I love this unique sketchbook look.

L’Union européenne (UE) promeut l’idée d’un marché unique. Pour les consommateurs, cela est en grande partie vrai. Mais, pour les entrepreneurs, elle demeure un patchwork de systèmes nationaux, d’interprétations incohérentes et d’incertitudes réglementaires. Chaque pays applique ses propres règles fiscales, lois du travail, obligations de reporting [rapport d’activité] et cadres en matière de protection de la vie privée. En conséquence, passer de l’Italie à la France, à l’Allemagne ou à tout autre pays de l’UE ne donne que rarement l’impression d’une extension du périmètre de l’entreprise. Cela ressemble plutôt à un nouveau départ à chaque fois. Lire aussi | Article réservé à nos abonnés Pour les start-up européennes, la grande tentation américaine Un jour, nous avons reçu deux évaluations contradictoires de taxe sur la valeur ajoutée, émanant du même bureau des impôts. L’une affirmait que nous avions trop payé. L’autre que nous n’avions pas payé assez. En demandant des éclaircissements, la réponse du fonctionnaire fut : « Cela dépend de celui qui contrôle. » Dans un autre cas, l’administration fiscale italienne nous a reproché d’avoir transféré trop de revenus à l’étranger, tandis que l’autorité allemande nous accusait de ne pas en avoir transféré assez. Les deux exigeaient une rectification. Ce manque de clarté accroît les risques, ralentit les décisions et oblige les fondateurs à consacrer leurs ressources à régler les problèmes de conformité plutôt qu’à s’occuper de leurs clients. Dans un continent où l’échec est encore souvent vécu comme une marque d’infamie plutôt que comme une expérience valorisante, trop de start-up renoncent tout simplement à essayer de croître. Alors que les Etats-Unis accélèrent leur domination en termes de plateformes et d’investissements dans l’intelligence artificielle, et que la Chine développe ses infrastructures domestiques, l’Europe risque de demeurer une voix politique sans aucune base compétitive. Cette situation n’est pas tenable. Les récentes tensions avec les Etats-Unis autour des taxes technologiques et des droits de douane soulignent encore davantage le danger d’une dépendance numérique. L’Europe ne peut pas se permettre de déléguer à des entreprises étrangères les systèmes qui propulsent son économie. Elle doit les construire, et les soutenir. C’est le moment pour nous de ne plus observer depuis les coulisses, mais d’agir aux côtés des Etats-Unis et de la Chine. Pour cela, il faut rendre la croissance possible, et non pénalisante. Il vous reste 47.55% de cet article à lire. La suite est réservée aux abonnés.

The bare walls of my bedroom—bedecked as they are with sporadic small prints but devoid of lights—demand I add some flair to my usually nerdy living space. The Govee Gaming Pixel Light seemed to fit the bill a little too well when I saw it back at CES 2025. The specialized display doesn’t support enough colors to show all my favorite 8- or 16-bit artwork at their best quality, and it won’t produce strong enough audio for anything more complicated than classic chiptunes. If the digital art and speaker for my desk didn’t sport cringey decals and a frame that would make visitors assume I chugged Mountain Dew Game Fuel for breakfast, it would be the perfect antidote to my dull apartment. Govee sent me a pair of pre-release Gaming Pixel Lights long before the company finally made them available on May 19. It sat on my desk for ages, showing me a 32-pixel version of Samus from Super Metroid. Her staunch, visored visage helped me get through the hectic days. Both the $120 32×32 and $140 52×32 pixel frames don’t take much effort to set up, though the digital wall or desk art lacks a battery and needs to be plugged into an outlet. Once it’s connected through the Govee Home app, you’ll have a wide variety of default and user-made effects to add to the screen. Yes, you can stick a static image on the screen, but the real fun comes from displaying GIFs of scenes from your favorite 8-, 16-, or perhaps a few 32-bit retro games. Govee Gaming Pixel Light It does what it needs to do, but limited colors limits what it can show. Pros Cons Depending on how complicated your image is, the pixel light may have a harder time displaying every pixel with perfect color accuracy. The smaller device contains 1,024 lights, while the 52×32 version sports 1,664. The $155 Divoom Pixoo-64—a competing pixel light with a 64×64 pixel field—supports 4,096. Considering the limited lights, a 32×32 pixel image of ET might look great on the smaller Pixel Light, but a fan-made 8-bit portrait of Arielle from The Little Mermaid that appears fine on my phone lacked the color definition necessary to show fine features on her nose or hair. The more stark the colors, the better each image or GIF will appear. The screen is bright enough on its highest settings, but you can set it to dim or turn off on a timer if you want to sleep without a rainbow of pixelated light shining at you. © Adriano Contreras / Gizmodo © Adriano Contreras / Gizmodo © Adriano Contreras / Gizmodo © Adriano Contreras / Gizmodo Images look marginally better on the larger display thanks to its wider range of colors, but you’ll still need to try out various images until you find one that fits your style. You can also upload your own artwork to the Govee app, though any of your photos you take from your phone will turn out splotchy and incoherent on the Pixel Light. You may find that uploading your own pixel art could produce mixed results. I had to try several different versions of Samus before I found a Metroid image that didn’t look half bad. The GIFs play at 30 fps, which made a GIF of Sonic’s classic spinning leg running animation look extra smooth. Divoom’s similar offering runs at 24 fps. The device includes a rear 3W DSP speaker made for pairing your favorite chiptunes with this artwork. The built-in speakers aren’t enough to fill a room with sound, but even without much bass, it’s just enough to offer a retro feel, as if I was listening to a game on the age-old mono Game Boy speaker. The device itself has a single button for controlling volume and no physical mute button, which means you’re forced to load into the app just to adjust your sound. All this meant I was more likely to eschew music entirely. After all, if you’re planning to use your Govee Pixel Light to spruce up your gaming room, you’ll end up listening to the game you’re playing anyway. © Adriano Contreras / Gizmodo © Adriano Contreras / Gizmodo © Adriano Contreras / Gizmodo © Adriano Contreras / Gizmodo © Adriano Contreras / Gizmodo © Adriano Contreras / Gizmodo If you’re the type to pick up a brush, you could create your own art and animated GIFs with the sketch mode. It’s certainly easier to use with a stylus, but I don’t have the time, patience, or ability to sketch something that will look any nicer than the artists who do pixel art for a living. The device has almost too many modes, from a clock feature to a stock ticker. There’s even a counter to tell you the current price of bitcoin, as if you really need to pay attention to crypto prices on your fun, cute pixel monitor. The Pixel Light seems to think gamers want a very specific aesthetic, one full of cyberpunk-esque hard-edged contours with decals reading “loading” and “game.” A black frame is all I really need. The art is the reason you buy Govee’s first real gamer product. But damn me if I enjoy it blaring the Magmar Caverns theme from my desktop, as if my bedroom had any more need for even more Metroid artwork.

Spoilers for “Wish World.” Even the most daring artists, those that actively seek reinvention on a regular basis, will eventually wind up repeating themselves. If they’re lucky and self-aware, the artist may even get the chance to rehabilitate some of the lesser works in their canon. Sadly, it’s at this last hurdle that Russell T. Davies has fallen, with “Wish World” not quite able to do more than become a bizarro remake of “The Sound of Drums / Last of the Time Lords.” James Pardon/BBC Studios/Disney/Bad Wolf We open in Bavaria, 1865, where a cloak-wearing woman on horseback rides through a forest to a remote cabin. It’s classic series villain the Rani, resurrected at the end of last week’s episode, who is greeted by Otto Zufall (German for “coincidence”), a storybook villager-type who expected to greet a midwife to help his ailing wife, Violett. Otto is the seventh son of a seventh son, who has just welcomed his seventh son into the world. Violet lays in bed cradling the newborn, which the Rani says is — as the third-generation seventh son — gifted with unbelievable power. She plucks the newborn from her arms, killing Violet by blowing on her, turning her into a pile of violet petals. She then blows on the other six children and turns them into ducks, and Otto into a wise owl. Then, we’re on Earth on May 23, 2025, where the happily married couple John Smith — the Doctor — and Belinda wake up side by side in bed. Their daughter, Poppy (from “Space Babies” and “The Story and the Engine”) pads in from her bedroom. The trio live as a picture of domestic bliss, with a distinctly fake-looking ‘60s style kitchen filled with bright colors. It may be the present day, but there’s little-to-no tech on show except that every room has a 14-inch CRT TV that only plays a broadcast of Conrad (from “Lucky Day”) who tells them the whole world is going to have great weather that day. At breakfast, the Doctor’s mind wanders for a moment, and suddenly his mug (which was in the middle of the table) inexplicably smashes to the floor. Never mind, as there’s a whole cupboard of matching mugs to replace the ones that fall during a “slip.” Each house even has a large, bright orange trash can just to get rid of the mugs that fall during a “slip”, including their next door neighbor, Mel. When the Doctor greets Mel, he asks what her plans are for May Day, and she says as an unmarried woman with no children, she’ll just sit inside in quiet contemplation. Looming over the heart of the city, taller than any skyscraper, is a structure made out of bone that stands tall on spindly spider legs. Similarly incongruous is a series of massive, dinosaur skeletons that stomp around the landscape. We’ll see later that the dinosaur skeletons don’t actually interact with the world around them, phasing through the space below. The only person (for now) that doesn’t seem to be affected is Ruby, who turns up at the Doctor’s house. She thinks she knows the Doctor, and Belinda, but can’t quite work anything out, and then blurts out that they don’t have a child when she sees Poppy. That prompts Belinda to call the police, as having doubt or sowing confusion is a crime here. The Doctor heads to work in UNIT HQ, suitably redecorated as a 1950s office despite the sci-fi trappings in the periphery. Kate Stewart is an officious boss, Colonel Ibrahim is the Doctor’s colleague and Susan Triad has been turned into the ‘60s tea-lady from “The Devil’s Chord.” Colonel Ibrahim still has the hots for Kate, but thinks that she’s so far out of his league that she’d never go out with him. The Doctor disagrees, saying that Ibrahim is a “beautiful” man, which prompts Ibrahim to get very angry. After all, it would be wrong, impossible or deviant for a man to find another man beautiful, even intellectually. But the Doctor manages to avoid having him call the secret police as the staff of the office all stop to spot the Rani flying by on her hover scooter, which they believe is a sign of good luck for May Day the following day (another deliberate incongruity given May Day takes place on May 1). The Rani lands on the spider skeleton / looming tower of doom, handing Mrs. Flood some Italian meat and tells her to make Conrad a sandwich. He’s up in the tower, as it’s his imagination that is shaping the world, with his regular broadcasts informing the people of his choices. But he’s also nervous — saying that the effort of maintaining a world is