewers will probably press play on this on Netflix expecting more traditional ghosts and ghouls. Instead, they're going to get a movie that requires them to ruminate.

None of this is to say Hancock's film is a home run. While I have never outright hated Hancock's work (I actually even like his box office flop "The Alamo"), he's not exactly skilled at creating fear and tension. He's a workman filmmaker; someone who knows where the point the camera, and why, without putting much more thought into it. The end result is a sturdy-enough chiller that could've been even better.

It's For You

In the small town of Gates Falls (which, this being a King story, is naturally in New England), Craig (Jaeden Martell), a kid from a working-class family, is hired by a mysterious, reclusive billionaire named John Harrigan (Donald Sutherland). Harrigan lives alone (save for a housekeeper and a gardener) in his giant mansion, and as his eyes fail him in his old age, he needs someone to read to him. Craig takes the gig, and while Harrigan remains imposing, the two develop an unlikely friendship.

And then, the iPhone arrives. Yes, the story is set slightly in the past, at the dawn of the iPhone age, and when Craig gets one of the smartphones for Christmas, he's eager to show it off to Mr. Harrigan. Harrigan has no use for such contraptions, damn it! He's old! But of course, all he needs is a few scrolls through the iPhone's stock market app to change his mind. And he even gets an iPhone of his own.

This is going to sound like a spoiler, but it's not, since the entire movie hinges on this premise: eventually, Mr. Harrigan dies. Heartbroken, Craig slips the dead old man's phone into the pocket of his jacket right before his coffin lid is closed. Later, feeling lonely, he decides to send Mr. Harrigan a text.

And Mr. Harrigan texts back.

Answer The Call

Or does he? 

This is a great old-school horror story premise; in fact, King is cribbing from a classic "Twilight Zone" episode, "Night Call," in which a downed phone line falls onto a grave, enabling the inhabitant buried six feet under to reach out and touch someone. Craig is understandably creeped out but tries to shrug the whole thing off as some weird coincidence. But that gets harder to do when certain people who have drawn Craig's ire start turning up dead.

It's a spooky idea, although Craig is too much of a passive character for it to really land. It would've been scarier if Craig was a bit more morally gray, and felt a little more conflicted about the mysterious deaths. Instead, he almost immediately denounces them as soon as they happen.

All of this unfolds with an easy, breezy charm that's a touch too light for this subject matter. But while Craig as a character is too weakly drawn, Martel does a fine job playing up the character's increasing fear. The real highlight, though, is Sutherland. While his part is small, the actor, now in his Lion in Winter phase, shows up to remind us he's still got it. With just a slight smile and a twinkle in his eye, Sutherland is able to make Mr. Harrigan seem mischievous, warm, and dangerous all at once. It's a stellar little performance, and I wanted more of it. Let's hope he keeps acting for as long as possible because this performance just reminded me how much I missed seeing him in movies. 

Sutherland wasn't the only thing I wanted more of. I wanted just a little bit more horror — I'm not talking jump-scares, I just mean a greater sense of dread. But if you answer the call of "Mr. Harrigan's Phone," you might find yourself more creeped out than you might expect. Especially when night rolls around, and the wind picks up and rattles your house. And the screen of your phone suddenly lights up.

/Film Rating: 6.5 out of 10

"Mr. Harrigan's Phone" premieres Wednesday, October 5, 2022, on Netflix.

Read this next: 12 Underrated Slasher Movies You Need To Check Out

The post Mr. Harrigan's Phone Review: This Stephen King Adaptation is an Old School Ghost Story With a Modern Twist appeared first on /Film.

Before directing "My Best Friend's Exorcism," Damon Thomas had been no stranger to entering worlds full of monstrous beings and people. Having worked on hit television shows like "Penny Dreadful" and "Killing Eve," Thomas has an eye for focusing on stories where women take down bullets, vampires, secret agents, and varying evils of the patriarchy.

However, directing an adaptation of Grady Hendrix's beloved book gave Thomas a new challenge: How can one make an entertaining exorcism film filled with as much heart as guts? Described by its publisher Quirk Books as "Beaches" meets "The Exorcism," Hendrix's novel is known for exploring the daily horrors of adolescence through a demonic romp. At its heart, it's about Gretchen (Amiah Miller) and Abby's friendship (Elsie Fisher) surviving these stressors. Possession becomes a metaphor for women's connection with their bodies and how the world around them (and their interior worlds) changes once puberty strikes.

When speaking to Thomas about his adaptation of Hendrix's work, he described how he wanted it to feel like a "lost film of the '80s." Unlike other exorcism films that overly rely on gore and vomit to craft their scares (see: "The Haunting in Connecticut"), he joined the project because screenwriter Jenna Lamia ("Resident Alien") brought a feel-good take on a subgenre typically surrounded by dread. We delved into how much explicit body horror made it onto the big screen and his thoughts on the tubular tone of "My Best Friend's Exorcism."

'I'm Much More Interested In Exploring Ideas...'

Before delving into "My Best Friend's Exorcism," I wanted to ask you about your previous directing work. You've directed episodes on two of my favorite series -- "Penny Dreadful" and "Killing Eve." I'd love to know what draws you to works featuring women battling monsters of all sorts?

[Laughs] I don't know... I think "Killing Eve" gave me an interest in [it]. I think we've seen a lot of men be immoral -- doing bad things and not being judged. I think when Villanelle [Jodie Comer] came along, it was so refreshing, wasn't it? She could just be really bad and we sort of loved her. It was so liberating. I really enjoyed that as a director and directing Eva Green [in "Penny Dreadful"] as well. I really like to see women in those roles. I think it's really refreshing as a director because you're not just going over ground that you've seen before. 

So when it came to "My Best Friend's Exorcism," I really enjoyed the script. I felt there was a real opportunity to make a lost film from the '80s. [Having] grown up in the '80s, to slightly revisit it and see how those views differ from now. We just see the world so differently in terms of sexuality and all sorts of really interesting things in this post-Villanelle world. It's good to look back, and I'm really interested in women characters that can do anything they want. I really like that.

This film has an R-rating, which I was surprised about --

-- does it? Huh...

It made me curious since this film does cover exorcisms, how did you approach how much body horror you wanted to show on screen?

Again, going back to "Killing Eve," it's so easy to go down a cheap route -- I'll say. I'm much more interested in exploring ideas. I came up with that scene in "Killing Eve" where they go to the old musical and have a dance because I wanted to show physical content that wasn't sexual. That was about intimacy. There was about emotions that was about connection. 

I think to tell this story, we didn't need that. We didn't need to go down that route. So I thought we could do much more in terms of the characters... I'm surprised it's got an R rating. I really am because I thought it was quite tame. I really wanted to not go and make it incredibly scary because I just thought it wouldn't fit with the rest of the movie. 

When you think about "Heathers," that seemed very shocking at the time. But it's a bit tamer now, doesn't it? But I thought [this film] was more charming. But I knew people out there we'll see it and say, "Oh, it's not that scary." But that's because I didn't want it to be. It's a different territory. Sometimes you don't want the movie to go there 'cause then it feels like, "Oh, well, it feels like we're in a different movie now."

'Filmmaking Is A Weird Marathon...'

Yeah, it definitely feels like a coming-of-age film first. 

Yes. 

Like sure, it's still horror but that's not its total focus.

