Entertainment
If Dua Lipa is ‘the Cher of our generation,’ Cher wants a definition of ‘generation’

What number of years are in a technology? Asking for a … Cher.
The 76-year-old music, movie and TV legend posed the query Tuesday when she seemingly minimize down a Twitter consumer who in contrast her to pop star Dua Lipa, exalting the the three-time Grammy Award-winning singer as “the Cher of our technology.”
Whereas the original — albeit arguably blasphemous — tweet has since been eliminated, Cher’s pointed reply to a consumer who wrote “a lot fact in a single tweet” remained.
“What number of yrs are in a technology,” the “Flip Again Time” singer wrote, including a pondering face emoji.
The Emmy-, Grammy- and Oscar-winning star’s response got here after a Dua Lipa fan initially tweeted a photograph displaying the singers side-by-side, adorned with comparable straight black hair and glowing ensembles that they every beforehand wore to the Grammy Awards. Cher’s photograph was from 1974 — throughout a decade that firmly established her as a method icon — whereas Lipa’s was from earlier this 12 months, in accordance with Newsweek.
Some customers seen the unique tweet as a flattering comparability for Lipa however a dig at Cher, particularly given the beloved music icon’s response. Actually, the 27-year-old singer has been inescapable over the previous few years with hits akin to “Levitating,” “Don’t Begin Now” and “Chilly Coronary heart,” her viral collab with one other music legend, Elton John. However many customers had been fast to level out that the “Sonny and Cher Comedy Hour” star’s physique of labor eclipses that of Lipa.
A finite reply to Cher’s quite open-ended query additionally remained up for debate, additional difficult by the truth that the technical definition of a technology varies — much more so when the preliminary superlative is thought to be a determine of speech.
A technology could be outlined as a bunch of people born and residing contemporaneously (Cher and Lipa, examine!), with a standing that may be held for a restricted interval (examine!) and even the common span of time between the start of fogeys and that of their offspring (At 74 and 27, examine!), in accordance with Merriam-Webster. Some estimates have quantified that point at about 30 years.
However with Twitter being what it’s, nuance was misplaced and plenty of customers had been fast to take sides, additional exacerbating the — ahem — generational divide in Cher’s replies.
“Individuals are not likely understanding the cultural impression Cher had. Anybody can costume like Cher immediately, nevertheless it’s not the identical factor as being the primary one to interrupt that floor. That was Cher. Additionally Cher has starred in motion pictures and her personal TV present. She is the one and solely,” wrote one consumer.
“@cher is Cher. Nobody else will ever be Cher. Interval,” asserted one.
“Fact! I haven’t seen one other @Cher! She [is] uniquely simply Cher, you possibly can’t copy her. I believe some dad and mom of the brand new technology haven’t handed all the way down to their youngsters the appreciation of all music. Cease making an attempt to cancel out Legends who paved the best way to your new idols,” wrote one other.
“Effectively Dua’s principally been round for like 5 minutes, whereas Cher’s been round for A long time… So there’s not likely any comparability, and I’m positive even Dua would say it, too,” added one other.
However the digital natives had been savage elsewhere on Twitter, whereas others tried to bridge the hole.
“Cher is for boomers/gen X Dua Lipa is for millennials/gen Z,” wrote one consumer.
“title 5 cher songs rn, shortly,” wrote one other.
“Cher is for everyone. Dua is for everyone. That’s why the preliminary assertion is full nonsense, Cher isn’t going wherever,” added one other.
“One factor is being *impressed* by somebody, and different is being a alternative. Dua is the Dua Lipa of our technology. Cher is Cher. No want to match two fully completely different people in expertise simply because one costume like the opposite,” mused one other.
Lipa has not but addressed the controversy.

Movie Reviews
M3gan 2.0 Has No Idea What It’s Doing

M3gan 2.0.
