Entertainment
The R-Rated 90s Sci-Fi Thriller That's An Evil Robot Takeover
By Robert Scucci
| Published

I love a solid B movie as much as the next guy, but sometimes low-budget charm isn’t enough to sustain a feature-length film. For every Alienator and Dead End Drive-In, there’s something like 1993’s Mandroid, a movie that muddies the waters with a ham-fisted sci-fi plot. Mandroid has all the right trappings but none of the execution, making it one of those films that’s not “so bad it’s good,” but rather “so bad you start wondering why you’re still watching.”
It’s not that Mandroid is inherently terrible. It has potential. But it’s such a mess thanks to less-than-adequate acting, laughable special effects, and a plot that barely makes sense even though you understand exactly what it’s trying to accomplish.
A Remote-Controlled Robot Riot

Set in post-Cold War Russia, Mandroid centers on Dr. Karl Zimmer (Robert Symonds) and his partner Drago (Curt Lowens), who develop the titular robot. In simple terms, Mandroid is a human-sized machine controlled through a headset and gloves, essentially turning its operator into a real-world avatar. The idea is to use the robot to conduct scientific experiments too dangerous for humans, specifically to synthesize a powerful superconductor by combining volatile substances.
Zimmer, along with daughter Zanna (Jane Caldwell), sees enormous practical applications for Mandroid. They intend to hand the technology over to the United States in good faith with assistance from Agent Joe Smith (Patrik Ersgard) and Dr. Wade Franklin (Brian Cousins), who have ties to the CIA.

Drago, however, has more sinister ambitions. He plans to steal Mandroid and sell it to the military for his own gain. The tension between these two camps escalates into a violent showdown, with only one clear victor by the end. Will Mandroid be used in pursuit of scientific progress, or will it be reprogrammed into a killing machine unlike anything we’ve seen before?
Mandroid Looks Pretty Cool, Though
Despite its lack of meaningful effects work, Mandroid itself looks cooler than it has any right to. It’s a sleek, black humanoid robot, and while it’s obviously a guy in a suit, the design is futuristic enough to sell the premise. Once the central conflict kicks in, the screenplay’s ambition quickly outpaces what’s actually on screen because the budget simply isn’t there for the kind of epic showdown it’s aiming for.

That’s where B movie charm usually saves the day. Films like Alienator succeed because they lean into their camp. Even when the acting is shaky, the schlocky delivery lands with audiences who value concept and charisma over execution.

There’s usually something tangible to grab onto with a great B movie. I’m disappointed to say Mandroid doesn’t quite have that X-factor. It’s fine for what it is, but the material might have worked better as a short in an anthology series instead of a full feature. The nuts and bolts are there. The assembly just leaves a lot to be desired.