Yeah, you want to learn something about the human condition, don't you? That's what movie makings about. Some people just want to be scared and have so much more gore and that's not this kind of movie. It's not what I set out to make, and it wasn't in the script. My job as a director is to realize what's in this script. It's not like, "Oh, now I'm going to make a different kind of film."

Without spoiling it, there's one worm scene in the film that's adapted from the book. It looks like a mixture of practical and digital effects were used and am curious what it was like bringing that scene to life? Did it go as you'd imagine it would during filming?

Yeah, it's... The boring side of filmmaking is that you're constricted by time, budget, and the pandemic. But obviously, when films come out, you're all judged on a level-playing field. You're just judged, aren't you? You trying to do the literal best you can. A scene like that one was shot in one day. So Rachel Ogechi Kanu had to spend hours and hours moaning. What's so interesting thing about performance is: some actors can't go there. They're really good actors, but then you go, "Now you got to give me your sicking up the tapeworm..." [laughs] And so, yes, you have to storyboard it, and then go when we do the interaction [on-screen], we need something physical. We need to have something to interact with that then gets retextured. So we made tapeworms that could be used. Sometimes they weren't strong enough, or you have all these have technical issues. Filmmaking is like a weird marathon. We are running against time, but you want to, and then of course, you have all the visual effects that go on for months afterwards, where you're going in at the textures, right? We don't have just the ability to just keep working forever and ever. You have a time limit. I don't want to sound like those are excuses. I think that scene was adapted really well.

'I Wanted It To Be A Monster They Could Actually Beat...'

Yeah, I think it came out well. I always think about effects when chatting with horror directors wondering like, "Oh, how many takes did that take? One shot only?" There's also a lot of vomit in this scene so I imagine the set was super messy.

Yeah. [Laughs] Since "The Exorcist" in 1973, it gave [filmmakers] a benchmark of exorcisms. Are you going to do the speeding ahead? Are you going to do the vomit? -- things like that. I think as a filmmaker, you either reject tropes or embrace them. There are a lot of horror films made all the time and they usually tend to get very scary and super violent -- like dark pits with monsters with big teeth and rotting flesh. Again, I wanted "My Best Friend's Exorcism" to be a little bit different.

Yeah, like there's vomit in here but it's just grey and not sexy. Not like vomit is sexy [laughs] but it's not that black sludge kind of style. It's just like, "Oh, that's gross."

Yeah! That's what I wanted it to be: gross. But also, I wanted it to be a monster that they could really beat. Sometimes you get these monsters and they're enormous and they've got 10,000 teeth. But suddenly, they just get really easily defeated [laughs]. I loved that the book is essentially all about friendship. A friendship is the thing that gets the demon out. And then there was... I don't think watching this film, you're going to expect a CGI creature.

I didn't. I thought it'd just stay in manifestations of her body. Speaking of that monster, how did you decide on that look? Was it more straight from the page or did you play around with differing types?

I thought it should be something combined with a small chicken-hybrid-man because of the owls. Andras -- the demon -- the owls are a symbol of him. So we tried to weave owls into it and have it be a presence, which is kind of nice. So that's how we came out with it. Folks, a Canadian visual effects company, gave us a guy that specializes with monster creation. I described it and he got it pretty much straight away and came back with this creature. We then refined, as you do, along the way. Did you enjoy it?

'People Have Very Strong Feelings About Horror Movies, Don't They?'

Yeah, I was surprised at how tender it was. I don't think there's a lot of feel-good horror out there right now so am always curious to see it.

Yeah, it's that weird thing... People have very strong feelings about horror movies, don't they?

Yes. They do.

I thought, "What's the point of making something that's exactly something else?" As a filmmaker, you're trying to do that and get that [original] tone. I thought that Chris Lowell's Lemon was true to the character. It's interesting because we watched the film with a lot of people last night. We had like 300 people there, and once he wants the demon shows himself, he literally goes, "Yes!" At moment, everyone laughed because it dispelled the tension in the room. But it was really truthful because that's exactly what he would do in that situation. He was like so chuffed. It was really interesting to see where people laughed and how they enjoyed it.

"My Best Friend's Exorcism" is streaming now on Prime Video.

Read this next: Horror Movies That Make Us Root For The Villain

The post My Best Friend's Exorcism Director Delves Into the Tender, Coming-Of-Age Horror Adaptation [Exclusive Interview] appeared first on /Film.

This year marks the 30^th anniversary of Francis Ford Coppola's "Bram Stoker's Dracula." It's an exquisite tale of love, horror, and tragedy full of eroticism that does the original novel justice. Nothing has managed to get as close to the novel in spirit and storyline, and it is a favorite among many horror and non-horror fans for this reason (among many others). With that said, one of the performances that hasn't stood the test of time comes from Keanu Reeves.

His performance wasn't well received back in 1992 when the film was released, and unfortunately, it's not one of those performances that can be rehabilitated with time. In "Bram Stoker's Dracula," Reeves portrays Jonathan Harker, a solicitor who travels to Transylvania after his colleague, R.M. Renfield, goes insane. This has left an opportunity for Harker to take over Renfield's old clients, namely Count Dracula.

While Harker is there to finalize business dealings with the Count over various properties in London, the Count has other plans upon discovering Harker's photograph of his fiancé, Mina Murray. Believing Mina to be the reincarnation of his deceased lover, Elisabeta, the Count sacrifices Harker to his three vampiric brides while making his way to London. Eventually, Harker escapes and is drawn back into the fight against Count Dracula to save Mina's soul.

Looking back on Reeves' performance as Jonathan Harker, Coppola had his own opinions as to why the performance audiences saw onscreen didn't go how Reeves had hoped.

Perfectionism Kills

When perfectionism works, it really works. But oftentimes, it sabotages more than it helps. This appears to be the case, according to Coppola, when it came down to how Reeves performed in "Bram Stoker's Dracula." When asked by Entertainment Weekly if he felt responsible for how openly criticized Reeves' performance was, Coppola viewed it objectively:

"It was tough for him to affect an English accent. He tried so hard. That was the problem – he wanted to do it perfectly, and it came off as stilted. I tried to get him to relax with it and not do it so fastidiously. So maybe I wasn't as critical of him, but that's because I like him, personally, so much. To this day, he's a prince in my eyes."

The soft spot Coppola had for the young actor as well as Reeves' perfectionism may be to blame here, but there are also other factors. Years after the release of the film, Reeves admitted that he was thoroughly exhausted from back-to-back shoots before he took on the role of Jonathan Harker. By the time he got to working on "Bram Stoker's Dracula," he just didn't have anything more to give.

Throw in the fact that he had to compete onscreen with Gary Oldman's and Sir Anthony Hopkins' more theatrical, high-energy performances, it seemed he was doomed from the very start. Much like Jonathan Harker was when Count Dracula spotted the picture of Mina Murray. A fitting, yet sad twist of fate.

Read this next: Horror Remakes That Are Better Than The Originals

The post Francis Ford Coppola Thinks Perfectionism Poisoned Keanu Reeves' Dracula Performance appeared first on /Film.