Photo: Universal Pictures
At first glance, a sequel to the 2023 killer-teenage-girl-android flick M3gan would seem like an easy layup, a chance to re-exploit the knowingly goofy mix of horror and comedy that turned that film into a refreshing January hit. In reality, such self-aware lightning rarely strikes twice. M3gan played its absurd premise with a largely straight face, but watching that film’s single and reluctant maternal figure, ambitious and overworked roboticist Gemma (Allison Williams), conjure a cyborg best pal for her traumatized and orphaned niece, Cady (Violet McGraw), we grasped the ironic ruse. Just about everybody in the movie was serious. Its surfaces were serious. Its gestalt, however, was pure howling derangement, and that dancing robot cut through it all like a knife in a pussy-bow minidress.
With M3gan 2.0, writer-director Gerard Johnstone opts for action instead of horror, and the film feels like it wants to be a frothy spy flick. M3gan herself (played by Amie Donald and voiced by Jenna Davis) was defeated in the previous film, but now there’s a new, more powerful cyborg menace, Amelia (short for Autonomous Military Engagement Logistics and Infiltration Android, and played by the Ukrainian actress Ivanna Sakhno), “the next evolution in military engagement,” whom we first see in an opening scene on the Turkish-Iranian border as she slices and shoots her way through a gaggle of goons in an attempt to save a kidnapped chemical scientist. Trouble is, she turns out to be something of a double agent and turns on her U.S. military overlords. Gradually, it falls to Gemma, Cady, and their pals to revive M3gan in an attempt to stop the seemingly indestructible Amelia, who is hell-bent on becoming all-powerful and conquering civilization.
So it’s Good Robot versus Bad Robot, a Terminator 2: Judgment Day–style expansion into mainstream mayhem — superficially understandable, since the first Terminator was also something of a horror film that was subsequently franchised into an action series. And yet M3gan 2.0 is a baffling movie, relying less on the conceptual humor of its predecessor and more on occasional quips and a few genuinely silly gags. (When M3gan is first brought back, she’s given the body of a small, plastic, Teletubby-like robot to keep her from committing any violence. Later, she sings Kate Bush’s “This Woman’s Work” in an attempt to praise Gemma’s parenting skills.) But by and large, M3gan 2.0 feels like it just wants to be a generic action movie. There’s also enough blather here about the perils of artificial intelligence that one wonders if the filmmakers actually expect us to pay attention to the details of the plot.
More tragically, M3gan 2.0 abandons its characters, who had been the secret of the original’s success. The first film’s tonal tightrope only worked because Williams in particular walked it so well, with her dry delivery perfectly capturing the obliviousness of Gemma’s disastrous attempts to hack her own life. And McGraw, just 11 at the time, ably managed her character’s traumatized-child horror-speak. The contrast between their sincerity and M3gan’s homicidal sassiness lent real power to the picture’s parodic swings.
But this time, all these characters are largely reduced to running and cowering and breathlessly scheming to find ways to take down Amelia; they’ve become mere action protagonists, and not particularly interesting ones at that. One wonders if Johnstone is simply trying to set a kind of template he can return to over and over again as these films presumably generate more sequels. In so doing, however, he’s ironed out the idiosyncrasies that made his original work so well. The results are thoroughly middling — not funny enough to qualify as comedy, not exciting enough to qualify as action, not smart enough to qualify as a cautionary tale, and certainly not weird enough to keep the M3gan ethos alive.
See All
Entertainment
In 'Squid Game' Season 3, a critique of democracy comes to the fore: 'It's like a jungle'

This article contains many spoilers for Season 3 of Netflix’s “Squid Game.”
“Squid Game” is a twisty, twisted thriller, with ordinary, financially stressed people playing children’s games to the death for the amusement of the hidden wealthy. Beneath that surface, creator, writer and director Hwang Dong-hyuk has been embedding sociopolitical commentary amid the shock and awe of protagonist Gi-hun’s (Lee Jung-jae) personal roller-coaster ride; the characters’ desperation as the saga ends forces those messages to poke through the slick, candy-colored exterior.
“It was a result of elevation of the themes and stories,” said Hwang of those ideas becoming more clearly voiced. They “became more upfront and intense just as a natural course of the story unfolding.”
