Courageous Full Movie In English
Risk Movie Review & Film Summary (2. In various ways, “Risk,” Laura Poitras’ intimate look at Julian Assange and the world of Wikileaks, serves as a companion piece to “Citizenfour,” her masterful, Oscar- winning documentary about Edward Snowden. Both films benefit from the extraordinary access Poitras had to her subjects, but there are significant differences between them as well. For one, “Citizenfour,” in being centered on the few days in a Hong Kong hotel when Snowden turned over his trove of classified documents to Poitras and two other journalists, had the tight focus and taut unfolding of a superior suspense film. Risk,” which Poitras began shooting well before Snowden contacted her, chronicles events over seven years and thus has a looser, more episodic feel. Advertisement. Second, Snowden and Assange are very different characters. While the former came across as idealistic, principled and straightforward, the latter is complicated, egotistical and cagey—but no less fascinating or determined to change the world.
Watch Princess Mononoke (1997) full movie in English. Princess Mononoke storyline: Whereas defending his village from rampaging boar-god/demon, a assured y.
- Directed by John Kent Harrison. With Anna Paquin, Marcia Gay Harden, Goran Visnjic, Nathaniel Parker. The story of Irena Sendler, a social worker who was part of the.
- Watch Dolphin Tale 2 Full Movie Online. Stream Dolphin Tale 2 the 2014 Movie Videos, Trailers, Reviews & more.
- I just watched the Movie “Courageous.” It was not only good clean entertainment, it was a powerful message about the importance of the role Dad’s play in the.
- Directed by Alex Kendrick. With Alex Kendrick, Ken Bevel, Kevin Downes, Renee Jewell. When a tragedy strikes close to home, four police officers struggle with their.
- Watch English movies online. Latest English movies (2015), trailers of various genres like action, comedy, romance, family, drama, horror etc at Boxtv.com.
- Risk is another fascinating piece of cinema-as-history that reminds us that Laura Poitras remains one of our most original, courageous and valuable filmmakers.
Yes, Minister and its sequel Yes, Prime Minister are British television shows that were broadcast between 19. All episodes were written by Antony Jay and.
The third area of difference, though, is perhaps the most subtle and crucial dimension of “Risk”: it’s in Poitras’ attitude toward her subjects. Watch A Married Couple Online Metacritic here. In “Citizenfour,” she mainly served as a journalist who took Snowden more or less at face value in relaying his story and revelations to the world. In “Risk,” as she gets close to Assange and his team, her personal perspective on them evolves even as their circumstances change. From initially seeming motivated by feelings of admiration and solidarity, she ends up more distanced and critical. The result is a film that Assange and his cohorts reportedly hate, even though Poitras’ portrait of them doesn’t feel remotely like an attack.
In this film as before, Poitras presents the story in verité style; aside from some conversations between the filmmaker and Assange, there are no conventional interviews or commentary by experts or outsiders, though Poitras occasionally inserts her own thoughts and moody music (by Jeremy Flower) is used to heighten the drama. This is an aesthetic approach that one can respect, even admire, even if in “Risk” it means a lack of contextualizing information that in some instances might have been very helpful. The film is not one for any viewer who’s never heard of Assange. Indeed, it’s best suited to audiences who are familiar with the basic Wikileaks saga and thus prepared for Poitras’ much more intimate and nuanced view of events and personalities that the mainstream media tend to present in more reductive terms. When she begins filming, in 2.
Assange and his small crew are ensconced in an elegant home in the English countryside. Wikileaks has already established its importance by releasing hundreds of thousands of classified documents concerning the U. S. war in Iraq, and the crew seems buoyed by their sense of mission and growing renown. We watch as the silver- haired Assange and his associate Sarah Harrison try to get U. S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the phone to warn of an impending dump of un- redacted documents by another party. They succeed only in speaking with an underling, but Assange, while maintaining a playfully bemused attitude throughout, projects a keen sense of his own importance even at this stage.
Advertisement. The voice- over that Poitras uses to inject her own impressions was of course added later, but it feels like it’s registering something of her initial relationship with Assange when she says, "It’s a mystery to me why he trusts me, because I don’t think he likes me."It’s not long before the allegations over sexual misconduct in Sweden emerge, beginning a long ordeal for Assange that continues to this day. The Swedes say they want him shipped there only to answer questions, while his supporters believe this is only a pretext to trap and extradite him to the U.