difficult since he has to run so many complex systems or else let whole nations be destroyed. It may be his imagination, but it’s being powered by the nameless baby from 1865, who never cries, just smiles. Conrad, being the show’s avatar of so many alt-right figures, has built a reality to reflect his worldview. Heterosexuality is compulsory and loudly and rigidly enforced, there is a secret police ready to seize anyone off the street at a moment’s notice and everyone is constantly asked to inform on their family members. The culture of paranoia is rife. It also explains why Mel, as an unmarried and child-free woman, is expected to sit away and quietly contemplate her implicitly-poor choices, because naturally Conrad only values women for their utility, birthing and taking care of men, rather than as people with their own agency. Even Mrs. Flood, a Time Lady in her own right and the architect of this whole scheme, is relegated to the thankless role of “mother.” James Pardon/BBC Studios/Disney/Bad Wolf His regular broadcasts are even used to taunt the Doctor, reading a story about the Doctor from a book that apes the original British Harry Potter covers. It is, without a doubt, intentional that Davies’ would make his alt-right villain a fan of the series in 2025. Meanwhile, Belinda remains at home looking after Poppy, and gets a visit from her mum and grandmother. They are talking about motherhood, and the fact Poppy is expected to grow up and become an obedient wife to her husband. But when Belinda’s grandmother asks how long Belinda’s labor took, she can’t remember — prompting a small crisis of her own. There’s one UNIT regular who isn’t up in the office, Shirley Bingham, who is in a wheelchair begging out on the street. Conrad’s worldview has no room for people with disabilities (or queer and gender non-conforming people) and so she’s homeless. Ruby initially brushes her pleas for money away before stopping and realizing that she’s met them before. Ruby is taken to a hidden homeless encampment where the ignored have gathered to create some sort of community. Ruby explains to them what they already know — something about all of this is wrong, and that she’s lived through 2025 already (during “73 Yards”) and it didn’t play out like this. Shirley has a plan to bring down Conrad, and Ruby wants in, saying that if she can get face to face with him, she’ll be able to remember what’s locked in the back of her mind. That night, the Doctor is at home, furrowing his brow, and in the background Susan appears on his TV in a brief flash. But she quickly disappears, only to be replaced by Rogue (Jonathan Groff, from last season’s “Rogue”) who only has time to tell the Doctor two things. First, “tables don’t do that,” and that he loves him. Belinda wakes up to the sound of mugs smashing, as the Doctor experiments — every time he feels doubt, a mug falls through the solid wood onto the floor. Belinda can see what’s going on, but is horrified enough to call the police and get them to arrest the Doctor for having doubts. But Mrs. Flood doesn't just arrest the Doctor, she hauls Belinda’s mom there to look after Poppy so Belinda can be arrested too. Shirley and Ruby are camped out below the stone tower, and Shirley pulls out a UNIT tablet that’s a relic from the old world. Up in the tower, the Doctor and Belinda are pushed over a threshold and into the safety of the Rani’s lair. But the pair still don’t have their memories, and so are confused when the Rani starts expositing at them, at length. She points out the seal of Rassilon, and asks if that jogs his memory to no avail, similarly her robot assistants that are looking for signs of doubt among the population. The Rani even dances under a disco ball to a dumbfounded Doctor, who just pleads for mercy. The Rani explains, in a way that made no sense to me at least, that all of the villains the Doctor ever faced wanted death, but her, who wants life. She somehow survived all the various destructions of Gallifrey and is now looking for a lost soul in the heretofore unknown “underverse.” She achieved this by, uh, blocking the Doctor’s route back to Earth and instead, forcing him to criss-cross around the universe with the Vindicator. Each reading the machine took was, in fact, creating a universe-wide network of power all feeding back to the Earth. As the Doctor’s memory returns, the Rani explains that being trapped in Conrad’s reality was to create and foster doubt. Much in the same way a human being’s doubt can damage their world, a Time Lord’s doubt should be enough to crack open the universe. As the clock ticks closer to midnight, she sends Belinda back outside the bone tower to her doom. Then, the Rani locks the Doctor on the bone tower’s balcony to witness as London is swallowed by a series of enormous black voids with only remnants emerging from the other side (such as the burned Black Cab at the end of “The Robot Revolution”). Why? Because the lost soul, trapped in the “underverse” she’s desperate to reach, is Omega. The Doctor, trapped on the balcony, tries to break back into the tower and stop the Rani but it’s too late. She has laid explosive charges and when they blow, the balcony tumbles down toward the void beneath. But the Doctor screams, “Poppy is real! Don’t you know what that means?” as he tumbles into the darkness. To. Be. Continued. “Tables don’t do that.” James Pardon/BBC Studios/Disney/Bad Wolf If there’s one thing Russell T. Davies doesn’t do well, it’s narrative coherence in the run-up to his big finales. Problems and solutions are equally contrived, pulled out of left field and generally don’t stand up to much scrutiny. In his mind that’s okay because what interests him is the emotional resonance and character moments created by that drama. Given he’s one of the few name brand writers in the UK, it’s not as if this approach hasn’t been enormously successful. But it does make “Wish World” a frustrating beast since it is, as usual, playing with so many good ideas it squanders most of them. That wouldn’t be so bad, but for the episode’s conclusion being handed over to incoherent technobabble. It doesn’t help this is the second series in a row that hinges on the audience recognizing the significance of a villain not properly* seen on screen for more than four decades. It’s worth looking at the first two thirds separate from the last, since there’s so much good stuff early on. One of Davies’ usual fixations is on the rise of middle-class British fascism, and the moments when we’re just inhabiting Conrad’s world are wonderful. This time, it’s centered on the stultifying environment for the so-called “respectable types,” whose position and status are perpetually tenuous. The paranoia that manifests out of that means everyone is looking for signs of deviance in their own communities. Those deemed unfit, especially people with disabilities and queer folks, are rendered as un-persons, invisible, shunned and isolated. “Wish World” picks up on another recurring theme in the show, which is to ask what happens after the war has ended. Conrad’s utopia may have lovely weather, but everyone is dressed in uncomfortable clothes and at perpetual risk of being kidnapped off the street by police. If I have a nitpick (and I do) it’s that I wish we hadn’t needed to see the Rani’s baby kidnapping in the opener. Starting with the Doctor and Belinda waking up as a married couple would have been a bigger shock. And it’s a shame the episode can’t commit hard enough to the “we’re trapped in a bizarro world” bit as Ruby turns up so quickly to let the audience know Things Are Awry. Imagine if the first twenty minutes had played out just from John Smith, or Belinda, or Ruby’s perspective and the creeping horror as they realized what was wrong. Sadly, it’s the usual problem of having maybe 30 minutes at most to gesture to those ideas rather than explore them. Because we then have to stop the episode to get Ncuti Gatwa to look perplexed while the Rani spouts nonsense at him. Her evil plan doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny even as we're being told it. After all, why does she need the Doctor to leap between planets when she has her own TARDIS? And if all it takes is a Time Lord’s doubt to rip open the universe, she could have easily done that herself. It’s not as if the Doctor is affected by the doubt since he’s able to carry on until the Rani explodes the balcony and casts him into the void. Oh, there’s one thing that’s good in those last moments — the scene of the Doctor realizing something about Poppy is a nice hook into the finale. James Pardon/BBC Studios/Disney/Bad Wolf I don’t get why the Rani would be motivated to go looking for Omega, the scientist who helped co-found Time Lord society. If Rassilon was the political mind, Omega was the engineer who created the power to make it all happen. He created the stellar manipulator that put a stable black hole at the heart of Gallifrey — the Eye of Harmony — to power its TARDISes. Omega’s backstory was flimsy in his two televised appearances, essentially being an overpowered villain for the Doctor(s) to battle in two different anniversary specials, “The Three Doctors” and “Arc of Infinity.” The rest of his backstory was filled out in the spin-off material, but he’s essentially just a big name baddie trotted out when, say, the Master wouldn’t cut it. There are thematic parallels between Omega and Conrad, however, since Omega’s antimatter universe was sustained entirely by his will and imagination. Is that a comment on something, or just a nice way of dovetailing toward Omega. Who knows? I’m not sure I do. It’s hard not to notice the extreme similarities between “Wish World” and “The Sound of Drums / Last of the Time Lords,” including the fact both stories got started in the previous episode. For a start, there’s the whole Britain-under fascism angle, with the Doctor incapacitated by the villain. Not to mention both feature a sequence in which a Gallifreyan foe taunts our hero with a high camp dancing sequence in a room hovering above the sky. If there’s a shame, it’s that while the runtime has been cut in half, the actual quality of the denouement seems to have gotten worse. Oh, it was nice to see the seal of the Prydonian Chapter of the Time Lords of Gallifrey Seal of Rassilon on the wall of the Rani’s HQ. The bronze and red stylings looked gorgeous and while I’m never going to bang on about fan service in production design, it was lovely to see. And wasn’t it nice to get a bone structure hovering over London which is an unintentional callback to “The Ancestor Cell.” Just a shame that you’re then reminded that the book was designed to burn all the great ideas created by Lawrence Miles out of Doctor Who. After all, Miles has been at times the most interesting writer the series’ leadership refused to engage with. * Yes, I know Omega and Rassilon are standing beside Tecteun in “The Timeless Children.” This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/entertainment/tv-movies/doctor-who-wish-world-review-the-last-of-the-time-lords-redux-183004744.html?src=rss

