The dark granite block in a children’s cemetery in Bristol tells an incomplete story: “Trelissa Whitbread, born 3rd of Feb 1988. She lived 2 hours.”The Latest News from the UK and Around the World | Sky News
Month: July 2025
For the second consecutive year, student reading scores in Alaska have risen, a trend state officials attribute to the success of the Alaska Reads Act.
According to new data from the Department of Education and Early Development, the percentage of students reading at or above average increased from 41% at the beginning of the 2023–2024 school year to 57% by year’s end.
In the 2024–2025 school year, that percentage rose again, starting at 44% and climbing to 60% by the end of the year, an increase which outpaces the national average for growth.
“This is promising evidence for our Alaskan students and their teachers as all the hard work and focus they have put in is coming to fruition,” said Education Commissioner Deena Bishop. “This achievement shows that the Alaska Reads Act was the right policy direction for our state, and more importantly, for our youngest learners. Congratulations!”
The Alaska Reads Act was signed into law in 2022 by Governor Mike Dunleavy with the goal of ensuring all students can read at grade level by the end of third grade. The legislation focuses on evidence-based instruction, early intervention, and high teaching standards.
“These results show why it’s critical to tie clear goals and strong commitments to education policy,” said Governor Dunleavy. “The Alaska Reads Act proves that coupling funding with real reform works. We made the right decision, and students across Alaska are seeing the benefits.”
However, despite those gains, the governor has made deep cuts to education funding in the newly signed state budget.
Dunleavy vetoed more than $122 million from Alaska’s annual budget, including over $50 million from the state’s per-student education funding formula and tens of millions meant for major school maintenance projects. It marks the first time in state history that a governor has failed to fully fund the education formula.
While the rise in student reading scores is being celebrated, many educators and lawmakers warn that continued progress may be at risk without sustained investment.
The governor will hold a special legislative session on August 2, with one of the topics being education reform.
By: Yereth Rosen, Alaska Beacon
People who might have been exposed to radiation from atomic weapons tests conducted in the Aleutians half a century ago have extra time to apply for compensation from a federal program, under the sweeping tax and budget bill passed by Congress and signed into law last week.
The bill, which was signed by President Donald Trump on July 4, includes a provision reviving the Radiation Compensation Exposure Act, which was enacted in 1990.
The act’s compensation system distributed one-time payments to people who were exposed to radiation from the weapons tests and who later were diagnosed with certain types of cancer. The program has distributed about $2.7 billion to date, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
While most of the tests covered by the act were conducted in Nevada, the program also covers health damages from underground weapons tests conducted on Alaska’s Amchitka Island in 1965, 1969 and 1971.
The program covers former uranium mine workers, as well, many of whom were Navajo Nation members.
The compensation program had been on track to expire, with a previous deadline of June 10, 2024, for any new claims.
The budget bill extends the deadline for new claims to Dec. 31, 2027, and it sets a Dec. 31, 2028, sunset date for the trust fund that administers the claims.
The bill also raises compensation amounts. For “downwinders,” people who were not on site at the time of the tests but may have been exposed to radiation carried by the wind, the compensation is hiked from $50,000 to $100,000. For on-site workers, the compensation is raised from $75,000 to $100,000.
Of the Alaska weapons tests, the third — called Cannikin — was the most controversial.
It was the biggest underground nuclear test ever conducted by the United States. The tested bomb was 5 megatons, about 250 times as powerful as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, in 1945. There was widespread opposition to the project, including from environmentalists who later founded the organization Greenpeace.
Legal opposition to the test went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ultimately allowed the project to proceed.
The test created what was the equivalent of a magnitude 7 earthquake, killing up to 2,000 sea otters and thousands of fish.
The island continues to undergo environmental monitoring, for which the U.S. Department of Energy is responsible. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association, a tribal organization, are partners.
The Trump administration has recently directed that a new wave of polygraphs be administered across the executive branch, aimed at uncovering leaks to the press.
As someone who has taken roughly a dozen polygraphs during my 27-year career with the CIA, I read this development with some skepticism.
Polygraphs carry an ominous, almost mythological reputation among Americans. The more familiar and unofficial term – lie detector tests – likely fuels that perception. Television crime dramas have done their part, too, often portraying the device as an oracle for uncovering the truth when conventional methods fail.
In those portrayals, the polygraph is not merely a tool – it’s a window into the soul.
Among those entering government service, especially in national security, the greater anxiety is not the background check but passing the polygraph. My advice is always the same: Don’t lie.
