logo
#

Latest news with #1960s

Iconic ‘60s Singer and Satirist Dies at 97
Iconic ‘60s Singer and Satirist Dies at 97

Yahoo

time3 days ago

  • Entertainment
  • Yahoo

Iconic ‘60s Singer and Satirist Dies at 97

Iconic '60s Singer and Satirist Dies at 97 originally appeared on Parade. The year is 1967. The black-and-white TV screen reveals an impeccably dressed, bespectacled academic in his late 30s. His fingers fly over the ivory keys of a baby grand piano. The first words out of his mouth are 'when you attend a funeral.' What follows is a familiar narrative about loss making you think of your own relatives weeping for you at your funeral, sung with appropriate pomp and circumstance. Then… something shifts. 'Don't you worry,' the singer knowingly smiles at his audience. 'For if the bomb that drops on you/ gets your friends and neighbors too,/ there'll be nobody left behind to grieve.' The song, 'We Will All Go Together When We Go,' picks up as he merrily continues to sing of the likelihood of impending nuclear destruction. The audience is unabashed with their delight, for the man on the screen is not your average run-of-the-mill entertainer. He is, instead, the legendary satirist Tom Lehrer, 97, who passed away in his home in Cambridge, Massachusetts on Saturday, according to Variety. Born in Manhattan in 1928 to a Jewish family, math prodigy Lehrer started his higher education at Harvard when he was 15. Known for his razor-sharp wit and darkly funny, politically savvy songs, the Harvard-educated mathematics professor had a surprising entry into entertainment, and an even more unexpectedly short tenure there. In a 1997 interview with Elijah Wald, Lehrer described what led him to write satirical songs in the first place. He had no yearn for fame or even any real love of performance, despite his natural stage presence. Instead, 'I would listen to the radio and think, 'I can write a song as good as that,' and the problem is, they already have people who can write songs 'as good as that' so what do they need one more for? What is necessary is somebody that can write something different.'' Lehrer was certainly different from anyone who came before him, and his unique blend of musical wit would inspire generations of entertainers to come. In the wake of his death, his fans – including the famous ones – flocked to social media to pay their respects. 'My last living musical hero is still my hero but unfortunately no longer living,' Alfred 'Weird Al' Yankovic, 65, posted to Instagram. 'RIP to the great, great Mr. Tom Lehrer.' Fans filled the comments section with 'RIP's and condolences aplenty. 'I'll miss him forever,' wrote one distraught fan. In the early '50s, Lehrer self-released a few albums while still a professor by trade, with teaching posts including Harvard, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the University of California, according to The BBC. 'I don't like people to get the idea that I have to do this for a living,' Lehrer deadpanned to one live audience in discussing his academic roots. 'I could be making, oh, $3,000 a year just teaching.' After the release of his first album, 'the word spread like herpes,' Lehrer quipped to Wald, describing how his self-released record went old school viral, selling a shocking 10,000 copies according to Variety. Before long Lehrer was performing in nightclubs, concert halls, and recording live concerts for television, his next record rising to number 18 on the American charts. In his songs, Lehrer explored socially taboo subjects with his signature light tunes and unabashedly frank lyrics. Along with exploring nuclear conflicts in the aforementioned 'We Will All Go Together When We Go,' Lehrer took on sexuality in 'The Masochism Tango' and 'Smut,' racism in 'National Brotherhood Week,' and addiction in 'The Old Dope Peddler.' He also made time for some lighter subjects, like mocking classic spring ballads in his own ode to the season, 'Poisoning Pigeons in the Park.' He was in the height of his career in the '60s and '70s when, abruptly, Lehrer left the entertainment industry, eschewing fame in favor of a quiet life as a math teacher one quarter of the year, and a 'cheerful layabout' for the rest of the time. "I learned 25 years ago that you didn't have to shovel snow,'' he told Wald in the 1997 interview. "You didn't even have to see snow, and that was a great revelation to me.'' After his retreat from the public eye, Lehrer's popular satire returned to the press in 1980 when they were put together in the musical revue 'Tomfoolery.' Now, despite his passing, Lehrer's songs and his signature wit will live on forever, if the overflowing comments section of Weird Al's Instagram post is any indication. One fan perfectly mimicked Lehrer's signature sense of humor with a reference to his song 'Poisoning Pigeons in the Park' in the comment, 'The pigeons are safe, BUT AT WHAT COST.' Another fan commented with a reference to Lehrer's aforementioned song about bereavement, 'We Will All Go Together When We Go.' 'I thought we'd all go together,' the fan wrote along with a crying emoji. Iconic '60s Singer and Satirist Dies at 97 first appeared on Parade on Jul 28, 2025 This story was originally reported by Parade on Jul 28, 2025, where it first appeared. Solve the daily Crossword

Second novel by Garston author is a love letter to Watford's past
Second novel by Garston author is a love letter to Watford's past

Yahoo

time4 days ago

  • Entertainment
  • Yahoo

Second novel by Garston author is a love letter to Watford's past

A novelist has released his much-anticipated second book, a heartfelt tale that captures the spirit of a bygone era. Soul Objective, by Garston writer Steve Johnson, is a coming-of-age drama set in late 1960s and early 1970s Watford. Steve's latest novel 'Soul Objective' is available in paperback and e-book. (Image: Steve Johnson) The story follows Joe Holland, a young man whose life takes an unexpected turn after a revelation on his 21st birthday. Steve said: "Change is so gradual that you barely even notice it, until one day you get to thinking about the places you frequented in your youth and realise that they are all gone. "For Watfordians of a certain vintage I hope this book will transport them back to a bygone time that no longer exists. But it did once. "I don't believe in living in the past but it's a nice place to visit. "When deciding where to locate my story it occurred to me that I'd never read, or even heard of, a novel based in Watford. "So, I decided to remedy that. It was a good place to grow up, and it probably still is." Soul Objective follows Joe as he travels from quiet south-west Hertfordshire to the streets of New York in search of answers. The novel references Watford landmarks like Top Rank, The New Penny, and The Coachmakers Arms. Read more Warner Bros. spotted filming in central Watford Save on puzzles this summer with Wentworth Puzzles More Harry Potter sets under construction as Leavesden filming ramps up Steve's debut novel, The Hidden Road Home, is a Second World War story set in St Albans, Harpenden, and RAF Northolt. He lives in Garston with his son Robert and their rescue dog, Purdy. Both books are available on Amazon in paperback and e-book format.

ALEXANDRA SHULMAN'S NOTEBOOK: Why women are losing out in the arms race
ALEXANDRA SHULMAN'S NOTEBOOK: Why women are losing out in the arms race

