Oakland, Berkeley, And East Bay News, Events, Restaurants, Music, & Arts
Why do journalists continue to call Assange "enigmatic?" In every interview I've seen where he is not under attack, he is plainspoken and upfront.
Here's a recent example. (Questions in Spanish, but you don't need Spanish to understand his answers.)
Great Aunt Sophie has returned from Provence, where she has been working on “We Suck Sealtits: The Story Of GibneySqueaks.” She would not reveal how much Disney Movies paid her for the rights to her biography of Alex Gibney.
“Did you interview him?”
“I took him to McDonalds, bought him two Double Quarter Pounders with cheese, bacon, mayonnaise, ketchup, and mustard, and a chocolate chip mocha frappe. He talked for six hours about Julian Assange spreading his seed. And he wanted to be paid.”
“He said the going rate for an interview was twenty-five dollars. I refused, of course. But I’ve interviewed his mother-in-law, three of his ex-wives, his seventeen-year-old daughter, his lawyer, his psychiatrist, his hairdresser, his dog-sitter, a US Navy SEAL, and the Pope.”
“Gibney has a hairdresser?
“Had. I don’t want to spoil it for you.”
“What’s the deal with the SEAL?”
“He plays Battle Hymn of the Republic on a set of diatonic bicycle horns.”
“How’d you get him to do it?”
“Two hundred and fifty million herring.”
Wikileaks has leaked a full annotated transcript of the film, with links to documentary evidence rebutting many of the claims made in the film. I think in fairness to your readers you should maybe update your article to include it at the bottom, to at least alert your readers that a lot of things in Alex Gibney's film are inaccurate.
As an example, here's one Wikileaks note that deals with how the Swedish allegations are treated and why Alex Gibney chooses to show a photo of a condom that Assange is accused of "deliberately tearing" from the police forensics file without telling his audience that forensics found no trace of anyone's DNA on it:
That's either extremely poor research by a film-maker, or biased smear.
Please help support freedom of the press and freedom of information by sponsoring Julian Assange for the Nobel prize for freedom of the press: Google: Avaaz.org "Julian Assange for Nobel prize "Freedom of the Press"" and vote!
PLEASE HELP PROMOTE THIS LINK.If we fail to protect the "Assanges" of the world, we condemn ourselves to tyranny. More than, 500 people, from all over the world, have already voted; be the next to add your voice to freedom of the press!
I liked TWBB, but I really like this review too. It's useful to read a critical opinion, especially one so culturally informed. The Chinatown comparisons are fascinating, especially with Huston playing a very similar "water tycoon" to Day-Lewis' Plainview.
I had no idea Day-Lewis was channeling John Huston so completely--but watching Huston on YouTube, sure enough, the resemblance is uncanny--especially considering Anderson and Day-Lewis must have hand-picked this persona. It IS worth talking about.
This review is ridiculous, you're thoughts are so misplaced. This is a beautifully crafted film with phenomenal performances and i would say that is simply my opinion but according to the likes and dislikes on these comments, I think its safe to say you're in the minority. Oh, and Magnolia was genius.
YOU'RE TEARING ME APART, KELLY!
Those who can't do much critic! intellectual or not... in reply to your garbage. One could answer: what pathetically garbagy mind set (It had to be to be able to generate such filth). If I had a choice to be you or Soraya, there is a strong one I'd pick her for her dignity, character and most of all: Innocence! something of which you seem to know nothing whatsoever. This alone voids out whatever you have to let out.
LOVED this film. So good. Lovers of all things music, film, entertainment, pop culture and history will also love. :) http://smarturl.it/SCtrailer
This comment was removed because it violates our policy against anonymous comments. It will be reposted if the commenter chooses to use his or her real name.
This is the most biased, pretentious and pointless review of a film that i've ever read. You should have skipped the 25 words you wrote about "Basterds" and written instead about how it annoys you that you know so damn much about film that you can't even put it towards actually reviewing a movie without comparing it to every other film that it references.
While I agree the movie was suspenseful and production values pretty good (in terms of close-ups, lighting, etc) for a 'scary movie', it had a strange, 'let-down' ending. While I wouldn't discourage anyone from seeing it, I suggest a matinee since it's a wee bit cheaper, and if you don't like the movie, you can at at least take comfort in fact that you didn't pay the full fare.
This an excellent article, yet there is one point for future consideration. When you work in this capacity at the Agency, you are a Case Officer and not an Agent. The FBI has agents and agents at the Agency are assets you cultivate. Just wanted to pass this along.
Wow. Really wrong about the melodies of this fantastic musical. I'm still humming them 2 days later.
I was impressed to find a reviewer who isn't a Hollywood sycophant. The movie was bad. The acting was the definition of over-acting. Found the final scene to be nothing but comical in its absurdity. Seems you've pissed a lot of people off by calling out the group-think.
East Bay Express All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation