Fugitive

ROOFMAN 

(15) 126mins

★★★☆☆

A NICE guy doing bad things isn’t an original premise for a comedy drama. 

But base it on the true story of an escaped felon hiding out in a toy shop and things get more interesting. 

Channing Tatum plays Jeffrey Manchester, the charismatic convict from North Carolina with the “you couldn’t make it up” life story. 

An ex-military man, Manchester has been struggling financially since being decommissioned. 

So to support his family he turns to a professional life of crime. 

DULCIE PEARCE

Dwayne Johnson proves he can flex his acting muscles in The Smashing Machine

DULCIE PEARCE

Black comedy One Battle After Another is cinematic dynamite with huge stars

His first attempt at dropping through the ceiling of a McDonald’s and emptying their tills is such a success he repeats this style of heist 45 more times. 

As a non-violent robber who offers people his coat while holding them up at gunpoint, he soon earns himself the local moniker of “Roofman”. 

As police put it, he’s a genius, but also an idiot. 

When eventually caught and sentenced to four decades behind bars, Manchester swiftly escapes jail and goes on the run. 

Looking for a place to take cover he lands on a Toys R Us store and sets up home in a crate under the eaves. 

For six months he sleeps undetected, surviving on stolen M&M’s, while watching jobsworth boss Mitch (Peter Dinklage) on CCTV for entertainment and ultimately falling for employee Leigh (Kirsten Dunst), a divorced mum. 

The tale of how their romance blossoms — as Manchester increasingly risks his chances outside the store’s four walls — would seem utterly far-fetched, if it wasn’t for the fact that in 2004 it all actually happened. The chemistry between the leads is convincing. 

Dunst as Leigh, the church-going single mum falling in love while being unknowingly duped, reminds you that no matter how outwardly likeable Manchester seems, he continually hurt people with his odd mix of arrogance, immaturity and intelligence.

He wants it all to be real, while knowing that it can’t be. 

Director Derek Cianfrance (Blue Valentine) periodically lightens things up with various meme-worthy set pieces involving Tatum barely clad in feather boas, or wearing roller blades or completely starkers with only a fan to protect his modesty. 

But it is the pondering over how decent a person, or not, Manchester really was that will keep you gripped. 

GOOD FORTUNE 

(15) 97mins       

★★★☆☆

KEANU Reeves is at his Bill and Ted-esque best in this silly, but very funny, light-hearted bromance about a guardian angel who can’t quite get a grip on his ­heavenly duties. 

Written by Aziz Ansari (Master Of None) Reeves is Gabriel, a rookie winged protector limited to saving people from “texting while driving” catastrophes. 

He’d like to rescue lost souls too but his boss Martha (Sandra Oh) thinks he’s not ready to be promoted. 

One of his celestial charges is Arj (Ansari) who despite being well qualified, can’t catch a break and is sleeping in his car while doing gig economy work in LA for an odd-jobs app. 

A stint as assistant for billionaire Jeff (Seth Rogen) – who spends his days shopping for Rolexes and sitting in his sauna – only makes him feel more of a failure. So Gabriel steps in to help by facilitating a life swap between the two, which he hopes will make Arj appreciates what he already has. 

The script lacks the ­substance it was probably aiming for, and there’s far too much chatting about chicken nuggets, but this comedy does deliver lots of laughs. 

AFTER THE HUNT 

(15) 139mins  

★★☆☆☆

SET in the academic enclaves of a rarefied American Ivy League University, this affected campus tale from director Luca Guadagnino could do with a tutorial to discuss what its own discourse is. 

Julia Roberts plays Alma Imhoff, a Yale philosophy professor and feminist who is idolised by her students. 

Imhoff and husband Frederick (Michael Stuhlbarg) host bourgeois soirees in their art-filled pad where favourite students including Maggie (Ayo Edebiri), and Hank (Andrew Garfield) gather to muse and debate. 

But when Maggie accuses Hank of sexual assault and turns to her tutor for guidance, beliefs, boundaries and loyalties blur for both women. 

Roberts is exceptional as Imhoff but the pace is so laboured and the ostentatious dialogue so pleased with itself it feels like a dull self-congratulatory lecture. 

