Many horror movies use floating cameras and first-person POV to tell a story, but Steven Soderbergh has used these familiar techniques to craft something remarkable with Presence. Like many ghost movies, Presence begins with a wealthy family moving into a new home. As days turn into weeks, it becomes clear there’s something weird happening in the house. Objects move by themselves, glasses shatter, and sometimes it’s possible to feel someone watching, although this force can’t be seen with human eyes.

The novelty is how Soderbergh tells the story by using the camera to represent the field of vision of the haunting spirit. Every scene of Presence is framed from the ghost’s point of view, which means we get an unusual insight into what the apparition is experiencing and how it reacts to what happens inside the house.

Let’s be clear. Since Sam Raimi decided to craft a first-person scene to materialize the invisible force in the woods of Evil Dead, this technique has become a staple in horror cinema. Plus, the entire found footage subgenre relies on the concept we are seeing exactly what the person behind the camera saw. However, floating cameras are usually incorporated for no more than a few seconds. Furthermore, the found footage genre has the constraint of needing to make each scene possible to reproduce with in-universe cameras.

Presence doesn’t set any technological boundary for its gimmick, meaning the ghost can watch the family through unusual angles. In addition, Soderbergh’s commitment to shooting everything with floating cameras makes Presence a technical achievement, even when the story fails to impress.

The biggest obstacle to Presence’s success is public expectation. The movie is being distributed by NEON, which last year graced us with horror hits such as Longlegs, Immaculate, and Cuckoo. Given that Presence revolves around a haunted house story, it’s fair for people to expect Soderbergh’s latest to be fully anchored in horror cinema. Nevertheless, Presence is far from scary. Nor is it trying to be. 

By shifting the focus to the ghost itself, the movie is willing to explore what causes the emotional outbursts the living interpret as the actions of an evil entity. The movie’s unique point of view also allows Soderbergh to explore how the apparition is struggling to find its purpose and be released of its material constraints—it’s not only the living who must understand why a haunting happens to find some peace of mind. As a result, Presence is more like A Ghost Story than The Haunting of Hill House or The Conjuring.

To be fair, Presence does have moments of tension. Soderbergh is no stranger to nerve-wracking thrillers, having directed movies such as Unsane and Side Effects. Also, Presence is penned by David Koepp, the writer of David Fincher’s claustrophobic Panic Room. Both men know how to play with the public’s feelings and generate anxiety, and Presence gets there eventually. However, the movie is just not that interested in scares. Once you accept it, you can enjoy the film for what it is: an exploration of suburban drama with a pinch of the supernatural.

Once you take Presence for what it is, it gets easier to realize how brilliantly executed it is. As a being that doesn’t abide by the time and space rules that determine human perception, the apparition jumps from moment to moment, carefully observing the family of four and unraveling their dynamics. Rebecca (Lucy Liu) is a ruthless businesswoman who obviously prefers her firstborn son, Tyler (Eddy Maday). That means it’s up to the father, Chris (Chris Sullivan), to compensate for Rebecca’s absence when the youngest daughter, Chloe (Callina Liang), needs emotional support. For reasons the movie will slowly unveil, Chloe seems to be the primary target of the titular presence, which often puts her at odds with Tyler and Rebecca, who would prefer to live their lives without the girl’s supposed attention-seeking behavior.

While the family complexities are enough to get you emotionally invested in their unexpected journey, the dialogue is occasionally stiff and heavy-handed. Since the spirit can only glimpse specific moments of the family’s life, Koepp’s script wants to ensure everyone follows the plot and makes the connections needed for Presence’s ultimate emotional payoff. The problem with this approach is that the movie is not trying to reinvent the narrative wheel, so the hand-holding is not unnecessary and distracting.

Fortunately Presence works because of its cast. Each family member is played by a talented performer who understands the assignment. The cast ignores the camera and recreates glimpses of everyday life that help us understand what makes each of them tick, fully trusting Soderbergh can put everything together in a satisfying way in the editing room. The result is a mesmerizing slice of life spiced up by the ever-present ghost that haunts the house and that learns together with the audience what’s at the core of the conflicts unfolding on the screen. That comes in handy, as the central mystery of Presence is a little too obvious to sustain the plot by itself.

Even though Presence tries to drop feed information to the public, a piece of the puzzle at the time, the movie’s twists and turns won’t surprise many people. That’s fine, as Soderbergh’s is more an exercise in style than anything else. On that front, Presence is a cinema accomplishment that deserves to be seen by anyone who minimally cares about movie-making. 

