| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Europe | |
| Thalys attack: Lawyer criticises Clint Eastwood film | |
| 2018-02-09 | |
| [BBC]A lawyer representing a man accused of a foiled French terror attack has spoken out against a film by Clint Eastwood depicting the incident. The film - The 15:17 to Paris - is based on events on board a Thalys express train when a gunman tried to attack passengers in August 2015. The film, starring the men who stopped the attacker, opened on Wednesday. A lawyer for suspect Ayoub El-Khazzani
Sarah Mauger-Poliak said the film was a violation of her client's rights because it presents a "fictionalised" and "one-sided" view to the public as fact. "I am aware that my client is not an angel but let justice do its work," she said. Mr Khazzani, from Morocco, was found with a range of weapons including a Kalashnikov assault rifle on board the Amsterdam-to-Paris train. He is alleged to have links to radical Islam. He was eventually subdued by some of the passengers after opening fire, including three American friends who star as themselves in the Clint Eastwood-directed re-creation. Off-duty military servicemen, Spencer Stone and Alek Skarlatos, and their friend Anthony Sadler, were backpacking through Europe on holiday at the time of the attack. They were hailed as heroes after the foiled attack - they and three other passengers, including a British businessman, were awarded with France's top honour. Ms Mauger-Poliak said she had not ruled out taking legal action against Warner Brothers to get the film suspended during the judge's instruction period - where he decides if there is enough evidence for the case to go to trial. "That Hollywood has delivered its 'truth' before the judges is at the very least worrying," Ms Mauger-Poliak told radio station France Inter. Mr Eastwood's film is the latest in a series of movies he has made about real-life people in extraordinary situations. | |
| Posted by:3dc |
| #7 Daffuq you telling me they made, edited, and released a movie and they don't even have instructions for the judge determined? |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2018-02-09 13:59 |
| #6 I wonder if this movie will crack 50% with the Rotten Tomatoes crowd? |
| Posted by: Raj 2018-02-09 12:48 |
| #5 Having the film suspended during the deliberation period? There's an uphill battle for this shyster trying to make a name for herself. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2018-02-09 10:30 |
| #4 Come on Sarah, I'm sure there's a book deal you can leverage after the trial. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2018-02-09 09:24 |
| #3 Did she negotiate for a cut of the increased profits expected from this publicity? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2018-02-09 08:23 |
| #2 Sarah, I"ve got a ticket to Mecca for you. |
| Posted by: Woodrow 2018-02-09 06:35 |
| #1 Sarah Mauger-Poliak said the film was a violation of her client's rights Shut up uncovered meat! |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2018-02-09 03:28 |