After spending several months doing not much besides watching Tom Cruise movies, I now spend a lot of time wondering about Tom Cruise running. The Mission: Impossible star is a high-cadence runner. He’s famously short of stature, low to the ground and with short legs. But that build is perfect for cinema, because those arms swing and those legs churn and convey a viscerality, a violence, a constant labored activity that translates perfectly to the screen. What they convey is a man of action, a man summoning all of his energy and will in a single direction: to move as quickly as he can. What is he thinking about when he’s running? I like to think the answer is nothing. That Tom Cruise is able to empty his head when he runs, blanking out his career, his cultural meaning, his past and present personal relationships, and move in a state of pure being. Maybe he’s doing one of his infamous stunts, a run towards a large dangerous vehicle, or off the side of a cliff. Maybe that makes him run faster. Maybe he feels a drive toward oblivion (and for Oblivion), to make the ultimate sacrifice to cinema, resulting in a cultural afterlife even longer than eternal stardom allows. This, in many ways, has been Tom Cruise’s career-long relationship with action movies. They’re his port in the storm, a safe harbor, a place to go and find love and acceptance when there seemingly is none to be had elsewhere. When the press is digging into your religion or snickering about your failed marriages or accusing you of being awkward or crazy or scary, you can find refuge in a MacGuffin to track down, a bad guy’s plot to foil, a world to save. The challenge each writer and director must face is how to handle Cruise’s well-known persona. Do they lean in or subvert? And to what end? When gifted with perhaps the most charismatic, committed movie star ever, are you willing to grapple with this stardom, how it explains the actor at a given point in his career, and what our response to him means? Or do you run? The following is a ranking of Tom Cruise’s greatest action films. In the interest of gimmicky symmetry, we’ve once again capped ourselves at 26 titles. We didn’t cheat… much. The films below all contain shootouts, fistfights, corpses, and missile crises. Most importantly, they are (mostly) tense, suspenseful, violent, escapist popcorn, not to be confused with the other half of Cruise’s equation: the pool-playing, the bartending, the litigating, and the deeply felt character work with auteurs, intended to get him the ultimate prize, which has eluded him for nearly half a century. Let’s run the numbers. 26. Valkyrie (2008) Director: Bryan SingerWhere to watch: Free on Pluto TV, Kanopy, Hoopla You could make a decent argument that this piece of shit doesn’t even belong on this list. It’s mostly a plodding chamber drama about “good Germans” ineffectually plotting to not kill Hitler at the end of World War II. But there’s an explosion, a dull shootout, and a bunch of executions at the end, so it seems to qualify as an action movie. Making Valkyrie is one of the most baffling decisions in Cruise’s entire career. And yet it’s also one of the most important films of his career, one that arguably defines his late period, because it’s how he first met his future M:I steward Christopher McQuarrie. Run report: Ominously, Tom Cruise doesn’t run in this movie.   25. Oblivion (2013) Director: Joseph KosinskiWhere to watch: Rent on Amazon, Apple Like Valkyrie, Oblivion technically qualifies as an action movie, but there’s little actual action or narrative tension to any of it. Cruise essentially plays the source code for a clone army created by a weird super-intelligence in space that runs Earth via killer droids, and the clones to service them. It comes out of a filmmaking period packed with sci-fi puzzlebox movies that were all atmosphere and often led nowhere, though this is probably the “best” example of that tiresome trend. The silver lining is that, like Valkyrie, this film led to Cruise meeting an important future collaborator: Top Gun: Maverick director Joseph Kosinski. Run report: Cruise literally exercises by running on a giant sleek modern hamster wheel in this. It’s the physical manifestation of everything I hate about this film. 24. Legend (1985) Director: Ridley ScottWhere to watch: Rent on Amazon, Apple This 1985 fantasy movie has its defenders, but I am not one of them. The action is completely disjointed and chaotic, a fractured fairy tale composed of an incoherent, weird/horny unholy union of J.R.R. Tolkien, Jim Henson, Peter Greenaway, Ken Russell, and a handful of psilocybin mushrooms. Legend looks like something pieced together by Jack Horner on a camcorder, so it’s hard to fault Cruise for looking clunky and uncomfortable. Who knows what a good performance in that role would look like?  Run report: A lot of odd almost skipping around in this, which adds to the “high school play” quality of the film. Cruise has a proper run toward the end, but it’s not fully baked yet.  23. The Mummy (2017) Director: Alex KurtzmanWhere to watch: Rent on Amazon, Apple Rewatching 2017’s The Mummy actually made me slightly disappointed we didn’t get the Dark Universe Universal Pictures briefly promised us. The setup had potential: Cruise as Indiana Jones, with Jake Johnson as Short Round and Courtney B. Vance as the archetypal no-bullshit sergeant? Potential. But Alex Kurtzman’s take on Karl Freund’s 1932 Boris Karloff Mummy needed less plot and more screwing around. This is an instance where Spielbergian pacing actually ruins a blockbuster, because it entirely lacks Spielberg Sauce. It becomes a horror movie after the first act, with Cruise as a largely personality-free, mentally unsound Black Swan/Smile protagonist. Then they spend all this time with Russell Crowe as Dr. Jekyll, introducing this universe of monsters that never gets off the ground. No fun! Run report: Notable because co-star Annabelle Wallis did a ton of press speaking to how much thought Cruise puts into his on-screen running. She specifically said he initially didn’t want to run on screen with Wallis, because he doesn’t like to share his on-screen run time. He relented, to little effect.  22. Mission: Impossible II (2000) Director: John WooWhere to watch: Free on Hulu, Paramount Plus Folks, I rewatched this recently. I really wanted to love it because some close and valued colleagues sing its praises, and I love a good, hot contrarian take. Respectfully, I don’t know what the hell they’re on. The camera work in Mission: Impossible II is so berserk, it borders on amateurish. The series hadn’t figured out what it was yet, but not in an interesting exploratory way: This installment is more like trying on a pair of pants that are not your vibe. The idea that Ethan Hunt lost his team in Mission: Impossible and now he’s a broken lone wolf (plus Ving Rhames’ Luther and Thandiwe Newton’s Nyah), an agent with the weight of the world on his shoulders, is not a bad premise. But in the role that ruined his career, Dougray Scott is a wooden, toothless bad guy. And somehow, the stakes feel impossibly low, even with a world-killing bioweapon on the line. Mission: Impossible II does, however, get points for being far and away the horniest movie in the franchise. Run report: Unsurprisingly, Woo is great at filming running, and there’s a lot of clay to work with here: Cruise’s long hair flopping in the wind, slow motion, a rare mid-run mask-rip, the inevitable dove-release: It’s all good! A definitive ranking of love interests and partners in the Mission: Impossible movies 6. Claire Phelps (Emmanuelle Béart) in Mission: Impossible5. Julia Meade (Michelle Monaghan) in Mission: Impossible III and Fallout4. Grace (Hayley Atwell) in Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning and The Final Reckoning3. Nyah Nordoff-Hall (Thandiwe Newton) in Mission: Impossible II2. Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson) in Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation, Fallout, and Dead Reckoning1. Jane Carter (Paula Patton) in in Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol 21. American Made (2017) Director: Doug Liman Where to watch: Rent on Amazon, Apple It’s a funny idea: What if Top Gun’s Maverick was a schmuck pilot turned drug-runner? It’s clearly Cruise reaching for a Blow of his own, but decades into this type of narrative, we know the beats by heart. American Made is sorely lacking in depravity. Cruise’s affected good ol’ boy Southern accent both has nothing to do with the film’s disposability, and explains everything. It’s a sanitized drug narrative in which we never see Cruise blow a line or fire a gun. We don’t even see his death on screen — Cruise dying in a movie is a big deal, and has only happened a few times. It’s almost like he knew this nothingburger wasn’t worth the distinction. Run report: Not much running, which is indicative of a larger problem with this film. But at one point, Cruise runs after a car with Caleb Landry Jones in it, and it explodes, in arguably the highlight of the film, for whatever that’s worth.  20. The Last Samurai (2003) Director: Edward ZwickWhere to watch: Rent on Amazon, Apple The one’s a weird movie about a mercenary who, after participating in the genocide of Native Americans, goes native in 19th-century Japan, in the wake of the Meiji Restoration. But it’s a somewhat unusual approach to the standard Cruise narrative arc. In this, he begins as a broken, drunken husk, a mercenary arm of the growing American empire who belatedly regains his honor by joining up with some samurai. The aspects of that plotline which feel unusual for a Cruise movie don’t make up for all the story elements that have aged terribly, but they’re something.  Run report: Less running than you’d expect, but running with swords while wearing leather samurai armor. 19. Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (2016)  Director: Edward ZwickWhere to watch: Rent on Amazon, Apple A lot of the films in the lower ranks of this list suffer from the problem of filmmakers settling, simply putting Cruise on screen and letting his iconography do the heavy lifting, sans interesting backstory or dialogue. In this sequel, thanks to Lee Child’s blunt dialogue, the deep-state rogue-army plotting in the source material, and Cruise’s typical level of meticulous fight choreo, it’s simply really entertaining, solid, replacement-level action. This sequel to 2012’s Jack Reacher gives the title troubleshooter (played by Cruise) a surrogate daughter and a foil in Cobie Smulders, which is great. But its primary sin is replacing Werner Herzog, the villain from the first movie, with a generic snooze of a bad guy. Run report: Some running and sliding on rooftops with guns, as fireworks go off in the night sky. Impressive for some action movies, a bit ho-hum compared to the bigger hits on this list.  18. Taps (1981) Director: Harold Becker Where to watch: Rent on Amazon, Apple Fascinating film. A Toy Soldiers riff interrogating the military-school system, and suggesting that it’s probably not a bad thing that former American ideals like patriotic honor, duty, and masculinity are fading. It’s Cruise’s first major role (with George C.Scott, Sean Penn, and baby Giancarlo Esposito!), and you’ll never believe this, but he plays a tightly wound, thrill-addicted, bloodthirsty maniac. Run report: Great characterization via run here. Cadet Captain David Shawn is a hawkish conservative dick, and Cruise’s running reflects that. He’s stiff, carrying an automatic rifle that he looks like he’s going to start firing wildly at any minute.  17. Mission: Impossible III (2006)  Director: J.J. Abrams Where to watch: Free on Hulu, Paramount Plus In the last Mission: Impossible installment made before the filmmakers really figured out what the series was doing, J.J. Abrams assembles a mostly incoherent, boring clunker that has a few very important grace notes. It’s a film about Ethan Hunt trying to carve out a normal life for himself, with the great Philip Seymour Hoffman playing the bucket of ice water dumped on his domestic fantasy. Hoffman’s Owen Davian is the greatest bad guy in the Cruise filmography, and there’s really no close second. (I suppose, if there was a gun to my head, I would point to Werner Herzog in Jack Reacher, or Jay Mohr in Jerry Maguire.) There are many moments I could point to in Hoffman’s wonderful performance, but the one I’d recommend, if you want to feel something, is when Hoffman gets to play Ethan Hunt playing Owen Davian with a mask on for a few scenes during the Vatican kidnapping, roughly 50 minutes in. He was so fucking great.  