The whole movie is structured in long takes shot with handheld cameras, which demands incredible coordination and synergy from the entire cast. Most of the scenes also count only on natural light, which helps to give Presence a homemade texture, highlighting its self-contained story. Finally, since the whole movie takes place in a single environment, it’s impressive that Soderbergh manages to keep things fresh and develop new ways to make the ghost-view gimmick relevant.

The special effects of Presence are equally impressive. The movie prioritizes practical solutions to create images of furniture being moved by the spirit or objects floating in the air. These choices help keep the film grounded, but they also entice the viewer’s curiosity, as you are left questioning how the director manages to do those things without breaking the illusion of the supernatural. 

In short, while Presence could do with a more engaging story, the movie still has plenty of wonderful surprises in store. That’s even more relevant for cinema fans who appreciate filmmakers daring to do something fresh with film language.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle might face consequences from Donald Trump, after the royal couple issued a statement criticizing Meta’s decision to eliminate fact-checking.

The pair’s statement came in the wake of news that the Mark Zuckerberg-owned social media company — at the helm of platforms like Facebook and Instagram — to do away with its use of third-party fact-checkers for its various sites. The enactment of the new fact-checking policy sparked concerns given its conspicuous closeness to Trump’s second presidential inauguration, which Harry and Meghan’s statement vaguely alludes to. 

Published on their website, The Sussexes statement outright declares that the changes to Meta’s fact-checking policies are “undoubtedly responding to political winds,” like an oncoming Trump presidency, and said they will contribute to an “intentionally disruptive information environment” on social media. In another veiled reference to Trump, Harry and Meghan wrote that “the politics of one country should never determine” the blanket rules and protections of a company that is “clearly shaping or destroying democracy.”

More broadly, the statement accused Meta of making policy changes that contradict its stated values, and expressed concern that it was “prioritiz[ing] those using the platforms to spread hate, lies and division at the expense of everyone else.” While the statement doesn’t outright mention him, one insider has claimed that the Sussexes should be prepared for reaction from Trump, saying the royal couple should predict “a repercussion from” their statement. 

Speaking with Newsweek, PR guru Nick Ede compared Harry and Meghan’s references to Trump in the statement to “poking this ginormous bear,” and warned them that they should be “expecting something back from it.” Ede went on to claim that the president-elect might even enact a vendetta against the royal couple during his second term, saying Trump will see the war of words “as a battle that he wants to win,” and will potentially take steps to “target them in whatever way he does it.” Adding to concerns is Trump’s history with Harry, who he once name-dropped while speaking of his plans for mass deportation. 

This interaction — which saw the former president float the idea of deporting Harry on the grounds of his previous drug use and its effect on his visa — does little to cool the temperature between Harry and Trump, and is now amplified by the Sussexes recent statement. “This is quite incendiary in that respect because we know Trump is not a fan of theirs,” Ede said, “and this could be a way to negatively affect them.” He concluded that this won’t be the last time we will hear of this story because “I don’t think it will stop.” 

On the Meghan front, the Duchess has in the past called Trump “divisive,” and received a response from the former president after she seemed to show support for Joe Biden back in 2020. However, Trump’s relations with the royal family aren’t all as tenuous, with the president-elect last month praising Prince William and expressing gratitude for the reign of his late grandmother, Queen Elizabeth. Trump also described King Charles as a “really good person” and his wife, Queen Camilla, as “fantastic.”  

In any case, the Sussexes recent statement aligns with the goals of The Parents Network, a principal program about internet safety that forms part of their philanthropic efforts with the Archwell Foundation.

The lineup for Bonnaroo 2025 has been announced, and this year’s headliners are Olivia Rodrigo, Luke Combs, Tyler, the Creator, and Hozier. The list also includes Megadeth, Nelly, Modest Mouse, and more. The festival kicks off on June 12 and will conclude on the 15th in Manchester, Tennessee.

Buy now: Bonnaroo 2025 tickets on StubHub

What’s new at Bonnaroo 2025

This year’s festival will introduce the Roo Residency. Australian rock and roll band King Gizzard & Lizard Wizard will play three sets over three days of Bonnaroo 2025.

The festival will also introduce “Closer” RV and primitive camping sites, which will have fans closer to Centeroo no matter when you attend. Traditional RV and primitive camping will still be available.

The Infinity Stage is another new feature of Bonnaroo this time around. The stage will offer a three-dome open-air design for a fully 360-degree immersive experience.

Bonnaroo 2025 tickets

Tickets for this year’s Bonnaroo went on sale on Jan. 9, 2025, and are currently available on StubHub.

