If you thought the o1 reasoning models were impressive, you may be in for a treat.

Signal logo as seen on a smartphone screen.SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty ImagesIn an era where data breaches and digital surveillance dominate headlines, securing your personal communications has never been more critical. Cybercriminals actively exploit stolen messages, photos, and personal information for identity theft, AI-driven scams and extortion. Fortunately, secure messaging apps offer tools to protect your digital privacy. Here are five apps for your consideration in 2025 to keep your conversations safe.Signal: The Privacy ChampionSignal remains the top choice for privacy-conscious users. It uses end-to-end encryption by default, ensuring that only you and your intended recipient can access your messages. Signal collects virtually no user data and features an open-source codebase, which allows independent security experts to verify its safety.The app recently introduced usernames, enabling users to connect without sharing phone numbers, adding another layer of anonymity. Its reputation as the "gold standard" for secure communication is bolstered by endorsements from privacy advocates like Edward Snowden. Signals commitment to privacy makes it the go-to choice for millions worldwide.Session: A Decentralized AlternativeSession is an innovative messaging app designed for those who prioritize privacy above all else. Unlike many competitors, Session operates on a decentralized network, meaning there are no central servers to hack or subpoena.Every message sent through Session is end-to-end encrypted, ensuring only the sender and recipient can access its content. Additionally, Session doesnt require a phone number or email for registration, providing a high level of anonymity right from the start.MORE FOR YOUSession excels in environments where privacy is critical, offering features like onion routing to obscure metadata and peer-to-peer communication that avoids centralized points of failure. For users seeking a messaging platform that offers both privacy and resistance to censorship, Session is an excellent choice.WhatsApp: Security Meets CommonalityOwned by Meta, WhatsApp uses the same end-to-end encryption protocol as Signal, ensuring robust privacy for billions of users. Despite concerns about Meta's data practices, WhatsApp has not compromised on its encryption standards.Recent updates include disappearing messages and end-to-end encrypted backups, showing an increased focus on user privacy. While metadata collection persists, WhatsApps ease of use and security features make it an accessible choice for everyday conversations.Wickr: Military-Grade EncryptionFor those prioritizing professional-grade security, Wickr stands out. This app employs military-grade encryption and a zero-knowledge architecture, ensuring that not even Wickr can access user messages.Its self-destructing messages and configurable expiration times make it ideal for sensitive communications. Wickr also supports enterprise-level functionality, appealing to businesses looking for secure collaboration tools.Viber: Security Meets Social FeaturesViber balances privacy and functionality, offering end-to-end encryption by default. The app includes features like hidden chats protected by PINs and secure group video calls, catering to both personal and professional use. Vibers combination of robust security and user-friendly features makes it a strong contender for those seeking an all-in-one messaging solution.Why Secure Messaging MattersCyber threats like identity theft and AI-powered scams are on the rise, making secure communication tools essential. These apps offer end-to-end encryption, meaning that even if your messages are intercepted, they are unreadable to unauthorized parties. However, choosing the right app depends on your specific needswhether you prioritize anonymity, group functionality, or enterprise-grade security. As cyber threats evolve, secure messaging apps provide a necessary line of defense in protecting your personal information and maintaining digital privacy.