The first map of the "galactic underworld" -- a chart of the corpses of once massive suns that have since collapsed into black holes and neutron stars -- has revealed a graveyard that stretches three times the height of the Milky Way, and that almost a third of the objects have been flung out from the galaxy altogether. Phys.Org reports: "These compact remnants of dead stars show a fundamentally different distribution and structure to the visible galaxy," said David Sweeney, a Ph.D. student at the Sydney Institute for Astronomy at the University of Sydney, and lead author of the paper in the latest issue of Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. "The 'height' of the galactic underworld is over three times larger in the Milky Way itself," he added. "And an amazing 30 percent of objects have been completely ejected from the galaxy." [...] Sweeney added that "the hardest problem I had to solve in hunting down their true distribution was to account for the 'kicks' they receive in the violent moments of their creation. Supernova explosions are asymmetric, and the remnants are ejected at high speed -- up to millions of kilometers per hour -- and, even worse, this happens in an unknown and random direction for every object." But nothing in the universe sits still for long, so even knowing the likely magnitudes of the explosive kicks was not enough: the researchers had to delve into the depths of cosmic time and reconstruct how they behaved over billions of years. The intricate models they built -- together with University of Sydney Research Fellow Dr. Sanjib Sharma and Dr. Ryosuke Hirai of Monash University -- encoded where the stars were born, where they met their fiery end and their eventual dispersal as the galaxy evolved. The final outcome is a distribution map of the Milky Way's stellar necropolis. In the maps generated, the characteristic spiral arms of the Milky Way vanish in the 'galactic underworld' version. These are entirely washed out because of the age of most of the remnants, and the blurring effects of the energetic kicks from the supernovae which created them. Even more intriguing, the side-on view shows that the galactic underworld is much more 'puffed up' than the Milky Way -- a result of kinetic energy injected by supernovae elevating them into a halo around the visible Milky Way. "One of the problems for finding these ancient objects is that, until now, we had no idea where to look," said Sydney Institute for Astronomy's Professor Peter Tuthill, co-author on the paper. "The oldest neutron stars and black holes were created when the galaxy was younger and shaped differently, and then subjected to complex changes spanning billions of years. It has been a major task to model all of this to find them." "It's a little like in snooker," said Sweeney. "If you know which direction the ball is hit, and how hard, then you can work out where it will end up. But in space, the objects and speeds are just vastly bigger. Plus, the table's not flat, so the stellar remnants go on complex orbits threading through the galaxy." He added: "Finally, unlike a snooker table, there is no friction -- so they never slow down. Almost all the remnants ever formed are still out there, sliding like ghosts through interstellar space."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

A limited but working jailbreak for the PlayStation 5 hardware has reportedly been released, potentially enabling players to install unsigned or unofficial software. From a report: The news was reported on Twitter by modder Lance McDonald, who previously made a name for himself by releasing an unofficial patch that made Bloodborne run at 60 frames per second on PS4. Although McDonald doesn't appear to have discovered the PS5 jailbreak himself, he does show footage of it in action. As well as showing that the jailbreak gives him access to a debug menu, he also shows that it enables him to install a PS4 PKG file (i.e. a backup of a game), proving this by installing the now-delisted PT demo. At this stage the jailbreak is allegedly extremely limited -- it's only said to work on PS5 consoles with firmware version 4.03, which was released in October 2021 and replaced with version 4.50 in December 2021. According to the exploit's creator, it may be possible to apply the jailbreak to PS5 consoles with earlier firmware versions than 4.03, but later firmware versions won't work at the moment.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Legacy horror sequels, dubbed "requels" in 2022's "Scream" revival, are all the rage right now. While horror remakes were once the genre's bread and butter (it seems like every property was dredged up at one point or another) filmmakers have now shifted to the next best (possibly even better) thing. Why remake a movie when you can just make a long-overdue sequel? Legacy sequels, such as this year's box office behemoth, "Top Gun: Maverick," typically bring legacy cast members back for an entirely new story that's canonically connected to the first but with enough new material — and faces — to simultaneously feel like both sequel and remake. In the horror genre especially, "Orphan: First Kill," David Gordon Green's "Halloween" trilogy," his forthcoming "The Exorcist" trilogy, and even the aforementioned "Scream" had revived once dead properties for an entirely new generation while retaining the names and faces that made them horror tentpoles.

While some properties like "Friday the 13th" have skirted the "requel" trend (so far) because of murky legal trouble, the indomitable success of the trend — even day-and-date streaming release "Halloween Kills" grossed $131 million at the box office — has horror fans everywhere flipping through their back catalog for the next franchise or film due for the "requel" treatment. We're looking at 10 horror movies that deserve the legacy treatment. While original horror thrives, there's nothing wrong with a bit of nostalgia here and there.

I Know What You Did Last Summer

Jim Gillespie's "I Know What You Did Last Summer" from "Scream" scribe Kevin Williamson (a loose adaptation of Lois Duncan's novel) was a better-than-most slasher. It retains "Scream's" metatextual self-awareness, with a game young cast and a solid murder mystery at its core. A year later, it was followed by the ridiculous, though no less worthwhile, "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer," a sequel that gave audiences the rare chance to see a Black final girl in action, with Brandy's Karla surviving until the very end.

While the series was revitalized in a swiftly canceled Amazon series and, at one point, had Mike Flanagan attached to a remake, the franchise remains dead in the water. Even the third entry, "I'll Always Know What You Did Last Summer," was mostly disconnected from what came before. There's enormous promise in the idea of a Brandy and Jennifer Love Hewitt series revival. Like the legacy sequels before it, why not have them ingratiate themselves into another murder mystery, guiding a new generation toward absolution? With the success of the new "Scream," there's undoubtedly an audience for this cult favorite.

Urban Legend

Jamie Blanks' first "Urban Legend" wanted to be "Scream," but it didn't have the talent. Still, for what it is, it isn't bad. A serial killer models their murders after famous urban legends, targeting Alicia Witt's Natalie and her college friends. Ostensible best friend Brenda (Rebecca Gayheart) is revealed to be the killer because of a prank Natalie pulled years before that left Brenda's fiancé dead. Brenda is defeated and Natalie lives to see another day. The sequel, "Urban Legends: Final Cut," is more of the same — only without any of the original cast except campus officer Reese Wilson (Loretta Devine). However, Gayheart's Brenda returns in the final reel, having seemingly survived the events of the first film. A third and final sequel, "Urban Legends: Bloody Mary," is a follow-up in a name only, opting for a supernatural bent.

The series could wisely go the "Orphan: First Kill" track, developing a new entry based around the villain rather than the survivors. Gayheart's performance as Brenda was one of the original's high marks, and it would be thrilling to see her shepherd a new generation into an urban legend murder spree. While there have been talks of a remake for years, that project seems stalled indefinitely. As one of the touchstone "Scream" clones, this would be the perfect time for "Urban Legend" to do what the first did remarkably well — capitalize on the classic series' success.

You're Next

"You're Next" is one of the best horror movies ever made. Director Adam Wingard and writer Simon Barrett turned the home invasion subgenre on its head with their wildly inventive, fiercely funny, and genuinely scary tale of masked intruders interrupting a wedding anniversary party. Core to the movie's success is Sharni Vinson's Erin, girlfriend to A.J. Bowen's Crispin who, unknown to the others, grew up on a survivalist compound. When the killing starts in earnest, no one anticipates Erin being better prepared than most to smash skulls, set traps, and outsmart her pursuers.

