‘Bank Under Siege’ Netflix Review: Yet Another Miniseries That Could Have Been A Movie

Netflix releases a lot of miniseries every year, and a lot of them fail to justify why they needed to tell their stories in an episodic fashion instead of taking the feature film route. If we take a look at the streaming platform’s 2024 slate so far, Fool Me Once was absolutely atrocious. The Indrani Mukerjea Story seemed like an overlong PR stunt. Baby Reindeer was phenomenal, sure. Eric was so goddamn listless. IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack seemed like a live-action version of the incident’s Wikipedia page. The Perfect Couple seemed so disinterested in its own story. And then there was The Last Night at Tremore Beach, which spent over 8 hours spinning some elaborate tale and then eventually revealed that maybe all of it had been a figment of its protagonist’s mind. Now, we have Bank Under Siege in our hands. Does it justify its miniseries tag? Let’s find out.

Daniel Calparsoro’s Bank Under Siege tells the story of the robbery of the Central Bank of Barcelona that happened in 1981. Around 11 robbers, led by Jose Juan Martinez and Cuevas, entered the premises and held over 300 people hostage for nearly 48 hours. Initially, they asked for the release of the former Lt. Colonel of the Civil Guard, Antonio Tejero, and all those who were arrested after the failed coup attempt that happened a few months before the heist. But then they solely focused on taking all the cash in the bank and making a run for it. However, the mere mention of the release of political prisoners caused politicians and journalists to wonder if there was more to this heist than everyone was being led to believe. So, while police officer Paco, General Aramburu Topete, and every top official of the government tried to identify the robbers and rescue the hostages, journalist Maider started digging into the larger conspiracy that was playing out right before everyone’s eyes.

Bank Under Siege is a history lesson for those who are unaware of the fact that such a heist had happened in Barcelona in 1981. And it serves as a jumping-off point for conspiracy theorists to again speculate whether or not certain members of the government and the monarchy were involved in the incident. I guess there’s some tepid commentary on how those in power grow in prominence because they’re able to exploit desperate people who are ready to act as pawns in a game that they’ve no idea they are in. But I’m not going to sit here and pretend that there’s more to the miniseries than that. All the stuff about journalism is so stereotypical and bland that it made me roll my eyes until they popped out of my sockets. The robbers don’t have any personality to them. Only one of them gets a backstory, and it’s just a rehash of Bonnie and Clyde? I mean, come on, what are we even doing here? The investigation and eventual rescue do not have any sense of intrigue or tension. I’m just supposed to admire the insinuation of a conspiracy that comes at the tailend of the miniseries—that this heist changed the face of Spain? Sure thing.

Bank Under Siege is a good-looking miniseries; I’ll give it that. A lot of effort has clearly gone into capturing the look and feel of the ‘80s through the hair and make-up, costume design, production design, art direction, and set design. Although it never seems like there are around 300 hostages being held in the bank, the set that’s made to look like a bank feels very real. The VFX and SFX teams have done a phenomenal job of transporting the audience to that day in Plaza Catalunya. The green screen effect during the driving sequences, though, is appalling. The coloring and editing are competent. The pacing of the miniseries is fine. But I want to talk to the person or individuals in the cinematography department who were in charge of the camera movements and the focus pulling, because what the hell was going on there? I’m not kidding when I say that all the zoom-ins and zoom-outs made me dizzy. Also, the zooms were oddly jittery, like the show was being shot on a handycam that needed to be retired. It seemed like the makers of the miniseries had hired a bunch of kids to take care of the camera while they were off somewhere chilling. If that’s the case, I hope those kids got paid properly.

The performances in Bank Under Siege were all just fine. Miguel Herran got to flex his muscles (literally) and his acting chops. I think he is one of the most talented actors of this generation; he just needs to secure good scripts and directors. I mean, he was channeling that raw energy Al Pacino displayed in Dog Day Afternoon. Unfortunately, this miniseries is not on par with that Sidney Lumet classic, so I don’t know if Herran’s performance will be as well-remembered as Pacino’s. Hovik Keuchkerian, Isak Ferriz, Juanjo Ballesta, Claudio Villarrubia, Tomy Aguilera, Patricia Vico, Robert Alamo, and the rest of the supporting cast were alright. Nobody really stood out to me in any significant way, but they weren’t bad enough to stick out like a sore thumb either. With all that said, what’s up with Maria Pedraza? She has 15 titles under her belt, and, oh boy, is she bad! I don’t think her inability to emote would’ve been that noticeable if she wasn’t one of the central characters. But since she was in the spotlight for a major chunk of the runtime, her flaws were very apparent. Have you heard the term “serving face”? Yes, it looked like that’s what she was doing regardless of the situation her character was in. It didn’t matter if Maider was supposed to be sad, happy, frightened, or anxious, Maria was consistent about being glamorously expressionless. Well, as long as she is getting people to click on that play button, I guess hiring her was worth it.

Given how Bank Under Siege has two actors from the hugely popular (albeit incredibly overrated) Netflix series, Money Heist, I’m sure people won’t care if I’m giving this miniseries a thumbs up or a thumbs down. Instead, I’ll use this platform to recommend some good heist/robbery movies that you can watch instead of wasting your time on Bank Under Siege (if you’re looking for a history lesson, all the “authentic” information is available on the internet and on our website, via explainers, for free). I have already mentioned Dog Day Afternoon, which is brilliant. Paco and Martinez’s conversation had shades of Michael Mann’s Heat, so do watch that. If you want Heat on steroids, there’s Den of Thieves. Reservoir Dogs is great because it involves a botched robbery and some of the greatest performances of all time. Good Time is fantastic if you can handle the tension. The Town is an excellent choice. In addition to that, there’s Hell or High Water, Logan Lucky, Aankhein, American Animals, the Ocean’s trilogy, and of course, Bonnie and Clyde.

Related

‘Bank Under Siege’ Netflix Review: Yet Another Miniseries That Could Have Been A Movie

Netflix releases a lot of miniseries every year, and a lot of them fail to justify why they needed to tell their stories in an episodic fashion instead of taking the feature film route. If we take a look at the streaming platform’s 2024 slate so far, Fool Me Once was absolutely atrocious. The Indrani Mukerjea Story seemed like an overlong PR stunt. Baby Reindeer was phenomenal, sure. Eric was so goddamn listless. IC 814: The Kandahar Hijack seemed like a live-action version of the incident’s Wikipedia page. The Perfect Couple seemed so disinterested in its own story. And then there was The Last Night at Tremore Beach, which spent over 8 hours spinning some elaborate tale and then eventually revealed that maybe all of it had been a figment of its protagonist’s mind. Now, we have Bank Under Siege in our hands. Does it justify its miniseries tag? Let’s find out.

Daniel Calparsoro’s Bank Under Siege tells the story of the robbery of the Central Bank of Barcelona that happened in 1981. Around 11 robbers, led by Jose Juan Martinez and Cuevas, entered the premises and held over 300 people hostage for nearly 48 hours. Initially, they asked for the release of the former Lt. Colonel of the Civil Guard, Antonio Tejero, and all those who were arrested after the failed coup attempt that happened a few months before the heist. But then they solely focused on taking all the cash in the bank and making a run for it. However, the mere mention of the release of political prisoners caused politicians and journalists to wonder if there was more to this heist than everyone was being led to believe. So, while police officer Paco, General Aramburu Topete, and every top official of the government tried to identify the robbers and rescue the hostages, journalist Maider started digging into the larger conspiracy that was playing out right before everyone’s eyes.

Bank Under Siege is a history lesson for those who are unaware of the fact that such a heist had happened in Barcelona in 1981. And it serves as a jumping-off point for conspiracy theorists to again speculate whether or not certain members of the government and the monarchy were involved in the incident. I guess there’s some tepid commentary on how those in power grow in prominence because they’re able to exploit desperate people who are ready to act as pawns in a game that they’ve no idea they are in. But I’m not going to sit here and pretend that there’s more to the miniseries than that. All the stuff about journalism is so stereotypical and bland that it made me roll my eyes until they popped out of my sockets. The robbers don’t have any personality to them. Only one of them gets a backstory, and it’s just a rehash of Bonnie and Clyde? I mean, come on, what are we even doing here? The investigation and eventual rescue do not have any sense of intrigue or tension. I’m just supposed to admire the insinuation of a conspiracy that comes at the tailend of the miniseries—that this heist changed the face of Spain? Sure thing.