It’s the best – and perhaps only – guidance for a process that most assessments have concluded is a more subjective interpretation than empirical science.
Why the polygraph persists
Polygraphs are “pseudo-scientific” in that they measure physiological responses such as heart rate, blood pressure and perspiration. The assumption is that liars betray themselves through spikes in those signals. But this presumes a kind of psychological transparency that simply doesn’t hold up. A person might sweat and tremble simply from fear, anger or frustration – not deceit.
There also are no specific physiological reactions associated with lying. The National Academy of Sciences in 2003, and the American Psychological Association in a 2004 review, concluded that the polygraph rests more on theater than fact. Recent assessments, published in 2019, have reached the same conclusion.
Accordingly, polygraph results are not generally admissible in U.S. courts. Only a handful of states – such as Georgia, Arizona and California – permit their use even under limited conditions. And they typically require that both parties agree to admission and a judge to approve it. Unconditional admissibility remains the exception, not the rule.
And yet, inside many national security agencies, polygraphs remain central to the clearance process – a fact I observed firsthand during my time overseeing personnel vetting and analytic hiring within the intelligence community.
While not treated as conclusive, polygraph results often serve as a filter. A candidate’s visible discomfort – or the examiner’s subjective judgment that a response seems evasive – can stall or end the hiring process. For instance, I know that government agencies have halted clearances after an examiner flagged elevated reactions to questions about past drug use or foreign contacts, even when no disqualifying behavior was ultimately documented.
AP Photo/Cliff Owen
In some cases, an examiner’s suggestion that a chart shows an anomaly has led otherwise strong applicants to volunteer details they hadn’t planned to share – such as minor security infractions, undeclared relationships, or casual drug use from decades earlier – that, while not disqualifying on their own, reshape how their trustworthiness is perceived.
The polygraph’s power lies in creating the conditions under which deception is confessed.
A predictable pattern
No administration has been immune to the impulse to investigate leaks. The reflex is bipartisan and familiar: An embarrassing disclosure appears in the press – contradicting official statements or exposing internal dissent – and the White House vows to identify and punish the source. Polygraphs are often part of this ritual.
During his first term, Trump intensified efforts to expose internal dissent and media leaks. Department guidelines were revised to make it easier for agencies to obtain journalists’ phone and email records, and polygraphs were reportedly used to pressure officials suspected of talking to the press. That trend has continued – and, in some areas, escalated.
Recent policies at the Pentagon now restrict unescorted press access, revoke office space for major outlets and favor ideologically aligned networks. The line between legitimate leak prevention and the surveillance or sidelining of critical press coverage has grown increasingly blurred.
At agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, polygraphs are reportedly being used more frequently – and more punitively – to identify internal dissenters. Even “cold cases,” such as the leak of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs opinion ahead of its overturning of Roe v. Wade, have been reopened, despite prior investigations yielding no definitive source.
Government reaction varies
Not all leaks are treated the same. Disclosures that align with official narratives or offer strategic advantage may be quietly tolerated, even if unauthorized. Others, especially those that embarrass senior officials or reveal dysfunction, are more likely to prompt formal investigation.
In 2003, for example, the leak of CIA officer Valerie Plame’s identity – widely seen as retaliation for her husband’s criticism of the Iraq War – triggered a federal investigation. The disclosure embarrassed senior officials, led to White House aide Scooter Libby’s conviction for perjury, later commuted, and drew intense political scrutiny.
Win McNamee/Getty Images
Leaks involving classified material draw the sharpest response when they challenge presidential authority or expose internal disputes. That was the case in 2010 with Chelsea Manning, whose disclosure of diplomatic cables and battlefield reports embarrassed senior officials and sparked global backlash. Government reaction often depends less on what was disclosed than on who disclosed it – and to what effect.
A narrow set of disclosures, such as those involving espionage or operational compromise, elicit broad consensus as grounds for prosecution. But most leaks fall outside that category. Most investigations fade quietly. The public rarely learns what became of them. Occasionally, there is a vague resignation, but direct accountability is rare.
What the future holds
Trump’s polygraph campaign is not likely to eliminate leaks to the press. But they may have a chilling effect that discourages internal candor while diverting investigative energy away from core security priorities.
Even if such campaigns succeed in reducing unauthorized disclosures, they may come at the cost of institutional resilience. Historically, aggressive internal enforcement has been associated with declining morale and reduced information flow – factors that can hinder adaptation to complex threats.