Notoriously delayed ("You're Next" had a two-year gap between its TIFF premiere and theatrical release), the movie is now over a decade old. Most concerningly, the movie never quite made the splash it should have. It's a shame, too, since Sharni Vison's Erin gives Sidney Prescott and Laurie Strode an earnest run for their money. A decade out, it's high time to revisit Erin's survivalist instincts. While "You're Next" concludes with a gotcha cop death, it would be easy to have her return to the fray again, taking down animal masked baddies along the way.

The Guest

Not content with just one horror classic, Adam Wingard and Simon Barrett followed up "You're Next" with "The Guest," a grindhouse throwback with an artificially intelligent, superhuman Dan Stevens at its center. For years, the duo has been teasing a long-anticipated sequel, going so far as to release a soundtrack aptly titled "The Guest 2." While it's not the sequel fans wanted, it was remarkably well-received, spurring Wingard to remark to Empire, "We're talking about developing a potential sequel as a real project."

Akin to its grindhouse, sci-fi brethren, "The Guest" concludes with Stevens' David Collins still alive. Co-star Maika Monroe is a certified scream queen at this point, springboarding her early work in "The Guest" and "It Follows" into starring roles in acclaimed projects like Chloe Okuno's "Watcher." Almost a decade out from the original, this would be as good a time as any to bring both Stevens and Monroe back to duke it out one final time. With eager fans and a genre landscape more than receptive to its release, this would be the perfect time for "The Guest 2" to finally become a reality.

Poltergeist

"Poltergeist" has had plenty of sequels and even a remake from "Monster House" director Gil Kenan. There has been no shortage of "Poltergeist" activity, though, in truth, nothing has come close to matching the classic, frightening charm of the original. Additionally, "Poltergeist" is one of the most heartrending horror franchises out there, largely because of the tragic deaths of several of its stars, a circumstance many fans have colloquially dubbed the "Poltergeist curse." Shudder's "Cursed Films" has done a lot right in terms of course-correcting the disrespectful narrative, recontextualizing stars Dominique Dunne and Heather O'Rourke as real people, their deaths as more than just fodder for a cinematic curse.

By bringing "Poltergeist" back with stars JoBeth Williams and Craig T. Nelson, a legacy sequel has the chance to definitively put the tasteless curse rumors to rest. As a counterargument to a mythic franchise marred by rumors of real corpses and on-set exorcisms, a new "Poltergeist" canonically connected to the first would work not just as another entry in the lucrative franchise, but as an opportunity to retrospectively pay homage to the real-life tragedies that befell its cast.

Jennifer's Body

Megan Fox had a remarkable return to the horror genre in 2021 with "Till Death," widely considered one of the best horror movies of the year. Despite an odd relationship with Machine Gun Kelly, Megan Fox was back and better than ever. With Fox's return to the genre, this would be the perfect time to give fans the "Jennifer's Body" sequel they have been clamoring for. While Fox's Jennifer almost certainly died at the end of the first film, she was a demon and could easily return.

She and co-star Amanda Seyfried had remarkable chemistry and, given how often the film has been recontextualized and reevaluated in recent years, it is the perfect time to bring them both back. Sexy, funny, and self-aware, there was nothing quite like it back in 2009. Truthfully, there's a "Jennifer's Body"-shaped hole in the heart of horror cinema. Let Megan Fox return and do what she does best.

The Prowler

"The Prowler" is an unsung slasher gem. Director Joseph Zito would go on to helm "Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter," arguably one of the strongest entries in the entire "Friday the 13th" franchise. The same gory playfulness that served Zito well there augments "The Prowler," elevating it to classic status. With remarkable practical effects from makeup maestro Tom Savini, "The Prowler" is a grim, gory treat and an enduring delight in the canon of 1980s slasher movies.

With a legacy sequel, star Vicky Dawson, a criminally underrated final girl, could return and again find herself embroiled in a love-struck slasher rampage. Slasher films are undergoing a revival of sorts, though some of the late, great elements have been cast aside for a new generation. "The Prowler" is a hallmark of practical gore — one of the best ever — and modern slasher films don't pay enough homage to the gore of yesteryear. Let "The Prowler" prowl again.

Alien

The dissolution of Neil Blomkamp's "Alien 5" is one of the most tragic occurrences in the history of the modern horror genre. In an interview with Indiewire, Blomkamp remarked, "Sigourney was always into the project, but Fox just clearly doesn't want it. I haven't had anything to do with that for years." As Blomkamp was developing his direct sequel, with Ellen Ripley returning, Ridley Scott was developing his own "Prometheus" prequel series, and Fox executives only moved forward with one.

It's a shame, too, since as wonderful as "Prometheus" is, "Alien: Covenant" amounted to a lackluster attempt at modernizing the "Alien" series. It could have easily been Blomkamp's vision instead. While Blomkamp has been adamant he has no intention of returning to the project, even if given the chance, it would undoubtedly match or exceed the success of David Gordon Green's "Halloween" trilogy. Audiences simply want Sigourney Weaver back.

Sorority Row

Stewart Hendler's "Sorority Row" might seem like an odd choice for a legacy sequel. A riff on "I Know What You Did Last Summer," itself a riff on the original 1982 "The House on Sorority Row," the remake grossed a meager $27 million at the box office. Despite a pretty wonderful sequel tease at the end, there's almost no chance "Sorority Row" will get the follow-up it so desperately deserves. While it's not a masterpiece by any means, it understands the rhythms of 1980s slashers better than most. While late aughts horror often prioritized savagery and violence over pathos and charm, "Sorority Row" is marginally violent at best. It is an accessible, fiercely funny slasher throwback.

Even today's legacy horror sequels are crueler than their progenitors. 2022's "Scream" was arguably the most brutal entry in the series, and 2018's "Halloween" had more crushed heads than the first five "Halloween" movies combined. In bringing the surviving cast back (especially Briana Evigan's Cassidy), "Sorority Row" could bring back the charm of old-school slashers with a little violence, a little snark, and a whole lot of fun. Brutality and tension are great, but what's wrong with a slasher just playing around?

The Mummy

Stephen Sommers' "The Mummy" is a bona fide horror movie. While "The Mummy Returns" and "The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor" went bigger and bolder, regressing into blockbuster sensibilities to diminished results, the first in the trilogy was a genuinely frightening mix of high-octane adventure and classic Universal-style terror. Just look to those danged flesh-eating scarab beetles for proof.

Star Brandan Fraser is experiencing a long-overdue career revival. Though Darren Aronofsky's "The Whale" has been met with mixed reviews, everyone seems to agree that Brandan Fraser is back and better than ever.  Variety is even suggesting Fraser is as sure a bet as any for a best actor Oscar nomination. The vagaries of the Hollywood cycle often shuffle career-best turns into big blockbuster outings (just look at the overqualified cast of the MCU for proof). Post awards season, it would be the perfect time to bring Fraser, Rachel Weisz, and company back for another row with ancient, evil mummies. After Weisz was recast in the third, fans simply want the original duo back again for one final bow.

Read this next: Horror Remakes That Are Better Than The Originals

The post 10 Horror Movies That Deserve the Legacy Sequel Treatment appeared first on /Film.