Bank Under Siege is a good-looking miniseries; I’ll give it that. A lot of effort has clearly gone into capturing the look and feel of the ‘80s through the hair and make-up, costume design, production design, art direction, and set design. Although it never seems like there are around 300 hostages being held in the bank, the set that’s made to look like a bank feels very real. The VFX and SFX teams have done a phenomenal job of transporting the audience to that day in Plaza Catalunya. The green screen effect during the driving sequences, though, is appalling. The coloring and editing are competent. The pacing of the miniseries is fine. But I want to talk to the person or individuals in the cinematography department who were in charge of the camera movements and the focus pulling, because what the hell was going on there? I’m not kidding when I say that all the zoom-ins and zoom-outs made me dizzy. Also, the zooms were oddly jittery, like the show was being shot on a handycam that needed to be retired. It seemed like the makers of the miniseries had hired a bunch of kids to take care of the camera while they were off somewhere chilling. If that’s the case, I hope those kids got paid properly.

The performances in Bank Under Siege were all just fine. Miguel Herran got to flex his muscles (literally) and his acting chops. I think he is one of the most talented actors of this generation; he just needs to secure good scripts and directors. I mean, he was channeling that raw energy Al Pacino displayed in Dog Day Afternoon. Unfortunately, this miniseries is not on par with that Sidney Lumet classic, so I don’t know if Herran’s performance will be as well-remembered as Pacino’s. Hovik Keuchkerian, Isak Ferriz, Juanjo Ballesta, Claudio Villarrubia, Tomy Aguilera, Patricia Vico, Robert Alamo, and the rest of the supporting cast were alright. Nobody really stood out to me in any significant way, but they weren’t bad enough to stick out like a sore thumb either. With all that said, what’s up with Maria Pedraza? She has 15 titles under her belt, and, oh boy, is she bad! I don’t think her inability to emote would’ve been that noticeable if she wasn’t one of the central characters. But since she was in the spotlight for a major chunk of the runtime, her flaws were very apparent. Have you heard the term “serving face”? Yes, it looked like that’s what she was doing regardless of the situation her character was in. It didn’t matter if Maider was supposed to be sad, happy, frightened, or anxious, Maria was consistent about being glamorously expressionless. Well, as long as she is getting people to click on that play button, I guess hiring her was worth it.

Given how Bank Under Siege has two actors from the hugely popular (albeit incredibly overrated) Netflix series, Money Heist, I’m sure people won’t care if I’m giving this miniseries a thumbs up or a thumbs down. Instead, I’ll use this platform to recommend some good heist/robbery movies that you can watch instead of wasting your time on Bank Under Siege (if you’re looking for a history lesson, all the “authentic” information is available on the internet and on our website, via explainers, for free). I have already mentioned Dog Day Afternoon, which is brilliant. Paco and Martinez’s conversation had shades of Michael Mann’s Heat, so do watch that. If you want Heat on steroids, there’s Den of Thieves. Reservoir Dogs is great because it involves a botched robbery and some of the greatest performances of all time. Good Time is fantastic if you can handle the tension. The Town is an excellent choice. In addition to that, there’s Hell or High Water, Logan Lucky, Aankhein, American Animals, the Ocean’s trilogy, and of course, Bonnie and Clyde.

Related

CRH to reconsider sale of cement business in the Philippines

Philippines: CRH is considering selling its cement business in the Philippines. The company has engaged UBS Group to assess investors’ interest in acquiring assets, with negotiations ongoing. In 2019, CRH attempted to sell its Philippines cement business for US$2 – 3bn as part of an asset portfolio optimisation, but the divestment is reportedly now worth ‘significantly’ less due to a ‘more complex’ business environment, according to AK&M Information Agency.
CRH first entered the Philippine market in 2015 by acquiring Republic Cement, the second largest cement producer in the Philippines.

