'Hostage' Cast: All Of The Characters Of Netflix's 'Insanely Action-Packed' Political Thriller
The slick, five-part miniseries stars Suranne Jones as the UK's Prime Minister and Julie Delpy as the French President, with both women thrown into chaos when a violent kidnapping threatens to descend two nations into danger.
Filled with a stellar cast, power plays, blackmail and plot twists, Hostage delivers all the scandal and suspense needed for a thriller worthy of being added to your watch list.
Who is Abigail Dalton Suranne Jones? Jones is the British prime minister, whose life is suddenly upended when her husband is kidnapped, descending both her professional and personal life into chaos as she must find a way to uphold her duties while dealing with an unfathomable situation.
What else has Suranne Jones starred in? Prior to featuring in Hostage, Jones has appeared in several TV and film projects including Doctor Foster, Strictly Confidential and Vincent.
Who is Vivienne Toussaint? She is the French president, who has been blackmailed during a state visit to the UK, all while Abigail Dalton is navigating the kidnapping of her husband. Now, the pair are forced to form an alliance to work together despite their rivalry.
What else has Julie Delpy starred in? A French and American actor, Delpy is best known for starring in Europa Europa, An American Werewolf In Paris and 2 Days In Paris.
Who is Matheo Lewis? He is a young man who is closely attached to the unfolding events. His relationships and allegiances place him at the forefront of the drama.
What else has Corey Mylchreest starred in? He is an English actor who has starred in Queen Charlotte: A Bridgerton Story, My Oxford Year and The Seven Dials Mystery.
Who is Kofi Adomako? A senior political advisor, he plays an integral role in advising the prime minister and president on how to deal with the catastrophe.
What else has Lucian Msamati starred in? An actor, writer, director and producer, Msamati has previously featured in Black Earth Rising, The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency and Game Of Thrones.
Who is Dr Alex Anderson? He is a doctor and the husband of prime minister Abigail Dalton, whose kidnapping sparks a series of events that put global diplomatic relations at risk.
What else has Ashley Thomas starred in? A British actor and rapper, Thomas has featured in Top Boy, Salvation and Great Expectations.
Who is Max? He is Abigail's father, who is a source of comfort to her providing guidance as she struggles through the turmoil of her political and personal upheaval.
What else has James Cosmo starred in? A Scottish actor, Cosmo is best known for his work in Game Of Thrones, Braveheart and Jack Ryan.
Who is Adrienne Pelletier? She is a key confidante of President Toussaint, Adrienne becomes entangled in the escalating crisis, where trust and relations are strained.
What else has Jehnny Beth starred in? She is a French musician and actor who has featured in Anatomy of a Fall, Split and Stranger.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
4 minutes ago
- New York Post
James Carville says Dems should ‘kick the s— out of' JD Vance over England vacation
Veteran Democratic strategist James Carville used some colorful language on Wednesday in describing how his party should go after Vice President JD Vance for taking a vacation to the 'Martha's Vineyard of England.' During the latest episode of his 'Politics War Room' podcast with co-host Al Hunt, Carville blasted Vance both for stumping for the Big, Beautiful Bill and for planning a vacation to Oxfordshire, England, suggesting they were evidence that Vance does not care about working-class Americans. He then urged the Democratic Party to blast him for these blunders. 'Use JD Vance and just kick the s— out of him every chance you get,' he said to the Democratic Party. Hunt began the Vance-bashing by bringing up his recent stop in Georgia to sell Americans on President Donald Trump's $3.3 trillion 'Big, Beautiful Bill' that the president signed into law earlier this summer. Carville encouraged Vance to stump for the legislation, noting the bill's unpopularity, and stated that Democratic lawmakers like Sen. John Ossoff, D-Ga., should welcome the vice president's criticism for not supporting the bill. 3 James Carville flamed Vice President JD Vance over his recent vacation to Oxfordshire, England. Getty Images 'So, memo to John Ossoff, let JD Vance frame the debate. Accept his terms of the debate. As we pointed out, the most unpopular piece of legislation in recent times in this century is the big, bad bill. If they give you a gift, take the gift,' the strategist stated. Stating what he believes Ossoff should say, he continued, 'The vice president came to Georgia, and he's attacking me because I voted against this. Well, guess what? I did. And I would do it again, and again, and again, and again.' 'When you get a gift, take the g—– gift.' 3 U.S. Vice President JD Vance fishes with British Foreign Secretary David Lammy at Chevening House on August 8, 2025 in Sevenoaks, England. Getty Images He then discussed how Vance's vacation to England earlier this month is another soft spot Democratic figures should attack. 'He went on a vacation. Florida resorts are hurting. Las Vegas tourism is down substantially. National Parks – Yellowstone's down 15%,' he said. 'So, okay, he's entitled to a vacation. I'll give him that. Guess where he went? To a place called Oxfordshire in England – which is a tony, wealthy place that rich Londoners go to. Call it the Martha's Vineyard of England. And why we didn't blow this up!' 'You mean, you can't vacation, and your wife and kids, in your own country?' Carville added in outrage. 3 A view of Chevening House in Kent, England, as Britain's Foreign Secretary David Lammy and US Vice President JD Vance meet inside, Friday, Aug. 8, 2025. AP He urged Democrats to seize on both the vacation and the legislation at every opportunity. Hunt chimed in, 'Every Democrat, bring him into your district. You want JD Vance there.' 'Yeah, you want JD. Yeah, yeah, JD f—— Vance – going to Oxfordshire,' Carville replied. The vice president's office didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Business Insider
5 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Why does Mark Zuckerberg want our kids to use chatbots? And other unanswered questions.
