Cena and Elba team up for buddy movie ‘Heads of State'
Call me dim, but I wasn't even half aware that Cena, whose muscles have muscles, maintains a long, successful career in professional wrestling — which is, of course, acting — alongside his more conventional show business pursuits; he's ever game to mock himself and not afraid to look dumb, which ultimately makes him look smart, or to appear for all intents and purposes naked at the 2024 Oscars, presenting the award for costume design. (He was winning, too, in his schtick with Jimmy Kimmel.)
Elba, whose career includes a lot of what might be called prestige genre, has such natural poise and gravity that one assumes he's done all the Shakespeares and Shaws and Ibsens, but 'The Wire' and 'Luther' were more his thing. He was on many a wish list as the next James Bond, and while that's apparently not going to happen, something of the sort gets a workout here.
Elba plays British Prime Minister Sam Clarke, described as 'increasingly embattled' in his sixth year in office, who is about to meet Cena's recently elected American president, Will Derringer, on the eve of a trip to Trieste, Italy, for a NATO conference. (Why Clarke is embattled is neither explained nor important.) Derringer resents Clarke, who can't take him seriously, for having seemed to endorse his opponent by taking him out for fish and chips. (This is a recurring theme.) An international star in the Schwarzenegger/Stallone mold — 'Water Cobra' is his franchise — one might call Derringer's election ridiculous, but I live in a state that actually did elect Schwarzenegger as its governor, twice. Wet behind the ears ('He still hasn't figured out the difference between a press conference and a press junket,' somebody says), Derringer thinks a lot of himself, his airplane, his knowing Paul McCartney and his position. Beyond aspirational platitudes, he has no real politics, but as we first see him carrying his daughter on his shoulders, we know he's really OK.
Directed by Ilya Naishuller ('Nobody') and written by Josh Appelbaum, André Nemec and Harrison Query, the movie begins with a scene set at the Tomatino Festival in Buñol, Spain, in which great crowds of participants lob tomatoes at each other in a massive food fight — it's a real thing — foreshadowing the blood that will soon be flowing through the town square, as a team of unidentified bad guys ambush the British and American agents who are tracking them. They've been set up, declares M16 agent Noel Bisset (Priyanka Chopra Jonas), who is later reported 'missing and presumed dead' — meaning, of course, that she is very much alive and will be seen again; indeed, we will see quite a lot of her.
Meanwhile, the prime minister and the president board Air Force One for Trieste. They talk movies: 'I like actual cinema,' says Clarke, who claims to have never seen one of Derringer's pictures. 'I'm classically trained,' the movie star protests. 'Did you know I once did a play with Edward Norton? But the universe keeps telling me I look cool with a gun in my hand — toy gun.'
Following attacks within and without the plane, the two parachute into Belarus and, for the remainder of the film, make their way here and there, trying to evade the private army of Russian arms dealer and sadistic creep Viktor Gradov (Paddy Considine) led by your typical tall blond female assassin (Katrina Durden). They'll also meet Stephen Root as a computer guy and Jack Quaid as a comical American agent. Elsewhere, Vice President Elizabeth Kirk (Carla Gugino) takes charge. ('Bad?' is the note I wrote. I've seen my share of political thrillers.)
Tribune News Service
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Zawya
2 hours ago
- Zawya
Africa's minerals are being bartered for security: why it's a bad idea?
A US-brokered peace deal between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda binds the two African nations to a worrying arrangement: one where a country signs away its mineral resources to a superpower in return for opaque assurances of security. The peace deal, signed in June 2025, aims to end three decades of conflict between the DRC and Rwanda. A key part of the agreement binds both nations to developing a regional economic integration framework. This arrangement would expand cooperation between the two states, the US government and American investors on 'transparent, formalized end-to-end mineral chains'. Despite its immense mineral wealth, the DRC is among the five poorest countries in the world. It has been seeking US investment in its mineral sector. The US has in turn touted a potential multi-billion-dollar investment programme to anchor its mineral supply chains in the traumatised and poor territory. The peace that the June 2025 deal promises, therefore, hinges on chaining mineral supply to the US in exchange for Washington's powerful – but vaguely formulated – military oversight. The peace agreement further establishes a joint oversight committee – with representatives from the African Union, Qatar and the US – to receive complaints and resolve disputes between the DRC and Rwanda. But beyond the joint oversight committee, the peace deal creates no specific security obligations for the US. The relationship between the DRC and Rwanda has been marred by war and tension since the bloody First (1996-1997) and Second (1998-2003) Congo wars. At the heart of much of this conflict is the DRC's mineral wealth. It has fuelled competition, exploitation and armed violence. This latest peace deal introduces a resources-for-security arrangement. Such deals aren't new in Africa. They first emerged in the early 2000s as resources-for-infrastructure transactions. Here, a foreign state would agree to build economic and social infrastructure (roads, ports, airports, hospitals) in an African state. In exchange, it would get a major stake in a government-owned mining company. Or gain preferential access to the host country's minerals. We have studied mineral law and governance in Africa for more than 20 years. The question that emerges now is whether a US-brokered resources-for-security agreement will help the DRC benefit from its resources. Based on our research on mining, development and sustainability, we believe this is unlikely. This is because resources-for-security is the latest version of a resource-bartering approach that China and