Some researchers have suggested that artificial intelligence may eventually offer reliable tools for detecting deception. One recent assessment raised the possibility, while cautioning that the technology is nowhere near operational readiness.
For now, institutions will have to contend with the tools they have – imperfect, imprecise and more performative than predictive.
As a former US intelligence officer, I am required to submit any written draft, before sharing it with other persons, for prepublication review. I submitted this draft to CIA’s Prepublication Review Board, which responded on 11 June: “No classified information was identified. Therefore, no changes are required for publication or sharing with others.”
Politics + Society – The Conversation
In June 2021, a deadly heat wave pushed temperatures to 109 degrees Fahrenheit (43 Celsius) in Spokane, Washington, a northern city near the Idaho border where many homes weren’t built with central air conditioning.
As the heat lingered for over a week, 19 people died in Spokane County and about 300 visited hospitals with signs of heat-related illnesses.
Scientists say it’s not a matter of if, but when, another deadly heat wave descends on the region. To help save lives, the city teamed up with my university, Gonzaga, to start preparing for a hotter future.
‘In the Hot Seat’ report, 2022
We were excited and relieved when the community was awarded a US$19.9 million grant from the Environmental Protection Agency to help it take concrete steps to adapt to climate change and boost the local economy in the process. The grant would help establish resilience hubs with microgrids and help residents without air conditioning install energy-efficient cooling systems. The city doesn’t have the means to make these improvements on its own, even if they would save lives and money in the long run.
Less than a year later, the Trump administration abruptly terminated the funding.
Spokane’s grant wasn’t the only one eliminated – about 350 similar grants that had been awarded to help communities across the country manage climate changes, from extreme heat and wildfire smoke to rising seas and flooding, were also terminated on the grounds that they don’t meet the White House’s priorities. Many other grants to help communities have also been terminated.
Many of the communities that lost funding are like Spokane: They can’t afford to do this kind of work on their own.
Why cities like Spokane need the help
Like many communities in the American West, Spokane was founded in the late 19th century on wealth from railroads and resource extraction, especially gold, silver and timber.
Today, it is a city of 230,000 in a metro area of a half-million people, the largest on the I-90 corridor between Minneapolis and Seattle. In many ways, Spokane could be on the cusp of a renaissance.
In January 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced a $48 million grant to develop a tech hub that could put the Inland Northwest on a path to become a global leader in advanced aerospace materials. But then, in May, the Trump administration rescinded that grant as well.
The lost grants left the economy – and Spokane’s ability to adapt fast enough to keep up with climate changes – uncertain.
Roman Eugeniusz/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA
This is not a wealthy area. The median household income is nearly $30,000 less than the state average. More than 13 out of every 100 people in Spokane live in poverty, above the national average, and over 67% of the children are eligible for free or reduced lunch.
The city is a light blue island in a dark red sea, politically speaking, with a moderate mayor. Its congressional district has voted Republican by wide margins since 1995, the year that then-House Speaker Tom Foley lost his reelection bid.
Lessons from the 2021 heat dome
The 2021 heat wave was a catalyzing event for the community. The newly formed Gonzaga Institute for Climate, Water and the Environment brought together a coalition of government and community partners to apply for the EPA’s Environmental and Climate Justice Community Change Grant Program. The grants, funded by Congress under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, were intended to help communities most affected by pollution and climate change build adaptive capacity and boost the safety of their residents.
A key lesson from the 2021 heat dome was that temporary, or pop-up, cooling centers don’t work well. People just weren’t showing up. Our research found that the best approach is to strengthen existing community facilities that people already turn to in moments of difficulty.
Half the $19.9 million award was for outfitting five resilience hubs in existing libraries and community centers with solar arrays and battery backup microgrids, allowing them to continue providing a safe, cool space during a heat wave if the power shuts down.
Gonzaga Institute for Climate, Water and the Environment
Another $8 million in grant funding was meant to provide 300 low- to moderate-income homeowners with new high-efficiency electric heat pump heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems, providing more affordable utility bills while improving their ability to cool their homes and reducing fossil fuel emissions.
Communities are left with few options
Now, this and other work is at risk in Spokane and cities and towns like it around the country that also lost funding.
According to the Trump administration, the program – designed to help hundreds of communities around the country become safer – was “no longer consistent with EPA funding priorities.”
