Latest news with #1990s
New York Times
5 hours ago
- Sport
- New York Times
The Athletic's Friday football quiz question #60
Welcome to the 60th edition of The Athletic's Friday quiz question. At the end of every week, we'll serve up a poser from our vault of football conundrums. It won't be easy (unless you're really good), but what better way to head into the weekend than by giving your soccer-loving brain some exercise? Chuck it in your group chats and see who knows their stuff. Advertisement Oh, and there's no prize, except the quiet satisfaction of a job well done. So, without any further delay… Six men played for England in the 1990s, 2000s and 2010s. Name them? Stuck? The answers will be revealed here later today. P.S. The links to the previous 59 Friday quiz questions are below. The previous quiz questions: Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27 Question 28 Question 29 Question 30 Question 31 Question 32 Question 33 Question 34 Question 35 Question 36 Question 37 Question 38 Question 39 Question 40 Question 41 Question 42 Question 43 Question 44 Question 45 Question 46 Question 47 Question 48 Question 49 Question 50 Question 51 Question 52 Question 53 Question 54 Question 55 Question 56 Question 57 Question 58 Question 59 (Top image artwork: Eamonn Dalton)
Yahoo
20 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
12 Shameful Movies That Glamorize the Devil
Shame, shame on the following movies for making the devil seem glamorous and cool. In this adaptation of a John Updike novel of the same name, an unlikely coven of New England witches played by Cher, Michelle Pfeiffer and Susan Sarandon unwittingly open the door to the devil himself, played by Jack Nicholson. OK, technically he's called Daryl Van Horne, but come on: Van Horne? The role finds Nicholson at his most endearingly devilish. He soon enters into complicated relationships with all three of the women. Shame! Shame! This 1997 melodrama finds Al Pacino playing the devil as high-powered lawyer John Milton, who, well, bedevils a promising new hire played by Keanu Reeves — as well as his innocent wife, played by Charlize Theron (above). Milton is immensely charming and seductive at the start, then gets more brutal and nasty as things descend into total chaos. Shame! Pacino's pal Robert De Niro played the devil 10 years earlier, in the form of a ponytailed smoothie called Louis Cyphre who hires a private investigator Johnny Angel (Mickey Rourke) to track down a missing singer in this Southern Gothic/noir. Soon a young woman named Epiphany Proudfoot (Lisa Bonet) enters the picture, and things get very disturbing. De Niro's decision to play Louis Cyphre as restrained and cautious is quite unsettling and effective. He's perhaps our greatest actor. Shame! Also Read: The 5 Sexiest Movies About the Amish Walter Huston's soft-spoken, diabolical Mr. Scratch (above) has an energy and charisma that seem impossible to resist. He rigs a trial against statesman and attorney Daniel Webster, as they take a wild and twisty tour through American history. It's a challenging and ambitious story of what it means to be American. Shame on this film for ruining America's wholesome 1940s image... and for glamorizing the devil. The third film in the Oh God! series — following 1977's Oh, God and 1980's Oh God! Book II — finds the irresistible George Burns, who played God in the first two films, doubling up to play both God and his old nemesis, the devil. His mission: To buy the soul of a struggling rock musician. With all respect to Gracie, Burns and Burns also make quite the comedic duo. Shame on George Burns. Shame! Another handsome devil movie: This time Viggo Mortenson plays a philosphical, manipulative version of Lucifer, pushing buttons and trying to protect his own interests amid a complex war between angels and humankind. He's a carrot-or-stick type of devil, charming with an invitation, but also happy to just drag people to the bad place. Also, is it us or does Mortenson's devil look a little like DeNiro's Louis Cyphre? Anyway: Shame! Also Read: 10 Sex Scenes Somebody Should Have Stopped No one's saying Peter Stormare's version of the Satan is a nice guy, but he is pretty cool in Constantine, showing up as he does, barefoot in a white suit, slowing down time and walking through shattered glass like the mysterious, sultry star of a '90s R&B video. Needless to say: shame. This very weird, ambitious courtroom drama finds Mr. Scratch — played by a beguiling Vincent Price, above — arguing before a Great Court of Outer Space that humankind is more evil than good. His magnificent cravat, needless to say, gives him an unfair advantage. Price was one of the earlier screen actors to figure out that a smooth-talking devil is scarier and more interesting than a raging one. You catch more souls with honey than vinegar, we guess. Anyway, shame. Peter Cook is a swingin' '60s devil in the original Bedazzled, in which he offers seven wishes to a nebbishy lad played by Dudley Moore. The most amusing aspect of the film — and most stories about deals with the devil — is seeing how he'll technically fulfill his end of the