OMAZE-ING

I went from council flat to winning £4m house… But this is why I’m selling up

BOTTOMS UP

Wetherspoons reveals opening dates of 5 new pubs starting next week

A repetitive ticking pendulum only emphasises the plodding pace and a subplot about stomach ulcers adds little. Some valid social commentary around generational divides is quickly drowned out by more droning. The many lingering close-ups are stylistically credible yet still dull. 

• Laura Stott         

Man who absconded with his three children in 2021 shot dead after firing on police, authorities say.

A New Zealand father who absconded with his three children after a dispute with his ex-partner nearly four years ago has been killed by police, authorities have said.

Tom Phillips, who had been on the run in the New Zealand wilderness with his children since December 2021, was shot dead after he was confronted by police following a burglary in the rural town of Piopio, police said on Monday.

Phillips, who had been involved in a dispute over custody of the children, was killed after he fired “multiple shots” at the first responding officer at the scene, causing him serious injuries, police said.

Acting Deputy Commissioner Jill Rogers said Philips, who had yet to be formally identified, was accompanied by one of his children, who was not injured in the incident.

Rogers said authorities were urgently seeking to locate his two other children.

“Following the incident, we have been in contact with Phillips’s family and we will be working to provide them with all available support,” Rogers said.

In a statement to Radio New Zealand, the children’s mother, Cat, said she was “deeply relieved” for her children.

“They have been dearly missed every day for nearly four years, and we are looking forward to welcoming them home with love and care,” she said.

Philips’s disappearance from the remote community of Marokop with his three children – now aged 12, 10 and nine – gripped New Zealand and generated global headlines.

Despite a number of sightings over the years and appeals by his family, Philips, who was facing criminal charges including aggravated robbery and unlawful possession of a firearm, managed to continually frustrate efforts by authorities to pinpoint his whereabouts.

Authorities had announced the most recent sighting of Philips less than two weeks ago, releasing security camera footage appearing to show him and one of his children breaking into a rural store.

James Arthur McDonald Jr., an investor and financial analyst who frequently appeared on CNBC, was sentenced to five years in prison for defrauding investors in a multimillion-dollar scheme, the United States Attorney’s Office said on Monday.

McDonald, 53, a former San Gabriel Valley resident, was the CEO and chief investment officer of two Los Angeles-based companies: Hercules Investments LLC and Index Strategy Advisors Inc.

In late 2020, McDonald adopted a “risky short position” betting against the U.S. economy following the presidential election, with the idea that the combination of the COVID-19 pandemic and the election would trigger a major sell-off in the stock market, according to the Justice Department. However, when the expected market drop did not happen, Hercules’ clients lost between $30 million and $40 million.

McDonald “solicited millions of dollars’ worth of funds from investors” for the purposes of raising capital for Hercules at the start of 2021 after clients complained to the firm’s employees about their losses. However, in doing so, McDonald “misrepresented how the funds would be used” and failed to disclose the firm’s massive losses.

According to the Justice Department, McDonald obtained $675,000 from “one victim group” and then misappropriated most of the money including spending $174,610 at a Porsche dealership and transferring an additional $109,512 to the landlord of a home he was renting in Arcadia.

McDonald also defrauded clients at Index Strategy Advisors, his other firm, said the Justice Department, using less than half of $3.6 million he raised for trading purposes on personal and other expenditures.

McDonald commingled clients’ funds with his personal bank account and used the money to buy luxury cars, pay his rent, make credit card payments, pay off Hercules operating expenses and “to make Ponzi-like payments” to Index Strategy clients — including paying some of those clients using funds from other clients.

Prosecutors claimed that McDonald caused his victims more than $3 million in losses.

“To his victims, [McDonald] seemed to embody the American Dream,” prosecutors argued in a sentencing memorandum. “But looks can be deceiving, and as [McDonald’s] victims learned, their trust had been betrayed.”

In November 2021, McDonald failed to appear before the Securities and Exchange Commission to testify about the allegations he had defrauded investors, and remained a fugitive until last June when he was found at a residence in Port Orchard, Wash.

At the time of his arrest, law enforcement found a fake Washington, D.C., driver’s license with his photograph and the name “Brian Thomas.”