As of this writing, Mandroid is streaming for free on Tubi.
Entertainment
NYT Connections hints today: Clues, answers for March 1, 2026
The NYT Connections puzzle today is not too difficult to solve if you’re a frequent flyer.
Connections is the one of the most popular New York Times word games that’s captured the public’s attention. The game is all about finding the “common threads between words.” And just like Wordle, Connections resets after midnight and each new set of words gets trickier and trickier—so we’ve served up some hints and tips to get you over the hurdle.
If you just want to be told today’s puzzle, you can jump to the end of this article for today’s Connections solution. But if you’d rather solve it yourself, keep reading for some clues, tips, and strategies to assist you.
What is Connections?
The NYT‘s latest daily word game has become a social media hit. The Times credits associate puzzle editor Wyna Liu with helping to create the new word game and bringing it to the publications’ Games section. Connections can be played on both web browsers and mobile devices and require players to group four words that share something in common.
This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
Each puzzle features 16 words and each grouping of words is split into four categories. These sets could comprise of anything from book titles, software, country names, etc. Even though multiple words will seem like they fit together, there’s only one correct answer.
If a player gets all four words in a set correct, those words are removed from the board. Guess wrong and it counts as a mistake—players get up to four mistakes until the game ends.
This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.
Players can also rearrange and shuffle the board to make spotting connections easier. Additionally, each group is color-coded with yellow being the easiest, followed by green, blue, and purple. Like Wordle, you can share the results with your friends on social media.
Mashable Top Stories
Here’s a hint for today’s Connections categories
Want a hint about the categories without being told the categories? Then give these a try:
Here are today’s Connections categories
Need a little extra help? Today’s connections fall into the following categories:
Looking for Wordle today? Here’s the answer to today’s Wordle.
Ready for the answers? This is your last chance to turn back and solve today’s puzzle before we reveal the solutions.
Drumroll, please!
The solution to today’s Connections #994 is…
What is the answer to Connections today
-
Little bite: CANAPÉ, FINGER FOOD, HORS D’OEUVRE, TAPA
-
Construction equipment: HARD HAT, LADDER, NAIL GUN, TOOL BELT
-
Vacation emoji: AIRPLANE, LUGGAGE, PALM TREE, SMILING FACE WITH SUNGLASSES
-
Things you don’t eat that end in foods: COPYPASTA, JOHANNESBURGER, KNUCKLE SANDWICH, LICORICE PIZZA
Don’t feel down if you didn’t manage to guess it this time. There will be new Connections for you to stretch your brain with tomorrow, and we’ll be back again to guide you with more helpful hints.
Are you also playing NYT Strands? Get all the Strands hints you need for today’s puzzle.
If you’re looking for more puzzles, Mashable’s got games now! Check out our games hub for Mahjong, Sudoku, free crossword, and more.
Not the day you’re after? Here’s the solution to yesterday’s Connections.
Entertainment
NYT Strands hints, answers for March 1, 2026
Today’s NYT Strands hints are easy if you’re not on. your best behavior.
Strands, the New York Times‘ elevated word-search game, requires the player to perform a twist on the classic word search. Words can be made from linked letters — up, down, left, right, or diagonal, but words can also change direction, resulting in quirky shapes and patterns. Every single letter in the grid will be part of an answer. There’s always a theme linking every solution, along with the “spangram,” a special, word or phrase that sums up that day’s theme, and spans the entire grid horizontally or vertically.
By providing an opaque hint and not providing the word list, Strands creates a brain-teasing game that takes a little longer to play than its other games, like Wordle and Connections.
If you’re feeling stuck or just don’t have 10 or more minutes to figure out today’s puzzle, we’ve got all the NYT Strands hints for today’s puzzle you need to progress at your preferred pace.
NYT Strands hint for today’s theme: Dressing down
The words are related to discipline.
Mashable Top Stories
Today’s NYT Strands theme plainly explained
These words describe ways to chastise.
NYT Strands spangram hint: Is it vertical or horizontal?
Today’s NYT Strands spangram is vertical.
NYT Strands spangram answer today
Today’s spangram is The Riot Act.
NYT Strands word list for March 1
-
Braidup
-
The Riot Act
-
Scold
-
Castigate
-
Reprimand
-
Admonish
Looking for other daily online games? Mashable’s Games page has more hints, and if you’re looking for more puzzles, Mashable’s got games now!
Check out our games hub for Mahjong, Sudoku, free crossword, and more.
Not the day you’re after? Here’s the solution to yesterday’s Strands.
Entertainment
New Scream Movie Is Only For Diehard Fans
By Chris Snellgrove
| Published

In 1996, iconic director Wes Craven rejuvenated the slasher genre with Scream, a film that served as the perfect deconstruction of horror movies. Scream was ahead of its time in many ways, predicting modern phenomena like true crime obsession and paradoxical relationships. At the same time, it worked as a perfect scary movie, one that transformed the entire genre for the better.
However, Scream was delivering diminishing returns even before Wes Craven died, and the franchise later re-oriented itself around a new pair of leads with Scream (2022). Unfortunately, the studio lost both Melissa Barrera and Jenna Ortega, which necessitated the return of original franchise icon Neve Campbell for Scream 7. The new movie is directed by original Scream scribe Kevin Williamson, and while it provides competent kills and fun moments for returning cast members, the sloppy plotting results in a film that only diehard fans will really enjoy.
Sydney’s Coming, And Hell Is Coming With Her

The basic premise of Scream 7 is that a new killer (or is it killers?) is gunning for Sydney Prescott, and they are claiming to be the original Scream villain, Stu Macher. Syd is skeptical and thinks Stu’s taunting video calls are just an AI fabrication, but the danger is all too real when her daughter and her daughter’s friends become targets for the attacker. Now, Sydney must team up with Gale Weathers and other returning allies, but even their combined strength may not be enough to defeat the one type of foe they have never fought before: one who refuses to follow any kind of rules.
The Stu Macher stuff is mostly an excuse to bring fan-favorite actor Matthew Lillard back into the fold, and his taunting video calls to Syd are easily one of the best parts of the film. Unfortunately, his presence is also evidence of the worst part of the film: namely, that Scream 7 is much more interested in wallowing in nostalgia than really building anything new. This is a franchise that once deconstructed the entire horror genre, and every movie was fair game. Now, the latest Scream is only interested in its own lore, and with nothing left to really deconstruct, all director Kevin Williamson can really do is play the hits of yesteryear.
Like Mother, Like Daughter