Michael Larabel writes via Phoronix: Debian developers have been figuring out an updated stance to take on non-free firmware considering the increasing number of devices now having open-source Linux drivers but requiring closed-source firmware for any level of functionality. The voting on the non-free firmware matter has now concluded and the votes tallied... The debian votes option 5 as winning: "Change SC for non-free firmware in installer, one installer." Basically the Debian Installer media will now be allowed to include non-free firmware and to automatically load/use it where necessary while informing the user of it, etc. Considering the state of the hardware ecosystem these days, it's reasonable and common sense since at least users will be able to easily make use of their graphics cards, network adapters, and more. Plus a number of modern CPU security mitigations also requiring the updated closed-source microcode. So all in, I am personally happy with this decision as it will allow for a more pleasant experience for Debian on modern systems and one akin to what is found with other Linux distributions. The solution is described in full via the Debian Wiki.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Chuck Norris may have countless memes dedicated to his toughness and manliness, but fellow action star Charles Bronson was the real deal. Not only was he just as tough in real life as the characters he played on screen, he was also such a double-hard bastard that "Britain's most notorious prisoner" also changed his name to Charles Bronson to make himself sound even tougher.

A man of deliberately few words, the original Charles Bronson was solitary, watchful, and cultivated his roughneck reputation, telling interviewers about his fistfights, arrests, and hobby of knife-throwing. Although it wasn't clear how much of it was fiction, Roger Ebert once said that Bronson was an actor who radiated a genuine sense of menace. His tough attitude came from an extremely hard upbringing, growing up dirt poor in a mining town. He worked down in the mines from an early age, and was paid a dollar for every ton of coal he hacked out of the rock. He later said he was delighted when he received the draft in World War II because it was the first time in his life he got three meals a day and clean clothes.

Bronson's career started in the early '50s before he landed high-profile roles in the likes of "The Great Escape" and "The Dirty Dozen, and became very popular in Europe after the success of "Once Upon a Time in the West." Largely, he became typecast thanks to his grizzled features and taciturn demeanor: He played ex-cons, gangsters, hitmen, gritty detectives, and other tough guy roles, even into his 70s.

One of his most famous action roles provided the inspiration for John Carpenter's "Escape From New York," although the character's job fell outside the usual remit of Charles Bronson characters: An architect, albeit a very deadly one.

How Charles Bronson Inspired Escape From New York

In the distant future of 1997, Manhattan has been turned into a maximum security prison where a sentence is a one-way ticket. It's absolutely the worst place for Air Force One to crash as the President travels to a crucial summit meeting to quell the threat of nuclear conflict. Former war hero turned bank robber Snake Plissken (Kurt Russell) is tasked with the rescue, with a micro-bomb implanted in his neck that will detonate in 24 hours if he doesn't return.

"Escape From New York" was released in 1981, but John Carpenter originally had the idea five years earlier when the United States was still mired in cynicism after the Watergate scandal. That was when he saw "Death Wish," starring Charles Bronson as Paul Kersey, an architect who becomes a vigilante after his wife and daughter are viciously attacked. The film struck a chord with Carpenter, although he didn't agree with its politics; while it was a hit, "Death Wish" was deplored for advocating vigilantism. He was also inspired by a Harry Harrison story (via It Came From...):

"There was this planet, the toughest, most evil place in the universe. So who're you going to choose to go in there and do something with some mission? The most evil guy in the universe. That idea stuck with me, and I thought of writing this kind of dystopian future story about New York as a prison and a guy has to go in to rescue the president."

Carpenter thought about Bronson playing the part, but no one wanted to make the movie at that stage of the director's career. His later success with "Halloween" and "The Fog" got the project over the hump, by which stage he cast a younger actor with a very different background to Bronson's.

The Disney Kid Who Became Snake Plissken

Compared to Charles Bronson's bleak upbringing, Kurt Russell had a pretty normal suburban childhood growing up in California, where he played Little League, became a child actor, and once got to hang out with the Beach Boys. He signed a 10-year contract with The Walt Disney Company in 1966, starring in family fare like "The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes" and "Barefoot in the Park."

Due to the lightweight nature of Russell's early career, AVCO Embassy Pictures, the production company for "Escape From New York," expressed serious doubts about whether a fresh-faced Disney actor was right for the part of badass Snake Plissken. They wanted Bronson or Tommy Lee Jones, but Carpenter, who worked with Russell previously on "Elvis," had full faith in the actor's ability to pull off the tough guy role (via It Came From...):

"We had discussions about it. They were uncertain about Kurt as a hero. They said, 'Well, he's just this Disney kid.' I said, 'No, no, no. He can play this. He can play anything. Believe me, he can play anything. He played Elvis, he can play Snake Plissken.' So they relented."

Carpenter's instincts were spot on, and "Escape From New York" became the first of three classic collaborations between Carpenter and Russell, followed by "The Thing" and "Big Trouble in Little China." Although Russell occasionally leans into the Clint Eastwood drawl a bit too much, Snake Plissken is one of the most memorable anti-heroes in sci-fi, with an unforgettable look. Who else could pull off that combo of camouflage pants, sleeveless vest, vintage biker jacket, and eye patch other than Russell? Bronson may have inspired the character, but Russell made Plissken one of his signature roles.

Read this next: The Most Controversial Scenes In Sci-Fi Movies

The post The Gritty '70s Charles Bronson Performance That Inspired John Carpenter's Escape From New York appeared first on /Film.

During Toyota's annual dealer meeting in Las Vegas last week, which was called "Playing to Win," CEO Akio Toyoda explained why the company isn't all-in on electric vehicles. CNBC reports: Toyoda last week simply stated what he would like his legacy to be: "I love cars." Despite criticism from some investors and environmental groups, Toyoda this past week doubled down on his strategy to continue investing in a range of electrified vehicles as opposed to competitors such as Volkswagen and General Motors, which have said they are going all-in on all-electric vehicles. The plans could arguably cement Toyoda's "I love cars" legacy or tarnish it, depending on how quickly drivers adopt electric vehicles. "For me, playing to win also means doing things differently. Doing things that others may question, but that we believe will put us in the winner's circle the longest," he said [...]. Toyoda, who described Toyota as a large department store, said the company's goal "remains the same, pleasing the widest possible range of customers with the widest possible range of powertrains." Those powertrains will include hybrids and plug-in hybrids like the Prius, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles like the Mirai and 15 all-electric battery models by 2025. Toyoda reiterated that he does not believe all-electric vehicles will be adopted as quickly as policy regulators and competitors think, due to a variety of reasons. He cited lack of infrastructure, pricing and how customers' choices vary region to region as examples of possible roadblocks. He believes it will be "difficult" to fulfill recent regulations that call for banning traditional vehicles with internal combustion engines by 2035, like California and New York have said they will adopt. "Just like the free autonomous cars that we are all supposed to be driving by now, EVs are just going to take longer to become mainstream than media would like us to believe," Toyoda said in a recording of the remarks to dealers shown to reporters. "In the meantime, you have many options for customers." Toyoda also believes there will be "tremendous shortages" of lithium and battery grade nickel in the next five to 10 years, leading to production and supply chain problems. Toyota's goal is carbon neutrality by 2050, and not just through all-electric vehicles. Some have questioned the environmental impact of EVs when factoring in raw material mining and overall vehicle production. Since the Prius launched in 1997, Toyota says it has sold more than 20 million electrified vehicles worldwide. The company says those sales have avoided 160 million tons of CO2 emissions, which is the equivalent to the impact of 5.5 million all-electric battery vehicles. "Toyota can produce eight 40-mile plug-in hybrids for every one 320-mile battery electric vehicle and save up to eight times the carbon emitted into the atmosphere," according to prepared remarks for Toyoda provided to media. Toyoda also said the company has no plans to overhaul its franchised dealership network as it invests in electrified vehicles, like some competitors have announced. "I know you are anxious about the future. I know you are worried about how this business will change. While I can't predict the future, I can promise you this: You, me, us, this business, this franchised model is not going anywhere. It's staying just as it is," he told dealers to resounding applause.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The New York Times Opinion - I Make Video Games. I Won’t Let My Daughters Play Them. (Mobile "Games.") "That’s the ultimate goal: to build habit-forming games that have players coming back every day....