S. to face very serious charges of conspiracy and espionage. This assumption has always struck me eminently credible, and it’s obviously very important to the whole story, but Poitras sticks to her style and doesn’t interview people who might be able to speak about it authoritatively. She also doesn’t press him to give his side of the Sweden story, though some of his feelings emerge as he talks with his associates and lawyers. These remarks are not likely to win him many fans among progressives. While some in his inner circle urge him to apologize for any offense he may have given, even unintentionally, he murmurs about radical feminist conspiracies and women involved in a lesbian nightclub. Eventually, of course, he exhausts his options in the British courts and takes political refuge in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, where he remains.“This is not the film I thought I was making,” Poitras intones after listening to Assange’s comments about the Swedish imbroglio. I thought I could ignore the contradictions.
I was wrong .. They are becoming the story.” As indeed they do. Into the Assange/Wikileaks chronicle Poitras skillfully and appropriately weaves narrative glimpses at other aspects of the unfolding cyber- activism story. We see Daniel Ellsberg denounce as “outrageous” the military’s mistreatment of whistleblower Bradley (later Chelsea) Manning, who is given the harshest sentence ever for leaking to the media.
In 2. 01. 3, Poitras goes off to meet Edward Snowden, leaving Assange miffed that the documents were leaked to the MSM, not him. Earlier, during the Arab Spring, we witness activist Jacob Appelbaum (who was featured in “Citizenfour”) boldly accusing Egypt’s media and technology leaders of serving the regime rather than the people.
Advertisement. At last spring’s Cannes Film Festival, Poitras showed a version of “Risk” which lacked elements that now serve as the film’s final act. These include showing Assange express his distaste for Hillary Clinton, whom he regards as an enemy and a “warmonger.” Later, when Wikileaks leaks documents damaging to the Democrats, Assange is accused of cooperating with the Russians in order to sway the U. S. election. He denies the charge, maintaining the he was not dealing with a “state actor.” Meanwhile, Appelbaum—with whom Poitras admits having a brief affair—is forced out of the nonprofit where he worked due to charges of abuse and sexual misconduct. Given that questions regarding Russian interference in the 2. Appelbaum declined to be interviewed for “Risk,” the film’s ending has an air more of disarray and dismay than of resolution.
It did not, however, leave this viewer feeling that people with serious character flaws (narcissism, megalomania, sexual compulsion, what have you) cannot to do great and important things in the world. Rather, the film points up the need to draw clear distinctions between personalities and issues; the former may dominate the tabloids but the latter determine our lives. In any case, “Risk” is another fascinating piece of cinema- as- history that reminds us that Laura Poitras remains one of our most original, courageous and valuable filmmakers. It is a film that will be prompting debate and study for years to come.
Yes, Minister - Wikiquote. Yes, Minister and its sequel Yes, Prime Minister are British television shows that were broadcast between 1. All episodes were written by Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn. The principal cast is as follows: Yes, Minister[edit]Series One (1. Episode One: Open Government[edit]Jim Hacker: I'd like a new chair. I hate swivel chairs. Bernard Woolley: It used to be said there were two kinds of chairs to go with two kinds of Minister: one sort folds up instantly; the other sort goes round and round in circles.
Hacker: Who else is in this department? Sir Humphrey: Well briefly, sir, I am the Permanent Under Secretary of State, known as the Permanent Secretary. Woolley here is your Principal Private Secretary. I too have a Principal Private Secretary and he is the Principal Private Secretary to the Permanent Secretary. Directly responsible to me are ten Deputy Secretaries, 8. Under Secretaries and 2.
Assistant Secretaries. Directly responsible to the Principal Private Secretaries are plain Private Secretaries, and the Prime Minister will be appointing two Parliamentary Under- Secretaries and you will be appointing your own Parliamentary Private Secretary. Hacker: Can they all type? Sir Humphrey: None of us can type.
Mrs Mackay types: she's the secretary. Minister: Pity, we could have opened an agency. Watch The Stalking Moon Putlocker#. Sir Humphrey: Very droll, Minister. Hacker: I suppose they all say that, do they? Sir Humphrey: Certainly not, Minister.
Not quite all.. Bernard: But surely the citizens of a democracy have a right to know. Sir Humphrey Appleby: No. They have a right to be ignorant.
Knowledge only means complicity in guilt; ignorance has a certain dignity. Episode Two: The Official Visit[edit][There are two official replies to the Minister's correspondence.]Jim Hacker: What's the difference? Bernard: Well, "under consideration" means "we've lost the file"; "under active consideration" means "we're trying to find it".[The President of Buranda plans a speech urging the Scots and Irish to fight against "British colonialism".]Jim Hacker: Humphrey, do you think it is a good idea to issue a statement? Sir Humphrey: Well, Minister, in practical terms we have the usual six options. One: do nothing. Two: issue a statement deploring the speech.