The global phenomenon, still Netflix’s most-watched non-English show ever (its first two seasons are No. 1 and 2 on the streamer’s all-time list, with nearly 600 million views to date, according to Netflix), ends on its own terms with the release of its third and final season Friday. And what an arc everyman Gi-hun will have completed. How better to represent Hwang’s themes of end-stage, winners-and-losers capitalism, with its warping, destructive power, and how the ill-intentioned can exploit democracy’s flaws, than to depict an ordinary person buffeted by the unseen hand of pain for profit?
“You can say this is a story of those who have become losers of the game, and also those of us who are shaken to our core because of the chaotic political landscape,” said Hwang, who with Lee, spoke via an interpreter on a video call earlier this month from New York. “I wanted to focus in Season 3 on how in this world, where incessant greed is always fueled, it’s like a jungle — the strong eating the weak, where people climb higher by stepping on other people’s heads.”
Lee Jung-jae as Seong Gi-hun in final season of Netflix’s “Squid Game.”
(No Ju-han / Netflix)
Gi-hun’s hands become bloodied in the competition in Season 3, Hwang said. “That’s the first time he kills someone [in the games]. This person who symbolized goodness, the original sin is now on him because of what society has done to him,” he said. “How does he pick himself up from that? That’s the heart of Season 3. In a way, we’re all put in this situation due to the capitalist society and chaotic political situation. Gi-hun symbolizes what all of us go through these days.”
When we meet him in Season 1, Gi-hun is down and out, an inveterate gambler. Through Season 1’s horrific gantlet of murderous kids’ games, his exterior is scraped away with a rusty edge until all that’s left is a flawed but good man. Gi-hun is someone who sees what he believes with clarity, while becoming the suddenly rich champion of the games.
But after he reaches that peak, Season 2 plunges him back down the roller coaster as he becomes obsessed with vengeance against the elite voyeurs who fund the game and the Front Man (Lee Byung-hun), who oversees it. Righteous anger carries Gi-hun to the brink of his goal of destroying the games, only to see it all brutally dashed. Season 3 finds him a broken man, near catatonic with guilt. Without him to guide the less bloodthirsty players, the games will enter a fearsome phase of all-out mayhem, from which unexpectedly emerges a chance at redemption for the battered protagonist.
“All of those changes within Gi-hun are depicted in such minute detail” in Hwang’s writing, said Lee, “so nuanced and with so many layers. You’ll see Gi-hun have a change of heart. Sometimes his beliefs will be shaken. But despite all of that, he will continue to struggle to find hope and his will.

“All of those changes within Gi-hun are depicted in such minute detail, so nuanced and with so many layers,” Lee Jung-jae said of his character and Hwang Dong-hyuk’s writing.
(Justin Jun Lee / For The Times)
“All I can say is, I’m a very lucky man. You don’t come by characters like Gi-hun every day. It’s been a true honor,” he adds.
Lee’s public appearances in support of “Squid Game” have provided an almost comic contrast with Gi-hun. He’s movie-star handsome, elegant, always sharply dressed. On the show, especially as Gi-hun deteriorates in Season 3, he’s wrecked.
“Jung-jae went on this extremely harsh diet for over a year so he could really portray, externally, the pain and the brokenness, to really express how famished and barren he is, both mentally and physically,” Hwang said.
Gi-hun isn’t the only person the games destroy. Another hallmark of the show is its deft development of characters into fan favorites, coupled with its “Game of Thrones”-like willingness to unceremoniously kill them. Viewers will be sharpening their pitchforks when trans commando Hyun-ju (Park Sung-hoon), a.k.a. Player 120, dies ignominiously in Season 3. Hwang is already braced for the backlash.
“It’s not me who did it! It was 333,” he exclaimed, blaming the murderer.
Hwang said when he watched the first assembly edit of that death, “I wrote and directed and everything, I knew it’s coming, but it was still painful. It was like, ‘Oh, come on, come on.’ ”
“For some characters, I would see them go and I’d feel really sad … I would think, ‘Director Hwang is such a cruel man,’” Lee said.