A class action lawsuit was recently filed over the termination of the grants by a coalition that includes Earth Justice and the Southern Environmental Law Center. If the case is successful, Spokane could see its funding restored.
Meanwhile, the city and my team know we have to move fast, with whatever money and other resources we can find, to help Spokane prepare for worsening heat. We formed the Spokane Community Resilience Collaborative – a partnership between community organizations, health officials and the city – as one way to advance planning for and responding to climate hazards such as extreme heat and wildfire smoke.
As concentrations of heat-trapping gasses accumulate in the atmosphere, both the frequency and severity of heat waves increase. It is only a matter of time before another deadly heat dome arrives.
Brian G. Henning receives funding from the Environmental Protection Agency.
Politics + Society – The Conversation
Reading Time: 4 minutes
King Charles never runs out of new, exciting ways to snub Prince Harry.
This time, it came in the form of a tribute to his most special boy, William.
It’s no secret that William despises Harry. Their ailing monarch father seems to have written off his youngest son, too.
If Charles wanted to reconcile with Harry, he could. Instead, he pulls painful stunts like this.
King Charles has much to say about Prince William, but not Harry
On Tuesday, July 8, King Charles praised his beloved son, Prince William, without even mentioning his other son, Harry.
This was not an idle conversation. This was a speech extolling the virtues of William during an elaborate state banquet at Windsor Castle.
Yes, a state banquet. Charles is not the head of government, but he is a ceremonial head of state.
This means that French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte Macron, had to sit politely and witness this alongside about 150 other special guests.
Speeches are a somewhat rare thing from Charles these days.
However, during the state banquet, he stood up and began to list off William’s alleged positive traits.
Of particular interest was William and Kate establishing Windsor as their family home, as the castle — which is nearly 1,000 years old.
The beginnings of that castle came from William the Conquerer, who shares a name with the less distinguished Prince of Wales.
The snubs are no longer surprising, but they remain deliberate and hurtful
While King Charles gassed up Prince William and spoke warmly of the UK’s relationship with France, there remained one glaring, royal omission.
He has an entire other son.
To hear the king of England speak, he has only one son, and no one other than William and Kate and their children seemed even worth mentioning.
In 2020, after years of intense tabloid media harassment towards Meghan Markle (with seemingly no meaningful action by the royal firm to protect her as it protected Kate), Prince Harry took his wife and son and left the UK.
They stepped down from their formal royal roles — a role into which Harry was born, through no fault or choice of his own — and chose to prioritize their lives and their family.
Harry leaving formal royal appearances did not mean that he left or did not love his family.
But, especially after the passing of Queen Elizabeth II, it seemed that some powerful voices within his family felt otherwise.
Charles and William have made a bitter choice
Since moving to the United States, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have continued to endure the same attacks from which King Charles and the royal firm failed to protect them.
However, they no longer have to play second fiddle to Charles’ special boy William.
And they are no longer the convenient scapegoats to distract from actual royal scandals that they once were.
Also, Meghan’s lifestyle brand is a success. They’re building their own lives on their own terms.
It’s clear that King Charles still expects Prince Harry’s devotion. But what has he done to earn that?
King Charles Snubs Prince Harry, Gushes Over William in Cringe Speech was originally published on The Hollywood Gossip.
The Hollywood Gossip
Reading Time: 3 minutes
Jay Z famously rapped about having 99 problems — and now he’s got one more in the form of Nicki Minaj!
In a scathing social media tirade, Nicki claimed this week that Jay owes her $200 million for her stake in the struggling streaming service Tidal.
She also addressed the ongoing controversy surrounding a man who claims to be Jay’s illegitimate son.
Minaj kicked things off by going on the offensive against Desiree Perez, CEO of Jay’s RocNation brand, by reposting a claim that Perez was abusive to her daughter.
Nicki Minaj calls out Jay Z’s paternity case
Minaj then proceeded to post about Raymir Satterthwaite, a man who claims to be Jay’s illegitimate son.
“Oh is this why he was trending the other day? Idk. I hope all is well. To God be the glory,” she wrote, alongside a screenshot of a news story about Satterthwaite.
“If he is not [my father], why can’t he prove me wrong?” Raymir recently told the Daily Mail in an interview.
“Go to the courtroom and do what everyone else has to do. I can take a no. I can take being embarrassed. I just can’t take him not saying anything. It is not fair.”