Run report: A lot of running, but none of it is very good. No knock on Cruise, but Abrams is doing perfunctory work, shot poorly via shaky cam that has trouble keeping Cruise in the frame, from a perfunctory director making a perfunctory action film. There are two notable exceptions. “The Shanghai Run,” which we may have more on later, and Cruise running straight up a wall. A definitive ranking of Mission: Impossible villain performances 10. Dougray Scott in Mission: Impossible II9. Eddie Marsan in Mission: Impossible III8. William Mapother — that’s right, Thomas Cruise Mapother IV’s cousin! — in Mission: Impossible II7. Lea Seydoux in Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol6. Sean Harris in Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation and Fallout5. Jean Reno in Mission: Impossible4. Esai Morales/The Entity in Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning and The Final Reckoning3. Jon Voight in Mission: Impossible2. Henry Cavill in Mission: Impossible – Fallout1. Phillip Seymour Hoffman in Mission: Impossible III 16. Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning (2025) Director: Christopher McQuarrieWhere to watch: In theaters The franchise potentially falls with a thud — or is it an AI-generated death fantasy that plays out entirely in Ethan Hunt’s head when he gets trapped in a digital coffin early in the movie? Either way, the resulting film is something the McQuarrie-Cruise collaboration has never been before: clunky and imprecise, a disjointed watch that delivers some high highs, but is unfortunately thin on story. McQuarrie seems unconcerned with character arcs, or any substantive grand narrative that might land in any meaningful way. This movie plays out like an aimless succession of beats, allowing boredom to creep in. That hasn’t been a part of the franchise since M:I 3. It’s a Simpsons clip show masquerading as a Mission: Impossible film, signaling that this iteration of the franchise is exhausted, with little left to say or explore. Perhaps there was no other way for this series to go out than on its back.  Run report: A run through the tunnels to save Luther, oddly reminiscent of the run attempting to save Ilsa Faust, followed by the run out of the tunnels, allowing Ethan to escape the film’s first trap (or does he?) A definitive ranking of Ethan Hunt’s “best friends/allies” (non-love interest/boss division) 17. Wes Bentley16. Greg Tarzan Davis15. Aaron Paul14. Jonathan Rhys Meyers13. Maggie Q12. Shea Whigham11. Hannah Waddington 10. Katy O’Brian9. Pom Klementieff8. Rolf Saxon7. Vanessa Kirby6. Keri Russell5. Simon Pegg4. Jeremy Renner3. Emilio Estevez2. Bogdan (Miraj Grbić)1. Luther (Ving Rhames) 15. War of the Worlds (2005) Director: Steven Spielberg Where to watch: Free on Hulu, Paramount Plus A curious movie I liked better on a rewatch than I did on my initial watch 20 years ago. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is often misremembered as Spielberg’s darkest movie, but I’d argue that War of the Worlds beats it: It’s a divorced-dad-anxiety horror movie that has the most nightmare-inducing, traumatic, post-9/11 visuals in the master’s oeuvre. It can be read as Spielberg wrestling with his relationship with his son Max, who would’ve been around the age of Cruise’s disgruntled, estranged son in the movie. War of the Worlds has issues: Cruise never works when he’s cast in a “just some guy” role, as he’s meant to be here, and the plot goes off the rails in the third act. But it has some of the best set pieces Spielberg ever directed. What will haunt me for the rest of my life is a scene where Cruise’s character is forced to essentially make a Sophie’s Choice between his son and daughter (a great Dakota Fanning), and lets his son go. The ominous music at the end when he’s magically reunited with his son is completely bizarre and unsettling, and I don’t think is meant to be taken at face value.  Run report: This is why Cruise is the king. He’s playing a supposed normal, everyday schmoe in this movie. When you focus on the running, compared to other roles, you can see he’s running like a mechanic who is still a little athletic, but doesn’t know where he’s going, or what is happening from one moment to the next. It’s building character through running. Incredible. 14. Knight and Day (2010) Director: James Mangold  Where to watch: Free on Cinemax; rent on Amazon, Apple Knight and Day is a sneakily important film in the Cruise action canon because it’s the first time a movie really puts Cruise into the role of the creepy, charismatic, psychotically intense, beleaguered, put-upon invincible cartoon character he became in the Mission: Impossible franchise as of Ghost Protocol. This movie is based around a funny idea: It’s basically a Mission: Impossible movie from the perspective of a clueless civilian. It helps that the civilian is phenomenal, physical, funny, and fucking ripped: Cameron Diaz plays the world’s hottest mechanic, and makes me wish she had gotten her own Atomic Blonde-style vehicle. Run report: Some co-running with Cameron Diaz here, which is as you might imagine, is good.  13. The Firm (1993) Director. Sydney PollackWhere to watch: Free on Paramount Plus It’s easy to put The Firm on a pedestal because of Sydney Pollack, the jazz score, the ’90s outfits, Gene Hackman, and every other significant gravitas-oozing “That Guy” as a mobster, shady lawyer, or Fed in a great “They don’t make them like that anymore” legal thriller. But what really stood out to me on a recent rewatch is this movie is two and a half hours about the now laughably quaint notion of rediscovering purity in the law. It isn’t much more than a story about a shady law firm that gets hit with mail-fraud charges, plus several deaths and a few smartly tied up loose ends. Run report: A clinic in Tom Cruise running, a draft-version highlight reel of his running scenes. In my memory, this contains some of his most iconic early runs, and it signals the moment when “Tom Cruise running” became a whole cultural thing.  12. Top Gun (1986) Director: Tony Scott Where to watch: Free on Paramount Plus Top Gun set the template for Tom Cruise’s on-screen narrative, and it took a decade before filmmakers were willing to start subverting that narrative again. This is straight-up hero porn, without any of the humbling that the sequel eventually dishes out. Tom Cruise as Maverick is the best pilot on Earth. He loses his best friend and co-pilot Goose, due to a combination of a mechanical failure and another pilot’s fuck-up. He then has to find the courage to fly with the exact same lack of inhibition he did at the outset of the film, which he finally does, based on essentially nothing that happens in the plot. Scott makes the wise decision to center the action (or non-action) of the film on pure Cruise charisma and star power, and it works. Run report: Believe it or not, Tom Cruise does not run in this movie.  11. Days of Thunder (1990) Director: Tony Scott Where to watch: Free on Paramount Plus Scott and Cruise’s Top Gun follow-up is essentially Top Gun with cars instead of jets — but yes, it’s marginally better. Why? Because this is a quintessential “We didn’t know how good we had it” classic. It’s the film where Cruise met his future spouse Nicole Kidman on set. Robert Duvall is swigging moonshine. It’s Randy Quaid’s last performance actually based on planet Earth. Plus there’s John C. Reilly, Michael Rooker, Cary Elwes, Fred Thompson, Margo Martindale, and a rousing Hans Zimmer score. Need I say more? Run report: They cut the climatic race off, but Cruise’s character Cole potentially gets smoked by 59-year-old Robert Duvall?! 10. Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning (2023) Director: Christopher McQuarrieWhere to watch: Free on Paramount Plus The metaphor that the Mission: Impossible franchise is a manifestation of Tom Cruise’s deep-seated need to save blockbuster filmmaking and the Hollywood star system has never been more overt. Cruise is literally up against AI, which is always a step ahead of him, dismantling his every gambit. It’s an update/remix of Ghost Protocol’s premise: The only antidote to the world-spanning AI known as The Entity is becoming a refusenik anti-tech Luddite in the spirit of John Henry, and using the raw materials of humanity to defeat an invincible machine.  Run report: Cruise running in confined spaces is a lot of fun, but the heavily CGI’d running up the side of a train losing its battle with gravity isn’t.  A definitive ranking of Mission: Impossible MacGuffins 8. Ghost Protocol’s Russian launch codes7. Fallout’s plutonium cores 6. Rogue Nation’s $2.4 billion Syndicate bankroll5. M:I2’s Chimera Virus4. Final Reckoning’s Sevastopol3. M:I’s NOC list 2. Dead Reckoning Part One’s cruciform key1. M:I3’s rabbit’s foot 9. Jack Reacher (2012)  Director: Christopher McQuarrie Where to watch: Free on Paramount Plus I loathe hyperbole: it’s a shortcut for unimaginative writers. I’ve never resorted to it in my entire life. So I hope you’ll take me at my word when I say that this movie is a fucking masterpiece. Amazon’s great Reacher series is made more in the image of Lee Child’s books, with a distinctive breakout lead in Alan Ritchson, who appears to have been designed in a lab to draw striking contrast to Tom Cruise in this role. But Reacher made us forget how good Jack Reacher gets. It’s a perfect elevated action programmer with a remarkable cast: David Oyelowo! Richard Jenkins! Rosamund Pike! A Days of Thunder reunion with Robert Duvall! Werner Herzog showing up in a completely brilliant, bonkers heel turn! McQuarrie made this one in vintage Shane Black ’90s style, with a dash of Don Siegel and Clint Eastwood. I totally get why Cruise decided to turn his career over to McQuarrie after this. I don’t understand why he didn’t let McQuarrie direct the sequel. Run report: There isn’t much running in this. At one point, Cruise is darting from shelter point to shelter point because a sniper is trying to pick him off, but that’s it. It’s because Jack fucking Reacher doesn’t have to run, which is simply good writing and filmmaking.  8. Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation (2015)  Director: Christopher McQuarrieWhere to watch: Free on Hulu, Paramount Plus This film famously opens with Tom Cruise hanging from the side of a plane as it takes off. But to me, the key moment comes when he’s broken into the plane, attached himself to a package which isn’t named, but looks like a crate of rockets the size of a minivan. He gives a final raised eyebrow and shrug to a gobsmacked henchman, who watches helplessly as Cruise deploys a parachute and falls out the back of the plane’s cargo bay with a ton of atomic weapons, and no plausible way to land without killing himself and creating a Grand Canyon-sized nuclear crater in Belarus. This scene was practically drawn by Chuck Jones, which sets the tone for a film that repositions Ethan Hunt on the border of superherodom, in a film about Tom Cruise as the literal manifestation of destiny.  It also marks the return of Alec Baldwin, the first (but not last) M:I handler who carried over from one film to the next. Evaluating the handlers’ position in the franchise (see below) is challenging: They’re constantly shifting allegiances, at times working in service of Hunt’s mission, at times in direct opposition to it, either attacking him with governmental red tape, or colluding with nefarious forces. Run report: A lot of different looks when it comes to the running in this. Shirtless running, running with Rebecca Ferguson, running across the wing of a moving plane. It’s all good. A definitive ranking of the “most fun” M:I handlers 6. Theodore Brassel (Laurence Fishburne) in Mission: Impossible III5. Erika Sloane (Angela Bassett) in Mission: Impossible – Fallout and The Final Reckoning4. Eugene Kittridge (Henry Czerny) in Mission: Impossible3. John Musgrave (Billy Crudup) in Mission: Impossible III2. Commander Swanbeck (Anthony Hopkins) in Mission: Impossible II1. Alan Hunley (Alec Baldwin*) in Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation and Fallout * One of my only lingering complaints about the M:I movies is that aside from Ving Rhames and Simon Pegg, we don’t get enough big family continuity. The Fast & Furious franchise is an exemplar/cautionary tale of how found-family dynamics can be a great source of fun and emotion — and also tank the series, if creators keep piling on new recurring elements. It sounds like Baldwin didn’t want to stay on board, but I would love to live in a world where he didn’t jump ship — or where, say, Henry Cavill’s August Walker joined Ethan’s team at the end of Mission: Impossible – Fallout, as he would have if he’d had a similar role in an F&F installment. 