Latest news with #TheGeneral
The South African
12 hours ago
- Sport
- The South African
Where is former Pirates midfielder Teko 'The General' Modise now?
Teko Modise remains one of the most talented local players who never played overseas. At the peak of his career, he earned the nickname 'The General' for his ability to direct play and dictate the tempo of the match. Modise began his career at Ria Stars before joining City Pillars, where he spent four years. His breakthrough came in 2006 when he joined SuperSport United. Although he only spent one season with Matsatsantsa, The General scored 10 goals in 33 appearances, which prompted Orlando Pirates to come knocking. In a recent interview, Teko Modise revealed that he was a Kaizer Chiefs fan growing up and always wanted to play for the club. In 2007, he had an opportunity to join his boyhood club, but the former Bafana Bafana midfielder chose to join rivals Pirates instead. He expressed a desire to play for Chiefs but was put off by how the club approached him. Modise became a star at Pirates and won two PSL Footballer of the Year awards with the Soweto giants. He played some of his best football in black and white, which earned him a call-up to the national team. From 2007 onwards, The General became a regular for Bafana Bafana, earning 66 caps and scoring 10 goals. After falling out with then-Pirates coach Ruud Krol, Modise left for Mamelodi Sundowns in 2011. At Sundowns, he revived his career and evolved his playing style. No longer the star player, his experience helped the club win the 2016 CAF Champions League title. A year later, Teko Modise joined Cape Town City, where he played for two years before retiring. At the peak of his powers, everyone wanted a piece of Teko Modise. He achieved more success at Sundowns but played his best football at Pirates between 2007 and 2010. As for Teko Modise now, he is a brand ambassador for Mamelodi Sundowns, alongside Tiyanda Mabunda. He is also a pundit for S uperSport TV . Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
Extra.ie
13-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Extra.ie
Rex Ryan's foray into the life of Gerard Hutch is thought-provoking
When watching The Monk at Glass Mask Theatre that age-old adage about the truth and a good story might spring to mind. It wouldn't be the first time that a gangland veteran became the subject of an artistic endeavour — after all, we've had The General about the life of Martin Cahill and John Gilligan and Traynor were also committed to celluloid in Veronica Guerin, the film about the murder of the Sunday Independent journalist. In that, Alan Devine played Gerry 'The Monk' Hutch long before he was found not guilty of the Regency Hotel murders in 2023 and subsequently unsuccessfully ran for election a year later. But it's another leap that Rex Ryan has taken — devising a play about his one-time neighbour after a chance meeting with Hutch's son Jason who he knew from his neighbourhood of Clontarf. Ryan writes, directs and stars in The Monk after meeting with Gerry Hutch a number of times to discuss the man's life. Rex Ryan as a younger Gerard Hutch. Hutch has given Ryan carte blanche to portray his life as Ryan sees it, and so though facts were checked and insight into his life was certainly provided by The Monk, the actor and writer has used dramatic licence to pepper fact with fiction. We meet The Monk as played by Ryan just minutes before he is due to appear in the dock to hear whether or not he will be convicted of the murder of David Byrne at The Regency Hotel in 2016. What follows is like a fever dream trip through the life of Hutch, aided and abetted by screens that flash up different aspects of Hutch's life – from CCTV footage of an assasination attempt on The Monk as he dined out in a Lanzarote bar with his wife Trish to headlines about various robberies including the Marino Mart job which Hutch insists he had no hand, act or part in. Throughout, the face of a young girl – the angel watching over him – appears on the screens questioning what Hutch is saying. We hear about Gerard Hutch's early life in Summerhill, which paints a picture of poverty for his own family and those around him. Rex Ryan as a long-haired Hutch. There were times, he remembers, where there wasn't food on the table and how his mother looked after her children while his father worked on the docks until his back was broken and found solace at the bottom of a bottle. He describes the children playing in The Cage who get dealt a rough hand, Hutch among them as small transgressions see him being carted off and institutionalised at a young age before he gives the authorities a reason to see him as a criminal as part of a young gang called the Bugsy Malones. Ryan's telling of 15-year-old Hutch's time in Mountjoy is a poignant one, revealing how a child learned strength from neglect in prison and brutality. And it is in this vein that we continue, verging into the territory of 'ordinary decent criminal' — at one point there's a very Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels style retelling of how a robbery might be planned down to the second which treads very dubious ground. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Rex Ryan (@rexryan1989) But just when you think the play has drifted into the realms of Robin Hood type territory, it turns again with a clever reproduction of the 2008 RTE interview where Paul Reynolds puts Hutch through the ringer, followed by a litany of death and bloodshed being blasted from the screens surrounding the stage while Ryan's Hutch insists he is simply the head of a family who's trying to sort out his nephew's mistake. Without giving too much away, it's quite an ending as Gerard Hutch is called to court. And we, of course, know that in real life Hutch was found not guilty. But because this production is a mishmash of fact and fiction, it's sometimes an uncomfortable watch for the wrong reasons. Rex Ryan as Gerry Hutch. Had Ryan taken Gerard Hutch's story and completely fictionalised it using a different character, without revealing he had based it on The Monk, it would be an excellent play. But with the actual crime boss looming large in the background, it becomes distracting and disorientating as the audience themselves have to figure out where the two truths lie. The acting, writing, direction and staging is superb and certainly The Monk by Rex Ryan is thought-provoking but one of those thoughts is whether or not this was a good idea in the first place from a moral perspective. But as Hutch said himself, we'll let the people decide.
New Indian Express
10-06-2025
- Entertainment
- New Indian Express
Why even a free ticket won't tempt me to watch Tom Cruise's latest Mission Impossible
My non-nerdy, 16-year-old nephew, who loves boom-boom flicks, emerged from Oppenheimer looking like he figured out quantum physics. "Loved it!" he declared with the fervour of a recent convert, surprising me. Oppenheimer is a three-hour dense tangle of theoretical physics, moral swamp, and men muttering gravely in rooms. Despite reading the biography, I struggled with the film. So, I asked my nephew what he liked. Pat came the answer: everything. It was only when I probed for specifics that his mouth went dry. He hadn't necessarily been electrified by fission or Oppenheimer's tortured soul, but had been swept up in the zeitgeist, the social maelstrom that demands you adore the Officially Approved Cultural Moment. Though I didn't ask, I'm sure of what he'd be hooked to this May-June 2025: Tom Cruise. Ah, Tom. The man who doesn't just run from danger, he courts it like it were his only true love. Every time a new Mission: Impossible parachutes into theatres, I see a similar phenomenon: audiences roar, critics bow, and the collective narrative becomes, "Did you SEE what he DID?!" The man scales cliffs! Dangles from planes! Pilots helicopters through canyons! It's undeniably impressive, a dedication bordering on the pathological. But here's my multi-million-dollar question: Does the sheer, jaw-dropping spectacle of Tom Cruise tempting Yamraj automatically translate into great cinema? Or is it, perhaps, just a really expensive, really dangerous magic trick we are compelled to clap to just because Tom risked his life for it and makes it a point to scream that he did? Before the torches and pitchforks come for me, I'll acknowledge our roots. Cinema was practically born doing pratfalls. Charlie Chaplin turned getting kicked into high art. Buster Keaton seemed like he was made of rubber and pure lunacy. Those original explorers of cinema risked life and limb (Keaton didn't notice a broken neck for 11 years!) for a laugh or a gasp. But here's my point: those thrills were woven into something more. Pathos. Romance. Social commentary wrapped in slapstick: Chaplin's The Kid still makes my tissue supply run out. And remember, most of these early films were one-reelers, roughly 15 minutes long, or just over an hour (The Kid was 68 minutes, Keaton's The General: 67 minutes). Holding attention with pure kinetic energy for a quarter of an hour or an hour is doable. But maintaining momentum for