bargain, while making things infinitely worse. Given that this version of Bedazzled is best known for a seduction scene with Raquel Welch, someone wisely said: Hey. what if the whole movie were a big seduction? Which brings us to the next film in our gallery. (Oh, and also: Shame.) The most glamorous of all movie devils, Elizabeth Hurley spends this superior remake of the 1966 Bedazzled tormenting the hapless Eliot (Brendan Fraser) while adopting a variety of amusing guises and costumes. She's absurdly charismatic as a tech-savvy, high-fashion devil who uses computer programs to exploit her targets' weaknesses. It may be Hurley's best role — pitch-perfect as she is as Vanessa in Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery, she's mostly playing it straight to Mike Myers' Austin. In this one, she owns all the diabolical amusements. Shame! Shame! Shame! With his prosthetic horns and pointy ears, Harvey Keitel is a watchable curiosity in this very broad, not-great Adam Sandler comedy. He plays the devil (often referred to as Your Evilness) as a hard-working, coolheaded, basically decent guy trying to hold everything together while juggling his difficult job and demanding dad (Rodney Dangerfield). Keitel, masterful actor that he is, glamorizes the devil by making him seem harmless. And also, the voice that Adam Sandler does throughout the movie: Shame! You might also like this list of 12 Rad '80s Movies Only Cool Kids Remember. Or cleanse your soul with this list of 1950s Movies That Are Still a Total Delight. Main image: Elizabeth Hurley in Bedazzled, the inspiration for this whole gallery. Related Headlines Ari Aster and John Waters on the Art of Not Compromising Goldfinger: 12 Behind the Scenes Photos of James Bond at His Best Kites Director Walter Thompson-Hernandez on Violence the Poetry in the Favelas of Rio de Janeiro
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Bill Gates Once Scoffed, 'Spend All Day With A Guy Who Just Picks Stocks?'—Before Discovering That The 'Stock Picker' Had A Mastermind's Blueprint For Winning In Business
Benzinga and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue on some items through the links below. Back in 1996, Microsoft CEO Bill Gates reviewed a book called Warren Buffett: The Making of an American Capitalist by Roger Lowenstein, where he shared the lessons 'Oracle of Omaha' Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett, taught him. What Happened: Writing for the Harvard Business Review, Gates remembered his first meeting with Buffett in July 1991. "I was extremely skeptical when my mother suggested I take a day away from work to meet him," Gates wrote. "What were he and I supposed to talk about, P/E ratios? I mean, spend all day with a guy who just picks stocks? Especially when there's lots of work to do? Are you kidding?" he recalled thinking. Trending: Maker of the $60,000 foldable home has 3 factory buildings, 600+ houses built, and big plans to solve housing — His mother's insistence eventually pushed Gates to agree to attend the gathering Buffett was part of. "He asked good questions and told educational stories," Gates wrote. "There's nothing I like so much as learning, and I had never met anyone who thought about business in such a clear way." As their acquaintance continued, Gates was particularly impressed by Buffett's investing philosophy. As Buffett once wrote, "Never count on making a good sale. Have the purchase price be so attractive that even a mediocre sale gives good results." "Warren never makes an investment where the difference between doing it and not doing it relies on the second digit of computation," Gates explained. "He doesn't invest—take a swing of the bat—unless the opportunity appears unbelievably good."Why It Matters: Buffett's habit of sticking to what he knows well, reading extensively, and saying no to distractions was influential for Gates. "He knows what he likes to do—and what he does, he does unbelievably well," Gates observed. One quote in particular stood out to Gates: "You should invest in a business that even a fool can run, because someday a fool will." This bit of wisdom shaped Gates's perspective on management and risk. Buffett also challenged Gates to be more creative with his thinking, once using a set of nontransitive dice to demonstrate a counterintuitive truth in probability. "It was counterintuitive, like a lot of things in the business world." Gates also highlighted Buffett's parenting approach: "He wants to give his children enough money for them to do anything but not enough for them to do nothing." That statement "crystallized my feelings," Gates admitted. Read Next: In terms of getting money back, these bank accounts put traditional checking and savings accounts to shame. Maximize saving for your retirement and cut down taxes: Schedule your free call with a financial advisor to start your financial journey – no cost, no obligation. Photo courtesy: mark reinstein / This article Bill Gates Once Scoffed, 'Spend All Day With A Guy Who Just Picks Stocks?'—Before Discovering That The 'Stock Picker' Had A Mastermind's Blueprint For Winning In Business originally appeared on