The horror genre owes a great debt to the success of Universal Monster movies, the series of nearly 50 films released throughout the 1920s to 1950s that solidified the company as one of the major studio players. The company hadn't planned on becoming the go-to house of horrors, but once they realized in 1931 that there was marketing power in categorizing them together, legendary status was quickly achieved. While the company officially started grouping the films together in 1931, some of Universal's strongest monster films premiered in the decade prior.

Many of the studio's films serve as the building blocks of horror storytelling still utilized today, but with so many titles to consume, figuring out which ones are worth revisiting can feel like an overwhelming task. Fortunately, that's what we're here for. I'm one of those weirdos who has watched every monster movie ever made by Universal Studios, and I'm more than happy to spread that knowledge with the world. While the company has had some fantastic reboots and remakes in recent years, this list is focusing solely on the classic monsters of yesteryear. To put it simply, if it wasn't shot in black and white, it's not showing up on this list. With that specification out of the way, here are the 15 best Universal Monster Movies, ranked.

15. Son Of Frankenstein

Often viewed as "the last great 'Frankenstein' film," 1939's "Son of Frankenstein" was the third installment in Universal's series of "Frankenstein" films, featuring an impressive roster of familiar faces. Boris Karloff returns to play the Monster for a final time (but with a new look), joined by Bela Lugosi as Ygor, and Basil Rathbone as Baron Wolf von Frankenstein, the son of Henry Frankenstein. "Son of Frankenstein" succeeds as both a monster movie and the tale of a son desperate to cleanse the sins of his father. Rathbone is absolutely magnificent as Baron Wolf von Frankenstein, and director Rowland V. Lee crafts a deeply somber film littered with black comedy that was uncommon during its era. Universal Monster films are often viewed through a modern lens as not being "scary" enough, but "Son of Frankenstein" holds up as a genuinely unsettling film filled with plenty of existential anguish.

14. The Phantom Of The Opera

While not classified as one of the "official" Universal Monsters, without the silent-film adaptation of "The Phantom of the Opera," the monster canon as we know it to be would not exist. Directed by Rupert Julian and starring Lon Chaney (Sr.) as the titular Phantom of the Paris Opera House. If you've seen Andrew Lloyd Webber and Joel Schumacher's movie musical of the same name, the story is roughly the same, but the 1925 version is groundbreaking for the reveal of Chaney's horrific and self-devised make-up. The story of the Phantom has been told and retold countless times, but few can hold a candle to the ghastly brilliance of Lon Chaney. Universal managed to keep the iconic reveal a secret until the film's premiere, and the rest is horror history.

13. The Invisible Woman

Make no mistake, "The Invisible Woman" is nowhere near close to being a horror movie, instead taking the invisibility concept established in "The Invisible Man" and turning it into a screwball comedy complete with an appearance from Shemp Howard of "The Three Stooges" fame. The film focuses on a wealthy lawyer (John Howard) who funds an eccentric inventor (John Barrymore) to develop an invisibility device. The two test the final product on a department store model named Kitty Carroll (Virginia Bruce) who upon turning invisible decides to use her newly found state to enact revenge against her sadistic ex-boss, Mr. Growley (Charles Lane). 

Despite Bruce having the titular role, the film belongs to John Barrymore, who is having an absolute blast playing the inventor. When Universal announced that they were going to continue updating their classics following the success of Leigh Whannell's "The Invisible Man," Elizabeth Banks was announced as directing and starring in a remake of "The Invisible Woman," but there's not been much movement on the project since. It's a shame, because if anyone could capture what makes "The Invisible Woman" such a delightful film, it's Banks.

12. The Man Who Laughs

Following German expressionist filmmaker Paul Leni's success with "Waxworks" and "The Cat and the Canary," he delivered the horror-tinged romantic melodrama, "The Man Who Laughs." Based on Victor Hugo's 1869 novel of the same name, the film follows a man named Gwynplaine, who had a permanent smile carved into his face by the King in an act of revenge against his father. Due to his unsettling appearance, Gwynplaine is adopted by a traveling showman, and becomes a notable figure as "The Laughing Man." However, Gwynplaine finds his face horrifying, and believes it makes him unworthy of love from the beautiful, blind Dea (Mary Philbin).

"The Man Who Laughs" was a massive influence on not just the future Universal Monster films, but also one of the most iconic figures in all of pop culture -– The Joker. In 2005, the graphic novel exploring the first encounter between Batman and the Joker was titled "Batman: The Man Who Laughs" in homage to the film that inspired Joker creators Bill Finger, Bob Kane, and Jerry Robinson all those years ago. "The Man Who Laughs" may not hit the horror highs like some of the other films of this era, but it's horrific imagery truly changed the genre, and deserves to be recognized for its impact.

11. Drácula

Back in the 1920s, Hollywood studios were dependent on the successful exportation of their films to other languages, which was pretty easy to do during the silent film era. Unfortunately, with the introduction of sound came a new problem: making the films accessible for non-English speaking audiences. In 1931, Universal filmed an additional version of "Dracula," on the same set as Tod Browning's original after the English-production had wrapped for the day, with an entirely different cast of Spanish-speaking actors. The result was "Drácula," a fantastic adaptation of the source material with a delightfully camp lead performance by Carlos Villarias. For fans who have seen the Browning/Lugosi film a dozen times, director George Melford's take makes for a fascinating experience.

The Spanish-language "Drácula" contains 29 additional minutes of footage, and because the production team was able to see what Browning had done during the day, they would often change camera angles or lighting choices to be different, and bolder. The production also didn't have to deal with the budding restrictions of the Hays Office, which meant the women were dressed more provocative than its English counterpart. "Drácula" thought to be lost for many years, but has thankfully made its way to the masses, and is a must-see for any fans of classic horror.

10. The Hunchback Of Notre Dame

While the Universal Monsters connected universe as we know and love began with 1931's "Dracula," the 1923 film "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" holds the distinction of being Universal's first classic monster movie. Sharing the same source material from Victor Hugo as the much more well-known Disney animated version, "Hunchback" pushed character actor Lon Chaney into full-blown superstar status. Universal pulled out all the stops on the production, producing stunning sets echoing 15th century Paris, and with a story about the tortured bellringer that helped popularize the idea of developing empathy for misunderstood outsiders during a time when xenophobia was running rampant. (For the record: it's sad how little has changed.) "Hunchback" set the standard for many of the horror films that followed, and is a pivotal piece of horror history.

While the film is available in the public domain, it's important to note that all existing copies of the film are missing roughly 15 minutes of footage, as it was lost from the transfer between the original 35mm print to the 16 mm source used for Blu-ray, streaming, and DVD prints. So while we can still love and enjoy "Hunchback" today, there's still a whole lot more story that we'll never get the chance to see.