Bonnaroo 2025 full schedule

Thursday, June 12

• Luke Combs
• Dom Dolla
• Sammy Virji
• Marcus King
• Green Velvet
• 2hollis
• Insane Clown Posse
• Joey Valence & Brae
• Daniel Donato’s Cosmic Country
• Wilderado
• Max Styler
• Azzecca
• The Lemon Twigs
• Wisp
• Sofia Isella
• Kitchen Dwellers
• Dogs In A Pile
• Die Spitz
• Hey, Nothing
• The Droptines

Friday, June 13

• Tyler, the Creator
• John Summit
• Glass Animals
• Tipper
• Goose
• The Red Clay Strays
• Rainbow Kitten Surprise
• Megadeth
• Wallows
• Foster the People
• Slightly Stoopid
• Flipturn
• Of the Trees
• JPEGMAFIA
• Marina
• Tape B
• MJ Lenderman
• BossMan Dlow
• INZO
• Levity
• Mannequin Pussy
• Leon Thomas
• Cults
• Aly & AJ
• Matt Champion
• Detox Unit
• Rachel Chinouriri
• Eater
• Ginger Root
• Bebe Stockwell
• Effin

Saturday, June 14

• Olivia Rodrigo
• Avril Lavigne
• Justice
• Nelly
• GloRilla
• Mt. Joy
• RL Grime
• Beabadoobee
• Tyla
• Jessie Murph
• Modest Mouse
• Gorgon City
• Flatland Cavalry
• Hot Mulligan
• Action Bronson
• Crankdat
• Dope Lemon
• Gigi Perez
• Wave to Earth
• Claptone
• Jade Cicada
• What So Not
• Daði Freyr
• Ziggy Alberts
• ROSSY
• Destroy Boys
• The Stews
• Thee Sinseers & The Altons
• AHEE

Sunday, June 15

• Hozier
• Vampire Weekend
• Queens of the Stone Age
• LSZEE
• Remi Wolf
• Raye
• Royel Otis
• Dispatch
• Role Model
• Barry Can’t Swim
• Treaty Oak Revival
• Big Gigantic
• Jack’s Mannequin
• ATLiens
• Bilmuri
• Saint Motel
• James Arthur
• Alex Warren
• Zingara
• Natasha Bedingfield
• Alexandra Kay
• Goldie Boutilier
• Grace Bowers & The Hodge Podge
• GorillaT
• YDG

Pete Hegseth’s fitness for the role of Secretary of Defense has been called into question, after the candidate seemingly forgot his child’s name during his Senate confirmation hearing.

For context, the hearings today saw the former Fox News presenter come under fire amid his bid for the high-ranking government role, with Democrats voicing deep concerns about his inexperience and past behavior, including allegations around his drunkenness, sexual assault of women, and past comments about women in the military. While the hours-long hearing was tense throughout, one eyebrow-raising moment occurred when Hegseth mentioned his family, including his father and children.

“Thank you to my father Brian, mother Penny” Hegseth said, “as well as our entire family including our seven wonderful kids.” From there, Hegseth listed off the names of his children, but appeared stumped when he landed on his son, Rex. The brief moment was met with a smattering of laughter in the room, but it wasn’t long before the gaffe did the rounds on social media, with many onlookers deeming it as evidence that Hegseth “is utterly unfit” for the role of Defense Secretary. 

“If he can’t remember his kid’s name, how’s he supposed to remember national priorities?,” one user questioned on X, with another adding that they “never expected Trump to nominate bright people” for roles within his second administration. “Not a good sign publicly freezing under pressure,” another observer quipped, with a fourth declaring that Hegseth “just isn’t qualified.” This sentiment around Hegseth’s fitness for the role was also floated within the hearing itself, spearheaded by Rhode Island Senator, Jack Reed. 

“Mr. Hegseth, I do not believe you’re qualified to meet the overwhelming demands of this job,” the Democratic politician said. Reed went on to cite the “concerning public reports” around Hegseth’s past, saying they “implicate you with disregarding the laws of war.” Reed also said that the reports connect Hegseth to racist and sexist remarks, financial mismanagement, alcohol abuse and sexual assault. The senator said reports on all of that conduct would “disqualify any service member from holding any leadership position.”  

While president-elect Donald Trump’s broader cabinet picks will appear before committees for the rest of the week, Hegseth’s fitness for the role has been questioned ever since his nomination was announced in November. Since then, he has faced multiple allegations of sexual assault and misconduct, come under fire for his remarks about women in the military, and been scrutinised for his use of alcohol during his time at Fox News. Elsewhere, clips of Hegseth criticizing Trump have also resurfaced in recent months. 