Russia pioneered in countries such as Angola, the Central African Republic and the DRC. Resource bartering in Africa has eroded the sovereignty and bargaining power of mineral-rich nations such as the DRC and Angola. Further, resources-for-security deals are less transparent and more complicated than prior resource bartering agreements. DRC's security gaps The DRC is endowed with major deposits of critical minerals like cobalt, copper, lithium, manganese and tantalum. These are the building blocks for 21st century technologies: artificial intelligence, electric vehicles, wind energy and military security hardware. Rwanda has less mineral wealth than its neighbour, but is the world's third-largest producer of tantalum, used in electronics, aerospace and medical devices. For almost 30 years, minerals have fuelled conflict and severe violence, especially in eastern DRC. Tungsten, tantalum and gold (referred to as 3TG) finance and drive conflict as government forces and an estimated 130 armed groups vie for control over lucrative mining sites. Several reports and studies have implicated the DRC's neighbours – Rwanda and Uganda – in supporting the illegal extraction of 3TG in this region. The DRC government has failed to extend security over its vast (2.3 million square kilometres) and diverse territory (109 million people, representing 250 ethnic groups). Limited resources, logistical challenges and corruption have weakened its armed forces. This context makes the United States' military backing enormously attractive. But our research shows there are traps. What states risk losing Resources-for-infrastructure and resources-for-security deals generally offer African nations short-term stability, financing or global goodwill. However, the costs are often long-term because of an erosion of sovereign control. Here's how this happens: - certain clauses in such contracts can freeze future regulatory reforms, limiting legislative autonomy - other clauses may lock in low prices for years, leaving resource-selling states unable to benefit when commodity prices surge - arbitration clauses often shift disputes to international forums, bypassing local courts - infrastructure loans are often secured via resource revenues used as loan security. This effectively ringfences exports and undermines sovereign fiscal control. Examples of loss or near-loss of sovereignty from these sorts of deals abound in Africa. For instance, Angola's US$2 billion oil-backed loan from China Eximbank in 2004. This was repayable in monthly deliveries of oil, with revenues directed to Chinese-controlled accounts. The loan's design deprived Angolan authorities of decision-making power over that income stream even before the oil was extracted. These deals also fragment accountability. They often span multiple ministries (such as defence, mining and trade), avoiding robust oversight or accountability. Fragmentation makes resource sectors vulnerable to elite capture. Powerful insiders can manipulate agreements for private gain. In the DRC, this has created a violent kleptocracy, where resource wealth is systematically diverted away from popular benefit. Finally, there is the risk of re-entrenching extractive trauma. Communities displaced for mining and environmental degradation in many countries across Africa illustrate the long-standing harm to livelihoods, health and social cohesion. These are not new problems. But where extraction is tied to security or infrastructure, such damage risks becoming permanent features, not temporary costs. What needs to change Critical minerals are 'critical' because they're hard to mine or substitute. Additionally, their supply chains are strategically vulnerable and politically exposed. Whoever controls these minerals controls the future. Africa must make sure it doesn't trade that future away. In a world being reshaped by global interests in critical minerals, African states must not underestimate the strategic value of their mineral resources. They hold considerable leverage. But leverage only works if it is wielded strategically. This means: - investing in institutional strength and legal capacity to negotiate better deals - demanding local value creation and addition - requiring transparency and parliamentary oversight for minerals-related agreements - refusing deals that bypass human rights, environmental or sovereignty standards. Africa has the resources. It must hold on to the power they wield. All rights reserved. © 2022. Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (
Middle East Eye
4 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Ian Hislop criticises arrest of man holding up Private Eye cartoon at Gaza protest
The arrest of a British man over the weekend for holding up a cartoon from Private Eye addressing the proscription of Palestine Action has been criticised by the satirical magazine's editor. Jon Farley was arrested by UK police on Saturday at a silent protest in Leeds after holding up the cartoon which joked that 'Spraying military planes with paint' was 'Unacceptable Palestine Action' while 'Shooting Palestinians queuing for food' was 'Acceptable Palestine Action'. He was arrested under section 12 of the Terrorism Act, which prohibits support for a proscribed organisation. Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye, told the Guardian that the arrest of Farley was 'mind-boggling'. Hislop said the cartoon was 'actually a very neat and funny little encapsulation about what is and isn't acceptable, and it's a joke about - I mean, it's quite a black joke - but about the hypocrisies of government approach to any sort of action in Gaza. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters 'So it's not difficult to understand. It's critical, but it is quite clearly a joke. Seems to me absolutely extraordinary that someone could be arrested for holding it up.' The UK government proscribed Palestine Action under anti-terror laws on 4 July, following an incident in which members broke into RAF Brize Norton earlier this month and spray-painted two planes they said were 'used for military operations in Gaza and across the Middle East". Farley told the Guardian that police officers grabbed him and took him to the side, before asking him about the sign he was holding. 'I said: 'Well it's a cartoon from Private Eye. I can show you. I've got the magazine in my bag,' by which time, they were putting me in handcuffs,' he said. 