Nicki says Jay owes her millions, calls out ‘blasphemous nickname’
Nicki then returned her attention to business, claiming that she was bilked out of millions on the Tidal deal
“We’ve calculated about 100-200MM so far. #JayZ call me to settle this karmic debt,” she wrote.
She went on to call out Jay for “blasphemy” for he “Hov/Hova” (a pun on “Jehovah) nickname that he’s used for most of his career.
“It’s only collecting more interest. You still in my TOP 5 tho. Let’s get it n—-a. And anyone still calling him Hov will answer to God for the blasphemy,” she wrote.
Elsewhere in her tirade, Minaj lashed out at collaborator-turned-rival Megan Thee Stallion.
“What was the name of that law again??????? Karma’s Law? Touch not my anointed law? Vengeance is the Lord’s law?… the blogs posting lies, thank you. More money for me. We’re working. Trust,” she wrote.
The comment is a reference to Megan’s 2024 diss track “Hiss,” in which the Houston emcee raps that her haters “don’t be mad at Megan,” but they’re “mad at Megan’s Law.”
Megan’s Law is a federal statute that requires registered sex offenders to register with local law enforcement agencies.
The reference was clearly a jab at Nicki’s husband, convicted sex offender Kenneth Petty.
Needless to say, this feud is about as intense as they get.
Jay might choose to steer clear of it, as he’s progressed past the point of beefing with fellow artists. But we’re guessing Megan will have something to say in the very near future.
Nicki Minaj Says Jay Z Owes Her $200 Million, Calls on Mogul to Take Paternity Test was originally published on The Hollywood Gossip.
The Hollywood Gossip
Reading Time: 3 minutes
Keri Russell has been married and divorced over the course of her life and career.
From Felicity to The Americans to Star Wars, she is an accomplished actress.
She is also a mother of three.
Her relationship history involves ups and downs. Where do things stand today?
Keri Russell married Shane Deary in 2007
In 2006, Keri Russell was already famous — most of all for her role as the titular star of Felicity — when she and Shane Deary became engaged.
She and the Brooklyn-based contractor had met socially, through mutual friends.
On Valentine’s Day, 2007, the two married in New York.
They share two children
In 2007, just a few months after their nuptials, Russell and Deary welcomed their first child, River.
Then, in late December of 2011, they welcomed their second child, Willa.
(Some sites have erroneously reported Willa as having been born in 2012, but the confusion is understandable)
However, their family of four was bound for another change not long after Baby #2.
Russell and Deary were married for nearly 7 years
In early 2013, two huge things changed for Keri Russell and Shane Deary.
The first was that Russell’s most famous show, The Americans, premiered that January.
The second is that she and Deary separated.
Some separations end in reconciliation. Others do not. Months into 2014, the two divorced.
She found love again with Matthew Rhys
On The Americans, Welsh actor Matthew Rhys portrays a fellow KGB spy who, while feigning a relationship, falls in love with Keri Russell’s character.
Sometimes, storytellers can have a profound impact upon actors as well as audiences.
Some TV writers end up “writing” a partner for their stars.
Since 2014, Russell and Rhys have been in a relationship. In 2016, they welcomed their son, Sam.
Are Keri Russell and Matthew Rhys married or divorced?
In 2021, Russell and Rhys referred to each other as husband and wife across multiple interviews.
By that point, they had been together at least as long as Russell’s erstwhile marriage to Deary lasted.
However, in 2025, Rhys confessed that the two “literally haven’t got round to marriage yet.”
So they are neither married nor divorced but a secret third thing: happily in love, albeit without legal or ceremonial formalities.
Keri Russell Divorced: Her History of Marriage, Explained was originally published on The Hollywood Gossip.
The Hollywood Gossip
Reading Time: 3 minutes
Even though Johnny Depp won his defamation lawsuit against ex-wife Amber Heard, the televised trial did massive damage to his public image.
Depp claimed in the suit that statements Heard made in a Washington Post essay cost him millions in earnings. He cited as one example, the fact that he was fired from the Warner Bros. film Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore.
Now, as he attempts to rebuild his reputation post-trial, Depp is offering a detailed account of that situation for the first time.
Depp was booted from Harry Potter spinoff project following
After Depp lost his 2020 libel trial against The Sun, Warner Bros. issued a statement indicating that Depp would not be reprising the role of Gellert Grindelwald, a character he portrayed in the first two Fantastic Beasts films.
“Johnny Depp will depart the Fantastic Beasts franchise. We thank Johnny for his work on the films to date,” the studio wrote.