Perhaps the biggest bombshell ahead of Hegseth’s confirmation arrived last month, when The New York Times published a years-old letter addressed to him by his mother, in which she accused him of abusing, belittling and cheating on women. Penelope Hegseth later backtracked on the letter in defence of her son, but it was enough for rumors to emerge that Trump was considering replacing Hegseth with Ron DeSantis. 

Since then, however, Trump has doubled-down on his support of Hegseth, who, if confirmed by the senate, will join a broader second term cabinet that also includes Linda Macmahon for the Department of Education, Kristi Noem as the Secretary of Homeland Security, and RFK Jr. as Health Secretary. Thankfully, however, there will be no role for Matt Gaetz, because we all saw how that played out.

An Oregon man’s face caught fire while he was awake and conscious during surgery, according to a $900,000 lawsuit the man’s family filed against Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU). The patient, John Michael Murdoch, has since died from cancer.

According to The Oregonian, Murdoch’s 2022 surgery was to perform a tracheostomy to create a hole for a breathing tube in Murdoch’s throat. Murdoch was undergoing treatment for cancer of the tongue at that time. Murdoch, then 51, succumbed to the cancer about six months after the botched procedure. The lawsuit says Murdoch lived with disfiguring scars and wounds that never healed because of the fire, and Murdoch’s wife said he remembered the traumatic experience until his death.

Allegedly, a combination of rubbing alcohol and a spark caused the flame

Isopropyl alcohol was sprayed on Murdoch’s face before the tracheostomy to sterilize the area as standard procedure. The lawsuit Toni Murdoch, John Michael’s wife, filed, however, says the alcohol was not given sufficient time to dry, and a flame ignited on Murdoch’s face when a tool used in the surgery caused a spark.

Murdoch’s lawsuit alleges that the tool used in the procedure was known to spark and shouldn’t have been used. And, according to litigation, the oxygen, alcohol, and the spark created a “fire triangle,” or the perfect conditions for the flame. “It never should have happened,” the Murdoch family lawyer Ron Cheng said.

As shocking and strange as the Murdoch case may seem, the American College of Surgeons says operating rooms have the perfect conditions for fire, with oxygen, fuel, and ignition sources contributing factors. The Emergency Care Research Institute says as many as 100 surgical fires happen each year.

According to the NIH, “Surgical fires are a rare but serious preventable safety risk in modern hospitals. Data from the US show that up to 650 surgical fires occur each year, with up to 5% causing death or serious harm,” and studies have been conducted on whether the use of “spirit-based surgical skin preparation fluid” — such as isopropyl alcohol — should be reduced because of fire risk.

In November last year, Reuters reported that surgical fire cases such as the Murdoch suit are easier to prove than other types of medical malpractice because the fire itself could destroy proof that the healthcare providers were guilty of “breach of care,” or that the fire itself sufficiently proves negligence on its own.

Also last year, Jennifer Conroy, MSN, RN-BSN, CNOR, recalled her experience with a surgical fire, writing for the Association of periOperative Registered Nurses (AORN). Details of Conroy’s case are similar to what Murdoch’s family describes in their lawsuit. Recalling the accident, Conroy wrote, “Waiting 3 minutes for the prep to dry would have all but eliminated the vapors from the alcohol in the solution and the area would not have been as flammable.”

According to The Oregonian, OHSU and Dr. Adam Howard, the physician listed in the Murdoch family lawsuit, both declined to comment for privacy reasons. Multiple reports say Howard’s medical license in Oregon expired in January 2024. OHSU still lists Howard as an instructor, but he is also listed as an instructor at a West Virginia university where his license to practice medicine is up to date. An undisclosed number of surgical staff are also named in the Murdoch family litigation.

We should be completely numb to crazy MAGA politicians like Marjorie Taylor Greene doing anything for attention, but the Georgia Republican just can’t seem to find the bottom of her barrel of crazy. Whether it’s blaming the weather on Democrats or blasting Biden for “reckless foreign policy” while supporting Donald Trump’s calls to annex multiple allied territories, the bombastic blond always finds nonsense to spew.

As Donald Trump tosses around plans to pardon most of the insurgent participants, Marge has been desperate to make sure everyone knows she’s always been on the side of the martyr. A recently resurfaced video of her doing just that is making the rounds on social media, and the cosplay of someone who cares is almost convincing enough to make us believe it wasn’t just a bizarre photo op. Almost.