In April 2024, a U.S. District judge found McDonald and Hercules liable for violating federal securities law and ordered them to pay millions in disgorgement and civil penalties.

McDonald pleaded guilty to one count of securities fraud in February.

He will be ordered to pay restitution in this case before a United States district judge at a later date.

Jose Adolfo Macias, alias ‘Fito’, is due to be extradited to the US on drug trafficking and weapons smuggling charges.

The fugitive leader of Ecuador’s Los Choneros gang has been recaptured after nearly 18 months on the run, according to President Daniel Noboa.

Jose Adolfo Macias, also known as “Fito”, escaped from Guayaquil prison in January 2024, where he was serving a 34-year sentence for drug trafficking and murder.

Following his capture, Macias will now be extradited to the US, where he was indicted by a federal court for charges related to drug trafficking and firearms smuggling, Noboa said on the X social media platform on Wednesday.

Noboa had previously offered $1m for assistance in Macias’s capture and dispatched thousands of police officers and members of the armed forces to find him.

“My recognition to our police and military who participated in this operation. More will fall, we will reclaim the country. No truce,” Noboa said on X.

Para los que se opusieron y dudaron de la necesidad de las leyes de Solidaridad e Inteligencia: gracias a esas leyes, Fito fue capturado hoy y está en manos del Bloque de Seguridad.

Mi reconocimiento a nuestros policías y militares que participaron en esta operación. Caerán más,…

— Daniel Noboa Azin (@DanielNoboaOk) June 25, 2025

Macias reportedly escaped ahead of his transfer to a maximum-security prison, but authorities have yet to explain how he succeeded.

The successful escape “triggered widespread riots, bombings, kidnappings, the assassination of a prominent prosecutor, and an armed attack on a TV network during a live broadcast”, according to the United States government, leading Noboa to declare a 60-day state of emergency across Ecuador.

The Ecuadorian president also designated 22 gangs, including Los Choneros, as “terrorist groups”.

The US Department of the Treasury separately sanctioned both Macias and Los Choneros in February 2024 for drug trafficking and instigating violence across Ecuador.

Ecuador was once one of Latin America’s most peaceful countries, but its proximity to Peru and Colombia – the world’s top producers of cocaine – has made it a prime target for criminal groups exporting drugs abroad.

Competition between rival local gangs, backed by foreign criminal syndicates from Mexico to as far as Albania, has led to an explosion in violence across the country.

Despite a stinging rebuke from a federal judge Thursday, military forces deployed in Los Angeles will remain under presidential control through the weekend, setting up a series of high-stakes showdowns.

On the streets of Los Angeles, protesters will continue to be met with platoons of armed soldiers. State and local officials remain in open conflict with the president. And in the courts, Trump administration lawyers are digging deep into case law in search of archaic statutes that can be cited to justify the ongoing federal crackdown — including constitutional maneuvers invented to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

Many legal scholars say the current battle over Los Angeles is a test case for powers the White House has long hoped to wield — not just squelching protest or big-footing blue state leaders, but stretching presidential authority to its legal limit.

“A lot rides on what happens this weekend,” said Christopher Mirasola, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center.

By staying the order that would have delivered control of most troops back to California leaders until after the weekend, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals left the Trump administration in command of thousands of National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines ahead of the nationwide “No Kings” protests planned for Saturday.

The Trump administration claimed in court that it had the authority to deploy troops to L.A. due to protesters preventing ICE agents from arresting and deporting unauthorized immigrants — and because demonstrations downtown amounted to “rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”

But U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco wrote Thursday that Trump had steamrolled state leaders when he federalized California’s troops and deployed them against protesters.

“His actions were illegal — both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Breyer wrote.

While ICE “was not able to detain as many people as Defendants believe it could have,” it was still able to uphold U.S. immigration law without the military’s help, Breyer ruled. A few belligerents among thousands of peaceful protesters did not make an insurrection, he added.

“The idea that protesters can so quickly cross the line between protected conduct and ‘rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States’ is untenable and dangerous,” the judge wrote.

The 9th Circuit stayed Breyer’s ruling hours after he issued a temporary restraining order that would have allowed California leaders to withdraw the National Guard soldiers from L.A.