'It's critical, but it is quite clearly a joke. Seems to me absolutely extraordinary that someone could be arrested for holding it up' - Ian Hislop, Private Eye editor He said he was taken to a police station and questioned by counter-terrorism police, before being released six hours later under bail conditions that he attended no Palestine Action rallies. Farley said he had never attended such rallies, and that any such demonstration would be illegal under terrorism laws anyway. The new legislation has made membership of and support for Palestine Action a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison - the first time a direct action group has been proscribed in the UK as a terrorist group. UN experts, human rights groups, and leading figures have condemned the ban as draconian, warning that it will have adverse consequences for the freedom of expression and implications for the rule of law. Farley said he had received no apology or explanation since his arrest, and was left with minor bruises and cuts to his arm following the incident. West Yorkshire police said: 'We are sorry that the man involved is unhappy with the circumstances of this arrest. As this is a new proscribed organisation, West Yorkshire police is considering any individual or organisational learning from this incident.' 'High price for society to pay' Private Eye is one of the highest circulating magazines in the UK, selling over 200,000 copies per fortnightly issue. Its latest issue reported on Farley's arrest, criticising the police's actions. Palestine Action court case: UK decision makes it an 'international outlier' Read More » It said: 'As the Eye wrote in issue 1652: 'Some will argue that proscribing Palestine Action and extending the definition of terrorism to direct action groups that destroy property but don't aim attacks at the public - rather than using the current criminal law - is a high price for society to pay.' 'This was before the police decided to extend the definition of terrorism to include people cutting jokes out of satirical magazines that attempt to criticise the hypocrisies of government policy.' On Saturday, at least 55 people were arrested in London at a rally against the proscription of Palestine Action outside the UK parliament. They held up placards reading "I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action" before police began bundling attendees into vans. Similar protests took place in Edinburgh, Cornwall and other parts of the country, also leading to arrests.
Gulf Today
7 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Japan's Upper House poll spells trouble for PM
The Sunday poll to the Upper House of the Japanese Diet is projected to end as a rebuff to the ruling coalition of Liberal Democratic Party-Komeiti coalition led by Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba. The ruling coalition is set to lose its majority in the Upper House according to media projections. The television channel NHK is predicting that the LDP coalition could win between 32 and 53 seats. Though the government of Ishiba does not have to quit, the prime minister will be under greater pressure than ever to resign, and the LDP will be forced to choose a new leader. Ishiba has acknowledged the setback but he has told a television news channel that the country is facing a crucial trade dialogue with the United States, and that the responsibility of his government is to focus on the bilateral talks, with the US under President Donald Trump, threatening to impose reciprocal tariffs between 10 per cent and 25 per cent. Like many other trading partners of the US, Japan too is worried because the American tariffs would hit the export-based economy harshly. Political commentators say that Ishiba referring to the trade talks is an indirect way of saying that he would not be stepping down. But it seems most likely that after a trade agreement is finalized with the US, Ishiba might be forced to step down. His public ratings have been very low because of rampant inflation and the decision of the government to impose a consumer tax. This has been vigorously opposed by all the opposition parties though any other party in office would face the same policy dilemma about inflation. Ishiba is proposing cash handouts to all, including foreigners residing in Japan. It is the far-right Sanseito which is billed to gain the most in these elections. It is projected to win 10 to 15 seats. It holds a single seat in the upper chamber now. The party with the slogan of 'Japanese First' was born on the YouTube in 2020 during the Covid pandemic. It has won three seats in the Lower House. Party leader Sohei Kamiya has tried to explain what is meant by 'Japanese First'. He told Nippon Television, 'The phrase Japanese First was meant to express rebuilding Japanese people's livelihoods by resisting globalism. I am not saying that we should completely ban foreigners or that every foreigner should get out of Japan.' But the anti-immigrant plank is part of the party's political doctrine. The foreigners in Japan form just 3 per cent of the population but their presence has become prominent because of the increase in tourism. The tourist arrivals in Japan this year had crossed the 20-million mark. Political experts feel that the opposition parties are only taking advantage of the stressful economic condition and that they have nothing different to offer to address the existing challenge. Political science professor Yu Uchiyama of the University of Tokyo said, 'The Ishiba administration has received a harsh verdict. It seems the public believed that the government and ruling parties failed to respond effectively to various issues, including rising prices. The opposition's call for a consumption tax cut appears to have appealed to voters more than the ruling party's proposed cash handouts.' And he pointed out, 'Moves to oust Ishiba may emerge. However, under these difficult circumstances, it will be hard for anyone – regardless of who becomes prime minister – to turn the situation around.' Japan has been experiencing trouble since the 1990s, starting with stagnation despite the Bank of Japan reducing interest rates to zero and below. It is only last year that the central bank has pushed the interest rate into positive territory.