7. Minority Report (2002) Director: Steven SpielbergWhere to watch: Free on Paramount Plus I’m guessing this placement on this ranking will upset some people. I’m surprised it’s this low in the rankings too — but that’s how good the next six films are. And honestly, Minority Report doesn’t hold up as the masterpiece I remember it being. It’s a very cool story. It marks the first fantasy-team matchup of Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg. They’re adapting a paranoid Philip K. Dick story, and largely delivering on the promise that implies. Minority Report is an inventive, dark, weird future horror movie, made with Spielberg’s standard stunning visual economy. But among the perfect elements in this film, I have to call out some aspects that didn’t age well. Janusz Kaminski’s lighting effects feel like the whole movie is stuck inside an iPod halo. and this dutch-angled high melodrama, sauced with a dash of Terry Gilliam dystopian/gross wackiness, which lends the film a degree of occasionally atonal, squishy gonzo elasticity you’ve likely forgotten.   Run report: Mileage may vary on white pools of light, but running through them in futuristic uniforms is decisively cool.  6. Mission: Impossible (1996) Director: Brian De PalmaWhere to watch: Free on Hulu, Paramount Plus Because MI:2 and MI:3 struggle with tone (and long, listless patches), and because it’s actually Brad Bird that sets the template for the McQuarrie era of the franchise, you could argue the first Mission: Impossible is the strangest, most personal vision of what this series is and what it can be. DePalma is asserting himself with every practical mask and stylized shot. Your mileage may vary with that approach to what has become this Swiss set piece machine, I love it. A few things stand out nearly three decades on: Of course, how ridiculously young Cruise looks, but perhaps crucially, how collegial, intimate, and even tender the first act is before his first team is eliminated and the movie becomes a DePalma paranoid thriller. It’s an element we never quite get from Mission: Impossible again, one that brings the arc of the franchise into focus and explains Ethan Hunt if you extend continuity: He’s a character betrayed by his father figure and his government in the first film, and spends the rest of the franchise running from this largely unspoken trauma, determined to never let that happen again. In the wake of this, he reluctantly pieces together a life, semblance of a family, and all the risks that come with those personal attachments. In honor of my favorite set piece in any of the films, one of DePalma’s finest taught masterpieces: A definitive ranking of the top 10 M:I set pieces  Honorable Mention: The Sebastopol Extraction- (Tie) The Train Fights– MI:1 & Dead Reckoning 10. The Plane Door- Rogue Nation9. The “Kick In The Head” Russian Jail Break- Ghost Protocol8. The Water Vault Ledger Heist Into The Motorcycle Chase- Rogue Nation7. The Handcuffed Car Chase- Dead Reckoning6. The Red Baron Plane Fight- Final Reckoning5. The Burj Khalifa- Ghost Protocol4. Kidnapping At The Vatican- MI:33. The Opera House Hit- Rogue Nation2. The Louvre Halo Jump Into the Bathroom Fight- Fallout1. The NOC List Heist- MI:1 Run report: Fitting that this franchise opens with Cruise putting on a running clinic, as that first op falls apart, then of course his run away from Kittridge and the massive fish tank explosion.  5. Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol  Director: Brad Bird (2011) Where to watch: Free on Hulu, Paramount Plus Nothing is working like it’s supposed to. Not the Impossible Mission Force, not the mask machine, not the radio comms, not the magnet gloves keeping Ethan Hunt tethered to the side of the world’s tallest building, not the Mission: Impossible franchise, and not Tom Cruise’s at-the-time fading movie stardom. But somehow, one incredible film made by a career animation director solves all of these problems, by stripping down, getting back to basics and reminding us what we always loved about these films and its star. It was supposed to be the beginning of a franchise reboot, with Jeremy Renner stepping in. Bird (and McQuarrie, in for a pass at the troubled screenplay and on deck to become Cruise’s Guy For Life) fights this decision off, gets away from trying to figure out the character Ethan Hunt and lets him be a superhero, more annoyed than concerned by the escalating difficulty of the impossible problems he has to solve. Through this, Bird correctly identifies the difference between Cruise and these other Hollywood candy asses: He’s a reckless warrior with a death wish who will do whatever is necessary to win, and he does. The team concept is back in full force with a genuinely showstopping stunt, and without the masks and tech, Cruise has to do it all with his wits, his hands, and his pure bravado. The series, and Cruise, never looked back.  Run report: Some of the most fun, imaginative set pieces built around running in this installment. A definitive ranking of who should replace Tom Cruise in the inevitable M:I reboot 10. Aaron Taylor Johnson9. Charlie Cox8. Sterling K. Brown7. Florence Pugh6. John David Washington5. Haley Atwell4. Miles Teller3. Jeremy Renner2. Aaron Pierre 1. Glen Powell 4. Top Gun: Maverick  Director: Joseph Kosinski (2022) Where to watch: Free on Paramount Plus It’s a death dream, it’s red meat nationalist troopaganda, it’s the greatest legacyquel ever made that no one asked for and you didn’t realize you desperately needed, it’s nostalgia porn, it saved the movie going experience post-COVID, it’s a finely calibrated joy machine. Cruise is downright mystical, shimmering in the sun’s reflection off the surf, dominating an endless football game with no rules that doesn’t make sense. He has actual chemistry with Jennifer Connelly, and he has the grace to cede the floor to his old nemesis — both in the first Top Gun and as a once contemporary Hollywood star/rival — the late Val Kilmer, to drive home the crush of time and destroy everyone in the theater, no matter how many times they went to see this monster hit that first summer back in theaters.  Run report: Immediately coming off of the stunning, emotional high point of the film, we get Cruise running in salt water soaked jeans shirtless on the beach. Are you not entertained? 3. Collateral  Director: Michael Mann (2004) Where to watch: Free on Paramount Plus An elemental, visceral faceoff that is radical in its simplicity of purpose. A film made by the second-best director on this list, and on a very short list of Cruise’s finest performances ever. He’s the salt and pepper terminator in a taxi, playing a pure evil bad guy, a classic Mann anti-hero samurai nihilist that also lives by a code and values being good at his job. Of course Cruise retains a kind of charm, but is also willing to get slimy and be deeply unlikeable and die on screen. Well worth the sacrifice.  Run report: Incredible running on display here. Once again he is running like a professional killer probably runs, almost always holding a gun, the hair matches the suit, so fucking bad ass.  2. Mission: Impossible – Fallout  Director: Christopher McQuarrie (2018) Where to watch: Free on Hulu, Paramount Plus As much time and energy as I just expended exalting Ghost Protocol, at a certain point you have to eschew poetic narratives and tip your cap, by the slightest of margins, to a fucking perfect movie. Ghost Prot is close, but you can feel its lack of a nailed-down shooting script at certain points towards its conclusion, as the action begins to wind down. McQuarrie becomes the first director in the franchise to get a second bite of the apple, and the result is a finely cut diamond. Fallout is about exhaustion and the impossibility of that manifestation of destiny idea from Rogue Nation. It makes the argument that you can’t actually save the day and save everyone without making any sacrifices forever, and because of that, sets up The Trolly Problem over and over again to try and get Ethan Hunt to compromise and/or give up. But, of course, he won’t, and neither, seemingly, will Cruise.  Run report: You can tell McQuarrie loves watching Cruise run as much as we do. He frames the runs in these wide shots and takes his time with them. It’s not conveying any additional information, a beat or two less would suffice, but the camera lingers and you get to just sit and appreciate the form and it really connects. It’s why he was the logical choice to take control of this franchise. He understands how a Tom Cruise action flick operates and what makes it special. And of course: A definitive ranking of the best runs in the franchise 10. The Opening Plane Run- Rogue Nation9. The Sandstorm Run- Ghost Protocol8. The Mask Rip Run- MI:27. Running through the alleys of Italy- Dead Reckoning6. Running Through the Tunnels for Luther (then out)- Final Reckoning5. Running down the Burj Khalifa- Ghost Protocol 4. Running from the fishtank explosion- MI:13. The Rooftop Run- Fallout2. The Shanghai Run- MI:31. The Kremlin Run- Ghost Protocol 1. Edge of Tomorrow  Director: Doug Liman (2014) Where to watch: Rent on Amazon, Apple Edge of Tomorrow is the best Tom Cruise action film had to be made in his late period of action stardom. You need the gravity and the gravitas, the emotional baggage earned through those decades of culture-remaking roles, the toll that exerted effort took on him, and the time spent and time passed on his face. The late, largely perfect Mission: Impossible films that dominate the top 10 of this list do much of that work: They feint, they allude, they nod to the realities of stardom, of life and death. But Ethan Hunt is a superhero, an inevitability, so the outcome is never in doubt — until, perhaps someday, it is. But for now, the masterpiece from Doug Liman — a director who either hits dingers or strikes out looking, with no in between — is a movie that punctuated Cruise’s post-Ghost Prot action renaissance: Edge of Tomorrow, or Live. Die. Repeat. It’s the unlikely on-paper melding of Starship Troopers and Groundhog Day, but in practice it’s the action film equivalent of Jerry Maguire, a movie that relies on your history with Maverick, and Mitch McDeere, and Ethan Hunt, and uses it to dismantle and subvert Tom Cruise, the infallible hero.  Liman is at the top of his game, particularly in editing, which uses repetition and quick cuts masterfully to convey the long and slow transformation of a public relations major named Cage — who becomes trapped in a disastrous, endless intergalactic Normandy scenario — from a marketing clown in a uniform to an alien killer badass while he falls in love and saves the world. We watch as Cruise has all his bravado and bullshit stripped away by “a system” (maybe the single best Paxton performance?!) with no time for that, a woman smarter and stronger than he is and immune to his charms, and an invading force that tears him to pieces over and over again. We watch the five-tool movie star — robbed of all his tools — regroup, rebuild, and in the process, grow a soul. It’s the platonic ideal of what a great blockbuster action film can be, one that only could’ve been made by one of its most important, prolific, and talented stars.  Run report: A beautiful physical metaphor for this film is watching the evolution of Cruise’s ability to move in that ridiculous mech suit. 

Essex Police has not properly considered the potentially discriminatory impacts of its live facial recognition (LFR) use, according to documents obtained by Big Brother Watch and shared with Computer Weekly. While the force claims in an equality impact assessment (EIA) that “Essex Police has carefully considered issues regarding bias and algorithmic injustice”, privacy campaign group Big Brother Watch said the document – obtained under Freedom of Information (FoI) rules – shows it has likely failed to fulfil its public sector equality duty (PSED) to consider how its policies and practices could be discriminatory. The campaigners highlighted how the force is relying on false comparisons to other algorithms and “parroting misleading claims” from the supplier about the LFR system’s lack of bias. For example, Essex Police said that when deploying LFR, it will set the system threshold “at 0.6 or above, as this is the level whereby equitability of the rate of false positive identification across all demographics is achieved”. However, this figure is based on the National Physical Laboratory’s (NPL) testing of NEC’s Neoface V4 LFR algorithm deployed by the Metropolitan Police and South Wales Police, which Essex Police does not use. Instead, Essex Police has opted to use an algorithm developed by Israeli biometrics firm Corsight, whose chief privacy officer, Tony Porter, was formerly the UK’s surveillance camera commissioner until January 2021. Highlighting testing of the Corsight_003 algorithm conducted in June 2022 by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the EIA also claims it has “a bias differential FMR [False Match Rate] of 0.0006 overall, the lowest of any tested within NIST at the time of writing, according to the supplier”. However, looking at the NIST website, where all of the testing data is publicly shared, there is no information to support the figure cited by Corsight, or its claim to essentially have the least biased algorithm available. A separate FoI response to Big Brother Watch confirmed that, as of 16 January 2025, Essex Police had not conducted any “formal or detailed” testing of the system itself, or otherwise commissioned a third party to do so. Essex Police's lax approach to assessing the dangers of a controversial and dangerous new form of surveillance has put the rights of thousands at risk Jake Hurfurt, Big Brother Watch “Looking at Essex Police’s EIA, we are concerned about the force’s compliance with its duties under equality law, as the reliance on shaky evidence seriously undermines the force’s claims about how the public will be protected against algorithmic bias,” said Jake Hurfurt, head of research and investigations at Big Brother Watch. “Essex Police’s lax approach to assessing the dangers of a controversial and dangerous new form of surveillance has put the rights of thousands at risk. This slapdash scrutiny of their intrusive facial recognition system sets a worrying precedent. “Facial recognition is notorious for misidentifying women and people of colour, and Essex Police’s willingness to deploy the technology without testing it themselves raises serious questions about the force’s compliance with equalities law. Essex Police should immediately stop their use of facial recognition surveillance.” The need for UK police forces deploying facial recognition to consider how their use of the technology could be discriminatory was highlighted by a legal challenge brought against South Wales Police by Cardiff resident Ed Bridges. In August 2020, the UK Court of Appeal ruled that the use of LFR by the force was unlawful because the privacy violations it entailed were “not in accordance” with legally permissible restrictions on Bridges’ Article 8 privacy rights; it did not conduct an appropriate data protection impact assessment (DPIA); and it did not comply with its PSED to consider how its policies and practices could be discriminatory. The judgment specifically found that the PSED is a “duty of process and not outcome”, and requires public bodies to take reasonable steps “to make enquiries about what may not yet be known to a public authority about the potential impact of a proposed decision or policy on people with the relevant characteristics, in particular for present purposes race and sex”. Big Brother Watch said equality assessments must rely on “sufficient quality evidence” to back up the claims being made and ultimately satisfy the PSED, but that the documents obtained do not demonstrate the force has had “due regard” for equalities. Academic Karen Yeung, an interdisciplinary professor at Birmingham Law School and School of Computer Science, told Computer Weekly that, in her view, the EIA is “clearly inadequate”. She also criticised the document for being “incoherent”, failing to look at the systemic equalities impacts of the technology, and relying exclusively on testing of entirely different software algorithms used by other police forces trained on different populations: “This does not, in my view, fulfil the requirements of the public sector equality duty. It is a document produced from a cut-and-paste exercise from the largely irrelevant material produced by others.” Computer Weekly contacted Essex Police about every aspect of the story. “We take our responsibility to meet our public sector equality duty very seriously, and there is a contractual requirement on our LFR partner to ensure sufficient testing has taken place to ensure the software meets the specification and performance outlined in the tender process,” said a spokesperson. “There have been more than 50 deployments of our LFR vans, scanning 1.7 million faces, which have led to more than 200 positive alerts, and nearly 70 arrests. “To date, there has been one false positive, which, when reviewed, was established to be as a result of a low-quality photo uploaded onto the watchlist and not the result of bias issues with the technology. This did not lead to an arrest or any other unlawful action because of the procedures in place to verify all alerts. This issue has been resolved to ensure it does not occur again.” The spokesperson added that the force is also committed to carrying out further assessment of the software and algorithms, with the evaluation of deployments and results being subject to an independent academic review. “As part of this, we have carried out, and continue to do so, testing and evaluation activity in conjunction with the University of Cambridge. The NPL have recently agreed to carry out further independent testing, which will take place over the summer. The company have also achieved an ISO 42001 certification,” said the spokesperson. “We are also liaising with other technical specialists regarding further testing and evaluation activity.” However, the force did not comment on why it was relying on the testing of a completely different algorithm in its EIA, or why it had not conducted or otherwise commissioned its own testing before operationally deploying the technology in the field. Computer Weekly followed up Essex Police for clarification on when the testing with Cambridge began, as this is not mentioned in the EIA, but received no response by time of publication. Although Essex Police and Corsight claim the facial recognition algorithm in use has “a bias differential FMR of 0.0006 overall, the lowest of any tested within NIST at the time of writing”, there is no publicly available data on NIST’s website to support this claim. Drilling down into the demographic split of false positive rates shows, for example, that there is a factor of 100 more false positives in West African women than for Eastern European men. While this is an improvement on the previous two algorithms submitted for testing by Corsight, other publicly available data held by NIST undermines Essex Police’s claim in the EIA that the “algorithm is identified by NIST as having the lowest bias variance between demographics”. Looking at another metric held by NIST – FMR Max/Min, which refers to the ratio between demographic groups that give the most and least false positives – it essentially represents how inequitable the error rates are across different age groups, sexes and ethnicities. In this instance, smaller values represent better performance, with the ratio being an estimate of how many times more false positives can be expected in one group over another. According to the NIST webpage for “demographic effects” in facial recognition algorithms, the Corsight algorithm has an FMR Max/Min of 113(22), meaning there are at least 21 algorithms that display less bias. For comparison, the least biased algorithm according to NIST results belongs to a firm called Idemia, which has an FMR Max/Min of 5(1). However, like Corsight, the highest false match rate for Idemia’s algorithm was for older West African women. Computer Weekly understands this is a common problem with many of the facial recognition algorithms NIST tests because this group is not typically well-represented in the underlying training data of most firms. Computer Weekly also confirmed with NIST that the FMR metric cited by Corsight relates to one-to-one verification, rather than the one-to-many situation police forces would be using it in. This is a key distinction, because if 1,000 people are enrolled in a facial recognition system that was built on one-to-one verification, then the false positive rate will be 1,000 times larger than the metrics held by NIST for FMR testing. “If a developer implements 1:N (one-to-many) search as N 1:1 comparisons, then the likelihood of a false positive from a search is expected to be proportional to the false match for the 1:1 comparison algorithm,” said NIST scientist Patrick Grother. “Some developers do not implement 1:N search that way.” Commenting on the contrast between this testing methodology and the practical scenarios the tech will be deployed in, Birmingham Law School’s Yeung said one-to-one is for use in stable environments to provide admission to spaces with limited access, such as airport passport gates, where only one person’s biometric data is scrutinised at a time. “One-to-many is entirely different – it’s an entirely different process, an entirely different technical challenge, and therefore cannot typically achieve equivalent levels of accuracy,” she said. Computer Weekly contacted Corsight about every aspect of the story related to its algorithmic testing, including where the “0.0006” figure is drawn from and its various claims to have the “least biased” algorithm. “The facts presented in your article are partial, manipulated and misleading,” said a company spokesperson. “Corsight AI’s algorithms have been tested by numerous entities, including NIST, and have been proven to be the least biased in the industry in terms of gender and ethnicity. This is a major factor for our commercial and government clients.” However, Corsight was either unable or unwilling to specify which facts are “partial, manipulated or misleading” in response to Computer Weekly’s request for clarification. Computer Weekly also contacted Corsight about whether it has done any further testing by running N one-to-one comparisons, and whether it has changed the system’s threshold settings for detecting a match to suppress the false positive rate, but received no response on these points. While most facial recognition developers submit their algorithms to NIST for testing