Are health insurers knights, knaves, or pawns?gettyThe British economist Julian LeGrand suggested that public policy is grounded in a conception of humans as "knights," "knaves," or "pawns. Human beings are motivated by virtue (knights) or rigid self-interest (knaves), or are passive victims of their circumstances (pawns). A society's view of human motivation influences whether it builds public policies that are permissive, punitive, or prescriptive.Le Grand's observations were drawn from his studies of British social welfare policy and civil servants but could aptly be applied to health insurers and their role in the US health care system. Many health care debates-especially those relating to health care financing, quality, and education-implicitly prescribe a view of health insurers and their underlying motivations. This framework has previously been applied to physicians, patients, and pharmaceutical companies.Depending on the perspective, health insurers operate for the betterment of society or their own selfish gain; or their actions are defined more by external rules, regulations, and competitive positioning. The role of health insurance companies in US society has been actively debated in US society since the tragic murder of UnitedHealthGroup CEO Brian Thompson.I explore the ways in which health insurers are variously represented as knights, knaves, and pawns in public discourse and relate the importance of designing policies that match the true motivationswhatever they may be.Some health insurers perceive themselves as having knightly intent.gettyHealth Insurers as KnightsIf a society conceives of health insurers as ever well-intentioned knights, it places stewardship for the health care system firmly in their hands. Health insurers can be trusted to use and deploy resources wisely, minimize waste, and look beyond their narrow interests to protect the system as a whole. They are enablers of distributive justice by spreading risk across populations of health and sick people. They are the ultimate champion of the patient and the policies they implement through utilization management are designed to protect against fraud, waste, and abuse and ensure that care is delivered in accordance with evidence-based guidelines. Health insurers negotiate with health systems to reduce prices for patients and ensure broad access to care for a wide swath of the population. They operate to promote affordability, access, and quality and any financial gain is secondary. Health insurers identify and address quality issues and partner with doctors and health systems to improve care.Some perceive the role of health insurers as knaves.gettyMORE FOR YOUHealth Insurers as KnavesIf a society conceives of health insurers as knaves then policy, management, and educational efforts are designed to combat and work against health insurers, not with them. Health insurers are interested in themselves and their financial well-being first and their patients second, if at all. They deny care and restrict access to enhance profits. They prompt aggressive coding behavior to maximize revenue and government payers and they use their vast market power to underpay doctors and hospitals. They aggressively lobby and donate to politicians to preserve their ability to raise prices on their products and gouge the public. The health care system works in spite of health insurers not because of them. Policies and regulation must guard against their malfeasance, and the public must be protected by intense regulation and report cards. Without such regulation, health insurers will do everything the can collect as much as they can in premium revenue and pay as little out as possible.Some conceive of the role of health insurers as pawns in a more complex system. gettyHealth Insurers as PawnsIf a society conceives of health insurers as pawns, then efforts are applied to building systems to ensure that health insurers do what is right for patients and physicians because they cannot be trusted to do so on their own accord. Left to their own devices, health insurer behaviors are unpredictable. The health insurer is merely a function of the regulatory environment in which he it operates; accordingly, health insurers must be given guidelines to follow and policy-makers and regulators must decide priorities. Health insurers do not have any intrinsic orientation towards quality, but participate in quality programs because employer customers and require that they do so. They merely respond to regulatory requirements and expectations. The role of health policy and regulation for the pawn health insurer is to guide their every behavior because they lack individual agency, judgment, and moral compass to reliably do what is right for patients, doctors, or society.ImplicationsLe Grand's work on post-World War II British social policy found that perceptions of human motivations gradually transformed, with the prevailing view of the typical British citizenry morphing from knight into knave as the costs of maintaining an expensive welfare state increased.US perspectives on health insurers have undergone a similar transformation with the increasing costboth to taxpayers and to individual patientsof health care delivery. As health insurer