We all know that the Right loves to play the victim, but the performance art exhibit really ups the ante. Investigative journalist Tess Owens, who has been following the January 6 debacle since the beginning, was the first to flag the weird moment. She’s still in the thick of it and recently released an exposé about those J-6ers behind bars and their almost zealot-like love for Donald Trump, and her work shows the fervor is nowhere near dying down.

The bizarre video comes from a Republican CPAC convention held in Dallas in August of 2022. The annual conservative event invited attendees to listen to January 6ers testimonials while they walked through the exhibit, which culminated in the man in the cage. MAGA loves to play the victim, so it should come as no surprise that for much of the weekend, the man was a paid actor, but during this highly publicized shoot, he was swapped out for Brandon Straka, an insurrectionist charged with 90 days of in-home detention, 3 years of probation, and a fine of $5,000.

So basically another actor. Straka avoided any jail time by extensively cooperating with investigators and dishing vital information about other Stop the Steal activists, like movement founder Ali Alexander. Spectators did everything from weep for and throw money at the man, who languished on the cell floor or bed, occasionally “writing sad slogans on a blackboard, like ‘Where is Everyone?'”

Of course Greene couldn’t miss the opportunity to shine, and draped in a jumpsuit orange dress, she entered the cage, where she dropped to her knees to hug Straka. The pair prayed together as the crowd began reciting the Lord’s prayer before pivoting to the prayer to Saint Michael, and folks on the internet really struggled to wrap their brain around the moment.

“Imagine if Biden visited Luigi like this,” one Redditor wondered referencing Luigi Mangione, now infamous killer of United Health CEO Brian Thompson. Most were stuck on how truly bizarre the whole affair was, “This literally looks like an SNL sketch,” one joked, “This is mental illness,” another netizen responded. “This is beyond cringe,” another added.”

It’s a classic MAGA move to manufacture a victim when you have none, over a problem you caused yourself, in protest of consequences you earned. Greene has definitely gotten less sane since this video first surfaced, but then again, she’s never actually served under Trump. This will be the first opportunity Greene will have to officially combine her crazy with that of Daddy Trump, and moments like this prove there is no rock bottom for the Georgia Republican.

President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration is taking place soon, and the hosts of the talk show The View shared their reactions to Carrie Underwood’s announcement that she will perform “America the Beautiful” at the ceremony.

Host Whoopi Goldberg, who has been a vocal critic of Trump and his policies, had a surprising reaction to the announcement. On Jan. 13, Underwood said, “I love our country and am honored to have been asked to sing at the inauguration and to be a small part of this historic event.” While the decision sparked controversy, Goldberg said she supports the country singer’s decision.

“I stand behind her. If I believe I have the right to make up my mind to go perform someplace, I believe they have the same right. So I have to support,” Goldberg stated. However, that doesn’t mean that she will be watching the inauguration. “I won’t be watching. But that’s me,” she added.

Underwood has been private when it comes to politics, choosing not to air her opinions in public. In an interview with The Guardian in 2019, the singer said that people sometimes assume which side of the political spectrum she leans toward. “I try to stay as far out of politics if possible, at least in public, because nobody wins,” she explained, adding that issues aren’t simply a matter of “black and white.”

The other hosts’ opinions on the matter

In her statement regarding the inauguration, Underwood added, “I am humbled to answer the call at a time when we must all come together in the spirit of unity and looking to the future.” Joy Behar questioned Underwood’s decision, asking how the singer could say she loved the country when she had chosen to perform for someone who “wants to destroy the country.” However, Behar also noted that she wasn’t the type of person who would tell someone not to do something, as she believes in free speech.

Alyssa Farah Griffin, on the other hand, said that people who have a problem with Underwood should just boycott her shows and stop downloading her songs. She understands that from a business standpoint, accepting the invitation to perform was smart, as she will be making money and will be an “icon of MAGA and the American right.”

Sunny Hostin also joined the discussion, saying that “art is art” and she believes artists have the right to choose where they want to perform. With that said, she would have given a “hard no” if she was asked to perform, to which the other hosts agreed.

Underwood isn’t the only one performing for Trump. The disco group The Village People will also be at two events — one at a rally a day before the inauguration and another at an inaugural ball. The group released a statement saying that they are aware the decision wouldn’t please some of their fans, but they should be able to perform their music “without regard to politics.” The Village People added that despite their candidate losing, they could bring the country together through their global anthem “Y.M.C.A.” Trump’s inauguration, which will reportedly be tech billionaires and former presidents, will take place on Jan. 20 but will be preceded by four days of events and celebrations.

