We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks
Julian Assange. Bradley Manning. Collateral murder. Cablegate. WikiLeaks. These people and terms have exploded into public consciousness by fundamentally changing the way democratic societies deal with privacy, secrecy, and the right to information, perhaps for generations to come. We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks is an extensive examination of all things related to WikiLeaks and the larger global debate over access to information.
- Category:Comedy, Documentary
- Stars:Philip Austin, Peter Bergman, David Ossman, Phil Proctor, Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning, John 'Fuzface' McMahon, Robert Manne, Heather Brooke, Michael Hayden, J. William Leonard, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, Smári McCarthy, Birgitta Jónsdóttir, Adrian Lamo, Timothy Douglas Webster, Jason Edwards, