Latest news with #Roberts'
Hypebeast
5 days ago
- Entertainment
- Hypebeast
Luca Guadagnino's Latest Sees Julia Roberts, Ayo Edebiri, Andrew Garfield Star in Tense 'After the Hunt' Official Trailer
Summary Amazon MGM Studioshas released the official trailer forAfter the Hunt,a gripping psychological drama from acclaimed directorLuca Guadagnino(known forChallengersandCall Me By Your Name). The film, starring a formidable trio ofJulia Roberts,Ayo EdebiriandAndrew Garfield, promises a timely and provocative exploration of societal divisions, academia, and the complexities of consent. The trailer immediately draws viewers into a seemingly cozy academic world, where Julia Roberts plays a college professor, Alma Olsson, who finds herself at a critical crossroads. Her star student, Maggie Price (Ayo Edebiri), levels a serious accusation against a respected colleague and friend, Hank Gibson (Andrew Garfield). The footage reveals the escalating tension as Hank vehemently denies the allegation, claiming it's retaliation for him catching Maggie in a plagiarism incident. As the drama unfolds, Roberts' character is caught in a difficult position, forced to navigate the escalating conflict between her protégé and her peer. The film's official synopsis highlights her personal and professional dilemma, revealing that a dark secret from her own past threatens to come to light amidst the scandal. This layer of concealed history adds profound depth to the psychological thriller, suggesting that Alma's own experiences will shape her response to the present-day accusations. The trailer also teases a complex dynamic, hinting at either a strong mentorship bond or even an underlying obsession from Edebiri's character towards Roberts'. The tagline, 'Not everything is supposed to make you comfortable,' directly signals the film's intent to provoke thought and discussion around loaded themes of power, privilege, and the generational divide within elite academic circles.' Guadagnino, who has calledAfter the Huntthe 'best performance' of Roberts' career, reunites with frequent collaborators Michael Stuhlbarg and Chloë Sevigny, who are also part of the cast. The haunting score, composed by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross (known for their work onChallengers), further intensifies the film's atmosphere. Written by Nora Garrett,After the Huntis positioned as a powerful and articulate commentary on contemporary society, promising a film built to be seen and discussed collectively. The film is for a limited theatrical release in New York and Los Angeles on October 10, 2025, followed by a wider nationwide release on October 17, 2025.
Herald Sun
5 days ago
- Herald Sun
Bendigo's Greame Roberts on bail charged for meth fuelled burglaries
Don't miss out on the headlines from Bendigo. Followed categories will be added to My News. An accused Bendigo crook who police allege committed a string of burglaries while on bail for a methed-up 220km/h joyride has been given another chance — despite his 'terrible history'. Graeme Roberts, 28, made his second bid for bail at Bendigo Magistrates' Court on Thursday charged over several burglaries across central Victoria, including at a home in Marong and a BP service station in Rochester. Roberts' fingerprints had been found at a number of crime scenes, the court previously heard. He had also ratted out two associates he allegedly committed burglaries with in a bid to improve his chances of getting bail. Detective Senior Constable Andy Matthews told the court Mr Roberts had been on bail at the time of the burglaries in relation to an alleged 220km/h police chase at Bridgewater in September last year, where he allegedly narrowly missed hitting a police officer at about 90km/h. The court heard Mr Roberts was also on several counts of bail in relation to multiple alleged thefts, dishonesty and violence offences; allegedly using his own Facebook account to sell a stolen motorbike. Detective Mathews told the court police had uncovered evidence of Roberts driving in a car with his pregnant partner while high on meth and committing petrol drive offs in Bendigo about the time he was alleged to have committed the string of burglaries. The victim of the Marong burglary said she was 'very scared' that the offenders would return and that her children 'don't feel safe at home'. Police urged the court to consider the 'welfare of victims who get their houses broken into' and argued if released, Roberts would immediately get back on drugs and drive dangerously. Legal Aid barrister Karin Temperely argued Roberts should be released on CISP bail so he could undergo drug rehabilitation. Ms Temperely said Roberts' partner had just had a baby which was motivation for him to turn his life around. Magistrate Megan Aumair said the birth of his previous child had done nothing to slow him down. 'This is a very serious matter before the court. He is absolutely looking at a further term of imprisonment,' she said. 'There are a large number of outstanding matters that are very serious in nature that you were on bail for at the time of (allegedly) committing.' Ms Aumair said she had 'very little doubt' Roberts would be sentenced to jail if he was found guilty of the charges before the court. She said he had been given a number of opportunities to do community corrections orders designed to keep him out of custody – but he kept allegedly offending. 'It's time to grow up,' she said. Despite the multiple bail breaches, dangerous drug driving alleged by police, she found he was not an unacceptable risk to the community and granted his bail. She said if he breached one bail condition he would be remanded for 'months and months and months'.
Daily Mirror
6 days ago
- Entertainment
- Daily Mirror
Fans rank Julia Roberts' top 10 films with forgotten movie at number one
Julia Roberts has starred in some of the most iconic films of the past three decades, but not all of her movies are as well-loved - and Rotten Tomatoes has ranked them all Julia Roberts has graced the silver screen in unmissable roles, from Pretty Woman to her British romance with Hugh Grant in Notting Hill. Nevertheless, Rotten Tomatoes' rankings, based on viewers' sincere reviews over time, reveal the ultimate watchlist of her finest work. Fans may adore Julia's portrayal of beloved characters, but these roles don't always translate into stellar film reviews. Collated from audience and critic opinions, this rundown delivers an overall percentage for each of her flicks, with some high-ranking surprises sure to raise eyebrows. Defying expectations, The Normal Heart claims the crown as the top Julia Roberts movie. The stirring 2014 drama, also starring Mark Ruffalo, is set during the AIDS crisis in 1980s New York, securing a phenomenal 94% approval rating. One reviewer said: "The most brutally confronting portrayal of life as a gay man in the early 80s. Torn between the liberation of the sexual revolution, the medical uncertainty and the societal denial. Buckle up; this gets real, real quick." Another shocker on the list is Ben is Back, snagging 6th place with an 81% rating, vaulting above classics like Pretty Woman and My Best Friend's Wedding in the ranking shocker, reports the Express. The "heartbreaking" feature, which showcases Roberts in the poignant role of a mum tirelessly aiding her addicted son post-rehab, didn't quite rewrite the history books but left a mark on viewers' hearts. One fan was moved to comment: "Intense, gripping movie from start to finish. Really well done, with great acting by Julia Roberts and Lucas Hedges." Meanwhile, another reviewer highlighted its "scarily real" nature, noting the "power dynamic" between leads that keeps you utterly riveted. Yet, surpassing some of Roberts' quintessential films at number two is the 2017 touching family drama Wonder, where she embodies a mother's unconditional love. The film tracks a boy coping with a rare facial difference as he braves school life while his parents offer unwavering support through this significant life transition. A cinephile noted the film's "heartfelt" and "genuine" essence, praising its universal message expressed through "well-acted" performances. Curiosity piqued? Roberts' least applauded cinematic outing came with Mother's Day, the 2016 rom-com featuring Jennifer Aniston and Kate Hudson, floundering at an abysmal 8% rating. Critics blasted it as "mediocre" at best, with some unapologetically branding it "disappointing". The definitive ranking of Julia Roberts' top 10 movies, courtesy of Rotten Tomatoes reviews. Top 10 Julia Roberts films ranked by Rotten Tomatoes The Normal Heart Wonder Erin Brockovich Notting Hill Ocean's Eleven Ben Is Back Charlie Wilson's War Charlotte's Web Michael Collins
Herald Sun
01-07-2025
- Business
- Herald Sun
Andrew Robets' Roberts Co avoids liquidation with $20m deal
Don't miss out on the headlines from Business. Followed categories will be added to My News. Tycoon Andrew Roberts has struck a deal with creditors of his collapsed building empire that will see him fork out $20m. But administrators say there are still subcontractor claims yet to be resolved for the construction firm's Victorian arm, as they look to work out how to mitigate losses for stalled projects across the state. Creditors of Mr Roberts' RCAH Group – a construction company specialising in delivering complex projects across various sectors, including health, education, and commercial development – voted on Monday to accept the deal. The operations of the RCAH Group, which collapsed into administration in May, have recently been wound down and its Victorian subsidiary, Roberts Co (VIC), was placed into administration in March. The company's most notable contracts are in Victoria, including an Amazon distribution centre in Craigieburn, an office tower near Parliament Station and a residential development project in Footscray. The group also recently sold its business interests in Western Australia and separately sold Roberts Co (NSW), its New South Wales business to United Arab Emirates developer Arada in May. Creditors of Roberts Co (VIC) separately agreed at a meeting on Monday to accept a plan for the Victorian arm on Monday. The deal, which was proposed by the group's ultimate shareholders Martigues – another Roberts-controlled entity – will see an extra $17.4m be made available, in addition to $2.6m he has already paid. A spokesperson for FTI Consulting, who were appointed to the RCAH Group collapse, said the deal will also see the 'forgiveness of significant related entity loans, which will improve the outcome to creditors of the group'. They said former employees will receive all of their entitlements in full and unsecured creditors would receive up to 33c on the dollar, with smaller creditors expected to be paid in full. 'The (deal will) see the former employees and creditors of the companies secure a better outcome and provides greater certainty than had the group been placed into liquidation,' the spokesperson said. FTI Consulting administrator Vaughan Strawbridge said his firm had worked closely with the administrators of Roberts Co (VIC), McGrathNicol, to wade through 'issues in the group'. 'There is still a lot of work for McGrathNicol to undertake in resolving subcontractor claims and mitigating losses under contracts in Victoria, but this is a significant contribution to the payment of creditors that has been secured,' Mr Strawbridge said. Mr Roberts, who is the son of Multiplex founder John Roberts, called in the administrators to his company's Victorian arm in the wake of major projects blowing out in Melbourne. Roberts Co (VIC) cited project losses, including on the construction of an Amazon centre, and the withdrawal of financial support from related companies as the main contributors to its collapse.
Yahoo
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
John Roberts' Anti-Trans Opinion Isn't Just Cruel. It's Incomprehensible.
For years, Chief Justice John Roberts was widely considered a brilliant judicial craftsman whose opinions were polished and persuasive even if their conclusions were suspect. That reputation should not survive the chief's opinion in United States v. Skrmetti. His decision for the court, handed down on Wednesday, is an incoherent mess of contradiction and casuistry, a travesty of legal writing that injects immense, gratuitous confusion into the law of equal protection. It is difficult to determine the full impact of Skrmetti because it is so strangely constructed—a series of half-arguments and specious assumptions stitched together into one analytic trainwreck. The garbled result will undoubtedly set back the cause of LGBTQ+ equality and inflict grievous harm on transgender minors. But it also leaves lower courts room to continue defending trans rights, exploiting Roberts' self-defeating sophistry to carve out protections where the majority fails to foreclose them. Skrmetti is a setback—but one so confused, so poorly reasoned, that it may ultimately limit its own destructive reach. It is not hard to guess why Roberts' opinion is so muddled. The chief justice clearly had to hold together a six-justice majority that did not fully agree on its rationale for upholding Tennessee's law. Three justices—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett—wanted the court to issue a broad declaration that discrimination against transgender people is not inherently suspect under the Constitution's equal protection clause. These justices also sounded deeply skeptical that anti-trans discrimination is, itself, a form of sex discrimination that runs afoul of equal protection. Such a holding would have had sweeping implications in countless other cases involving transgender people, including challenges to laws that exclude them from bathrooms, sports, and military service. It would have required lower courts to rubber-stamp these exclusions rather than subjecting them to the heightened scrutiny they deserve under the equal protection clause. The chief justice was not (yet) willing to go that far. Neither, it seems, were Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch. For Roberts and Gorsuch, at least, this hesitation makes sense: Just five years ago, both justices ruled that transgender people are protected against employment discrimination under federal law; that decision acknowledged that it is 'impossible' to discriminate against a person for being transgender 'without discriminating against that individual based on sex.' To hold together a six-justice majority in Skrmetti, then, Roberts presumably needed to argue that Tennessee's law does not discriminate on the basis of sex or transgender status because it does not discriminate against trans people at all. This approach, however, reduced his opinion to borderline gibberish. The problem is twofold. First, Tennessee did not hide the ball in targeting transgender children on the basis of sex; the Legislature expressly stated that its goal was to make minors 'appreciate their sex' by forcing them to live in accordance with it. Second, the law restricts access to specific medical care based on the sex assigned to a patient at birth. A cisgender boy seeking to enhance his male appearance is free to receive testosterone. A transgender boy seeking to enhance his male appearance cannot. Both seek gender-affirming care; only one can access it. The lone distinction is the sex on the child's birth certificate—a quintessential example of sex discrimination. Roberts attempted to sidestep this problem by claiming that Tennessee's law only discriminates on the basis of age and 'medical use.' It applies exclusively to minors (for now), and