He was eventually replaced by Mads Mikkelsen after just one day of filming.
At the time, Depp played ball and issued a statement of his own, one in which he claimed that stepping away from the film was hs decision.
“In light of recent events, I would like to make the following short statement,” Depp wrote on Instagram.
“Firstly, I’d like to thank everybody who has gifted me with their support and loyalty. I have been humbled and moved by your many messages of love and concern, particularly over the last few days.”
Depp comes clean about ‘Fantastic Beasts’ outrage
In a new interview with UK newspaper The Telegraph, Depp opens up for the first time about his true feelings, revealing that he thought “f–k you” after learning he’d been let go.
“It literally stopped in a millisecond, like, while I was doing the movie. They said we’d like you to resign. But what was really in my head was they wanted me to retire,” he said.
“Fuck you. There’s far too many of me to kill,” Depp recalled thinking. “If you think you can hurt me more than I’ve already been hurt you’re gravely mistaken.”
Depp says that he was then “shunned, dumped, booted, deep-sixed, canceled” in Hollywood or “however you want to define it.”
These days, Depp is working to rebuild his career without the help of the mainstream blockbusters that made him one of the biggest stars of the 2000s.
He starred in the French film Jeanne du Barry, and he recently completed work on Modi, Three Days On The Wing Of Madness, his first directorial effort in 20 years.
Only time will tell if audiences are willing to move on from Depp’s years of scandal.
Johnny Depp Vents Outrage Over ‘Fantastic Beasts’ Firing: ‘You … was originally published on The Hollywood Gossip.
The Hollywood Gossip
Reading Time: 3 minutes
It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s a number of reviews for the latest attempt to reboot the Superman franchise!
The new version of this character and his journey stars David Corenswet as The Man of Steel, Rachel Brosnahan as Lois Lane and Nicholas Hoult as Lex Luthor, among others.
It is directed by James Gunn.
This is the official synopsis:
When Superman gets drawn into conflicts at home and abroad, his actions are questioned, giving tech billionaire Lex Luthor the opportunity to get the Man of Steel out of the way for good. Will intrepid reporter Lois Lane and Superman’s four-legged companion, Krypto, be able to help him before it’s too late?
As for what critics are saying about the new Superman?
We’ve collected a number of Superman reviews below in order to help you decide whether this aspiring blockbuster is worth your time and/or your money when it gets released on July 11…
Easily the best Superman movie made in my lifetime. — Matt Singer, Screen Crush
It falls short of the top tier of superhero cinema. I’d characterize the film as next-level good (a roster that includes Iron Man, Thor, Batman Begins, Captain America, and the hugely underrated Iron Man 3). — Owen Gleiberman, Variety
So far, this has been the century of the comic book film, and… while Superman isn’t one of the best films of the 21st century, it represents the genre well. — Scott Phillips, Forbes
Gunn and his team deliver a Superman film that feels worthy of the character’s legacy. — Danielle Solzman, Solzy at the Movies
This isn’t your grandparents’ Superman, but it’s also truer in method to his on-page adventures than anything we’ve seen on theater screens thus far. — Trace Sauveur, AwardsWatch
A breath of fresh air… In an era saturated with dark anti-heroes, Superman is refreshingly idealistic — not in a saccharine way, but in a way that feels rebellious, even radical. — Jamie Broadnax, Black Girl Nerds
Perhaps its biggest strength is that it sidesteps all the revisionist murk of superheroes onscreen in the last decade or two and reverts almost to an enchanting state of child-like wonder. — David Rooney, The Hollywood Reporter
What makes Superman work is the same thing that has made Gunn’s other adaptations so beloved: as a filmmaker, Gunn is unafraid to embrace the comic book elements at the heart of the source material. — Spencer Perry, ComicBook.com
Much like opening a random issue at your local comic book store, Superman drops you straight into the action, counting on the audience to already be familiar with the characters and world. — Sheraz Farooqi, Cinema Debate
As both a story on its own and a prequel to a whole bunch of others, this movie must introduce us to a variety of characters we’ll meet later, and it does it without feeling too much like fan service or exposition. — Amber Wilkinson, New York Times
A Superman film lives or dies by the chemistry between Clark and Lois—and this one absolutely works… Their banter sparkles, and their emotional connection rings true. — Danielle Solzman, Solzy at the Movies
Superman Reviews: Does the Reboot Soar… or Suck? was originally published on The Hollywood Gossip.
The Hollywood Gossip