JioCinema’s Business Head Ferzad Palia To Quit

SUMMARY
Palia will reportedly remain with the organisation during the transition period to ensure smooth handover
Ferzad Palia has long been associated with Viacom 18 Media serving the network for more than two decades
Reliance’s streaming platform JioCinema crossed the 1.6 Cr paid subscriber mark at the end of September 2024

.site-inc42-plus .social-media-icons li .inc42-toggle-item-popup img{
filter: none;
}
.site-inc42-plus .social-media-layout {
border-radius: 8px;
background: #202027;
border: none;
}
.site-inc42-plus .social-media-icons ul li{
background: #2C2C2C;
}
.site-inc42-plus .saved-post-btn svg path {
stroke: #fff;
}
.site-inc42-plus .saved-post-btn.unfollow-item svg path {
fill: #fff;
}
.saved-post-btn.unfollow-item svg path {
fill: #000;
}
.site-inc42-plus .social-media-icons {
border-left: 1px solid #0D0D0D;
}
.site-inc42-plus .social-media-modal-content li{
background: #4B4B4B;
}
.site-inc42-plus .social-media-modal-content {
background: #202027;
padding: 20px 16px 28px;
}
.site-inc42-plus .social-media-news ul li {
border-radius: 6px;
border: 1px solid #CACACA;
background: #000;
}
.site-inc42-plus .social-media-news ul li a{
color: #fff !important;
}
.site-inc42-plus .social-media-icons li img,
.site-inc42-plus .social-media-modal-content li img {
filter: invert();
}
.social-media-layout {
border-radius: 8px;
border: 1px solid #E6E6E6;
background: #FFF;
margin-bottom: 16px;
height: 63px;
}
/* .saved-item svg path {
fill: #000;
} */
.social-media-news {
padding: 13px 10px;
}
.social-media-icons {
padding: 13px 10px;
border-left: 1px solid #E6E6E6;
}

.social-media-news ul li {
width: 132px;
height: 37px;
border-radius: 6px;
border: 1px solid #CACACA;
background: #FFF;
margin-right: 8px;
}
.social-media-news ul li span {
margin-top: 2px;
margin-left: 4px;
}
.divAlign {
display: flex;
justify-content: space-between;
align-items: center;
}
.social-media-icons li{
border-radius: 6px;
background: #E8E8E8;
width: 37px;
height: 37px;
margin-right: 8px;
}
.social-media-icons li:last-child,
.social-media-news ul li:last-child{
margin-right: 0;
}
.social-media-icons li img {
height: 20px;
width: 20px !important;
border-radius: 0 !important;
}
.social-media-layout li a{
color: #030303 !important;
font-size: 12px;
font-style: normal;
font-weight: 600;
line-height: 18.2px;
}
.social-media-icons ul li a,
.social-media-layout li button{
width: 100%;
height: 100%;
display: flex;
text-align: center;
align-items: center;
justify-content: center;
}
.social-media-icons ul li:nth-last-child(-n+2){
margin-right: 0;
}
.social-media-news ul li a{
padding: 0px 11px;
height: 100%;
display: flex;
justify-content: center;
align-items: center;
}
.social-media-news ul li img{
width: 20px !important;
height: 20px;
margin-right: 5px;
border-radius: 0 !important;
object-fit: cover;
}
.display-mobile-view {
display: none;
}
@media (max-width: 767px) {
.toggle-items-content-main {
left: 0 !important;
width: 100% !important;
height: 122px;

}
/* .toggle-items-content .items-content-text h4{
font-size: 16px;
} */
.saved-post-main .inc42-toggle-item-popup{
width: 100%;
left: 0;
position: absolute;
}
.inc42-toggle-item-popup .CustomIconStyled {
right: 155px;
}
.toggle-items-content{
padding-top: 30px;
}
.saved-post-main .inc42-toggle-item-popup .CustomIconStyled {
right: 18px;
}
.display-mobile-view {
display: block !important;
}
.social-media-icons ul li {
display: none;
}
.social-media-icons ul .saved-post-btn {
display: block;
}
.social-media-news ul li{
width: 96px;
height: 30px;
}
.social-media-news ul li span {
margin-left: 0px;
}
.social-media-layout{
height: 51px;

