Take that, North Korea: ‘The Interview’ still watched by millions in America, makes $15 million in online downloads

Despite being shut out of most movie theaters across the country, ‘The Interview’ starring Seth Rogen still managed to make $15 million via online downloads. Not a terrible number considering the likely high number of illegal downloads - but how was the movie itself? Buck Sexton (filling in for Glenn) saw it and gave his review on radio today.

Below is a transcript of this segment:

Buck Sexton: So I saw "The Interview" over the weekend. I watched it. Yes, yes, I did. And before I talk about standing in solidarity with the First Amendment and free expression, let he talk to you about this movie. For those of who you have not yet seen it.

By the way, my understanding is it made $15 million from downloads. Was illegally seen, downloaded many times before that. Or many times in addition to that at least. And made a few million dollars in the theaters from which it was shown.

So let me just say. As much as it seems like free speech has won the day, and in a sense it has. By the way, when this initially broke, I was on Fox and I said, listen, this is about what the American people's response is. It shouldn't just all be dumping on Sony. They'll release in it a different format. I understand that they're licking their wounds right now and the American people will watch it and that's up to us to do. And to show that we won't let some dictator -- people keep referring to him as a Pol Pot dictator. I'm like he does have nuclear weapons, but we'll get to that in a minute. We won't let him tell us what we can read, watch, any of that.

So as for the movie itself, and for the purposes of full disclosure, I'm not a particularly big James Franco slash -- as Obama has dubbed him now, James Flacco fan. For am I up two widely celebrate the theatrical works of Seth Rogen, I give this movie a C, maybe. Maybe a C-plus. There's really nothing particularly clever in it. It seems makes the "Police Academy" movies look like masterpiece theaters. I kind of miss the "Police Academy" movies. It is Pauly Shore bad.

And for those of who your like me, children of the '90s to some degree or whatever, had our formative years in the '90s, I remember going into seeing Pauly Shore films, you will recall just what an atrocity they were. And in certain parts it feels like a Pauly Shore movie.

James Franco plays a guy named Skylark. They go to interview Kim Jong Un in North Korea. There's a lot of idiot stoner humor. They take every opportunity they can to sort of work in a stereotypical Asian accent and of course James Franco, as soon as he arrives in North Korea, turns around to everyone and says (speaking foreign language) -- infusing Japanese with Korean intentionally. Now, look -- it's not intentional for the character but this passes for about as clever as the movie actually gets.

Just sharing my general thoughts on this before we get into the fact that there is a war on free speech around the world. A continuing war. It is a continuous struggle and it's a serious one and it's one I want to spend some time talking to you about today. But before we get into that, I just thought it was worthwhile to discuss "The Interview" a little bit. This movie that's gotten so much buzz because it essentially kicked off at least a battle in a broader cyber war.

Those of you that don't like potty, potty humor, and sort of "American Pie" style, very sexual humor, you will not like this movie.

But you could if you wanted to, it's just an act of defiance, you could just download this. You could download this to show that we will not allow our taste in film and art to be dictate by some guy.

This reminds me of the line from Jack Donaghy's mother in the show "30 Rock." Jack Donaghy is the best part of the show. It's the conservative and he's played by Alec Baldwin and I have to separate out the person from the character. It's a good character. But his mother says if she always travels on Pearl Harbor Day because she wants to show the emperor she's not afraid. This is like in 2008.

Nonetheless, there's a lot of really sort of low brow stuff in 'The Interview; movie. They work in a bunch of 'Lord Of The Rings' references. You get the feeling that they wrote the script, and Rogen and Franco were both paid $7 million apiece for this film and there was some additional money for Rogen directing and I guess this was directed by somebody. They could have spent more money on writers, I would think. This might have been a better idea. And you get the sense that this was written in between bong binges and attempts to outdo one another and how fast one could vacuum a bag of Fritos clean.

But the best part of the movie is actually a King Charles puppy that shows up at one point, because King Charles puppies are adorable. So there's a King Charles puppy and it plays a prominent role towards the end. There is an attractive C.I.A. agent. That's okay, I guess. Trying to think of the other good things. It doesn't actually make fun of Kim Jong Un that much. It makes him pretty likable for most of the film. At the very end, it sort of turns on him. And the time scene, by the way, there's some bloody and disgusting stuff in the movie. But the final scene is not that -- I mean, by American cinema standards now, what we see with these movies where people have, you know, oh, gosh, all this movies with the saws and the -- all the blades and the people being chained up every where and everything. This 'Saw' franchise and all this stuff. It was tame is what I'm trying to say. The ending was tame.

And I think that there was -- it was much ado about nothing. I guess what I'm trying to tell you. That North Korea had such an objection to this.