1. Hyun-ju (Park Sung-hoon) in Season 3 of “Squid Game.” “I wrote and directed and everything, I knew it’s coming, but it was still painful,” Hwang Dong-hyuk said. 2. Jun-hee (Jo Yu-ri), a pregnant contestant in the games, was another casualty. (No Ju-han / Netflix)
When Hwang asks what death in particular made him feel that way, Lee doesn’t hesitate to cite another beloved character, pregnant contestant Jun-hee (Jo Yu-ri), calling that Season 3 death “heartbreaking.”
Lee’s sensitive, evolving turn as Gi-hun — deeply human amid the madness, paranoia and murder set in bright green and pink surroundings — has made the character the ideal litmus test for Hwang’s critique of an economic system designed to produce titanic winners and losers who face annihilation. He’s a living symbol of Hwang’s themes.
“I feel like Director Hwang is truly an artist,” Lee said. “I mean something akin to a concept artist. Because when he creates his visuals, not only are they extremely pleasing to the eye; he focuses on the meaning behind them. He [stacks] images on top of one another, almost as if building a Lego castle. Each little block has meaning: each dialogue, each editing flow and [each use of] the musical score.”
As Season 3 reaches a boil, some of Hwang’s symbolism becomes less subtle. In one game, contestants clutch keys suspiciously resembling crucifixes as one player leads others with fervor, for better or worse. One character’s moment of triumph occurs before a painted rainbow (rainbow flags are also associated with the LGBTQ+ community in Korea). And Hwang’s nuanced critique of democracy comes to the fore.

“I feel like Director Hwang is truly an artist,” said Lee Jung-jae of the show’s creator. “I mean something akin to a concept artist. Because when he creates his visuals, not only are they extremely pleasing to the eye; he focuses on the meaning behind them.
(Justin Jun Lee / For The Times)
Unlike Season 1, in which contestants had one chance to vote to end the games, in Seasons 2 and 3, votes are taken after each contest; as more players die, the pot swells larger and larger. With only a score or so of participants left, a vote to quit means all would leave alive, and with substantial cash. Voting to continue means, explicitly, they will kill to become obscenely wealthy.
“In the past, at the time of elections, despite our differences, we all came together; there was more tolerance through the process of conflict,” Hwang said. “I don’t think that is anymore the case. Rather, elections [have only driven] societies into greater divides. I wanted to explore those themes in Seasons 2 and 3; that’s why I included the voting in each round.”
Hwang loudly calls out the flaw of democracy that allows the barest of majorities to subject all to nightmarish policies — even more nightmarish for those who voted against them. The ruthless winners keep reminding the others in Season 3 it was a “free and democratic vote.”
“That is not to say that I have a different answer,” he said. “I wanted to raise the question because I believe it is time for us to try to find the answer. In Season 1, I looked at the flaws of the economic system that creates so many losers due to this unlimited competition. In Season 2, I depicted the failure of the political system.
“Coming into Season 3, because the economic system has failed us, politics have failed us, it seems like we have no hope,” Hwang added. “What hope do we have as a human race when we can no longer control our own greed? I wanted to explore that. And in particular, I wanted to [pose] that question to myself.”
And what has he found? Does he still believe in humanity?
“Well, I don’t have the answer,” Hwang said. “But I have to admit, honestly, I think I’ve become more cynical, working on ‘Squid Game.’”
Movie Reviews
‘Kannappa’ Movie Review, Star-Studded Cast’s Top Notch Performance, Second Half Stole The Spotlight

Kannappa is the dream project of Vishnu Manchu, which is set to hit the big screen on June 27, 2025. For the uninitiated, Kannappa is a Telugu language devotional film starring Vishnu Manchu in the lead role, along with a star cast that includes Mohanlal, Prabhas, and Akshay Kumar in cameo roles. The mythological epic drama centres on devotion to Lord Shiva and embodies the essence of Sanatan Dharma. As anticipation for the theatrical release of Kannappa builds, here are the early reviews of the film.