Daily Mail​

time4 days ago

  • Lifestyle
  • Daily Mail​

ALEXANDRA SHULMAN'S NOTEBOOK: Why women are losing out in the arms race

While women storm ahead in so many areas of life, they seem to have regressed when it comes to their arms. It's now high summer and I've lost count of the number of times a woman has said she can't wear some item or other because it will expose her arms. As if the sight would induce terror in whoever saw them. Bare arms are one of the nicest things about summer clothes. There's something liberating about the feel of the sun and air on your skin and many of the prettiest dresses and tops are sleeveless. But queasiness around baring our arms prevents many women from wearing them. It's crazy. Personally, although I don't go in for a rigorous workout regime, I've always liked to go sleeveless. And though the years haven't improved the condition of my skin, I'm determined to carry on in spite of the social pressure to cover up unless you have the 'perfect' body. The same goes for wearing a bikini. Looking back at photographs from the 1940s, 50s and 60s, women of all ages appeared far less squeamish about exposing their arms – sleeveless summer frocks and evening wear were worn by everyone. They had no ambition to show off triceps and biceps as hard as tennis balls. They were fortunate that the notion of spending hours lifting weights to sculpt your pectorals had not yet become the norm. But now even women who are perfectly sensible in almost every other way are ludicrously unconfident about their arms. OK, it's hard to name a part of the body most women are confident about. But we're talking about an obsession here. Forget about getting a PhD or becoming a High Court judge – toned arms have become today's trophy status symbol. Last week, The Times's fashion writer Anna Murphy suggested this could be 'a subconscious desire on the part of the modern woman to ape the physicality of her male counterpart, the better to compete in what is still, for the moment, a man's world'. Hmm, I don't think so. There's a lot to tear apart in that sentence, but I will confine myself to disputing the idea that any woman wants her arms to look like a man's. No, unfortunately it seems to be yet another example of women fretting about their bodies and judging those of others. Wobbly or not, our arms have done a lot of heavy lifting for all of us. We're jolly lucky to have them and we should stop giving them such a hard time. ...and knees have a tough time, too It's a myth that the late Queen had no interest in fashion. She may not have rushed into the latest trends but she had strong opinions on what she wore. A new exhibition at Buckingham Palace featuring more than 200 pieces from her wardrobe has just been announced for next spring. Hopefully, it will include some information on what she thought about them, too. Daisy Goodwin has a very entertaining play, By Royal Appointment, which explores the late Queen Elizabeth's relationship with the people who worked on her wardrobe. The thinly disguised characters are based on her favoured designer Sir Hardy Amies, milliner Freddie Fox and long-standing dresser Angela Kelly. The competition for the Queen's attention is funny and moving. In one scene, the Australian milliner character enthuses about the idea of shorter hems for the monarch. 'You have lovely knees, Ma'am,' he gushes inappropriately. 'We don't want to hide them away.' I'm not sure the real Sir Hardy would have been nodding away in agreement. He once told me that he regarded knees as by far the ugliest part of a woman's anatomy. Hot off the press... a £45k ironing job Should anyone think that the position of laundress or lady's maid belonged to the far distant past, the London domestic agency Greycoat Lumleys is advertising for someone to take care of wardrobe management in a private household with expertise in hand-washing delicate items, ironing and alterations. The salary is between £40,000 and £45,000 – somewhat more, I suspect, than a laundress used to make. Can Wes cure the NHS of its ills? Last weekend, I spent eight hours in the A&E of a London hospital with a family member who was suffering acute abdominal pain. Thankfully, the doctor's strike had not yet begun – although perhaps it would have spared us seeing four different doctors before finally being admitted. I'm a great fan of the NHS but its processes are baffling. Each doctor's questions started from scratch: 'What's your date of birth? When did the pain start? Can you tell me a bit about what's going on.' This to a woman in such pain she was vomiting. Even in the fourth interview, after several doses of morphine, the questions remained the same. It's insane that at every stage of this drawn-out process a new doctor appears with practically no knowledge of anything that has happened previously. There appeared to be no shared information they could access. When Wes Streeting speaks of plans to digitalise the NHS, I hope they will do something about the A&E admissions process. It can't come soon enough. Meantime, emails from the NHS about my own health regularly alert me to the date of appointments that have already taken place. Hosting? It's only a plate of antipasti Perhaps it's a long career as a magazine editor but I have a list of words I would like banned. 'Iconic' when referring to a handbag, 'hottest' when describing a restaurant and 'invite' instead of invitation are long-standing peeves. But my new pet hate is 'hosting'. As in 'we are hosting tonight', when all you mean is a couple of people are coming over for supper. I know this makes me an old person, since it's my Gen Z acquaintances who use the term, but to my ancient mind it sounds as pretentious as the elaborately 'curated' (there's another word) antipasti the meal will no doubt include.

‘Fantastic Four: First Steps' Review — Nothing Fantastic About This Dull MCU Snoozefest
‘Fantastic Four: First Steps' Review — Nothing Fantastic About This Dull MCU Snoozefest

Forbes

time5 days ago

  • Entertainment
  • Forbes

‘Fantastic Four: First Steps' Review — Nothing Fantastic About This Dull MCU Snoozefest