on an annual or bi-annual basis, Corsight last submitted an algorithm in mid-2022. Computer Weekly contacted Corsight about why this was the case, given that most algorithms in NIST testing show continuous improvement with each submission, but again received no response on this point. The Essex Police EIA also highlights testing of the Corsight algorithm conducted in 2022 by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), claiming it demonstrated “Corsight’s capability to perform equally across all demographics”. However, Big Brother Watch’s Hurfurt highlighted that the DHS study focused on bias in the context of true positives, and did not assess the algorithm for inequality in false positives. This is a key distinction for the testing of LFR systems, as false negatives where the system fails to recognise someone will likely not lead to incorrect stops or other adverse effects, whereas a false positive where the system confuses two people could have more severe consequences for an individual. The DHS itself also publicly came out against Corsight’s representation of the test results, after the firm claimed in subsequent marketing materials that “no matter how you look at it, Corsight is ranked #1. #1 in overall recognition, #1 in dark skin, #1 in Asian, #1 in female”. Speaking with IVPM in August 2023, DHS said: “We do not know what this claim, being ‘#1’ is referring to.” The department added that the rules of the testing required companies to get their claims cleared through DHS to ensure they do not misrepresent their performance. In its breakdown of the test results, IVPM noted that systems of multiple other manufacturers achieved similar results to Corsight. The company did not respond to a request for comment about the DHS testing. Computer Weekly contacted Essex Police about all the issues raised around Corsight testing, but received no direct response to these points from the force. While Essex Police claimed in its EIA that it “also sought advice from their own independent Data and Digital Ethics Committee in relation to their use of LFR generally”, meeting minutes obtained via FoI rules show that key impacts had not been considered. For example, when one panel member questioned how LFR deployments could affect community events or protests, and how the force could avoid the technology having a “chilling presence”, the officer present (whose name has been redacted from the document) said “that’s a pretty good point, actually”, adding that he had “made a note” to consider this going forward. The EIA itself also makes no mention of community events or protests, and does not specify how different groups could be affected by these different deployment scenarios. Elsewhere in the EIA, Essex Police claims that the system is likely to have minimal impact across age, gender and race, citing the 0.6 threshold setting, as well as NIST and DHS testing, as ways of achieving “equitability” across different demographics. Again, this threshold setting relates to a completely different system used by the Met and South Wales Police. For each protected characteristic, the EIA has a section on “mitigating” actions that can be taken to reduce adverse impacts. While the “ethnicity” section again highlights the National Physical Laboratory’s testing of a completely different algorithm, most other sections note that “any watchlist created will be done so as close to the deployment as possible, therefore hoping to ensure the most accurate and up-to-date images of persons being added are uploaded”. However, Yeung noted that the EIA makes no mention of the specific watchlist creation criteria beyond high-level “categories of images” that can be included, and the claimed equality impacts of that process. For example, it does not consider how people from certain ethnic minority or religious backgrounds could be disproportionally impacted as a result of their over-representation in police databases, or the issue of unlawful custody image retention whereby the Home Office is continuing to hold millions of custody images illegally in the Police National Database (PND). While the ethics panel meeting minutes offer greater insight into how Essex Police is approaching watchlist creation, the custody image retention issue was also not mentioned. Responding to Computer Weekly’s questions about the meeting minutes and the lack of scrutiny of key issues related to UK police LFR deployments, an Essex Police spokesperson said: “Our polices and processes around the use of live facial recognition have been carefully scrutinised through a thorough ethics panel.” Instead, the officer present explained how watchlists and deployments are decided based on the “intelligence case”, which then has to be justified as both proportionate and necessary. On the “Southend intelligence case”, the officer said deploying in the town centre would be permissible because “that’s where the most footfall is, the most opportunity to locate outstanding suspects”. They added: “The watchlist [then] has to be justified by the key elements, the policing purpose. Everything has to be proportionate and strictly necessary to be able to deploy… If the commander in Southend said, ‘I want to put everyone that’s wanted for shoplifting across Essex on the watchlist for Southend’, the answer would be no, because is it necessary? Probably not. Is it proportionate? I don’t think it is. Would it be proportionate to have individuals who are outstanding for shoplifting from the Southend area? Yes, because it’s local.” However, the officer also said that, on most occasions, the systems would be deployed to catch “our most serious offenders”, as this would be easier to justify from a public perception point of view. They added that, during the summer, it would be easier to justify deployments because of the seasonal population increase in Southend. “We know that there is a general increase in violence during those months. So, we don’t need to go down to the weeds to specifically look at grievous bodily harm [GBH] or murder or rape, because they’re not necessarily fuelled by a spike in terms of seasonality, for example,” they said. “However, we know that because the general population increases significantly, the level of violence increases significantly, which would justify that I could put those serious crimes on that watchlist.” Commenting on the responses given to the ethics panel, Yeung said they “failed entirely to provide me with confidence that their proposed deployments will have the required legal safeguards in place”. According to the Court of Appeal judgment against South Wales Police in the Bridges case, the force’s facial recognition policy contained “fundamental deficiencies” in relation to the “who” and “where” question of LFR. “In relation to both of those questions, too much discretion is currently left to individual police officers,” it said. “It is not clear who can be placed on the watchlist, nor is it clear that there are any criteria for determining where AFR [automated facial recognition] can be deployed.” Yeung added: “The same applies to these responses of Essex Police force, failing to adequately answer the ‘who’ and ‘where’ questions concerning their proposed facial recognition deployments. “Worse still, the court stated that a police force’s local policies can only satisfy the requirements that the privacy interventions arising from use of LFR are ‘prescribed by law’ if they are published. The documents were obtained by Big Brother Watch through freedom of information requests, strongly suggesting that these even these basic legal safeguards are not being met.” Yeung added that South Wales Police’s use of the technology was found to be unlawful in the Bridges case because there was excessive discretion left in the hands of individual police officers, allowing undue opportunities for arbitrary decision-making and abuses of power. Every decision ... must be specified in advance, documented and justified in accordance with the tests of proportionality and necessity. I don’t see any of that happening Karen Yeung, Birmingham Law School “Every decision – where you will deploy, whose face is placed on the watchlist and why, and the duration of deployment – must be specified in advance, documented and justified in accordance with the tests of proportionality and necessity,” she said. “I don’t see any of that happening. There are simply vague claims that ‘we’ll make sure we apply the legal test’, but how? They just offer unsubstantiated promises that ‘we will abide by the law’ without specifying how they will do so by meeting specific legal requirements.” Yeung further added these documents indicate that the police force is not looking for specific people wanted for serious crimes, but setting up dragnets for a wide variety of ‘wanted’ individuals, including those wanted for non-serious crimes such as shoplifting. “There are many platitudes about being ethical, but there’s nothing concrete indicating how they propose to meet the legal tests of necessity and proportionality,” she said. “In liberal democratic societies, every single decision about an individual by the police made without their consent must be justified in accordance with law. That means that the police must be able to justify and defend the reasons why every single person whose face is uploaded to the facial recognition watchlist meets the legal test, based on their specific operational purpose.” Yeung concluded that, assuming they can do this, police must also consider the equality impacts of their actions, and how different groups are likely to be affected by their practical deployments: “I don’t see any of that.” In response to the concerns raised around watchlist creation, proportionality and necessity, an Essex Police spokesperson said: “The watchlists for each deployment are created to identify specific people wanted for specific crimes and to enforce orders. To date, we have focused on the types of offences which cause the most harm to our communities, including our hardworking businesses. “This includes violent crime, drugs, sexual offences and thefts from shops. As a result of our deployments, we have arrested people wanted in connection with attempted murder investigations, high-risk domestic abuse cases, GBH, sexual assault, drug supply and aggravated burglary offences. We have also been able to progress investigations and move closer to securing justice for victims.” Read more about police data and technology Metropolitan Police to deploy permanent facial recognition tech in Croydon: The Met is set to deploy permanent live facial recognition cameras on street furniture in Croydon from summer 2025, but local councillors say the decision – which has taken place with no community input – will further contribute the over-policing of Black communities. UK MoJ crime prediction algorithms raise serious concerns: The Ministry of Justice is using one algorithm to predict people’s risk of reoffending and another to predict who will commit murder, but critics say the profiling in these systems raises ‘serious concerns’ over racism, classism and data inaccuracies. UK law enforcement data adequacy at risk: The UK government says reforms to police data protection rules will help to simplify law enforcement data processing, but critics argue the changes will lower protection to the point where the UK risks losing its European data adequacy.