The pause will remain in effect until at least Tuesday when a three-judge panel — made up of two appointed by President Trump and one by former President Biden — will hear arguments over whether the troops can remain under federal direction.

The court battle has drawn on precedents that stretch back to the foundation of the country, offering starkly contrasting visions of federal authority and states’ rights.

The last time the president federalized the National Guard over the objections of a state governor was in 1965 when President Lyndon B. Johnson sent troops to protect Martin Luther King Jr. and the Selma to Montgomery March in defiance of then-Gov. George Wallace.

But sending troops in to assist ICE has less in common with Johnson’s move than it does with President Millard Fillmore’s actions a century earlier, Mirasola said. Beginning in 1850, the Houston law professor said, Fillmore sent troops to accompany federal marshals seeking to apprehend escaped slaves who had fled north.

Trump’s arguments to deploy the National Guard and Marines in support of federal immigration enforcement efforts rely on the same principle, drawn from the “take care” clause of Article II of the Constitution, Mirasola said. He noted that anger over the military’s repeated clashes with civilians helped stoke the flames that led to the Civil War.

“Much of the population actively opposed enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act,” the professor said.

Some analysts believe Trump strategically chose immigration as the issue through which to advance his version of the so-called “unitary executive theory,” a legal doctrine that says the legislature has no power and the judiciary has no right to interfere with how the president wields control of the executive branch.

“It’s not a coincidence that we’re seeing immigration be the flash point,” said Ming Hsu Chen, a professor at the UCSF Law School. “Someone who wants to exert strong federal power over immigration would see L.A. as a highly symbolic place, a ground zero to show their authority.”

Chen, who heads the Race, Immigration, Citizenship, and Equality Program at UCSF Law, said it’s clear Trump and his advisers have a “vision of how ICE can be emboldened.”

“He’s putting that on steroids,” Chen said. “He’s folding together many different kinds of excesses of executive power as though they were the same thing.”

Some experts point out that Judge Breyer’s order is limited only to California, which means that until it’s fully litigated — a process that can drag on for weeks or months — the president may attempt similar moves elsewhere.

“The president could try the same thing in another jurisdiction,” said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at NYU’s Brennan Center for Justice.

“President Trump’s memorandum to deploy troops in Los Angeles made it very clear he thinks it’s appropriate … wherever protests are occurring,” Goitein said. “He certainly seems to think that even peaceful protests can be met with force.”

Experts said Breyer’s ruling set a high bar for what may be considered “rebellion” under the law, making it harder — if it is allowed to stand on appeal — for the administration to credibly claim one is afoot in L.A.

“It’s hard to imagine that whatever we see over the weekend is going to be an organized, armed attempt to overthrow the government,” Goitein said.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, hasn’t budged from its insistence that extreme measures are needed to restore order and protect federal agents as they go about their work.

“The rioters will not stop or slow ICE down from arresting criminal illegal aliens,” the Department of Homeland Security said in a news release this week, which included mugshots of several alleged criminals who had been arrested. “Murderers, pedophiles, and drug traffickers. These are the types of criminal illegal aliens that rioters are fighting to protect.”

Even after the 9th Circuit decision, the issue could still be headed to the Supreme Court. Some legal scholars fear Trump might defy the court if he keeps losing. Others say he may be content with the havoc wrought while doomed cases wend their way through the justice system.

“It’s a strange thing for me to say as a law professor that maybe the law doesn’t matter,” Chen said. “I don’t know that [Trump] particularly cares that he’s doing something illegal.”

Times staff writer Sandra McDonald contributed to this report.

The image of Donald Trump shaking hands with Ahmad al-Sharaa, Syria’s current leader, in Riyadh is one that, until recently, would have seemed unimaginable. Al-Sharaa, once on the U.S. most-wanted list with a $10 million bounty for information leading to his capture, now stood alongside Trump to discuss Syria’s future. This meeting, along with Trump’s decision to lift sanctions on Syria, raises a fundamental question: Is America’s war on terror a principled, genuine fight—or a tool serving Washington’s shifting political interests?

