A dramatic thriller based on real events that reveals the quest to expose the deceptions and corruptions of power that turned an Internet upstart into the 21st century's most fiercely debated organization.
Carice van Houten
The bleak, mountainous terrain and quiet, lonely roads set the tone for this compelling venture into the heart of 'the Stans'. The first stop is Asia Plus, a newspaper in Tajikistan. "If we... See full summary »
Dr Edie Widder is a biologist and a deep sea explorer. She's been fascinated with bioluminescent sea creatures since she her very first dives in the ocean. Using her underwater photography,... See full summary »
Hackers do laundry. Hackers like movies. Hackers are people and could be your neighbors, your brother, your friends. Presenting a portrait of the hacking community, created by the community... See full summary »
This film starting with its title is essentially a government smear of both Assange and Manning.
I went to the film hoping, but unfortunately, this film is not a documentary, but rather an attack on the Assange and Bradley Manning and an example of a long history of attacking the messenger to avoid the message. In this case the message is essentially massive government and military war crimes.
If you have reviewed the facts, it will be obvious that the film distorts with a purpose. Take for example the long and phony presentation of the woman most responsible for the rape charge against Assange. She is shown supposedly being heavily made up so her appearance will be hidden, but then you can see her clearly. What is left out is that she is not only right wing, but has posted to her then official campus web site instructions of how women can get revenge on men. She took this down after her charges. She also is a public supporter and fundraiser for the right wing Cuban group, Women in White. All legal, but she protests too often that she is not a CIA agent. The real point is that she has clear motives that should be considered before covering her up with makeup. Also, the film states assertions that are not fact, and leaves out major points such as Assange's offer to be interviewed in England and Sweden's refusal to agree to not turn him over the US - as they have in past renditions.
Finally, the film emphasizes the mental illness or quirks of these two men. Why does this matter? Because it is a long used method of distracting from their substantive evidence of government crimes. Assange and Manning are not the criminals in this case, but those who carried out the crimes they revealed.
76 of 130 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?