targets only treatments for gender dysphoria. Both classifications are subject to rational basis review, the most deferential kind under the equal protection clause. And so, Roberts ruled, the court need only ask whether the health care ban is 'rationally related to a legitimate government interest.' He then declared that, under this test, it was 'not improper' for Tennessee 'to conclude that kids benefit from additional time to 'appreciate their sex' before embarking on body-altering paths.' This analysis is entirely backward. Roberts first asserts that the law does not discriminate on the basis of sex, allowing it to evade heightened scrutiny. Then, having settled upon a deferential standard of review, he dismisses the law's overt discrimination on the basis of sex as constitutionally unconcerning. These two lines of logic cannot be reconciled. Surely a regulation that instructs girls to be girls (and boys to be boys) by compelling both genders to 'appreciate' their sex classifies children based on their sex. The law is impossible to enforce without taking sex into account. And that classification should trigger heightened scrutiny at the outset. Yet Roberts ignores this sex-based classification at the outset, pretends the law is sex-neutral, then writes off its most overtly discriminatory provision by applying relaxed scrutiny. That's simply not how the law of equal protection operates. The deeper flaw, though, is Roberts' initial insistence that Tennessee's law can be transformed from a sex-based imposition of gender stereotypes to a sex-neutral regulation of medicine with judicial wordplay. He claimed that the ban restricts the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to treat a specific condition, gender dysphoria, that both genders can experience. Boys and girls alike, he wrote, can suffer from this condition, and Tennessee bars them all from accessing the treatment they seek. 'The application of that prohibition does not turn on sex,' the chief justice concluded, so the law does not merit heightened scrutiny under the equal protection clause as a form of sex discrimination. There are so many infirmities in this reasoning that it's hard to know where to start. For instance, as Ian Millhiser has noted, laws can draw lines based on multiple classifications. Tennessee's law may target age and 'medical use,' but it also zeroes in on sex, and that focus should trigger heightened scrutiny. (Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that a state's offering of ostensibly sex-neutral justifications cannot defeat lurking considerations of sex.) Perhaps the most alarming defect in Roberts' logic, though, is its revival of the discredited 'separate but equal' doctrine that SCOTUS previously used to justify Jim Crow laws. In decisions like Plessy v. Ferguson, the court upheld racial segregation on the grounds that both races were treated equally: Black kids could not go to school with white children, but white kids could not attend school with Black children, either. SCOTUS, of course, repudiated 'separate but equal' in Brown v. Board of Education. It did so again in 1967's Loving v. Virginia, which overturned Virginia's ban on interracial marriage. Virginia argued that it could ban 'miscegenation' because it limited the freedom of white and Black residents 'equally.' The Supreme Court shot down that argument, holding that any classification automatically triggered heightened scrutiny, which the state's ban could not survive. SCOTUS has also rejected 'separate but equal' in the context of sex discrimination. Yet Roberts brought it back in Skrmetti, giving states leeway to discriminate on the basis of sex as long as they pretend they are discriminating 'equally' against both genders. Is this actually the new law of sex discrimination? Is it a bespoke exception from the rule, one the chief justice used to cobble together a majority that, behind the scenes, disagreed about major aspects of the case? Or is it the majority's way of hobbling constitutional challenges to anti-trans laws without admitting that it must kneecap bedrock principles of equal protection? We will not know for sure until SCOTUS revisits the issue and tries to make some sense out of Wednesday's hash. For now, one thing is certain: To carry Skrmetti over the finish line, Roberts abandoned coherence and candor in favor of a crude exercise in outcome-oriented reasoning. His decision is not the work of a careful judicial minimalist, but of a justice willing to distort basic equal protection doctrine to upend the lives of transgender children without offering a good reason why. It's hard to imagine that this opinion will survive contact with progressive lower courts eager to take advantage of its many gaps and loopholes. Skrmetti's brittle logic may be just enough for red states desperate for permission to persecute transgender children. But its evasions, misdirections, and sheer intellectual dishonesty are unlikely to stand the test of time.