behavior has been tied to these rising costs and increasing scrutiny has been applied industry behaviors, policy discourse increasingly reflects the perspective that health insurers are an obstacle not an enabler to a functioning health care system. Rather than being counted on to do the right thing, health insurers should be subject to intensive regulation to protect the public.These views are grounded in evidence of massive, increasing health insurance industry profits. The modern health insurer is regarded as either a knave or a pawn and is seldom regarded as a knight. But the evidence that has led to distrust of health insurers does not apply universally and some companiesin particular many not-for-profit onesstill aim to serve people communities. How can society be sure not to undermine those motivated by doing the right thing while guarding against those motivated purely by self-interest and profit?Insurers have been enablers of value-based models of health care payment such as accountable care organizations, the patient-centered medical home, hospital-at-home, and senior-focused clinics. In these examples, insurers are supporting a more progressive model of care delivery that enables responsible resource utilization. Applied effectively, these models improve individual and population outcomes.Still, it is perhaps the knavish conception of health insurers that makes these models more the fodder of modest pilot projects and demonstrations than models that are rapidly adopted and widely disseminated. With massive public discontent and a new presidential administration, could policy and regulation be accelerated to further force the health insurance industry in the direction of the models that more align with patient outcomes and stewardship of society?Le Grand offers an important lesson and warning: it is critically important to understand and get "true motivations" right. Disaster may follow if persons largely of a knavish quality are treated as knights; but the same may be true for "policies fashioned on a belief that people are knaves if the consequence is to suppress their natural altruistic impulses and hence destroy part of their motivation to provide a quality public service. Le Grand further warns that policies that "treat people as pawns, may lead to de-motivated workers..and causing adverse outcomes for the policies concerned; while policies that give too much powermay result in individuals making mistakes that damage their own or others' welfare."Policymakers would be wise to heed Le Grand's advice and carefully consider the motivations and behaviors of health insurers. For their part, in this time of profound turmoil, health insurance industry leaders must thoughtfully consider whether and how they contribute to the perception that they are knights, knaves, or pawns

Plate of vegetarian pumpkin carrot soup served with spoon, balsamic sauce and fried onion on textile ... [+] napkin over dark blue texture background. Top view with space. (Photo by: Natasha Breen/REDA/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)Universal Images Group via Getty ImagesNewspapers are committing to cover climate change, including in their food sections. Producing food is responsible for approximately 10% of total U.S. carbon emissions and 30% of global climate emissions. Agriculture is the largest source of the potent greenhouse gas methane, nearly all of which comes from cow burps. For the even stronger greenhouse gas nitrous oxide, animal agriculture accounts for a whopping 79% of U.S. emissions, largely due to fertilizers applied to crops fed to cattle and to cow manure. Although research is being conducted into supply side solutionsfor example, feed additives to reduce cow burpsfarmers are faced with uncertainty as to these new feeds effectiveness, costs, and health impacts on cows and consumers. At least for now, demand solutions, or changing our diet, can deliver quicker environmental benefits.But lets not fret about going vegan tomorrow. Consider plant-forward eating, or focusing on plant-based foods while eating meat occasionally. Anything we do to replace beef with tasty recipes featuring plant-based proteins helps. And lets not forget that high rates of meat consumption are linked to cancer and heart disease.Lots of things prevent us from switching to plant-forward diets, including lack of knowledge. According to a Yale study, about half of Americans would be willing to eat more plant-based foods if they had more information about the environmental impact of different foods. Unfortunately, 40% of Americans say they never or infrequently hear about the impact of food choices on global warming in the media. Research shows that media can influence social norms about food consumption, and thus help bring about a much needed transition in the American diet.The majority of Americans say they would eat more plant-based foods if the cost were less than meat options (63%). In reality, plant-forward eating can be cheaper than meat-heavy diets, especially as the cost of beef is expected to rise significantly over the next several years. Two-thirds of Americans say they would eat more plant-based foods if the meals tasted better (67%).Here is where newspaper food sections come in. A 2021 analysis of four popular U.S. newspaper recipe sections found an average of 54% of recipes included meat or fish, 26% were vegetarian, and 20% vegan. Figures for four U.K. newspapers were 61% meat/fish, 28% vegetarian, and 12% vegan. A spokesperson for the Washington Post, which scored relatively high with a quarter of its meals vegan and nearly a third vegetarian, told the researchers [M]ore and more readers are looking for help making climate-friendly decisions about all aspects of their lives, food included, and we want to respond to that.MORE FOR YOUYet even the Washington Post may not be keeping up with the publics openness to plant-based meals. According to a 2020 study on climate change and diet, 94% of Americans are willing to eat more fruit and vegetables, more than half are willing to eat less red meat (54%), and nearly half (46%) are willing to use dairy alternatives such as soy or almond milk.As consumer attitudes favoring plant-forward eating become more widely known, and as more of us follow plant-forward recipes, we can envision newspaper food sections following suit to meet the needs and interests of their audiences. So here is what you can do to help the plant-forward transition.Try the growing number of tempting vegan and low-meat/cheese recipes, This will help you lower your carbon footprint and improve your health, while letting food writers know that these recipes are popular.Invite family and friends over for a delicious plant-forward meal. You can also share with them how food and agriculture contribute to climate emissions and how to reduce these emissions. Research shows that specific messages resonate more than abstract messages. So instead of referring to CO2-equivalents of greenhouse gasses avoided, use language such as reducing your meat intake to three times per week is equivalent to avoiding six short-haul return flights each year.Write to your newspaper asking them to support the transition to plant-forward diets. Many newspapers already have committed to sound reporting about climate change. Including a carbon label next to each recipe, similar to how some outlets post nutrition labels, is one way to further this commitment. Newspapers could also eliminate recipes that include beef. Epicurious left beef behind in 2021beef no longer appears in its new recipes, articles, newsletters, or Instagram feed. Thank newspapers for including more and more plant-forward recipes.In short, consider the maxim Meat is a Treat something we eat occasionally rather than every day. And share this maxim with family, friends, and those who influence what we eat.

Editor's take: Intel is navigating a pivotal moment in its decades-long history. The company that invented the CPU is currently without a CEO, laying off thousands of workers, and losing ground to AMD in both sales and technological performance. At the very least, Chipzilla appears willing to reverse some controversial decisions made in recent years, such as its unilateral attempt to simplify the x86 processor with the new x86S standard. A year after unveiling its initiative to introduce a fundamental technology shift to the x86 ecosystem, Intel has confirmed that the x86S ISA is officially being discontinued. While the company is now focusing on other priorities, it remains "deeply" committed to the x86 architecture, as demonstrated by its willingness to collaborate with historical competitors like AMD.Intel announced the change in a statement shared with Tom's Hardware. By pivoting away from the x86S initiative, the company ensures that future PC CPUs will maintain full (theoretical) compatibility with 16-bit and 32-bit applications from the DOS and Windows 9x eras. Additionally, Intel plans to work with partners in the newly established x86 Ecosystem Advisory Group to solidify x86 technology as a universal CPU architecture.Initially introduced in 2023, x86S ISA was proposed as an exclusively 64-bit architecture. The initiative aimed to eliminate native support for 16-bit and 32-bit x86 code and operating systems, while still allowing 32-bit (Win32) applications to run on modern 64-bit operating systems. The x86S ISA also sought to remove legacy features like 16-bit real mode, VT-x unrestricted mode, segmentation gates, and other outdated components.Intel released the latest x86S specifications (version 1.2) in September, followed by the formation of the x86 Ecosystem Advisory Group in October. While the 64-bit-only x86S ISA was an Intel-driven initiative, AMD and other industry partners in the advisory group likely had strong opinions about the proposal for a "simplified" CISC instruction set architecture based on the de facto standard for PC computing since the 1970s.At 46 years old, x86 technology remains a cornerstone of the computing world, but it faces mounting competition from newer architectures. Arm-based processors like Qualcomm's Snapdragon X Elite are pushing boundaries in the traditional PC market, presenting a real challenge to the dominance of x86. // Related StoriesBy collaborating with AMD, Microsoft, Google, HPE, and other key players in the x86 ecosystem, Intel is positioning itself to avoid repeating past missteps such as the infamously criticized Itanium architecture.

