Disappointing...


I thought this movie was slow and uneventful...

Found it extremely unsatisfying... I sat through two hours of slow paced enigmatic acting to find out that Julian Assange was done for hacking when he was a kid... I could have got that from Wikipedia... all I really learnt was how a telephone exchange worked in 1989...
It needed more depth... what was his experience with The Family that led him to "see the world very differently to other people"... how did he meet his accomplices... what drew them to computing and hacking... what drove him on after getting caught... Did he really reveal to the world the bombing of civilians in Iraq War I...? and why was that only worthy of a $2000 fine...?
The whole thing came across as the start of the defence of Julian Assange... girls are strangely drawn to him... its not his fault... he sees the world different to others... not his fault... his work is so important no time even for fatherhood... not his fault...
This "character" was written almost like some sort of Messiah... the second coming... only he can seek out the truth... and the authorities will chase him down and denounce him... because they are scared...

This could have been so much more... they bottled it... 3/10

reply

I don't think this film was perfect. For one thing I think they could have included more background in the film about The Family, but don't worry. There's always the internet available if you are seriously interested in researching the Family instead of just looking for entertainment.

That said, I find all of your conclusions of what the film's goals were quite bizarre. You take one of the several points made in the film that do not show him in a positive light -- his supposed neglect of his wife and baby -- and suggest that was added to make a case for sainthood?!? I think the film would have instead presented more facts if they wanted to give his relationship with his kids a positive spin. Perhaps if you bothered reading Wikipedia, etc, instead of just giving voice to that, you'd see he spent years looking after his children and kept them out of the spotlight. They are adults now. Maybe he should have paraded them in front of the media like Michael Jackson to live up to accusations that he is a media whore?

That's not the only thing this supposed hagiography of a film left out. If you WERE interested in facts not presented in the movie you'd have found out by now that after winning custody of his kids he spent a period of time assisting police to investigate the use of technology in child exploitation, and assisted in related prosecutions -- something the film negelcted to include in its so-called attempt to make a Messiah out of him. Here's something else you missed in your close scrutiny of Wikipedia: After his custody battle, he and his mother formed "Parent Inquiry Into Child Protection, an activist group centred on creating a "central databank" for otherwise inaccessible legal records related to child custody issues in Australia. In an interview with ABC Radio, his mother explained their "most important" issue was demanding "that there be direct access to the children's court by any member of the public for an application for protection for any child that they believe is at serious risk from abuse, where the child protection agency has rejected that notification."" I'm sure the movie deliberately left that out so we could bask in his flaws, particularly those related to children, like you suggest.

As for making him irresistable to women: The film shows him in one relationship with a troubled teenage girl. Big whoop. Oh, yes, one girl out of many at a party also showed an interest in him (and you choose not to read his close-call with infidelity as a sign that he is flawed?), but clearly he's a chick magnet because the film shows him hanging out with a couple of male hackers 99% of the time. At least the film didn't consider him such an irresistable chick magnet that they portrayed his wife as unable to leave him, but going by your logic, I guess you'll take that as part of the attempt. If they showed him killing somebody and having sex with the corpse I suppose you'd also consider that an attempt at hagiography. Sheesh

Some people sure let their biases shine like a beacon, don't they?

Your bizarre logic aside, if you couldn't figure out from the film how his experience with the Family might have motivated him later in life, I'm afraid you need to stick to kiddie television where exposition is far more blunt.

reply

Hi Jules

bigtonk

reply

LMAO. Hi Julia.

reply

jon...

I watched a movie and gave my opinion of that movie. I did not post my opinion of Julian Assange. I wrote what I felt the film makers were trying to get across. You chose to respond by insulting me. You also chose to presume to know everything about me. Still, if that is your nature so be it.

You have actually reaffirmed my point. I have read Wikipedia and other literature about Julian Assange so am fully aware of both his and his mothers work around child protection. This is why the movie disappointed me. Of all the history of the Assange family the film makers chose to spend two hours on a hacking conviction. Remember Julian Assange did not have any input into this movie, so a review of the movie is just that, not a review of Julian Assange.

I suggest you read Christine's review of the movie. She liked the casting, however felt she was portrayed slightly harder than she is. Remember a drama is very different to a documentary and hence a certain amount of poetic licence is utilised.

Might I suggest you chill out. The subject of Julian Assange drums up emotions in people. This is just a movie, and should be treated as such.

And don't form opinions of people based on a couple of paragraphs of literature. Enter into an intelligent debate, and refrain from abusing them for the thinest of reasons. Is that not the sort of thing Julian Assange is trying to rid the world of...?

reply

You posted your views of what you thought the film was trying to accomplish. I responded by pointing out how your assertions were ridiculous and biasedYou made outrageous claims (namely that they tried to portray him as a "chick magnet", and that they tried to excuse him as being above child neglect) and I addressed those points directly. If your best response is to suggest that I shouldn't respond to such nonsensical claims, fine. But if you didn't want those claims addressed, you were always free not to share them, but since you did I was perfectly free to share my responses with you. And don't act all insulted. I attacked your ridiculous arguments. You, in contast, have directly attacked others when you go around accusing them of being nothing but "Assange fanboys" (not to mention making absurd accusations about the filmmakers themselves). So your claims about being insulted descends into hypocrisy. You formed that opinion that people are mindless Assange fanboys on the basis of them liking the film, so I hold no hope over how you form opinions based upon other reading material. And as long as you demonstrate ignorance over various facts or take things out of context, I'll assume that your reading hasn't been very extensive, careful, or unbiased.

reply

As I said... chill out... Why so emotional...?