By Matt Novak Published May 20, 2025 | Comments (0) | Debris is seen outside a damaged American Reproductive Centers fertility clinic after a bomb blast outside the building in Palm Springs, California, on May 17, 2025. © Photo by GABRIEL OSORIO/AFP via Getty Images An explosion outside a fertility clinic in Palm Springs, California, killed one person and injured four others Saturday morning in what the FBI has called an act of terrorism. The suspect in the bombing, 25-year-old Guy Edward Bartkus, was the lone death from the blast, and it seems apparent he held anti-human views. Now Reddit has banned a subreddit tied to the suspect’s ideology. Bartkus is believed to be the person who detonated a bomb at the Palm Springs American Reproductive Center, which offers services like IVF, because he was aligned with the pro-mortalist and anti-natalist movements—the idea that humans should not continue to procreate. Bartkus appears to have been posting to various subreddits, including r/Efilism, which advocated for violence. Reddit has now banned r/Efilism for violating its terms of service. “Violence has no place on Reddit,” a spokesperson for the platform told Gizmodo over email. “Our sitewide rules strictly prohibit any content that encourages, glorifies, incites, or calls for violence. In line with these rules, we are removing any instances of the suspect’s manifesto or recordings and hashing to prevent reupload. We’re also closely monitoring the communities on our platform to ensure compliance with our rules.” Proponents of Efilism (the word “life” spelled backwards) are often known as anti-natalists, which is a more common name for the ideology, though Bartkus described himself as pro-mortalist in his 30-minute audio manifesto. Anti-natalism is a philosophy that advocates for people not to procreate, while pro-mortalists go beyond those anti-natalist ideas to advocate for death in all forms under the theory that because life is suffering it’s ethical to end your own life and even those around you in the process. Bartkus posted an audio file to his website explaining why he was targeting the clinic, filled with logical inconsistencies and general incoherence. Bartkus said he wanted to begin “sterilizing this planet of the disease of life,” but mentioned the recent suicide of his best friend affecting him deeply. Bartkus wrote on his personal website, “It’s just too much of a loss when there’s nobody else you really relate to significantly.” He was clearly struggling with personal issues beyond whatever philosophy to which he was supposedly swearing allegiance. That website has now been taken offline. There are other anti-natalist forums beyond r/Efilism on Reddit that haven’t been banned and some, like r/circlesnip—which includes a description reading, “The Vegan Antinatalist Circlejerk”—put out statements denouncing the attack on the IVF clinic. “It has come to my attention that the individual responsible for today’s bombing in Palm Springs namedropped our communities in their suicide note. Though they struggled with personal grief and mental health issues, their act of terrorism was unjustifiable, incoherent, immoral, and disgusting,” the statement reads.The moderator went on to say that their version of anti-natalism is “explicitly one of non-violence” and said that it should be up to each individual to “make their own reproductive decisions.” “The philosophy we represent is explicitly one of non-violence,” the moderator continued. “We believe it is up to each individual to make their own reproductive decisions. We hope that the Palm Springs American Reproductive Center can rebuild and resume operations.” Other anti-natalist subreddits run by the same moderator, r/Vystopia and r/antinatalism, posted the same statement condemning violence. The r/Efilism subreddit had about 12,000 members before it was banned, according to The Independent, which is certainly not large by Reddit standards. The biggest communities on Reddit have tens of millions of members. The term Elifism was reportedly coined by a fringe YouTuber named Gary Inmendham, who Bartkus mentions by name in his audio manifesto. Inmendham posted a video after the bombing saying that Bartkus had done something “really stupid, dumb, pointless, and even show-offy,” referring to it as a “dumbass act of violence.” Inmendham said that he’s even “against protesters” so he’s “obviously against terrorists.” Bartkus, who sounds deeply insecure about his philosophy in his audio manifesto, said that he was driven to commit the bombing because he couldn’t find people to connect with online to discuss things anymore because spaces like YouTube and X were being censored of anti-natalist content. Bartkus also insisted that while the internet is being “manipulated,” he was immune to the manipulation. Bartkus also said in the recording that he was a vegan and seem fixated on the welfare of animals, referring in his audio recording to “animals raped on farms,” but then going on to say that nature itself was horrifying in a way that even surpassed the suffering caused by humans. All life was suffering that needed to end, in his book. A YouTube account associated with Bartkus, which is now offline, reportedly contained explosions tests, according to ABC News. The size of the Palm Springs blast was considerable, stretching about 250 yards, with Akil Davis, assistant director at the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office, describing it to NPR as, “probably the largest bombing scene that we’ve had in Southern California.” The FBI released a report last month about Nihilist Violent Extremists (NVE), though the definition is so loose that it can be applied pretty broadly to all kinds of ideologies. In this case, however, nihilism does seem to fit well as a descriptor for a philosophy grounded in destroying all of humanity for nebulous ends. Daily Newsletter You May Also Like By Lucas Ropek Published April 9, 2025 By Matt Novak Published March 27, 2025 By Lucas Ropek Published March 14, 2025 By Matthew Gault Published March 5, 2025 By AJ Dellinger Published February 14, 2025 By AJ Dellinger Published January 22, 2025

Designing for the British Pavilion at the Venice Architecture Biennale is never simply about surface-level graphics. For TEMPLO, now in its third year collaborating with the British Council on the project, it's become an exercise in turning complex political, historical, and geological themes into a rich, resonant visual language. This year's exhibition – GBR – Geology of Britannic Repair –is no exception. Curated by Jayden Ali, Meneesha Kellay, Victoria Broackes, and Rashid Ali, and with architecture by Nairobi-based cave_bureau, the 2025 Pavilion delves into ideas of extractivism, colonial legacies, and geopolitical fragmentation. It casts architecture not just as a practice of form but of land and memory (what the curators describe as an "earth practice"). TEMPLO's response is a brand identity that mirrors these themes in every detail, from tectonic type to movement-led visuals. It's an approach built not around a traditional logo-first mindset but through what managing director Anoushka Rodda calls a "graphic toolbox". It's flexible enough to span everything from wayfinding signage and social media posts to films, merchandise, and even sound. "Over our three years of working with the British Council in Venice, we've developed a deeply collaborative and interpretative approach," says Anoushka. "That requires a very close working relationship, which we built with an initial workshop and then regular catch-ups with the curatorial team." The result is an identity that doesn't shy away from complexity but embraces it. At its core is the symbolism of the Rift Valley, one of the most significant geological formations on Earth and a site rich with colonial, ecological, and geopolitical resonance. "Given the exhibition's thematic anchor in the Rift Valley, we had to develop an engaging and accessible visual system that could communicate multi-faceted and complex ideas, which could be all too easy to caricature," says co-founder and creative director Pali Palavathanan. The Rift Valley offered both metaphorical weight and formal inspiration for the project. Typography, in particular, was key, and the team began with a sharp, authoritative serif, which is a deliberate nod to imperial structures and colonial architecture. Through a process of carefully chipping away, serifs were softened, and corners were bevelled. The result is a custom treatment that feels weathered, precise and grounded. This softened, fragmented type treatment takes cues directly from the Pavilion's architecture. The British Pavilion's façade, typically defined by its neoclassical columns, has been veiled in a beaded skin by cave_bureau, crafted from agricultural waste, clay from Kenya and India, and shards of red glass. Inspired by Maasai manyatta dwellings, the veil transforms the building's tone from dominant to open, echoing the Pavilion's thematic commitment to repair and transformation. "We wanted to reflect this effect in the identity," says Pali. "So we chose a sharp-edged, authoritative typeface that conveys an impression of imperiousness – colonial authority, almost – which we then 'softened' by bevelling the edges, trimming the serifs and corners to create something more organic, earthy and geographic." Colour also plays a quiet but powerful role. Rather than using overt national or cultural motifs, TEMPLO wove in subtle references to Kenya, an intentional move given that the British Pavilion is part of the British Council's Year of Kenya season. Earthy tones inspired by the Kenyan flag lend the identity warmth and weight without leaning on cliché or pastiche. Movement truly brings the identity to life through type that fractures, shifts, pulls apart and converges. These tectonic actions are present both literally and symbolically, animated in digital formats and implied through dimensional perspective in static applications. "Movement was something that emerged organically early in the process," says Pali. "It soon became clear that movement is integral to the concept of architecture as earth practice, to the tectonic actions of the earth in forming the Rift Valley – the shifting of tectonic plates, the pulling apart and coming together – and to the extractive actions of humans upon the land." The effect is one of tension and possibility: a visual system always on the brink of something, whether it's collapse, repair, destruction, or reformation. That energy carries through all aspects of the campaign, from animated posters and online videos to physical lanyards and in-situ signage. "We are creating a digital campaign of film, audio and social media content for the world to experience, which to us is just as important as the experience in Venice," says Anoushka. Ensuring that cohesion across such a broad spectrum of media is no small task, but for TEMPLO, the answer was to resist the temptation of leading with a static mark. "If you start with a logo and treat everything else as secondary, it's easy to end up with something incoherent or introduce weaker visual elements," Anoushka continues. "But by transforming thematic ideas into a graphic toolbox that can be used to create brand elements of every kind – whether that's the logo, a piece of exhibition signage, a lanyard, or a piece of digital film – the identity becomes expansive, not restrictive." As with much of TEMPLO's work, the personal undercurrents are strong. The agency has long engaged with issues of climate justice, cultural restitution, and postcolonial narratives, but this year's Pavilion feels especially aligned. "Climate change and colonialism are at the heart of what we do," says Pali. "The curators' interests map perfectly onto our own values and personal stories. The Rift Valley begins in Lebanon, where Anoushka has roots, and my family came to the UK from a village in Sri Lanka that was used as a source for extraction." That emotional connection added extra weight to the Pavilion's opening, where the curators dedicated the space to colonised peoples (past and present) from Kenya to Palestine. For TEMPLO, it affirmed the value of design that moves beyond visual language into something more civic, ethical, and effective. "The British Pavilion is always about much more than architecture; it provides a platform for unheard voices and alternative perspectives," says Anoushka. "That's what drives us as an agency to continue to want to collaborate with the British Council – there's a consistent bravery to what they do." In Geology of Britannic Repair, that bravery takes shape through topography and typography, fracture and form, a quietly radical reimagining of what national representation at Venice can be. For TEMPLO, it's not about spectacle. It's about systems that move – across media, meanings, and geographies – with care, clarity, and conscience.

According to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman (paywalled), Apple has big plans to turn Siri into a true ChatGPT competitor. "A next-generation, chatbot version of Siri has reportedly made significant progress during testing over the past six months; some executives allegedly now see it as 'on par' with recent versions of ChatGPT," reports MacRumors. "Apple is also apparently discussing giving Siri the ability to access the internet to gather and synthesize data from multiple sources, just like ChatGPT." From the report: The report added that Apple now has artificial intelligence offices in Zurich, where employees are working on an all-new software architecture for Siri. This "monolithic model" is entirely built on an LLM engine that will eventually replace Siri's current "hybrid" architecture that has been incoherently layered up with different functionality over many years. The new model will make Siri more conversational and better at synthesizing information. Google's Gemini is expected to be added to iOS 19 as an alternative to ChatGPT in Siri, but Apple is also apparently in talks with Perplexity to add their AI service as another option in the future, for both Siri and Safari search. Read more of this story at Slashdot.