two-and-a-half hours: now that's the real mission impossible. Think about it. What does a truly memorable action film need to succeed beyond the initial adrenaline rush? It requires an emotional drive. A reason to care for the character who is jumping off the cliff, why they're running down the Burj Khalifa, and what happens after the helicopter lands. It needs suspense that coils alongside your intestine, characters you root for or hate, a plot that isn't just connective tissue between explosions but is actually a story. Alright, pop quiz, hotshot! (my favourite line from Speed) Think back to the last, say, five Mission: Impossible films. What comes to mind? Is it the intricate web of espionage? The heart-stopping betrayal of a trusted ally? The nuanced character arc of... anyone? Or is it, perhaps: Cruise dangling off a plane, falling off a building, jumping on his bike off a cliff... Tom Cruise just... running! The plot often boils down to: Tom Cruise does impossible stunts in search of something-something, while being chased by someone-someone. The setting changes. The place of the chase changes, but the story, like Tom, doesn't. Don't get me wrong, those stunts are phenomenal. Watching Tom pilot that helicopter in Fallout was edge-of-the-seat stuff. Henry Cavill reloading his biceps mid-fight was peak action delight. But ask yourself: What else happened in that film? What were the stakes beyond "world ends"? Who were the characters beyond "person Tom needs to chase" or "person chasing Tom"? Did it resonate? Did anything... linger? This isn't just about Mission: Impossible, though it's the current exhibit. It's a broader question in most Hollywood tentpole films: Is this spectacle-first approach what passes for good cinema today? And more importantly, is it good for cinema? Look, I'm not trying to be the cantankerous Century Gowda passing judgments on all in Thithi. Cinema is a vast, glorious buffet in which belongs as much the brainy indie, as tear-jerkers, fart comedies, and yes, glorious, bone-crunching action films. In fact, I adore action flicks. From the little-known The Warriors, to the famous Enter the Dragon, the initially underrated Rocky, flamboyant Predator and Mad Max, the realism of Heat and the nimbleness of Speed and Con Air, the red pill of Matrix, the bone-crushing scenes of The Raid and Ong Bak... I devoured Marvel up until the multiverse made one film look no different from the other. Why do these films endure? Because beneath the explosions, the gunfire, the flying fists, they had heart. They had a story. They built worlds and characters I cared about. I've never boxed, but I love Rocky for its grit, redemption, and Adrian! Neo's journey is a philosophical rabbit hole disguised in leather coats and bullet time, more relevant in today's age of AI and deepfakes than it was then. The relentless simplicity of Speed became my template as a screenwriter. The action was the icing, but the cake – the emotional core, the narrative drive – was substantial and satisfying. It made the action mean something. Lately, however, the Mission: Impossible franchise feels increasingly like an elaborate, globe-trotting stage for Tom Cruise's increasingly insane death wish. It's less "impossible mission", more "impossible insurance premiums." I understand the historical precedent – the Keatons and Jackie Chans who built legends on physical risk. I have immense respect for Cruise's dedication. The man is a force of nature. I've watched every BTS video, winced at every rumoured broken bone, and marvelled at his sheer commitment. But here's the rub: Admiring the daredevilry isn't the same as endorsing it as the sole pillar of cinematic worth. Gladiators bled for the crowd's amusement, but I watch action films to escape the brutality of the real world, not to vicariously participate in potentially lethal filmmaking practices that could kill its actors. The idea that an actor must flirt with mortality to "authenticate" a scene? That the primary marketing hook is "Come see Tom Cruise almost die!"