9. Abbott And Costello Meet Frankenstein

While certainly not the first horror comedy ever made, "Abbott And Costello Meet Frankenstein" laid the groundwork for buddy-horror comedies like "Shaun of the Dead" and "Tucker & Dale vs. Evil." The comedy duo of Bud Abbott and Lou Costello were already famous for their "Who's on First" routine, which Universal thought would be a perfect addition to their monster movie canon. The film was made much to the chagrin of the two who felt the script was weak, but the film became a rousing success and spawned a series of sequels of the two encountering other monster favorites. Universal had tried their hand at monster mashups already, but they never quite hit the way they wanted to. Flipping the horror script and allowing it to be as ridiculous as possible was the key to success, making "Abbott And Costello Meet Frankenstein" a goofball classic perfect for any scaredy cats who still want to join in on the fun.

8. The Wolf Man

"Son of Frankenstein" delivered a much needed confidence boost for Universal, who had been struggling to capture the magic that ol' Frankie and the Count had provided in the 1930s, and exactly a decade after the cinematic universe of movie monsters had been officially established, "The Wolf Man" howled his way into becoming the next great classic monster. The company had tried in vain to bring werewolves to the fold with "Werewolf of London" (1935) but pulled it off with Claude Rains and the OG monster kid, Lon Chaney Jr.

"The Wolf Man" took similar themes of isolation and otherness explored in its predecessors, and distilled it into the perfect example of "the man made monstrous" trope. Without state-of-the-art special effects to hang its hat on "The Wolf Man" instead focuses on story, and delivers an incredibly humanizing portrayal of a man cursed with an affliction of which he cannot control. The film is less interested in delivering scares and instead presenting a tragedy through the lens of horror.

7. Dracula's Daughter

The first woman to have a leading performance as one of the Universal monsters, "Dracula's Daughter" tells the story of Countess Marya Zaleska (Gloria Holden), the daughter of Count Dracula who is struggling to accept her continued vampirism in the wake of her father's death at the hands of Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan). The Countess does not wish to follow in her father's footsteps, and after tireless attempts to free herself of the generational curse of vampirism, she looks to psychiatrist Dr. Garth (Otto Kruger) for help, but finds herself struggling to resist the bloodlust she feels towards his fiance. 

"Dracula's Daughter" is an oft-forgotten addition to the monster movie series, constantly overshadowed by "The Bride of Frankenstein." Gloria Holden delivers a hypnotic performance as the tortured, seductive, lesbian-coded vampire, a clear nod to the lesbian vampire novel "Carmilla" that inspired Bram Stoker's "Dracula." Recent years have been kinder to the Countess as contemporary critics reexamine this pivotal piece of queer cinema, but the lack of Bela Lugosi and the overt lesbian subtext kept this film in the closet for many years.

6. The Mummy

Apologies for those who were expecting an entry praising the bisexual awakening film starring Brendan Fraser of the same name, but this is about Karl Freund's supernatural monster film "The Mummy" from 1932. It first must be addressed that "The Mummy" is a completely whitewashed look at Egyptian culture and history, but the film is one of Universal's most long-lasting legacy creations, having spawned multiple sequels, spin-offs, remakes, and re-imaginings. The film follows a team of British archaeologists who accidentally bring the mummified corpse of prince Imhotep (Boris Karloff) back to life. Imhotep escapes their clutches and takes on the identity of a wealthy man, searching throughout Egypt for the reincarnation of his former lover. The horror of "The Mummy" succeeds in its atmosphere and presentation, and the everlasting themes of loneliness and the cruelty of mortality. Karloff once again delivers a moving portrayal of a monster, finding ways to stand out as a superstar in a far more subtle story than "Frankenstein."

5. Creature From The Black Lagoon

While many of the most beloved Universal Monster movies debuted in the 1930s, the 1950s brought on the last of the company's major players, 1954's "Creature from the Black Lagoon." The Gill-Man has often been viewed as the lesser-than creation of Universal's catalog, but has developed a cult-like following that has spanned generations. The film follows a group of explorers on the hunt for the mysterious fishman, but despite his horrific appearance, he proves infinitely smarter than the humans attempting to capture him. Just as with the Universal Monster films of yesteryear, "Creature from the Black Lagoon" presents mankind as the true monsters, attempting to condemn the creature to death simply for existing beyond the scope of what science will allow. While we're here, if you're at all into "Creature," Mallory O'Meara's book "The Lady from the Black Lagoon: Hollywood Monsters and the Lost Legacy of Milicent Patrick" is a must-read celebration of the woman who developed the design of the Gill-Man and was erased by history thanks to good ol' fashioned misogyny. 

4. The Invisible Man

James Whale crafted quite possibly the most genuinely scary creature of all of the Universal Monsters, as "The Invisible Man" is not merely a misunderstood victim of circumstance or an odd-looking beast desperately trying to survive. No, Claude Rains as Dr. Jack Griffin is a man slowly descending into his own madness, with his unhinged ambition skinning him of his humanity. Dr. Griffin feels like the predecessor to some of cinema's greatest wise-cracking villains, as he revels in the pleasure of taunting his villains not unlike Freddy Krueger. Griffin loves his life of torment and destruction, and has no interest in changing himself for anyone. Many view "The Invisible Man" as a horror comedy, but Whale's injections of humor into the script only add to Griffin's madness. Between the 1933 original and Leigh Whannell's masterful reinterpretation from 2020, "The Invisible Man" remains one of Universal's very best.

3. Frankenstein

What is there to say about "Frankenstein" that hasn't already been said countless times for nearly a century? One of the films that started it all, James Whale's 1931 masterpiece is a remarkable feat of horror and humanity. Based on Mary Shelley's famous novel (and the many play adaptations), "Frankenstein" set the groundwork for the horror genre as we know it today, and introduced the idea that man possessed the capacity to be truly monstrous in a way that had never been seen before.

Boris Karloff is transcendent as Frankenstein's creation, adding a depth of curiosity and heartbreak to the creature whose only crime was being brought into the world without consent. Colin Clive as Henry Frankenstein is a marvel, as is Dwight Frye as the assistant Fritz. "Frankenstein" was a massive success and solidified Universal as the go-to company for monster movies, terrifying audiences and crafting an iconic monster that has truly gone unmatched for generations.

2. Dracula

Tod Browning may not have been the first to bring a bloodsucker to the silver screen, but 1931's "Dracula" is responsible for the world's continued obsession with vampires. Bela Lugosi's portrayal of Count Dracula set the standard for cinematic vampires, as well as much of the lore commonly associated with these creatures of the night. Lugosi's dramatic, meticulously paced Hungarian vocal inflections as the Count has become synonymous with vampires, with even child-friendly favorites like "Sesame Street" star Count von Count emulating Lugosi's delivery.

"Dracula" historically saved Universal Pictures from the threat of bankruptcy, proving that there was much money to be made in the world of monsters. There have been countless vampire films created in its wake, but few ever come close to matching the magnetic charisma of Lugosi. Dwight Frye is given the chance to shine as the ultimate submissive bottom in Renfield, similarly personifying a new archetypal character so well, his performance would become the standard. The entire horror film genre would not exist if it weren't for the hypnotic success of "Dracula," and for this, we must be forever grateful.