}
.social-media-news ,
.social-media-icons{
padding: 10px;
}
.single-post-summary span{
font-size: 16px;
line-height: 23.4px;
margin-bottom: 10px;
}
.social-media-layout li a{
font-size: 10px !important;
line-height: 14.2px !important;
}
.social-media-news ul li a {
padding: 0px 5px;
}
.social-media-icons li{
width: 32px;
height: 30px;
}
}
.saved-post-btn{
background: transparent;
text-transform: inherit;
padding: 0px;
font-style: normal;
font-weight: 600;
height: 100%;
width: 100%;
font-size: 16px;
line-height: 18px;
-webkit-box-align: center;
-ms-flex-align: center;
align-items: center;
color: #333333;
}
.saved-post-main ul li {
display: block;
}

Jio Cinema’s business head Ferzad Palia is reportedly stepping down from his position after a long stint at Viacom18.
Palia will remain with the organisation during the transition period to ensure smooth handover, ET reported, citing sources close to the development. 
JioCinema declined to comment on the development.
He has long been associated with Viacom 18 Media serving the network for more than two decades. 
Palia joined the company in 2004 and has played a crucial role in JioCinema’s growth.

(The story will be updated soon) 

.entry-footer-banner iframe { width: 100%; }

6:00 a.m. the law the law So What Happens With All the Cases Against Trump Now? By Elie Honig There is unfinished business between the president-elect and special counsel Jack Smith.

Photo: Evan Vucci/AP

There’s no gentle way to put this, so let’s be direct: All four criminal cases against Donald Trump are effectively over.

Prosecutors can still take measures to memorialize their findings for the history books and as a warning to the American public. But Trump won’t face another criminal trial, and he won’t go to prison. He gambled his liberty interests on retaking the presidency — an astonishing all-or-nothing bet — and he won.

Let’s start with the two federal cases. Trump has already announced that he will fire special counsel Jack Smith “within two seconds,” and Smith reportedly has discussed within the DOJ his plans to wind down the cases. There’s an academic debate to be had about whether the president has constitutional authority to fire the special counsel. Federal regulations provide that the attorney general can terminate a special counsel, but the competing “unitary executive” theory holds that the president is not just the head of the executive branch — he is the executive branch and can do essentially whatever he wants within it. Either way, Trump has an easy work-around: He’ll appoint an attorney general who will do his dirty work and dismiss the special counsel and the cases himself if necessary.

Smith faces another structural obstacle beyond Trump’s promise to fire him. Longstanding Justice Department policy prohibits indictment and prosecution of the sitting president. We have never before encountered a scenario in which the subject of an investigation — or in this case, an actual indictment — has become the sitting president during the case. But here we are. And Smith seemingly recognizes that, whether he’s fired or not, his case must end when Trump takes the oath of office on January 20.

Smith still has two and a half months left on the job, but he won’t have a meaningful opportunity to do much of substance in the courtroom between now and Inauguration Day. Both of his cases are stuck in appellate purgatory; the January 6 case is still mired in litigation about the extent of Trump’s immunity, and the classified-documents case has been dismissed altogether because the district judge ruled that the entire special-counsel regime is unconstitutional. Trump will be back in office well before either issue is fully resolved.

But Smith still has one opportunity left to make his cases, at least on paper. Under the aforementioned regulations, a special counsel must write a final report setting forth his investigative findings and prosecution or declination decisions. Ordinarily, a special counsel wouldn’t write the report until the very end of his case, ideally after trial. But Smith can reasonably decide — based on Trump’s public declaration of intent to end both cases and the DOJ policy against prosecuting the sitting president — that it’s appropriate to write the report now. It’s unclear whether we would learn much that is revelatory or new; Smith already has provided detailed indictments in both cases and an exhaustive 165-page recitation of his evidence in the 2020 election case. But if he wants to create documents that formally set out his findings in full, he’ll have an opportunity to do that before his tenure ends.

If this feels like thin gruel to anyone hoping for a full vetting of the allegations through trial, it is. Some blame Trump for his delay strategy. But that’s like an NBA coach blaming his opponent for trying to block all his team’s shots; that’s how the game is played. With Trump’s personal liberty at stake, his lawyers raised constitutional defenses that any semi-competent defense attorney would raise — and they won. That’s not foul play, and it’s not their “fault” these cases will never see trial. They did their jobs.

Listen to The Counsel podcast
Join a team of experts — from former prosecutors to legal scholars — as it breaks down the complex legal issues shaping our country today. Twice a week, Elie Honig and other CAFE contributors examine the intersecting worlds of law, politics, and current events.

Subscribe on:

If you’re looking to cast blame, consider this: “Every day that passes makes a potential federal prosecution of Trump less likely to happen and more fraught for the Justice Department if it does … The debate surely will rage on about whether AG Merrick Garland has meaningfully and pragmatically set his sights on Trump. Someday, we’ll find out. No matter what happens, the delay in reaching a resolution is counterproductive and inexcusable.” That’s something I wrote in May 2022 — six months before Garland appointed Smith and a year and three months before the DOJ finally got around to indicting. It should come as no surprise that the clock ran out.

Then we’ve got the two state cases in New York and Georgia. We’ve seen plenty of surreal courthouse scenarios over the past few years, and we’re weeks away from an all-timer: the criminal sentencing of the president-elect in Manhattan on November 26. Trump’s team reportedly will ask the judge to cancel the sentencing, and they have offered him various legal off-ramps so it may not happen at all. If it does proceed, it’s something like a 50-50 toss-up whether the judge will sentence Trump to prison. But even if he does, it’ll be purely ceremonial. There’s no way the president-elect gets locked up during the transition period or his presidency, and a normal defendant in Trump’s position likely would be given bail pending appeal anyway (meaning the right to file an appeal before serving any sentence).

Finally, there’s the Fulton County district attorney’s 2020 election-interference case. This one is already on the brink of collapse under its own weight. The trial judge has thrown out five of the 13 original charges against Trump. And a Georgia appeals court is now considering DA Fani Willis’s alleged conflict of interest (arising from her relationship with former lead prosecutor Nathan Wade) and prosecutorial misconduct (for her inflammatory out-of-court statements about the case, which the trial judge termed “legally improper”). The signs are ominous for the district attorney.

Again, we face a vexing constitutional question: Can a state prosecution proceed against a sitting president? Once again, watch for intellectually stimulating legal arguments by brilliant scholarly minds. But I’ll end the suspense: There’s no way. If state-level authorities in New York try to imprison the sitting president, or if Georgia courts attempt to put him on trial, the federal courts will block it under the Supremacy Clause, or the lesser-known You-Must-Be-Kidding-Me Clause. Our executive branch simply cannot function and cannot enforce the law of the land effectively with the commander-in-chief tied up in court or behind bars — on state charges, no less.

Theoretically, both state cases could be put on hold until Trump’s term ends in January 2029 and resumed then. But Trump would have an argument that such a delay would impair his right to a speedy trial (even if the delay is due to Trump’s own status as president). And again, we need to consider the practicalities. Will we really see state-level DAs (whoever they may be four years from now) attempt to imprison an 82-year-old, two-term former president for conduct that happened 13 years prior (as in the hush-money case)?

We’ll have plenty of time to reflect on the meaning of it all, and indeed, it’s hard to comprehend that Trump will skate entirely for all he has done. But a hard look at the practicalities around prosecution of the former-and-future president dictates that this outcome was in play all along. As it turns out, in our courts, hard political reality has a way of prevailing over high-minded aspiration.

This article will also appear in the free CAFE Brief newsletter. You can find more analysis of law and politics from Elie Honig, Preet Bharara, Joyce Vance, and other CAFE contributors at cafe.com.

Sign Up for the Intelligencer Newsletter
Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

Vox Media, LLC Terms and Privacy Notice
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice and to receive email correspondence from us.