? Sorry, count me out. It feels less like filmmaking and more like a high-stakes circus act. It feels... irresponsible. And frankly, a little ghoulish. So, no, I won't be queuing for Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part Whatever. Not even for a free ticket. My pesky conscience won't allow it. I'm not trying to be a killjoy, but I want to advocate for cinema that aspires to be more than just a stunt reel. I know, I know. This is cinematic heresy. An unpopular opinion shouted into the gale-force winds of a $150-million marketing blitz. But hear me out. We need perspective. We need to put things back in their proper boxes. A film, a truly good film, is a complex equation. It's multiple emotions sparking, stories intertwining, ideas colliding, all coalescing into a cohesive whole that captures our imagination, engages our intellect, and holds our attention, not just through spectacle, but through substance. That's the real high-wire act. That's the genuine Mission Impossible. And marketing blitz? Studios routinely spend more on promoting a film than making it. Their agenda is simple: bombard you, hypnotise you, make the film unmissable through sheer aural and visual dominance. But our agenda – yours and mine – should be simple: like or dislike a film based on its actual merits. Our focus must be on the story, the acting, the direction, the craft – not the poster size or the number of times Cruise appears in your Instagram feed. But are we doing that? Or are we getting swept away in the tsunami of hype? Are we thinking for ourselves, feeling our own genuine reactions, or are we passively absorbing the pre-packaged emotions sold to us, mistaking the pizzaz for the pizza? Marketing is just doing its job. But our job is to demand and appreciate the actual pizza. Would you eat something utterly foul just because it was wrapped in gold foil and advertised by a dancing dragon? Then why do we so often accept cinematic fast food just because it's been supersized and deep-fried in marketing dollars? Don't mistake this for Tom Cruise slander. I admire the man's dedication. If I had even a fraction of his work ethic, I'd be a GOAT too. His commitment to giving audiences a visceral experience is undeniable. He is, in many ways, the last of a dying breed (hopefully not literally dying, Tom, please be careful). But my point, wrapped in as much wit as I can muster, remains stubbornly simple: Death-defying stunts are breathtaking. They are audacious. They are worthy of applause. But they are not, and never can be, a substitute for the equally difficult, equally vital art of good filmmaking. That's the real cliff we need cinema to scale. The rest is just gravity.
Axios
02-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Axios
Live music: 10 concerts coming to Charlotte in June, including Modest Mouse and 311
Charlotte live music fans, here's a quick list of the 10 biggest concerts coming to the city in June. June 5: Disco Biscuits Formed in 1995, the "World is Spinning" jam band from Philadelphia is known for its vibrant live shows and its creative blend of "trance-fusion" tracks. Location: Neighborhood Theatre Time: 8pm Tickets: $62.01 June 6: Dispatch with John Butler Known for hits like "The General" and "Only the Wild Ones," Dispatch, whose new album"Yellow Jacket" also comes out June 6, joins American-Australian singer and songwriter John Butler for a show at the outdoor amphitheater near Uptown. Location: Skyla Credit Union Amphitheatre Time: 6pm Tickets: $30 June 7: Barenaked Ladies The "One Week" rock band stops in Charlotte as part of its "Last Summer on Earth" tour. Location: Skyle Credit Union Amphitheatre Time: 7pm Tickets: $30 June 10: Adeem the Artist A native of Locust, a rural North Carolina town east of Charlotte, Adeem the Artist is known for creatively blending country, folk and Americana music — and sprinkling in social commentary. Location: Evening Muse Time: 7:30pm Tickets: $26.44 June 13: Kaitlin Butts Butts, known for her powerful vocals and soulful storytelling, is a rising star in the country/Americana scene who hails from Oklahoma. Location: Evening Muse Time: 7:30pm Tickets: $26.44 June 14-15 Chandra Currelley A celebrated singer with an extensive theater background, Currelley is known by many for her collaborations with Tyler Perry. Location: Middle C Jazz Time: 6:15pm and 8:45pm Tickets: $50.65 June 15: Modest Mouse The Grammy-nominated "Float On" rock band returns to Charlotte for a performance that's sure to be high-energy. Location: The Fillmore Time: 8pm Tickets: $62 June 17 - Brand New The Long Island rock band that formed in 2000 is back together for a reunion tour. Location: PNC Music Pavilion Time: 8pm Tickets: $56.05 June 24: 311 The beloved rock band, known for hits like "All Mixed Up" and "Amber," is back in Charlotte as part of its Unity Tour 2025. Location: Skyla Credit Union Amphitheatre Time: 7pm Tickets: $30 June 28: Three Dog Night Big in the late 1960s and 1970s, the Three Dog Night might be best recognized by their hit "Joy to the World," with its famous "Jeremiah was a bullfrog" opening line.