Famous screenwriter, Kona Venkat loved Vishnu Manchu’s Kannappa and shared his reviews
Taking to his X handle (formerly Twitter), popular screenwriter, Kona Venkat, praised the performances of Vishnu Manchu, Prabhas and Mohan Babu. For the unversed, along with Vishnu Manchu in the lead, Kannappa also has a supporting cast including Mohan Babu, R. Sarathkumar, Arpt Ranka, Brahmanandam, Brahmaji and many more. Kona Venkat specially mentioned the second half of the movie, which had so many wow moments. In his words:
“I too had the Privilege and the Opportunity to watch “KANNAPPA” and I am truly impressed by the content!! There are so so many WOW moments in the second half. Especially the last half hour is truly captivating and mesmerising. The presence of #Prabhas made huge impact in the movie. Every audience would definitely talk about @iVishnuManchu‘s performance in the last 20 minutes @themohanbabu garu’s performance too would be talked about for many years. I really hope that Kannappa” works big time at Box office and would help the industry during this tough times!! #HaharaMahadev #KannappaOnJune27th”
Netizens’ reaction to Vishnu Manchu starrer, Kannappa
Netizens gave mixed reaction when it came to VFX of the film, Kannappa. Praising the VFX, one user wrote, “Kanappa is a mythological entertainment package with stunning visuals and BGM. The climax is the best part of the film. Vishnu Manchu, Akshay Kumar, Mohan Babu, and Prabhas are all good. Overall the film is worth watching.” Sharing a different perspective on VFX, another user wrote, “Kannappa is visually grand with a powerful mythological core. Prabhas, Mohanlal and Akshay Kumar shine in cameos, and Rajinikanth’s praise speaks volumes. But some VFX scenes fall flat, and the pacing drags in parts.” Giving an overview of the film, one user wrote:
“#KannappaReview Vishnu Manchu delivers his career-best performance. Prabhas cameo = Goosebumps overload. Mohanlal’s character is a big surprise. BGM & elevations are top-class. Climax is pure emotion – will leave you in tears. BLOCKBUSTER LOADING 3.5/5.”

An interesting fact about Vishnu Manchu’s dream project, Kannappa
In a recent interview with SCREEN, Vishnu revealed that Mohanlal and Prabhas, who will appear in cameo roles in Kannappa, are not charging a penny. He shared how South superstar, Mohanlal, agreed to his dream project due to his love and respect for Mohan Babu, the father of Vishnu Manchu. In fact, Vishnu predicted that his Rs. 200 crore budget film might not do well at the box office, but since he wanted to make the project based on devotion towards Lord Shiva, he approached Mohanlal and Prabhas, as they had a huge fan base. Vishnu also shared how the duo refused to accept money when he offered it to them. In his words:
“They would yell at me! Mohanlal said, ‘You grew up around me and now you’re offering me money?’ Prabhas even threatened to kill me if I ever mentioned fees again.”
How much did you like Vishnu Manchu’s Kannappa? Let us know.
Also Read: Rajinikanth’s Coolie Chikitu Song: Fans Hail The Megastars Unmatched Energy And Steps In His 70s
-
Arizona1 week ago
Suspect in Arizona Rangers' death killed by Missouri troopers
-
Business1 week ago
Driverless disruption: Tech titans gird for robotaxi wars with new factory and territories
-
Technology1 week ago
Senate passes GENIUS stablecoin bill in a win for the crypto industry
-
Business1 week ago
Protesters are chasing federal agents out of L.A. County hotels: ‘A small victory’
-
Technology7 days ago
Meta held talks to buy Thinking Machines, Perplexity, and Safe Superintelligence
-
Technology1 week ago
SpaceX Starship explodes again, this time on the ground
-
Technology6 days ago
Samsung’s Galaxy Watch 7 has returned to its lowest-ever price
-
News1 week ago
Video: Inside Trump’s Shifting Stance on Iran