RNZ News
3 days ago
- Politics
- RNZ News
Former ACT Party president Tim Jago appeals sexual abuse conviction and sentence
Tim Jago was found guilty of sexually abusing two teenage boys in the 1990s. Photo: RNZ / Nick Monro A court has heard former ACT Party president Tim Jago's appeal against his sexual abuse conviction and sentence. Jago was found guilty of sexually abusing two teenage boys in the 1990s after a jury trial last year. One of the boys was under 16 years old, and the other was over 16 years old. Jago sought to have his conviction overturned as a miscarriage of justice, arguing the jury had reached an unreasonable verdict and that the judge's summary was unbalanced. Jago appeared remotely from custody at the Court of Appeal in Auckland today as he served his two and a half year sentence. His lawyer Ian Brookie explained the two-pronged appeal. Brookie first argued that Jago's conviction was unreasonable and that the jury should have entertained reasonable doubt. Central to his argument was that Paul Oliver - a survivor who waived his name suppression - was uncertain of the timing and location of the assault when questioned during the trial. "What we say is the evidence and the issues with evidence with reliability… There's just no way a jury could have fairly convicted this man," Brookie said. "Our submission is that evidence was so unreliable the jury should have entertained reasonable doubt." Brookie also took issue with the judge's summary before sending the jury to deliberate. The judge had advised the jury that the historic nature of the complaint, which came more than two decades after the assault, did not mean it was necessarily untrue. Brookie argued the judge should have balanced this statement with the defence's argument that the complaint could have been false. "The concern here is the jury is effectively being told by the judge that a delayed complaint is not untrue," he said. However, Crown lawyer Robin McCoubrey disagreed. "The very purpose [of the judge's statement] is to provide balance to correct the misconception that [a delayed complaint is more likely to be false]," McCoubrey argued. The second part of the appeal was that Jago's sentence was too harsh and that he should have been sentenced to home detention instead of imprisonment. Brookie argued it was wrong to characterise the offending on the whole as "sexual offending against children," because only one of the two complainants was under the age of sixteen at the time. He also said Jago should have been given a bigger discount for community contributions, though the Crown argued the discount he received was adequate. "The only just and considered response should have been home detention," Brookie said. "Ultimately, there was just a plain wrong decision not to impose home detention here. It was not appropriate to say deterrence required imprisonment." The Court of Appeal has reserved its decision for a later date. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
The Guardian
13-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Trump fails to overturn $5m damages award to E Jean Carroll for defamation
Donald Trump has lost his latest legal attempt to challenge the $5m in damages awarded against him for defaming E Jean Carroll, the New York writer whom a jury found was sexually abused by the now-US president in the 1990s. A US appeals court in New York City on Friday denied Trump's request to reconsider its decision in December to uphold the jury's award of $5m to Carroll. The court was divided in its opinion, with two Trump-appointed judges, Steven Menashi and Michael Park, dissenting. Carroll, a former magazine columnist, accused Trump of attacking her around 1996 in a department store dressing room in Manhattan. In 2023, a civil jury trial concluded that Trump did sexually abuse her and then defamed her in 2022 when he denied the allegations as a hoax and said that Carroll was 'not my type'. The jury awarded Carroll, who is now 81, a total of $5m in compensatory and punitive damages. More than two dozen different women have accused Trump over the past decade of sexual assault. Trump, who has denied all allegations against him, argued that the trial judge in the Carroll case should not have let jurors review the notorious 2005 Access Hollywood video of him bragging about groping women and that his alleged mistreatment of two other women also should not have been included. The emergence of the Access Hollywood tape was a bombshell in the closing stages of the 2016 presidential election but did not derail Trump's campaign. He beat Democrat Hillary Clinton to win the White House and, after losing to Joe Biden in 2020, triumphed again in 2024 and began a second term in January. The president, who turns 79 on Saturday, is appealing a separate $83m jury award to Carroll for defaming her and harming her reputation when he denied her claim in 2019. In Trump's appeal against this January 2024 ruling, the president is arguing that the US supreme court's decision to provide sweeping legal immunity to presidents should shield him for liability in this instance, too.