I have an opinion... it is not ridiculous, it is my opinion. If you have a different opinion then happy to hear it. As I said, try entering into an intelligent discussion instead of ranting in an abusive way. My opinion is neither right, nor wrong. Neither is yours.

Movies affect different people in different ways, hence a movie can get a 1/10 from one person and a 10/10 from someone else. The only person that knows what the movie is trying to tell us is the film maker.

Telling me to go and watch kiddie shows is personally insulting. As is your further response.

Calmed down yet...? ;-)

reply

LOL This entire post is illustrative of a phenomenon often referred to with words along the lines of "Pot, meet kettle".

Calling someone an "Assange fanboy" is hardly discourse. You've not otherwise responded to any of the points I've made, so that (plus the fact that you repeatedly fail to reply directly to my posts so they won't be brought directly to my attention) shows how interested you are in intelligent discussion. I've responded to your points, so if your best response is to call for the wahmbulance, I'll let you leave it at that.

But, yes, I agree. People bring different biases to a different films, whether it is obsession over the minutae of the historic representation of technology, or a film's failure to explictly condemn its subject matter, or whatever else.

reply

I can burst your bubble even further...that is nothing like how a telephone exchange worked in 1989 (I was a telecom technician at the time working in a city exchange). The show was so technically inaccurate it made me doubt the validity of all of the story...They holywoodised the technology, I dare say the story was likewise doctored somewhat.

reply

As it now appears that you agree with me... I will take that as a somewhat muted apology... ;-)

I guess the upside of not telling the majority of the Assanges story is that there is plenty of material left for further film makers to use... hopefully with more substance than this one...

reply

You've just confused me. What is jasace50 apolgising for?

The upside of not telling the majority of the Assange story is that the film could have some focus. I'm not surprised if they took liberties with both the technology and some of the facts -- the latter only stands to reason since they weren't flies on the wall during all the events in question. What matters is that they get the gist of it correct and do not deliberately mislead. Chances are that if they show him eating lunch in the film that they didn't get the items he ate right either. Big frigging whoop. Thus far I note that your objections to the film are for the most part political, and that your disappointment in it artistically is largely predicated upon your disatisfaction with your own response to the perceived politics of the film (not that we're apparently allowed to address THAT in response). The existence of irrelevant technical errors hardly reinforces those political or artistic objections. You start out by claiming you weren't entertained by the film and that you could read Wikipedia if you want facts. Add technical journals to the list.

reply

Apologies jasace...

I thought jon had responded with an intelligent discussion... alas no...
Good spot on the exchange...

reply

I'll have to take your word on that. While that does sound somewhat sloppy, I can assure you that the technical details of a telephone exchange were certainly the most trivial aspect of the film to me as a viewer, so that certainly doesn't ruin anything for me. I doubt they were the director's main concern either.

PS, I hope you and dopeydave98 make things up to each other since you've apparently offended him somehow.

reply

@jonschaper

I have not responded to your opinions because I see no reason. Your posts on IMDB show that you believe your and only your opinions are right. You consistently respond to other users in an arrogant, disrespectful and insulting manner. I have no time for you.

As I have said before... chill out...

reply

LOL Apparently you have sufficent time to engage in personal attacks. Pot, kettle.

Once again I will avoid responding in kind to your post by making personal attacks against you. The arguments you've presented thus far (and I use that term generously) remain weak. How am I to concede that I'm wrong (if I'm wrong?) when you fail to back up a single statement or refute mine? Are people supposed to assume you are right without requiring you to back yourself up or uncritically agree with every single one of your pronouncements if they are to avoid being labelled "arrogant" or "disrespectful"? That's the sort of arrogance usually ascribed to Assange. (okay, maybe that last bit is a bit of a well-deserved barb)

reply

I wouldn't doubt your validity as a telecom technician, but you can't compare your expertise to a dramatic film. As it said at the beginning things are altered for dramatic purposes. It didn't upset my understanding of the story, nor did it question the authority of what is says. On the other hand, if the film was The Diary of A Telecom Techician, well....

reply

I liked this film.

I wasn't expecting a documentary, so I didn't need a whole bunch of backstory 'facts' to enjoy the story as presented -- a snapshot of JA's young life and just cruising along with his character throughout the film was just fine with me.

However, I do think that when doing a film on someone like JA, that the filmmakers should at least get the technology correct, as the technology IS very important to this story.

It really wouldn't have been that difficult to get that part correct (and I am assuming that posters are accurate in stating that there were some flubs regarding the technology in this film; I wouldn't know myself).

Otherwise, besides the 'oohhhh' woman singing at the very end while showing a pic of JA, which I felt was a bit over the top, I enjoyed this film.






"I will not go gently onto a shelf, degutted, to become a non-book." ~ Bradbury

reply