Three: lodge an official protest. Four: cut off aid. Five: break off diplomatic relations. And six: declare war. Hacker: Which should be it? Sir Humphrey: Well, if we do nothing, that means we implicitly agree with the speech.
If we issue a statement, we'll just look foolish. If we lodge a protest, it'll be ignored. We can't cut off aid, because we don't give them any. If we break off diplomatic relations, then we can't negotiate the oil rig contracts.
And if we declare war, it might just look as though we were over- reacting! Episode Three: The Economy Drive[edit][Frank Weisel is quoting an article in the Express about the fact that Inland Revenue has more employees than the Royal Navy.]Frank Weisel: "Perhaps the government thinks that a tax is the best form of defence."Hacker: How many people do we have in this department? Sir Humphrey: Ummm..
Hacker: Two, maybe three thousand? Sir Humphrey: About twenty- three thousand to be precise. Hacker: TWENTY- THREE THOUSAND! In the department of administrative affairs, twenty- three thousand administrators just to administer the other administrators! We need to do a time- and- motion study, see who we can get rid of. Sir Humphrey: Ah, well, we did one of those last year. Hacker: And what were the results?
Sir Humphrey: It turned out that we needed another five hundred people.[There is a government building with a reinforced concrete basement in case of a nuclear war.]Sir Humphrey: There has to be somewhere to carry on government, even if everything else stops. Hacker: Why? Sir Humphrey: Well, government doesn't stop just because the country's been destroyed! I mean, annihilation’s bad enough without anarchy to make things even worse! Hacker: You mean you'd have a lot of rebellious cinders. Episode Four: Big Brother[edit][The Minister is already double- booked when his wife reminds him of another prior engagement.]Jim Hacker: [on the phone] Bernard? Yes, it's me. Look, I'm going to have to cancel tomorrow.
Swanseaand. Newcastle. Well, you see, it's my wife's wedding anniversary tomorrow. Annie: It's yours, too! Hacker: And mine, too, actually. Yes, it is.. What do you mean, "coincidence"? Don't be silly, Bernard![It is 2 a. Hacker has just made a phone call to a sleepy Sir Humphrey.]Hacker: [hangs up] Oh, damn!
I meant to tell him to come and see me about it before Cabinet. Annie: Don't ring him now! Hacker: No, perhaps you're right. It is a bit late. Annie: Give him another ten minutes. Episode Five: The Writing on the Wall[edit]Hacker: I don't want the truth. I want something I can tell Parliament!
Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well? Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely? Sir Humphrey: Yes, and current policy.
We had to break the whole thing [the EEC] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing — set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch.. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times. Hacker: But surely we're all committed to the European ideal? Sir Humphrey: [chuckles] Really, Minister. Hacker: If not, why are we pushing for an increase in the membership?
Sir Humphrey: Well, for the same reason. It's just like the United Nations, in fact; the more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up, the more futile and impotent it becomes. Hacker: What appalling cynicism. Sir Humphrey: Yes.. We call it diplomacy, Minister.[The Foreign Secretary explains the Napoleon prize.]Martin: Yes, it's a NATO award given once every five years: gold medal, big ceremony in Brussels, £1. The PM's the front runner this time. It's for the statesman who's made the biggest contribution to European unity.
Sir Humphrey: Since Napoleon. That is if you don't count Hitler.[The Minister tries and gets a straight answer out of Sir Humphrey Appleby.]Jim Hacker: When you give your evidence to the Think Tank, are you going to support my view that the Civil Service is over manned and feather- bedded, or not?
Yes or no? Straight answer. Sir Humphrey: Well Minister, if you ask me for a straight answer, then I shall say that, as far as we can see, looking at it by and large, taking one thing with another in terms of the average of departments, then in the final analysis it is probably true to say, that at the end of the day, in general terms, you would probably find that, not to put too fine a point on it, there probably wasn't very much in it one way or the other. As far as one can see, at this stage. Episode Six: The Right to Know[edit]Hacker: Humphrey, do you see it as part of your job to help ministers make fools of themselves? Sir Humphrey: Well, I never met one that needed any help.
Sir Humphrey: Minister, I have something to say to you which you may not like to hear. Jim Hacker: Why should today be any different?
Sir Humphrey: Minister, the traditional allocation of executive responsibilities has always been so determined as to liberate the ministerial incumbent from the administrative minutiae by devolving the managerial functions to those whose experience and qualifications have better formed them for the performance of such humble offices, thereby releasing their political overlords for the more onerous duties and profound deliberations which are the inevitable concomitant of their exalted position.