On paper, that happens through a loose reconstruction of the first film: Sydney now has a daughter of her own, one who is the exact age that Syd was when the Woodsboro murders went down. She’s got a slightly creepy boyfriend who likes to climb in her window for surprise snuggles and a group of hapless friends that soon become cannon fodder for a marauding masked killer. The police (including her dad, the chief) are helpless to stop the carnage, forcing these plucky teens to take matters into their own hands lest they get picked off one by one.
A remake (or requel, or whatever we’re calling all this crap now) of the first film works well on paper, but the essential problem of Scream 7 is that it can’t decide which characters to focus on. We start out with an uneasy balance of newer and older actors, but the film soon focuses almost exclusively on legacy characters like Sydney Prescott, Gale Weathers, and even Scream 5 and 6 veterans Chad and Mindy. While that leads to some great fan service for returning audiences, it creates one of the film’s biggest problems: we don’t really get to know almost any of these younger characters before Ghostface is picking them off.
Ghostface Is Back For More Blood Than Ever Before

Fortunately, the kills in this movie are some of the nastiest and most memorable in the entire franchise, and Ghostface is as viscerally scary as ever as he dispatches victims in increasingly grotesque ways. Accordingly, your enjoyment of Scream 7 will largely hinge on your primary motivation for watching slasher movies. If you’re here for killers looking cool (the kids call it aura farming) and pretty faces dying ugly deaths, this latest franchise entry delivers all that and a bloody bag of chips. If you prefer to get to know the virtual victims before they are transformed into raw meat, you’ll likely find Scream 7 to be the weakest movie in the entire series.
Speaking of weak, the reveal of the killer (or is it killers? Don’t worry, I’m keeping this spoiler-free) is particularly disappointing because the motivation for stalking Sydney comes out of nowhere. In the first movie, Stu Macher and particularly Billy Loomis had tangible reasons for stalking Syd, and discovering who the killers were felt a bit like solving the puzzle of a whodunnit. Like Scream 6 before it, Scream 7 tries too hard to surprise fans with the reveal, and this came at a cost: namely, the killer’s motivation makes no real sense, and it comes in the form of an exposition chunk so thick it threatens to choke the climax of the movie.
Killer Performances From Actors Old And New

Aside from the cool kills, Scream 7 does a few other things very well. The new additions to the cast are awesome: Community’s Joel McHale is weirdly perfect as Sydney’s top cop husband, and the character steals his handful of scenes with McHale’s trademark rogueish charisma. But I was even more pleasantly surprised by Isabel May, who convincingly gives Sydney Prescott’s daughter an aching vulnerability whose pain masks ice-cold reserves of hidden strength.
As you might imagine, the returning actors all do a great job, starting with Courtney Cox: her Gale Weathers is as fierce and funny as ever, and she has taken the characters played by returning actors Mason Gooding and Jasmin Savoy Brown under her wing as journalistic interns. Those younger characters continue to provide humorous, Randy-like commentary on the violent proceedings around them. But the actor truly giving it her all is Neve Campbell, whose Sydney reluctantly saddles up for one last fight with the ghostly demons of her past.
When You Stare At The Past, It Stares Right Back

Ultimately, how much you like Scream 7 will depend on how much you enjoy the franchise as a whole. As for myself, I’m a superfan: I saw the original in theaters, I’ve listened to the cast speak at multiple conventions, and I’ve got a house filled with way too much Ghostface merchandise. From the perspective of a superfan, the film is decent (good, not great) in bringing back our favorite characters and wrapping up its derivative story in the bloody packaging of some truly innovative kills.
If you’re not a Scream fanboy, though, it’s worth waiting to catch this on streaming, assuming that you catch it at all. Kevin Williamson wrote the legendary first film in this franchise, but now that he’s in the director’s chair, he created a movie that only complete franchise diehards will really enjoy. As for everyone else, let’s just say that if Ghostface calls, Scream 7 will never be the answer to this franchise’s age-old question: “what’s your favorite scary movie?”