New Statesman
14-05-2025
- Entertainment
- New Statesman
Mission: Impossible 8 – the return of the sexless show-off
Photo by Paramount James Bond has appeared in seven different incarnations so far. His scion, Ethan Hunt, however, has only taken one form over the last 30 years: Tom Cruise. Cruise was 33 when the first Mission: Impossible appeared in 1996. Now, in this eighth outing, he is 62, remarkably little altered after three decades. Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning, clocking in at 169 minutes, is a direct sequel to 2023's Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One (163 minutes). In the previous film, Ethan is attempting to get hold of a key, which is the only way of stopping a malevolent kind of self-aware AI, called 'the Entity', taking over the world. Ethan pursues this wee key in the Arabian Desert, Abu Dhabi International Airport, Rome, Venice and then, in a bravura, vintage-style action sequence emulating Buster Keaton's The General, on the Orient Express. Sadly, Ethan's fetching sidekick from previous episodes, Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson), dies in the first film, but she is capably replaced by alluring pickpocket Grace (Hayley Atwell) and exotic assassin Paris (Pom Klementieff), both won over by his charm and decency. This new film picks up the story a few weeks later. The Entity, 'a godless, stateless, immoral enemy', is rapidly commandeering all the nuclear weapons in the world, planning to eliminate humankind altogether. Ethan has the crucial key, but he refuses to hand it over to the US government, because he knows they want the Entity as a weapon, whereas he is determined to 'kill' it, such power being too much of a temptation for any person to wield, save one so thoroughly decent, so selflessly devoted to his friends, as himself. So the stakes are high. There are just hours, minutes, milliseconds to go, and Ethan is the only possible saviour of all humanity. 'The whole world is in trouble, Ethan. You're the only one I trust to save it. So what's the play?' says Grace, straightforwardly. As before, events proceed in a peculiar combination of static, verbose exposition and hectic, wordless action sequences that contribute surprisingly little to the narrative. Sometimes you suspect they are there just to show off. One big set-piece is aerial, another submarine. Ethan dives deep into Arctic waters to retrieve the kit the key operates from a sunken Russian sub, rolling around on the ocean floor. For the climax, he battles a human villain in the skies above South Africa, wing-walking over a vintage Stearman biplane (the explanation being that since the Entity controls everything digital, only analogue antiques can be relied upon). These exploits go on far too long and seem more to serve Cruise's determination to be the most prodigious daredevil in the movies than any audience demand. Once again, Cruise has no doubt performed these stunning stunts himself – but hundreds of CGI and special-effects artists are credited too. The film's production budget is said to be some $400m, a stretch even for this franchise to recover. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe And Peter Pan has finally aged a bit. Cruise sports longer, darker hair – 'You know, I like the longer hair,' says Grace – to set off an older countenance. At first I couldn't think who the new look reminded me of and then it came: Ronnie Wood. The energy is still there, though, including another demonstration of his slash-handed, knee-pumping running, as he races over Westminster Bridge and right through London to reach his imperilled bestie, Luther (grizzled colossus Ving Rhames) – an eccentric transport choice, especially when he's old enough for a 60+ Oyster. He gets his kit off as much as ever, too. Ethan has a nasty knife-fight wearing just his pants, and then, in the sunken sub, boldly strips down to his trunks to squeeze through a torpedo tube. Cruise may be in spiffy shape for his age: quite the reassurance for fellow boomers. But can cinema-goers 40 or more years younger sincerely relish so senior a torso? For how long? Cruise has said that he doesn't see why he should not go on as long as Harrison Ford (82). He may. It is noteworthy that Ethan's team includes spirited women but never any other challengingly attractive young men. Vast Luther and nerdy Benji (Simon Pegg) do not offer much competition for Ethan. Nor, for that matter, does the prime villain here, Gabriel (Esai Morales), said to be a 'dark messiah' but is more like a tetchy maître d'. So Tom Cruise has produced yet another thumping vehicle for himself, our great action hero, the would-be saviour of marquee cinema and the world. Yet he remains peculiarly unrelatable, sexless, strange. 'Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning' is in cinemas now [See also: Modernity has killed the private life] Related