A Puzzling Encounter
Trump’s meeting with Ahmad al-Sharaa during his highly publicized Middle East tour sparked regional and global astonishment. Al-Sharaa, formerly known as Abu Mohammad al-Julani, was the leader of Jabhat al-Nusra, a group the U.S. designated as a terrorist organization in 2013, offering $10 million for information on him. Following the meeting, Trump announced plans to normalize relations with Syria’s new government and lift sanctions, calling it an opportunity for a “fresh start” for the war-torn nation. This shift stands in stark contrast to the 2013 U.S. stance, when Jabhat al-Nusra was a prime target in the global war on terror.

The White House defended this move as pragmatic, citing al-Sharaa’s role in toppling Bashar al-Assad and his apparent moderation as the leader of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a rebranding intended to distance the group from its al-Qaeda past. Yet the image of Trump shaking hands with a former most-wanted figure—especially in light of past U.S. actions—was deeply unsettling.

The Soleimani Paradox: A Tale of Selective Justice
To understand the implications of Trump’s meeting with al-Sharaa, we must revisit the 2020 assassination of Qassem Soleimani, commander of Iran’s Quds Force. Soleimani played a central role in fighting ISIS, particularly in Iraq and Syria, where his forces aided local militias in retaking territory. Despite this alignment with U.S. priorities, the Trump administration ordered his assassination via drone strike in Baghdad, justifying it by citing his support for groups like Hezbollah and alleged threats to U.S. interests.

The contrast is stark: Soleimani, who battled ISIS and extremist groups, was killed; al-Sharaa, once the head of an al-Qaeda affiliate, is now a diplomatic partner. This contradiction suggests that U.S. counterterrorism policy is less about eliminating extremism and more about advancing strategic interests. Soleimani’s death disrupted Iran’s regional influence—a long-standing U.S. objective—while al-Sharaa’s new role aligns with Washington’s aim to stabilize post-Assad Syria without direct military involvement.

A History of Convenient Alliances
Trump’s meeting with al-Sharaa is not an anomaly but part of a broader pattern in U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, the U.S. supported Afghan mujahideen against the Soviets—some of whom, like Osama bin Laden, later formed al-Qaeda. In the 1980s, Washington backed Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, despite his clear record of atrocities, because Iraq served as a counterweight to Tehran.

In 2025, Trump’s Middle East strategy mirrors this tradition. His visit to Saudi Arabia—where he signed a $142 billion arms deal and emphasized confronting Iran—underscored a focus on strengthening allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel while selectively engaging former foes like al-Sharaa. The lifting of sanctions and talk of normalization signal a pragmatic shift, prioritizing stability and economic opportunity over old terrorist designations. This realpolitik approach aligns with Trump’s deal-making rhetoric, such as his readiness to negotiate with Iran—if it abandoned its nuclear ambitions and support for “terrorism”—even while threatening “maximum pressure.”

The Mask Slips from the War on Terror
America’s war on terror, launched after 9/11, has long been portrayed as a moral struggle against extremism. But the meeting with al-Sharaa exposes its instrumental nature. By engaging with a former terrorist leader, the U.S. reveals that its “terrorist” labels are often temporary, shifting when political or economic interests arise. Trump’s handshake with al-Sharaa sends a message to regional players: the U.S. is willing to overlook past crimes for strategic gain—a signal that may encourage other groups to pursue legitimacy through cosmetic political changes.

By contrast, the assassination of Soleimani shows the other side of that coin. His killing wasn’t just about counterterrorism—it was a strategic blow to Iran, a regional rival. Soleimani’s forces played a key role in defeating ISIS in Iraq, yet the terrorist label overshadowed his contributions to a shared objective.

A Policy of Expedience
The photo of Donald Trump shaking hands with Ahmad al-Sharaa is more than just a diplomatic snapshot—it’s a window into the dual nature of America’s counterterrorism policy. When a former al-Qaeda commander is embraced as a partner, but a general who fought ISIS is eliminated by U.S. drones, the message is clear: terrorism is a label used for convenience, not conviction. It reveals a truth the West rarely admits—principles become negotiable when interests are at stake.

As the Middle East enters a new chapter, the world watches and wonders: Is America’s war on extremism truly about security—or just another move in a geopolitical chess game for regional and global dominance?