King cobra mystery that’s puzzled scientists for 188 years finally solved

The mighty king cobra — the world’s longest venomous snake — is actually four distinct species, scientists have confirmed in a new study.For 188 years, the king cobra has been represented by a single species, Ophiophagus hannah. But this widely distributed species shows huge differences in body coloration and other physical characteristics across different regions, leading scientists to question whether it is a single species.In a study published in 2021, scientists confirmed genetic differences among king cobra populations. Building on this research, scientists have now compared physical differences in museum specimens and identified four separate species: the Northern king cobra (O. hannah), the Sunda king cobra (Ophiophagus bungarus), the Western Ghats king cobra (Ophiophagus kaalinga) and the Luzon king cobra (Ophiophagus salvatana). The findings were published Oct. 16 in the European Journal of Taxonomy.”I feel like we created history,” study author Gowri Shankar Pogiri, founder of the Kalinga Foundation and director of the Kalinga Centre for Rainforest Ecology, told Mongabay.Related: Evolution of snakes takes surprise twist — cobras didn’t come from where we thought they didKing cobras live in humid environments, including open forests and dense mangrove swamps, from northern India to southern China and throughout Southeast Asia. Across these regions, their appearance varies in body color, pattern and size.In the 2021 study, a DNA analysis that accounted for almost the entire distribution range of king cobras identified four distinct genetic lineages. These lineages were classified as confirmed candidate species — species yet to be formally described and named.Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter nowGet the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.Contact me with news and offers from other Future brandsReceive email from us on behalf of our trusted partners or sponsorsBy submitting your information you agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy and are aged 16 or over.Building on this research, the new study looked at the physical differences among 153 museum specimens. An analysis of the specimens’ body morphology — including their color patterns, body widths and dental characteristics led the researchers to identify four species corresponding to the genetic lineages found in the 2021 study.The Northern king cobra (O. hannah) is widespread across the sub-Himalayas, eastern India, Myanmar and Indochina, and extends southward to the narrowest part of peninsular Thailand, in Kra Isthmus. Adults have dark-edged yellow bands and between 18 and 21 teeth.Ophiophagus hannah head and neck are almost band-less with mottled dark edged bands that run down its body. (Image credit: P Gowri Shankar)The Sunda king cobra (O. bungarus) lives in the Malay Peninsula and the islands of the Greater Sundas — including Sumatra, Borneo and Java — as well as in Mindoro in the Philippines. Large individuals of this species are usually unbanded or have narrow, pale bands with dark edges along the body.Ophiophagus bungarus are large species that are usually unbanded or have narrow pale bands with dark edges. (Image credit: P Gowri Shankar)The Western Ghats king cobra (O. kaalinga) is restricted to the Western Ghats of the Indian Peninsula. This species differs from O. bungarus in that it does not have dark edges around the pale bands along its body.Ophiophagus kaalinga is banded but do not have darker edges. (Image credit: P Gowri Shankar)Like O. kaalinga, the Luzon king cobra (O. salvatana) inhabits Luzon, an island in the northern Philippines. It has extremely angular pale body bands compared with the bands of the three other species.Ophiophagus salvatana very pale body bands compared to the other three species. (Image credit: Jazz)All of these species are venomous. King cobras are amongst the most venomous snakes in the world and release a large dose of venom in a single bite that can kill a human in as little as 15 minutes. The new study shares that this could be the first step in developing improved antivenom from Ophiophagus bites in their respective regions.Pogiri believes there may be more unknown king cobra species yet to be discovered on small islands that were not part of this research. “Studying them is already underway,” he said.

Furlenco’s annual revenue falls 10.4% as business slows

Furniture subscription platform Furlenco recorded a slight increase in annual loss for the year, while revenue from operations fell 10.4%.The company posted a consolidated revenue from operations of Rs 139.56 crore for the year ended March 31, 2024, compared with Rs 155.78 crore last year.The company’s loss for the year slightly broadened to Rs 130.22 crore, compared with Rs 128.38 crore a year ago. Total expenses for the year were flat, its financial statements showed.Furlenco’s biggest rival Rentomojo reported a 3X increase in its profit after tax to Rs 22 crore for FY24, led by strong consumer demand and an increase in average items rented.Rentomojo’s net revenue jumped 60% to Rs 193 crore in the period under consideration.Founded in 2012 by Ajith Mohan Karimpana, and operating under the banner of House of Kieraya, Furlenco has raised a total of $269.47 million in funding, according to Inc42’s database. Its investors include Zinnia Global Fund, Lightbox Ventures, UAE-based CE-Ventures, and Bollywood superstar Aamir Khan, among others.It last raised $140 million in a Series D funding round that comprised equity and debt.Sleepwell and Kurlon-owner Sheela Foam had picked a 10.5% stake in Furlenco last month, on top of the 35% stake it had purchased in 2023 for Rs 300 crore.