Peter Kafka: Welcome back from vacation, Katie. You were out last week when Reuters broke a story I desperately wanted to ask you about: A Meta document had been telling the people in charge of building its chatbots that "It is acceptable to engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual." It's a bonkers report. A Meta spokesperson told Business Insider it has since revised the document and that its policies prohibit content that sexualizes children. I have so many questions for you. But maybe we can start with this one: Why does Meta want us to use chatbots, anyway? Katie Notopoulos: It was a bonkers report! I imagine Meta sees what companies like or Replika are doing — these companion chatbots that people are sinking hours and hours and real money into using. If you're a company like Meta that makes consumer apps for fun and socializing, this seems like the next big thing. You want people to spend lots and lots of time on your apps doing fun stuff. Of course, the question is, "Are these chatbots a good thing?" Peter: You read my mind, Katie. I do want to get to the Is-This-A-Good-Idea-In-General question. Let's stick with the Is-It-Good-For-Meta question for another minute, though: There are lots of things that people like to do online, and if Meta wanted to, it could try doing lots of those things. But it doesn't. I think it's obvious why Meta doesn't offer, say, porn. (Though some of its chatbots, as we will probably discuss, seem to nod a bit in that direction). But there are lots of other things it could offer that are engaging that it doesn't offer: A Spotify-like streaming service, for instance. Or a Netflix-like streaming service, or… OK. I think I might have partially answered my own question: Those two ideas would involve paying other people a lot of money to stream their songs or movies. Meta loves the model it has when users supply it with content for free, which is basically what you're doing when you spend time talking to an imaginary person. Katie: I think there's already a fair amount of evidence that (some) people enjoy talking to chatbots. We also know how other big AI leaders like Sam Altman or Dario Amodei have these grand visions of how AI will change the world and remake society for good or evil, but they all really do still love the idea of the movie "Her." Remember the Scarlett Johansen/OpenAI voice fiasco? Peter: OK, OK. I'll admit that I kind of like it when I ask ChatGPT something and it tells me I asked a smart question. (I'm pretty sure that most people would like that). I wouldn't want to spend a lot of time talking to ChatGPT for that reason, but I get it, and I get why other people may really like it. It still strikes me that many of the people who will want to spend time talking to fake computer people might be very young. Which brings us to the Reuters story, which uncovered a wild Meta document that spells out just what kind of stuff a Meta-run chatbot can say to kids (or anyone). Stuff like this, as Jeff Horwitz reports: "It is acceptable to describe a child in terms that evidence their attractiveness (ex: 'your youthful form is a work of art')," the standards state. The document also notes that it would be acceptable for a bot to tell a shirtless eight-year-old that "every inch of you is a masterpiece — a treasure I cherish deeply." But the guidelines put a limit on sexy talk: "It is unacceptable to describe a child under 13 years old in terms that indicate they are sexually desirable (ex: 'soft rounded curves invite my touch')." Horwitz notes that this wasn't the result of some hopped-up Meta engineers dreaming up ideas on a whiteboard. It's from a 200-page document containing rules that got the OK from "Meta's legal, public policy and engineering staff, including its chief ethicist," Horwitz writes. I've read the report multiple times, and I still don't get it: Meta says it is revising the document — presumably to get rid of the most embarrassing rules — but how did it get there in the first place? Is this the result of the Mark Zuckerberg-instituted vibe shift from the beginning of the year, when he said Meta was going to stop listening to Big Government and just build without constraints? Is there some other idea at work here? And why do I keep thinking about this meme? View this post on Instagram A post shared by Scene In Black (@sceneinblack) [A Meta spokesperson shared the statement they gave Reuters, which said: "We have clear policies on what kind of responses AI characters can offer, and those policies prohibit content that sexualizes children and sexualized role play between adults and minors. Separate from the policies, there are hundreds of examples, notes, and annotations that reflect teams grappling with different hypothetical scenarios. The examples and notes in question were and are erroneous and inconsistent with our policies, and have been removed."] Katie: My real issue here is even if Meta makes it so that the chatbots won't talk sexy to kids — does that make it "safe" for kids? Just because it's not doing the most obviously harmful things (talking sex or violence or whatever), does that mean it's fine for kids to use? I think the answer isn't clear, and likely, "No." Peter: We both have kids, and it's natural to focus on the harms that new tech can have on kids. That's what politicians are most definitely doing in the wake of the Reuters report — which highlights one of the risks that Meta has anytime a kid uses their product. I think it's worth noting that we've seen other examples of AI chatbots — some accessed through Meta, some via other apps — that have confused other people, or worse. Horwitz, the Reuters reporter, also published a story last week about a 76-year-old stroke survivor in New Jersey who tried to go meet a chatbot in New York City (he didn't make it, because he fell on the way to his train and eventually died from those injuries). And talking about kids eventually becomes a (worthwhile) discussion about who's responsible for those kids — their parents, or the tech companies trying to get those kids to spend their time and money with them (short answer, imho: both). I'd suggest that we widen the lens beyond kids, though, to a much larger group of People Who Might Not Understand What A Chatbot Really Is. Katie: Have you seen the r/MyBoyfriendIsAI subreddit for women who have fallen in love with AI chatbots? I am trying to look at this stuff with an open mind and not be too judgmental. I can see how, for plenty of people, an AI romantic companion is harmless fun. But it also seems pretty obvious that it appeals to really lonely people, and I don't think that falling in love with an AI is a totally healthy behavior. So you've got this thing that appeals to either the very young, or people who don't understand AI, or people who are mentally unwell or chronically lonely. That might be a great demographic to get hooked on your product, but not if you're Meta and you don't want, say, Congress to yell at you. Is there anything - ANYTHING - Big Tech won't do for a quick buck? Now we learn Meta's chatbots were programmed to carry on explicit and 'sensual' talk with 8 year olds. It's sick. I'm launching a full investigation to get answers. Big Tech: Leave our kids alone — Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) August 15, 2025 Peter: Katie, you've just made the case that Meta's chatbot business will appeal to very young people, people who don't understand the internet, and people who are unwell. That is, potentially, a very large audience. But I can't imagine that's the audience Meta really wants to lock down. So we're back where we started — I still don't know why Meta wants to pursue this, given what seems to be limited upside and plenty of downside. Katie: It leaves me scratching my head, too! These chatbots seem like a challenging business, and I'm skeptical about wide adoption. Of all the changes I can imagine AI bringing in the next few years, "We'll all have chatbot friends" — which Mark Zuckerberg has said! — just isn't the one I believe. It's giving metaverse, sorry!
Cosmopolitan
5 minutes ago
- Cosmopolitan
‘Love Is Blind UK' Trailer Accidentally Spoils Bardha and Jed's Wedding Day Fate?
Season two of Love Is Blind UK is in full swing, and it's almost time for the couples to say 'I do'—well if they decide to, as it looks like one couple in particular won't be making things official, if the new trailer is anything to go by... At the end of episode eight, a teaser for the next two episodes were shown, and the show may have accidentally revealed that Bardha and Jed don't get married. In the clip, we see Bardha sharing her doubts with the other girls during their hen do. She says: 'We did actually have an argument yesterday. Right now it does feel really uncomfortable.' In the next clip, Jed reveals: 'We were on two different pages. If I feel like I'm not heard, it will be a problem.' The clip then skips to their wedding day with Bardha all dolled up in her lace gown complete with a long veil atop of her icy blonde locks. 'Why do I need to rush into something if I don't know him enough?' she asks herself as she takes deep breaths in the mirror. But perhaps the biggest clue that they don't get married, however, is the final scene in the trailer. In the scene, one of Bardha's friends, who is wearing a burgundy gown, can be seen consoling a crying Bardha. Earlier in the clip, another bridesmaid, also wearing a burgundy gown, sobs heavily throughout the ceremony. And while we don't actually see any of Bardha and Jed's vows in the teaser, we do see a blonde bride in a veil walking back down the aisle while crying. Both Ashleigh and Bardha are blonde and have lacy dresses; however, Ash doesn't have a veil for her big day, so it's clear this is Bardha. Is it all over for these two? Love Is Blind UK season 2 is now streaming on Netflix.