Fantastic Four: First Steps So many pieces worked really well in Marvel's latest MCU film that it's almost a shame to give this one a thumbs' down, but here we are. The script, dearest readers. The script is to blame, as is so often the case. In Fantastic Four: First Steps, things happen and then other things happen and then there is a conflict that is quickly resolved with little to no ingenuity or effort on the part of the good guys and they win and the bad guys lose. The end. There is no real tension in this movie, either between the core characters or between our heroes and villains. Like Superman, which came out earlier this month and which had a similar vibe and plot structure, our heroes are beloved by the masses until they aren't and then, in the end, are beloved once again. Public opinion has an on/off switch that it abuses only slightly less than Superman. Spoilers follow, though I bet you could easily guess the plot of this movie just by watching the trailers. All Style, No Substance The best thing about First Steps is the aesthetic. It's far and away my favorite part of this film, and that's a problem because as much as I do enjoy a solid retrofuturistic aesthetic, it's not enough to make a mediocre movie worth watching. This is all style over substance. The film does a really good job at establishing Earth 828. It's the 1960s but everything is very Jetsons. That midcentury modern veneer makes everything pop. It's very pleasant. I want to live there with the red, rounded cabinets and the funky fridge and the weird science that's somehow managed flying cars before flat screen TVs. I dig it. It's very groovy. We're introduced to our heroes four years after their big space trip that resulted in super powers thanks to genetic modification. Like Superman (again) we don't get an origin story. Just some exposition to help us get into the story quickly. Like Superman, we quickly move past all the humdrum of daily life and into a conflict where the very world and survival of the human race is at stake. Like Superman, this drains the movie of all tension. End Of The World Conflicts Kill Suspense I am going to keep shouting this at Hollywood over and over again: If every superhero movie involves saving the world, pretty soon audiences tune out because it becomes so very, very obvious that the good guys will win and the world will be saved. The one time this didn't happen was Infinity War and that was awesome, but 99 times out of 100 making the stakes this high only has the opposite effect. Instead, superhero movies need smaller, more intimated stakes that present heroes with real tough choices. Think Logan, The Dark Knight, Superman: The Movie etc. In any case, we learn that Galactus is coming. The end is nigh. Of course, since this is the multiverse and a different version of Earth, we think maybe it will. But even if it does, the main version of Earth will be okay and since we saw the Fantastic Four showing up there in the post-credits scene of Thunderbolts, we know that whether or not Earth 828 survives, our heroes will. The Fantastic Four So Reed Richards /Mr. Fantastic (Pedro Pascal), his pregnant wife Sue Storm / Invisible Woman (Vanessa Kirby), Johnny Storm / Human Torch (Joseph Quinn) and Ben Grimm / Thing (Ebon Moss-Bachrach) learn that Galactus is coming via the Herald / Silver Surfer / Shalla-Bal (Julia Garner) who comes to warn the people of Earth that their days are numbered and they should spend those days wisely. Galactus, you see, is a powerful celestial being who devours entire worlds as he wanders across the stars. He's one of the most powerful entities in the entire Marvel universe. It's going to be pretty tough for our heroes to stop such a powerful being from killing everyone and literally eating the planet . . . . No, actually, it's going to be super easy. Barely an inconvenience. Our heroes track down Galactus and we get some fun space sequences involving them trying to escape after he reveals that their baby is actually super powerful. He says he'll make a trade for the survival of Earth if they just hand the infant over. They say no and Silver Surfer chases them, but they Interstellar her directly into a black hole and then Back To The Future their ship back to Earth. All of this is fun. There are so many fun moments throughout this film. They just never congeal into something special. They get back and rather bizarrely tell the people of Earth about the trade Galactus offered them. Shockingly(!!) the billions of people about to die think this is kind of a selfish call on the Fantastic Four's part and their popularity dips in the polls. It's going to be pretty tough to get the people back on their side, right? No, actually, it's going to be super easy. Barely an inconvenience. Sue just gives a few hundred people in NYC a little speech about family and then everything's okay. Sue's real power is oratory. Or Earth 828's population is a bunch of suckers. In any case, Reed, who has learned how to teleport an egg, comes up with a plan to teleport the entire planet and everyone on it to a totally different star system. All they need to do is get the whole world to chip in and build a few hundred teleportation stations across the globe and then, before Galactus arrives, using all the power sources in the whole world at once, teleport everyone and everything to a random star system they've never been to. See, super easy! What could go wrong? This is an awesome plan that absolutely won't inadvertently kill everyone. Thankfully, Silver Surfer shows up and knocks out a bunch of the teleporters, probably saving the lives of everyone on Earth 828 in the process. Reed comes up with a new plan using the last teleporter: They'll just trick Galactus, the powerful godlike supervillain they just met, into standing inside