'Team America,' which is a classic of American cinema, had -- there's no question 'Team America,' it's a better movie. But also was much more humiliating for the regime. You've got Kim Jong Il as a puppet and he's singing the song that he's so lonely and that's now how he pronounces it and in the end he's actually a roach. That went without incidence. So you get this sense, this must be in some way a result of the fact that North Korea, with Chinese assistance, whether overt or covert or whatever, has a capability to do what it did to Sony but it didn't then because 'Team America' lights up the regime.

I'll be honest with you, it did not really go after North Korea that much. Now, I'm not saying that it was trying to, but just given the outrage that came -- well, I shouldn't say outrage. It came from one place and is one place only, which is the Democrat People's Republic of North Korea, which they don't see the humor in the name but all the rest of us do, right? As has been said before by me on this show and elsewhere, Christopher Hitchens best described it as a concentration camp above ground and a mass grave below it -- that this country or this regime would take it upon itself to try to determine for us what movies we can see just seems so crazy. But that the move that they get so upset about was 'The Interview.'

I got to tell you, it was a bad movie. And I'm okay with funny bad. You know, you don't have to be brilliant, clever, funny like best in "Show," for example, which any of you who haven't seen it cannot recommend it for highly. We are being to move from movies to the war on free speech because I'm not one of those shows -- Siskel and Ebert turned into. But this movie did not even really go after the regime very much at all and it was sophomoric in the worst ways and I'm amazed that Sony would spend $50 million on this piece of garbage, quite honestly. And I wish that given all of the hubbub around this, given all the gnashing of teeth -- I guess it's covert, right? They still pretend that it wasn't them but given what happened but -- that was apparently a decent movie. I didn't see it, Guardians of Peace, yes. The GOP. And they don't see the irony of that of course either, I suppose. But given that that's what's going on here, I just wish it was better. I wish it had really rolled up the sleeves and gone after the regime, you know, in the old Irish way. You know, just really gone after it. Right on the chin. But no. No. It really didn't.

It was really just more of a -- sort of stoner bromance for Rogen and Franco. But that's it. And we've had the whole country into hacking and it brought down Sony studios for a move that I got to tell you, I think it would have absolutely bombed without the hacking threat and everything else. I don't think this would have done well at all. I don't think anybody would have cared, I don't think anybody would have seen it. So in a sense, I don't know.

We'll see how this all shakes out for Sony at the end.

Front page image courtesy of the AP.

Episode 6 of Glenn’s new history podcast series The Beck Story releases this Saturday.

This latest installment explores the history of Left-wing bias in mainstream media. Like every episode of this series, episode 6 is jam-packed with historical detail, but you can’t squeeze in every story, so some inevitably get cut from the final version. Part of this episode involves the late Ben Bradlee, who was the legendary editor of the Washington Post. Bradlee is legendary mostly because of the Watergate investigation that was conducted on his watch by two young reporters named Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Bradlee, Woodward, and Bernstein became celebrities after the release of the book and movie based on their investigation called All the President’s Men.

But there is another true story about the Washington Post that you probably won’t see any time soon at a theater near you.

In 1980, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee wanted to expand the Post’s readership in the black community. The paper made an effort to hire more minority journalists, like Janet Cooke, a black female reporter from Ohio. Cooke was an aggressive reporter and a good writer. She was a fast-rising star on a staff already full of stars. The Post had a very competitive environment and Cooke desperately wanted to win a Pulitzer Prize.

Readers were hooked. And outraged.

When Cooke was asked to work on a story about the D.C. area’s growing heroin problem, she saw her chance to win that Pulitzer. As she interviewed people in black neighborhoods that were hardest hit by the heroin epidemic, she was appalled to learn that even some children were heroin addicts. When she learned about an eight-year-old heroin addict named Jimmy, she knew she had her hook. His heartbreaking story would surely be her ticket to a Pulitzer.

Cooke wrote her feature story, titling it, “Jimmy’s World.” It blew away her editors at the Post, including Bob Woodward, who by then was Assistant Managing Editor. “Jimmy’s World” would be a front-page story:

'Jimmy is 8 years old and a third-generation heroin addict,' Cooke’s story began, 'a precocious little boy with sandy hair, velvety brown eyes and needle marks freckling the baby-smooth skin of his thin brown arms. He nestles in a large, beige reclining chair in the living room of his comfortably furnished home in Southeast Washington. There is an almost cherubic expression on his small, round face as he talks about life – clothes, money, the Baltimore Orioles and heroin. He has been an addict since the age of 5.'