1. The Bride Of Frankenstein

It's impossible to imagine James Whale topping his indelible contributions with "The Invisible Man" and "Frankenstein," but it's "The Bride of Frankenstein" that will forever be the greatest Universal Monster movie ever made. In the aftermath of the previous film, Frankenstein's creation (Karloff) returns with a stronger grasp on the world around him, and begins advocating for himself — something his creators never considered a possibility. Dr. Henry Frankenstein (Clive) is joined by his mentor, the flaming, renegade scientist Dr. Pretorius (Ernest Thesiger) to craft a mate for the "monster," choosing yet again to play god.

Elsa Lanchester plays double duty as both Mary Shelley and the titular bride, whose limited screen time captivated audiences and turned her portrayal into that of an icon. "Bride of Frankenstein" is a deeply painful portrait of the creature's existence in a world that wants him dead, and armed with an ending even more tragic than the original. James Whale managed to capture lightning in a bottle on three separate occasions, but the powerful theming, distinctive characters, and decision to allow the monster a sense of autonomy sets "Bride" above the rest.

Read this next: The Horror Movies We Can't Wait To See In 2022

The post The 15 Best Universal Monster Movies, Ranked appeared first on /Film.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Consumer Reports: A Consumer Reports investigation finds that TikTok, one of the country's most popular apps, is partnering with a growing number of other companies to hoover up data about people as they travel across the internet. That includes people who don't have TikTok accounts. These companies embed tiny TikTok trackers called "pixels" in their websites. Then TikTok uses the information gathered by all those pixels to help the companies target ads at potential customers, and to measure how well their ads work. To look into TikTok's use of online tracking, CR asked the security firm Disconnect to scan about 20,000 websites for the company's pixels. In our list, we included the 1,000 most popular websites overall, as well as some of the biggest sites with domains ending in ".org," ".edu," and ".gov." We wanted to look at those sites because they often deal with sensitive subjects. We found hundreds of organizations sharing data with TikTok. If you go to the United Methodist Church's main website, TikTok hears about it. Interested in joining Weight Watchers? TikTok finds that out, too. The Arizona Department of Economic Security tells TikTok when you view pages concerned with domestic violence or food assistance. Even Planned Parenthood uses the trackers, automatically notifying TikTok about every person who goes to its website, though it doesn't share information from the pages where you can book an appointment. (None of those groups responded to requests for comment.) The number of TikTok trackers we saw was just a fraction of those we observed from Google and Meta. However, TikTok's advertising business is exploding, and experts say the data collection will probably grow along with it. After Disconnect researchers conducted a broad search for TikTok trackers, we asked them to take a close look at what kind of information was being shared by 15 specific websites. We focused on sites where we thought people would have a particular expectation of privacy, such as advocacy organizations and hospitals, along with retailers and other kinds of companies. Disconnect found that data being transmitted to TikTok can include your IP address, a unique ID number, what page you're on, and what you're clicking, typing, or searching for, depending on how the website has been set up. What does TikTok do with all that information? "Like other platforms, the data we receive from advertisers is used to improve the effectiveness of our advertising services," says Melanie Bosselait, a TikTok spokesperson. The data "is not used to group individuals into particular interest categories for other advertisers to target." If TikTok receives data about someone who doesn't have a TikTok account, the company only uses that data for aggregated reports that they send to advertisers about their websites, she says. There's no independent way for consumers or privacy researchers to verify such statements. But TikTok's terms of service say its advertising customers aren't allowed to send the company certain kinds of sensitive information, such as data about children, health conditions, or finances. "We continuously work with our partners to avoid inadvertent transmission of such data," TikTok's Bosselait says. What can you do to protect your personal information? Consumer Reports recommends using privacy-protecting browser extensions like Disconnect, changing your browser's privacy settings to block trackers, and trying a more private browser like Firefox and Brave.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

WolfheartFPS looks back at Kingdom Come Deliverance: This RPG is a Masterpiece in 2022.. (Kingdom Come Deliverance Review)  

Debian developers have been figuring out an updated stance to take on non-free firmware considering the increasing number of devices now having open-source Linux drivers but requiring closed-source firmware for any level of functionality. The voting on the non-free firmware matter has now concluded and the votes tallied.....

Yesterday, we shared a mod for Skyrim Special Edition that aimed to overhaul over 150 NPCs. And today, we have a brand new DLC-sized fan expansion for our Skyrim fans. Created by modder ‘arminZX12’, this DLC-sized fan expansion will take you to visit the city of Elden Root and its huge forests. You can download … Continue reading Skyrim Special Edition gets a new DLC-sized fan expansion, featuring new enemies, animals, ingredients & more →

The post Skyrim Special Edition gets a new DLC-sized fan expansion, featuring new enemies, animals, ingredients & more appeared first on DSOGaming.

This week we go deep into Grounded, which we're as surprised about as you are, but we've also got time to talk Stadia, horror movies, and a lot more! This week's music:  No Vacation - Waltzing Back

As one of many RPG releases during a busy year, the cyberpunk virtual world detective RPG Gamedec didn't leave much of a trace following its release last September. Still, some may recall that the game's crowdfunding campaign promised two additional virtual worlds as stretch goal rewards. One based on the world of Seven: The Days Long Gone, the underrated isometric stealth RPG from fellow Polish studio Fool's Theory, and another based on Lovecraft's Cthulhu mythos. Both of these stretch goals have now been fulfilled as part of a final Definitive Edition update for Gamedec released today, although the latter ended up as merely a new Cthulhu-themed questline in one of the game's existing cases. The update includes various other improvements as well. Here it's launch trailer and description:

With Stadia coming to an abrupt halt, gamers want Google to issue a software update for the controllers that unlocks Bluetooth to allow them to work wirelessly with other game systems. It would also "avoid a lot of plastic and circuit board trash," adds Ars. From the report: Stadia's controllers were custom-made to connect directly to the Internet, reducing lag and allowing for instant firmware updates and (sometimes painful) connections to smart TVs. There's Bluetooth inside the Stadia controller, but it's only used when you're setting up Stadia, either with a TV, a computer with the Chrome browser, or a Chromecast Ultra. The Google Store's page for the Stadia controller states in a footnote: "Product contains Bluetooth Classic radio. No Bluetooth Classic functionality is enabled at this time. Bluetooth Classic may be implemented at a later date." (Bluetooth Classic is a more traditional version of Bluetooth than modern low-energy or mesh versions.) That potential later date can't get much later for fans of the Stadia controller. Many cite the controller's hand feel and claim it as their favorite. They'd like to see Google unlock Bluetooth to make their favorite something more than a USB-only controller and avoid a lot of plastic and circuit board trash. "Now if you'd just enable Bluetooth on the controller, we could help the environment by not letting them become electronic waste," writes Roadrunner571 on one of many controller-related threads on the r/Stadia subreddit. "They created trash and they at least owe it to me to do their best within reason to prevent millions of otherwise perfectly good controllers from filling landfills," another wrote. Many have called for Google, if they're not going to push a firmware update themselves to unlock the functionality, to open up access to the devices themselves, so the community can do it for them. That's often a tricky scenario for large companies relying on a series of sub-contracted manufacturers to produce hardware. Some have suggested that the full refunds give Google more leeway to ignore the limited function of their devices post-shutdown. It's worth noting that you can still plug a Stadia controller into the USB port on a Smart TV, computer, or gaming console and use it as a controller through a standard HID (Human Interface Device) connection. But, currently, it's not possible to connect the controllers wirelessly, unless you go through a lot of effort.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.