one of their teleporters that just happens to be the perfect size for Galactus (who is only a little bigger than a full-sized Ant-Man in this movie) and then they'll teleport him to that far-off star system instead of the entire planet. This is, admittedly, a better plan though successfully carrying it out makes Galactus seem like a pretty lame supervillain. Fortunately, Galactus isn't fooled into standing in the teleporter (which he could have easily just stepped right out of since there'a a 45-second countdown timer before it actually works). Instead, Sue goes all Mama Bear and uses her powers to knock him into the teleporter and then Silver Surfer has a change of heart and knocks him back in when Galactus tries to get out. He basically just stomps around NYC for a minute, knocks down a few buildings, grabs the baby and then gets beat up by a handful of moderately powerful superheroes. It's deeply annoying. A Galactus-Sized Villain Problem The MCU spent so many years and so many films building up to Thanos. They made him this overarching threat for multiple phases of the MUC. They sprinkled in the Infinity Stones. They built and planned and prepared until finally Thanos came roaring onto the scene in Infinity War . . . and won. Our heroes lost. After all this time, they lost and had to come back and try again in Endgame. Galactus is more powerful than Thanos and gets one movie to show up and get his butt kicked by the Fantastic Four because Sue Storm gets protective of her baby. It's such a waste of a supervillain's potential. Marvel clearly knows how to set up amazing villains (and maybe they'll do that with Dr Doom, though I'm deeply concerned at this point) but this was not it. Even if Galactus returns in a future MCU film, he was so poorly used here that I'm not sure anyone will care. Fans will eat it up, I'm sure. The Fantastic Four did stuff together! There were callbacks and Easter Eggs! Pedro is so handsome! Vanessa Kirby is Sue Storm, heart emoji heart emoji heart emoji. It's so comic book, I love how this and Superman are so comic book, just comic booking at me in every frame, wow, just wow! (A comic book movie being 'so comic book' is the latest thing fans say that's just vague enough to be meaningless but can magically let a film off the hook for its lousy script). I didn't hate it, mind you. The pacing was decent. It moved along at a nice clip but gave you lots of character moments along the way. And it didn't beat you over the head with its humor. There's a genuinely funny moment at the end of the movie where the men all try to put a fancy car seat into the car and it's this whole gimmick and quite funny. Mole Man / Harvey Elder has some scenes played by the always entertaining Paul Walter Hauser. Lots of little moments that are fun or funny or cool or heartfelt, some decent action scenes, and yet the movie just felt empty in the end. I felt nothing. Stuff happened to characters that I didn't really care about. Besides, I knew they'd all be fine and they were. The world was fine. Everything was fine but I felt no sense of relief over this. Galactus could have eaten Earth 828 and the Fantastic Four and their little baby, too, and at least I would have felt surprise. The cast was fine, but they didn't really connect like a family. The chemistry wasn't really there. Only Thing felt really true to the character here. Fantastic Four I always ask myself these questions after I see a film these days. First, would I watch it again? Second, would I recommend others go see it in theaters or, if not, when it comes to streaming? The answer to the first question is 'no.' I have no reason or desire to watch First Steps again. It's not funny enough or exciting enough or unique enough or well-written enough to watch more than once. I would also not recommend you see this in theaters, simply because even while it looks good, there is very little that warrants a trip to the big screen. Definitely give it a watch when it lands on Disney+ because it's an okay superhero movie with a cool aesthetic and decent performances from its leads. But you're not missing anything by waiting a couple months. Fantastic Four: First Steps may be one of the best MCU films we've seen over the past few years, but this says more about the low bar Marvel and Disney have set than it does about the quality of this movie. It's possible I'm suffering from superhero fatigue, but I'd like to offer an alternative diagnosis: I'm suffering from superhero formula fatigue. These movies aren't doing enough to surprise and delight us anymore. They're falling back on cheap tricks. Read my review of Superman right here. James Gunn's film and Fantastic Four: First Steps have a very similar vibe, all feel-good 'let's come together to stop the bad guys' stuff but in the most generic, puerile way possible. It makes whatever our superheroes do feel much less super when the public just sort of echoes whatever the writers want them to about our heroes. Both films are also deeply formulaic and dull. Things happen, our heroes react, a potentially world-ending crisis is easily averted and everything is wrapped up in time for dinner. There is no friction, no tension between characters beyond brief, surface level disagreements. There are no consequences for our heroes' actions. And because there are no consequences, we never get heroes with any real agency. Where are the hard choices or sacrifices they're required to make? Where are the mistakes made that lead to worse outcomes or hard bargains? Things just happen. That's it. That's the script. Things happen, the end. Just enough jokey bits are tossed, like scraps from the dinner table, to distract us from the lousy script, the disappointing villains and the lackluster heroics. But hey, whatever. It's just a comic book movie!