In a rare social media announcement, Catherine, Princess of Wales has confirmed that her cancer is in remission and she is now “focussed on recovery.”

It comes just under a year after the Royal family member shared in a much-discussed video message that she was receiving treatment for cancer, after earlier stepping back from royal duties to undergo an unspecified abdominal surgery. Months later, in September, Middleton shared an update that her chemotherapy had ended and that she was “cancer-free,” but this marks the first time she has confirmed her official in-remission status. 

“It is a relief to now be in remission and I remain focussed on recovery,” Middleton wrote. She went on to explain that it will “take time to adjust to a new normal,” but that she is “looking forward to a fulfilling year ahead.” More broadly, the princess took time to thank The Royal Marsden Hospital in London where she received treatment, expressing gratitude “for looking after me so well during the past year.” 

She also thanked all those “who have quietly walked alongside” both herself and her husband, Prince William, as they “navigated everything.” In another update, Middleton used to post to announce her new role as Joint Patron of The Royal Marsden, which will see her support  groundbreaking research and clinical excellence, as well as promote patient and family wellbeing. “My hope is that… we might save many more lives, and transform the experiences of those impacted by cancer,” she wrote of the new role. 

It marks a welcome update in Middleton’s months-long cancer journey, which attracted intense scrutiny last year as the royal delayed publicizing her health struggles to give her three children, George, Charlotte and Louis, some time to process the news in private. The delay led to a firestorm of conspiracy theories, not helped by an edited image of the princess and her family and the earlier revelation that her father-in-law, King Charles III, was diagnosed with an unspecified form of cancer. 

On that front, Buckingham Palace revealed last month that Charles’ cancer treatment is “moving in a positive direction,” but that his “treatment cycle will continue into the new year.” Confirmation of the King’s health issues came after a hospital visit for the unrelated issue of a benign prostate enlargement. Amid the double-blow to the royal family, Prince William has remained relatively tight-lipped about the ordeal, but did say in November that 2024 had been “brutal” and “the hardest year in my life.”  

Middleton’s remission status comes amid reports that she and William are preparing to take the reins from Charles, with rumors swirling that they are poised to break some traditions, rule with an iron fist, and make major changes to their public image. “[Middleton] has shown that she is very much in charge of her own agenda and that’s to be admired,” a royal observer said earlier this month. concluded. “Both Charles and William believe she has all it takes to be Queen when the time comes.”

In other royal news, Meghan Markle made the decision to postpone the release of her new lifestyle Netflix series, With Love, Meghan, to allow time to “focus on the needs of those impacted” by the LA wildfires, the Duchess said in a statement last week.

Andrea “Alex” Ye of Rockville, MD, was found guilty in early January of threatening to commit an act of violence at Ye’s high school, with Ye’s 129-page school shooting “manifesto” a crucial piece of evidence in the case, according to the Montgomery County State’s Attorney’s Office.

Ye, now 19, was arrested in April when Ye’s friend contacted the police after Ye sent his “manifesto” outlining his plans for a school shooting to the person on social media, according to the Montgomery County Department of Police. According to Washington, DC news outlet Fox 5, local law enforcement “obtained records from multiple social media platforms, including Instagram and Discord, and reviewed thousands of pages of records that revealed Ye’s consistent obsession with school shootings and school shooters,” the State’s Attorney’s Office said in a press release.

Ye’s manifesto was a “work of fiction,” his defense team said

Ye’s defense team, however, called the so-called “manifesto” a work of fiction and protected by free speech. Ye’s writings included gruesome details about how Ye would attack a school with one of his father’s guns and that he had considered targeting an elementary school because “the little kids make easier targets,” according to Montgomery County State’s Attorney John McCarthy.

“At one point in time, when this matter came to our attention, he was actually committed to a psychiatric hospital,” McCarthy explained. McCarthy said the psychiatric hospital notified the FBI because everyone involved including the friend who turned over the manifesto to the police, investigators involved in the case, and doctors who interviewed and treated Ye in the hospital, “knew this was a real threat.”

Ye experienced “intense homicidal ideation,” a mental health professional determined

Ye was convicted in a two-day bench trial in December, meaning there was no jury, leaving the verdict up to the judge. Ye’s friend, who testified at the trial, said, “He wanted to become a spectacle,” referring to Ye’s plans. “I believe an example was the Sandy Hook shooter,” the witness added. A therapist who worked with Ye also said on the stand he experienced “intense homicidal ideation,” according to NBC Washington. At one point, Ye also wrote on Discord he wanted to “repeat Columbine,” the prosecution said.