Readers were hooked. And outraged. The mayor’s office instructed the police to immediately search for Jimmy and get him medical treatment. But no one was able to locate Jimmy. Cooke wasn’t surprised. She told her editors at the Post that she had only been able to interview Jimmy and his mother by promising them anonymity. She also revealed that the mother’s boyfriend had threatened Cooke’s life if the police discovered Jimmy’s whereabouts.

A few months later, Cooke’s hard work paid off and her dream came true – her story was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing. Cooke had to submit some autobiographical information to the Prize committee, but there was a slight snag. The committee contacted the Post when they couldn’t verify that Cooke had graduated magna cum laude from Vassar College. Turns out she only attended Vassar her freshman year. She actually graduated from the University of Toledo with a B.A. degree, not with a master’s degree as she told the Pulitzer committee.

Cooke’s editors summoned her for an explanation. Unfortunately for Cooke and the Washington Post, her resume flubs were the least of her lies. After hours of grilling, Cooke finally confessed that “Jimmy’s World” was entirely made up. Jimmy did not exist.

The Pulitzer committee withdrew its prize and Cooke resigned in shame. The Washington Post, the paper that uncovered Watergate – the biggest political scandal in American history – failed to even vet Cooke’s resume. Then it published a front-page, Pulitzer Prize-winning feature story that was 100 percent made up.

Remarkably, neither Ben Bradlee nor Bob Woodward resigned over the incident. It was a different time, but also, the halo of All the President’s Men probably saved them.

Don’t miss the first five episodes of The Beck Story, which are available now. And look for Episode 6 this Saturday, wherever you get your podcasts.


UPDATED: 5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and one who hasn't)

Zach Gibson / Stringer, Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

With Biden removed from the 2024 election and only a month to find a replacement before the DNC, Democrats continue to fall in line and back Vice President Kamala Harris to headline the party's ticket. Her proximity and familiarity with the Biden campaign along with an endorsement from Biden sets Harris up to step into Biden's shoes and preserve the momentum from his campaign.

Glenn doesn't think Kamala Harris is likely to survive as the assumed Democratic nominee, and once the DNC starts, anything could happen. Plenty of powerful and important Democrats have rallied around Harris over the last few days, but there have been some crucial exemptions. Here are five democrats that have thrown their name behind Harris, and two SHOCKING names that didn't...

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

High-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin officially put in his support for Harris in a statement that came out the day after Biden stepped down: “I’m proud to endorse my former Senate colleague and good friend, Vice President Kamala Harris . . . our nation needs to continue moving forward with unity and not MAGA chaos. Vice President Harris was a critical partner in building the Biden record over the past four years . . . Count me in with Kamala Harris for President.”

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The Monday after Biden stepped down from the presidential VP hopeful, Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement on X: “Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States [...] In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a presidential candidate they can count on to focus on lowering their costs, restoring their freedoms, bringing jobs and supply chains back home from overseas, and building an economy that works for working people.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Mere hours after Joe Biden made his announcement, AOC hopped on X and made the following post showing her support: "Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November. Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let’s get to work."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most influential democrats, backed Harris's campaign with the following statement given the day after Biden's decision: “I have full confidence she will lead us to victory in November . . . My enthusiastic support for Kamala Harris for President is official, personal, and political.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Stringer | Getty Images

Massasschesets Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to endorse Kamala, releasing the following statement shortly after Harris placed her presidential bid: "I endorse Kamala Harris for President. She is a proven fighter who has been a national leader in safeguarding consumers and protecting access to abortion. As a former prosecutor, she can press a forceful case against allowing Donald Trump to regain the White House. We have many talented people in our party, but Vice President Harris is the person who was chosen by the voters to succeed Joe Biden if needed. She can unite our party, take on Donald Trump, and win in November."

UPDATED: Former President Barack Obama: ENDORSED

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama wasted no time releasing the following statement which glaringly omits any support for Harris or any other candidate. Instead, he suggests someone will be chosen at the DNC in August: "We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond."

UPDATED: On Friday, July 26th Barack and Michelle Obama officially threw their support behind Harris over a phone call with the current VP:

“We called to say, Michelle and I couldn’t be prouder to endorse you and do everything we can to get you through this election and into the Oval Office.”

The fact that it took nearly a week for the former president to endorse Kamala, along with his original statement, gives the endorsement a begrudging tone.

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

AP Photo/John Raoux

Prominent and wealthy Florida lawyer and democrat donor John Morgan was clearly very pessimistic about Kamala's odds aginst Trump when he gave the following statement: “You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others turn now . . . The donors holding the 90 million can release those funds in the morning. It’s all yours. You can keep my million. And good luck . . . [Harris] would not be my first choice, but it’s a done deal.”

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November? 

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?