Fantastic Four focuses on fun
Fantastic Four focuses on fun

CBC

time5 days ago

  • Entertainment
  • CBC

Fantastic Four focuses on fun

Social Sharing The Fantastic Four: First Steps comes out in theatres today. The reboot of Marvel's superhero group takes place in a futuristic 1960s America, giving it a nostalgic aesthetic that roots itself in the original vision of the comic books. Today on Commotion, guest host Eli Glasner speaks with NPR's TV critic Eric Deggans, entertainment reporter Teri Hart and Mashable entertainment editor Kristy Puchko about their thoughts on The Fantastic Four and if it can reverse Marvel's recent slump at the box office. We've included some highlights below, edited for length and clarity. For the full discussion on remembering both The Cosby Show's Malcolm-Jamal Warner and wrestling icon Hulk Hogan, listen and follow Commotion with Elamin Abdelmahmoud on your favourite podcast player. WATCH | Today's episode on YouTube: Eli: Teri, what's the vision behind this new take on the Fantastic Four? Teri: What people are seeing in this very, very significant media buy that Disney has put behind this movie is a restart for the MCU [Marvel Cinematic Universe]. It's like, we are done with the Avengers, we are done with those old characters and we are in a new universe for the MCU — and that universe is the Fantastic Four. It's a really fun movie to watch. I quite liked the movie…. What's nice about this movie is it doesn't wind around itself 16 times, the way so many MCU movies do. It's like, they [the Fantastic Four] went to space, something happened, they have superpowers, let's move on — and then we get going. All the exposition that we were getting into and all of the explainers and all of the different lore in the MCU was tiresome, let's be clear. And this does not have that. So it's fun and it's a summer blockbuster and it's squarely in that territory, and I think it delivers. Eli: This is just the latest of The Fantastic Four movies. There was the 2005 version with Chris Evans and Jessica Alba, the 2015 version with Michael B. Jordan and Miles Teller. Eric, talk to us about The Fantastic Four as just a story and a Marvel entity and what makes it — up until now, perhaps — so hard to adapt. Eric: The Fantastic Four were the building blocks for Marvel. They were the first set of heroes to come along to present Marvel's vision of: these are heroes that operate in a reality. They're not in a metropolis or some made-up city, they're in Manhattan. They operate out of a skyscraper in the middle of New York City. They deal with real landmarks and real people. And they were a family with real tensions. And I think one of the things that was hard about adapting this though, is that so much of it was very cosmic, and so many of their villains were really exaggerated. Galactus is a perfect example: a world-eating giant from outside our solar system. I think a lot of The Fantastic Four movies, where they fell down, were figuring out who the villain could be. It wasn't Galactus in many of them. And if that villain is not Galactus, you've already lost fans of the Fantastic Four because they want to see that classic match-up that defined the Fantastic Four. So it was great that they tackled portraying Galactus the way he is in the comic books [as the villain]. Eli: Let's talk about aesthetic, Kristy. I would describe The Fantastic Four as Norman Rockwell meets The Jetsons: this wonderful vision of the future, by way of the 1960s. So it has a look. It has very interesting aesthetic choices. Do you think that was crucial to the story? Kristy: I do. Here's the thing: I think that we got into kind of a rut where superhero movies became such a formula because it was working for DC [DC Comics] and MCU for a while that they're like, "These are how these movies look." And the genre might change up a little bit, but they had the consistent look. I think by being like, "We're doing a different look," it says, "We're doing something new, let's reset." I've seen all the other Fantastic Four movies and I will be honest, I don't remember a lot about them. And I think that's in part because it's hard in this superhero genre that we have developed as an industry, as a society, to make sense of four people that are like, "We wear matching spandex, we're called the Fantastic Four." We haven't allowed for that in any kind of real way. So they have to embrace the kitschiness of it. And putting it in the '60s, it gives it that Incredibles vibe, where we are allowed to have an idealistic nostalgia of an aesthetic instead of dealing with the reality of the '60s — and notably their 1960s looks very different than our 1960s in a political structure. But aesthetically? Gorgeous, love it. It really does allow us an escapism that I think Marvel got stuck in with all these gritty, "And now here's Yelena [Black Widow], but she's sad." It allows us to be like, "Hey guys, remember when things were just fun and super?"

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store