In brief: For weeks, residents in New Jersey and New York have called on authorities to investigate an increasing number of mysterious sightings near critical US infrastructure. While government officials currently believe there is no immediate threat to public safety, the FAA has imposed several months-long restrictions on drone flights. The Federal Aviation Administration has implemented a temporary ban on drone flights over portions of New Jersey, warning that the US government reserves the right to use deadly force against "airborne aircraft" if deemed necessary for security purposes.The restrictions cover 22 infrastructure sites across New Jersey and will remain in effect until January 17, 2025. Under these temporary flight restrictions, individuals flying drones in restricted areas without proper authorization risk detention by law enforcement. Exemptions are granted only for activities related to firefighting, national defense, or approved commercial operations with a "valid statement of work."Similarly, the FAA has imposed 29 TFRs in New York State, which will last until January 18, 2025. New York Governor Kathy Hochul described the move as "purely precautionary," emphasizing that authorities currently have no evidence suggesting the drones pose a significant threat to national security. However, she advocated for legislative measures to help law enforcement better address this "evolving technology."Bans have a radius of one nautical mile and cover flight from the surface up to and including 400 feet above ground level.For weeks, Americans have been reporting sightings of unidentified flying objects resembling car-sized drones near coastlines, military bases, power plants, and other critical US infrastructure. In New Jersey, concerned residents have voiced their fears to local authorities, sparking widespread media coverage and thousands of additional reports of drone sightings. // Related StoriesThe FBI has received over 5,000 such reports, which have generated approximately 100 leads. However, officials maintain there is little cause for alarm, as most reviewed sightings have been identified as commercial drones operated by hobbyists or law enforcement, as well as fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters mistakenly perceived as drones.Authorities are reminding the public that shooting down drones is illegal and could result in severe civil penalties or even criminal charges. Similarly, pointing lasers at aircraft mistaken for drones is both dangerous and unlawful, posing risks to passengers and carrying fines of up to $11,000 per violation.

With the introduction of the new OG mode, Fortnite has brought back the traditional Battle Royale gameplay. This mode returns players to the island they were on during the first season of Chapter 1. Not only has the island been brought back but the original art style, loot pool, weapon sounds, and even some of the original techniques that players use to win the coveted Victory Royale battle also returned.One of the most well-known broken tricks that gave rise to a powerful meta in the early days of Fortnite was the Double Pump. Despite the fact that the game still allows you to Rocket Ride your buddies toward an adversary and perform one-shot sniper kills, the most popular option remains the OG Double Pump.Recommended VideosOn the other hand, if you are new to Fortnite and are not aware of how to make use of the Double Pump meta, we have you covered right here with a detailed explanation of how to utilize it in the OG game mode.RelatedEpic GamesTo kick things off, if you want to master the Double Pump technique, your first step is to track down two Pump Shotguns in Fortnite OG mode. Finding them isnt too challenging, as you can easily snag a common-rarity shotgun from a loot chest or floor loot on the Chapter 1, Season 1 island to execute the current meta.Now that youve secured two Pump Shotguns in your inventory, its time to strategically place them side by side in your slots. After stacking them up, take a shot with the first shotgun, then quickly switch to the next slot for the second shotgun and fire away. Next, return to the previous slot where the first shotgun is placed and take a shot using that. Keep running this loop until you achieve a rapid-fire sequence of two shotguns blasting away in perfect harmony.For PC players, utilizing the scroll wheel on your mouse is a smart move to swiftly toggle between the two shotguns positioned side by side. Console gamers can take advantage of the L1-R1 or LB-RB button combos for seamless transitions.While it may take a few attempts to master, we recommend honing your skills in a Creative map or a public non-ranked Fortnite OG lobby. Once youve got the hang of it, youll be effortlessly dishing out 200 damage with a Double Pump, taking down foes in the blink of an eye.You can also check out our weapons tier list, which has the best recommended loadout you need to dominate lobbies in Fortnite OG Chapter 1, Season 1 game mode.Editors Recommendations

Happy holidays! Sling TV got you a present, and its a $6-per-month price increase. As we reported last month, today marks the beginning of the new pricing for all of Slings packages Sling Orange, Sling Blue, and the combo Sling Orange and Blue package. Costs per month for the three packages are now $46, $51, and $66, respectively, with half off your first month.Sling attributes the increase to rising costs of programming well above the price of inflation. It also points out these increases are industry wide and Sling continues to be the most affordable option with offerings more than $20 less per month versus other providers. Its worth noting that Sling has been adding features throughout 2024, including 4K streaming of major sporting events such as the MLB All-Star Game, postseason, and World Series, the 2024 Olympics in Paris, and the U.S. Open in select major markets.Recommended VideosStill, a price increase is sometimes more than we want to deal with, especially during the holiday season. There are other options for streaming live TV, and if you do want to make the switch, we can show you how to cancel your Sling TV subscription.Please enable Javascript to view this contentIt also might be worth re-evaluating if the Sling TV package youre currently subscribed to is the best Sling TV package for you. The Orange and Blue packages offer a different selection of channels, with Sling Orange including ESPN, ESPN, and ESPN 3 making it a better fit for sports fans, while Sling Blue will deliver your news fix from MSNBC, HLN, and Fox News.Editors Recommendations

Table of ContentsTable of ContentsHe has a powerful weaponPair of acesAnother poor victimMore so than any other entertainment franchise, the James Bond movie series is the most uneven, bouncing from remarkable highs to absurdly embarrassing lows. For every On Her Majestys Secret Service, theres aMoonraker, and for everyCasino Royale, theres aQuantum of Solace. I wouldnt go as far as to call the 007 series the most inconsistent franchise out there, but its undeniable that its not exactly trustworthy. Whereas other franchises let you know what you can expect from them every Transformers is awful, every Mission: Impossible is spectacular, the MCU is, well, the MCU 007 keeps you on your toes, unsure if youll get a banger or a turd.The Man with the Golden Gun | 1974 | Theatrical TrailerGenerally, we know what those turds are. Bond has produced 25 movies, and about five or six are simply terrible. However, one in particular stands out as the epitome of the elusive so-bad-its-good-genre:The Man with the Golden Gun. Released on December 20, 1974, the film is perhaps the single-most bizarre Bond movie ever, a confused mess of ideas, tones, and performances that cant quite commit to the campy fun of other entries, yet cant be taken seriously either. The Man with the Golden Gun is a particular kind of bad its truly terrible, but weirdly enjoyable. On its 50th anniversary, its a great time to look back on this gem of bad taste and wonder if it really is as middling as we remember (spoiler: yes, it is).Recommended VideosUnited ArtistsThe Man with the Golden Gun was Roger Moores second movie as James Bond, following the equally puzzling, but far more consistent Live and Let Die. The film abandons the more grounded approach of its predecessor an outright Blaxploitation tale that remains the biggest outlier in the sagas 25 movies in favor of a classic spy story that sees Bond back in familiar territory. The plot follows Bond as he aims to retrieve the Solex Agitator, a new technology meant to fix the worlds energy shortages. However, his task is complicated when the infamous and deadly assassin Francisco Scaramanga (Sir Christopher Lee) becomes involved, starting a game of cat and mouse between the rivals.RelatedAt first glance,The Man with the Golden Gun offers the standard Bond schtick. Theres a valuable item to recover, a deadly villain in pursuit, and a few beautiful women who cross paths with Bond. However, all these elements are even lazier here the Solex Agitator hardly works as a MacGuffin; its more an idea than an actual item, and Bond is barely interested in it. The Man with the Golden Gun also has the misfortune of having one of the worst Bond Girls ever, Britt Eklands Mary Goodnight. Now, the Bond Girl is not exactly a model for three-dimensional depictions, particularly during the early decades of the Bond saga, but Goodnight is a particularly ineffective and embarrassing example. For lack of a better word, Goodnight is quite stupid, a stereotypical dumb blonde whose incompetence increases from scene to scene.United ArtistsLike most other Bond movies of this time, The Man with the Golden Gun is full of unfunny and sometimes offensive double-entendres one of the Asian women is called Chew Mee, get it? All these details amount to a truly ugly movie that is never as funny or as thrilling as it wants to be. In fact, The Man with the Golden Gun is quite boring at several points, especially whenever Bond is on-screen.No disrespect to Sir Roger Moore, but it really must be said: hes among the weakest aspects of this movie, and his bizarre blend of transatlantic accent and Kentucky drawl can get a little grating at times. All this considered, one would think this is the worst Bond movie ever, and it comes close, too! However, it has one saving grace that not only rescues it from mediocrity, but actually elevates it to turn it into something enjoyable against all odds well, two saving graces, actually.MGMAs its often mentioned, the real star ofThe Man with the Golden Gun is the titular character. Played to perfection by Sir Christopher Lee, Francisco Scaramanga is in close contention with No, Blofeld, Silva, and Le Chiffre as one of the best villains in the 007 saga. World-renowned for his imposing presence and deep, booming voice, Lee effortlessly dominates every scene hes in, bringing charm and flair to a film that often goes for both, only to fall flat in its face. The Hammer Horror icon embodies all the debonair sophistication one would expect from Bond, further making poor Moore feel like an outlier in his own movie. Its hard to stand next to Lee and try to out-suave him; he was one of those men who made all others seem, if not lesser, then certainly more plain.Joining Lee is Herv Villechaize as Scaramangas henchman, Nick Nack. In the grand tradition of other Bond henchmen, Nick Nack is as scene-stealing as Scaramanga himself, and Villechaize makes the best of every scene. The duo perfectly balances each other; whereas Lee opts for chilling and devastatingly charming restraint, Villechaize is openly chewing scenery left and right. The two inject this lifeless movie with a jolt of electricity that not only revitalizes it, but actually sends it into overdrive, making up for how dull everyone else is.United ArtistsContemporary and modern critics often agree that Lee outright stole the film from Moore, and its hard to disagree. Whenever they share the screen, Lee is such an overwhelming magnet that its nearly impossible for anyone else to compete. Villains outshining the heroes is not uncommon, and the Bond franchise is familiar with the trope Javier Bardem pretty much chews and spits Craig in Skyfall, for example. ButThe Man with the Golden Gun is unique in that the plot is just as much about Scaramanga as it is about Bond, to the point where Bond often seems like the antagonist in Scaramangas story rather than the other way around. For that novel approach alone, The Man with the Golden Gun deserves some respect.MGMFifty years later, its clear that The Man with the Golden Gun suffered from the same growing pains as Live and Let Die. The 007 franchise was going through a crisis of identity, trying to keep up with the new trends of the 70s while attempting to escape from Sean Connerys looming shadow. Overall, Moores tenure as the spy with a license to kill is quite inconsistent, but his first two efforts are perhaps the most puzzling.And yet, its hard to faultThe Man with the Golden Gun, largely because of how great Lee is as the titular character. This film lives and dies with Lees now-iconic performance, and whenever hes on-screen, it roars with style and appeal; even the jokes land! Sure, its not great that James Bond is the least interesting aspect of a James Bond movie, but what are you going to do? The Man with the Golden Gun is not a good movie: the plot is weak and repetitive, the heroes are frustrating, and even the song is notoriously terrible and borderline silly. But leave it to Christopher Lee, the real-life James Bond, to save this film and make it sing and, occasionally, soar. What a gift he was to cinema, and what a joy it is to watch him in The Man with the Golden Gun, perhaps the only Bond movie where youre actively rooting for the villain to win.The Man with the Golden Gun is available to stream on PlutoTV.Editors Recommendations

Italys Data Protection Authority said that it fined OpenAI over its use of personal data to train its flagship ChatGPT service.