Ye’s defense team told Fox 5 in a statement that they were “disheartened” by the guilty verdict. “Mr. Ye maintains he did not threaten to commit a crime of mass violence and that he is innocent,” Ye’s lawyers said. They added, “Throughout this challenging process, Mr. Ye has consistently maintained that his intent was solely to share a fictional book he authored.”

In contrast, “This was not a joke and not protected speech,” State Attorney McCarthy said at the press conference announcing the outcome of the case. “Thank God this has a happy ending,” he said, because no one got hurt and Ye got caught before he could carry out his plans. Ye will be sentenced on Feb. 28, and in the meantime, he will undergo psychological evaluations. Ye could spend as long as 10 years in prison.

SZA is growing into her own as one of the most talented R&B artists in a generation, and her piercing lyrics always feel relatable because she never fears to show us her insecurities and flaws. These aforementioned qualities were apparent when she released her debut album CTRL in 2017, and SZA bore her essence into several songs therein, such as the track “Drew Barrymore.”

For a long time, though, fans have wondered why exactly the song is named after the famous actress and talk show host. Taken at face value, “Drew Barrymore” is a quintessential SZA record, where the singer tackles her insecurity and ponders whether that means she’s unlovable. The song became a sleeper hit from her illustrious debut album and when it came time to finally shoot the video, Drew Barrymore was gracious enough to make a cameo in it.

Now it was time for SZA to return the favor. When the song first came out, SZA was just breaking through the mainstream, but now she’s one of the biggest artists outright, going on stadium tours, breaking streaming records, and working on a budding movie career. She finally appeared on The Drew Barrymore Show to talk about the song and why she named it after the host, even though Barrymore isn’t mention by name on the hook or anywhere else in the song.

For SZA, Barrymore has always been an inspiration. SZA told the host that she even wrote Barrymore a letter to share just how much she meant to the singer when she was still growing up, but she never sent it. SZA said, ““[The song] was inspired by you; it wasn’t just titled after you. You were so yourself — you were quirky, your smile wasn’t perfect. I had a slight speech impediment, and people still laugh all the time. They’re like, ‘What is SZA saying?’ It’s a running joke, but I love the way you talk… it gave me permission to be myself.”

Knowing Barrymore and how emotional she can get on her show, the tears started welling up. It’s heartwarming to see someone getting their flowers while they’re still here. With their busy schedules and the meteoric rise of SZA’s career, the two have never really had the opportunity to discuss the reason why SZA named the song after Barrymore, but we’re more than glad that it finally happened for all of us to see.

For some social media users, the heart-to-heart between the two icons was too overwhelming, and it just ended up in them crying.

SZA is a megastar, and with that comes public scrutiny of her body, her every word, and sometimes even just unmitigated nastiness. But every so often, we get to see her true self, and we’re glad she hasn’t lost that spark that made us fall in love with her talent in the first place. Knowing that the courage with which she’s held on to that charm with ushered along by Barrymore herself makes it all the more endearing. It also sparks hope that, somewhere in the world, SZA is inspiring another young girl to also stay true to herself.

SZA is set to make her feature film debut in One of Them Days, starring alongside Keke Palmer and Katt Williams. The movie is scheduled to premiere on Jan. 17, 2025, in theaters nationwide.

As longtime viewers are already well aware, one resounding truth about The View is that it’s gonna spark some serious debates.

With a panel of outspoken co-hosts including the likes of Whoopi Goldberg, Sara Haines, Joy Behar, Sunny Hostin, Ana Navarro-Cárdenas, and Alyssa Farah Griffin, it’s not unusual for their conversations to ruffle feathers. Over the years, the ladies have weighed in on plenty of public figures, and Melania Trump ⏤ the former and future First Lady ⏤ has been no exception. Recently, however, rumors have started swirling that Melania is taking things to the next level by suing The View for $100 million. Talk about a Hot Topic!

Where did the rumor come from?

It all started in early Jan. 2025 when the gossip-heavy YouTube account Uncensored Insight claimed Melania Trump was suing The View. Unsurprisingly, this alleged news quickly went viral. The video was then shared on Facebook, where it spread like wildfire. The video even included a dramatic headline: “Melania Trump SUES ‘The View’ Hosts For $100 Million After They Said This About Her LIVE ON SET.”

According to the claims, Melania was allegedly suing the show for disparaging comments made about her during a live broadcast. Supporters of the former First Lady were quick to rally behind her, while critics questioned whether the lawsuit was actually real. Another rumor claimed she was suing Sunny Hostin specifically for comments made about her and Donald Trump’s son, Barron. To understand the context, we need to rewind a few months.

During a Sept. 2024 episode of The View, the co-hosts discussed Melania’s first interview in two years, which she gave to Fox News. In the interview, Melania talked about her husband’s sense of humor, their shared love of music, and how much she admires his determination. Needless to say, the hosts didn’t hold back with their opinions. Whoopi mocked the idea of Trump having a sense of humor while Sunny suggested that Melania and Donald weren’t as different as they might seem. The segment was sharp-tongued as usual, but did it really cross a line that could lead to a lawsuit?

Is Melania Trump suing The View?

No, despite the viral YouTube video saying otherwise, Melania Trump is not suing The View. A thorough search of court records by Distractify shows that no lawsuits have been filed by Melania against the show or its co-hosts. This means there’s zero proof to back this rumor up and it should be taken as such ⏤ a rumor. (Eagle-eyed View-ers will know and appreciate that the show comes armed with many a legal note, often delivered by Sunny directly to the camera, in an attempt to avoid this exact scenario.)

Political onlookers largely agree that Melania Trump has always been a bit of a mystery. Unlike her husband, who thrives being the center of attention, Melania tends to keep a low profile. This reserved nature, combined with her high-profile role as First Lady, made her a frequent target for gossip and speculation the first time her husband became president. While her supporters often come to her defense, her critics are equally vocal about how different she is from First Ladies past.

This dynamic creates fertile ground for exaggerated or outright false stories to spread, especially on platforms like YouTube and Facebook, where sensational headlines get clicks (not helped by the latter’s creator recently ending fact-checking on the platform). As of this writing, the claim that Melania Trump is suing The View for $100 million is baseless and just another example of how quickly rumors can catch fire, especially when they involve polarizing public figures.

Good news! We may now know the exact runtime of incoming MCU movie Captain America: Brave New World. Bad news! Marvel fans probably aren’t going to like it…

With the previous Marvel Studios film coming last summer in the form of $1.3 billion blockbuster Deadpool & Wolverine, we’ve had an atypically long time to wait until another MCU came our way (I mean, Sony offered up Venom 3 and Kraven the Hunter, but, well, they hardly count). The pressure is on Brave New World to deliver, then. Especially as it serves as the follow-up to the universally acclaimed Captain America trilogy, starring Chris Evans as the Star-Spangled Man.

There are certainly enough elements in the mix to blow MCU lovers away. As the film’s marketing has hinged on, Anthony Mackie’s Sam Wilson will be joined by Harrison Ford as President Red Hulk (a corrupt POTUS with an inhuman skin tone? Where do they get their ideas!). Then there’s Tim Blake Nelson’s the Leader back in the mix, for the first time since 2008’s The Incredible Hulk. Not to mention rumors of a certain team of Earth’s Mightiest Heroes re-assembling.

All of that is why the film’s apparent runtime may come as something of a surprise.

Brave New World‘s reported runtime would make it the shortest Captain America movie yet

Now that we’re only one month exactly from Brave New World swooping into cinemas, AMC Theaters has updated its listing for the film. According to the AMC site, Captain America 4 will sport a runtime of exactly 1 hour, 58 minutes.

This will come as a surprise to fans for a few reasons. For starters, because IMDb — which is never a reliable source of intel at the best of times, but still — previously listed Brave New World‘s runtime as 2 hours, 15 minutes. Given AMC’s update, this appears to have been more of a placeholder runtime based on an educated guess. And a 135-minute length would make a lot more sense. If AMC’s listing is to be believed, Cap 4 will be the shortest film in the series to date.

It’s notable any time a Marvel film slips under 2 hours, but it’s particularly surprising when it comes to the traditionally giant-sized Cap franchise. 2011’s The First Avenger may have only been 2 hours, 4 minutes, but things soon expanded when the Russos took the reins. 2014’s The Winter Soldier is 2 hours, 16 minutes with 2016’s Civil War even longer at 2 hours, 27 minutes. Brave New World may end up a full half-hour shorter than its predecessor.

Given what we know of its extremely troubled post-production period, which involved poor test screenings and extensive reshoots, a truncated runtime doesn’t exactly bode well for Brave New World. Then again, many of the most popular MCU movies — including Guardians of the Galaxy (2 hours, 1 minute) and Iron Man (2 hours, 6 minutes) — are on the shorter side, so this isn’t necessarily a reason to despair just yet. We’ll find out if Captain America 4 can prove that size doesn’t matter come Feb. 14.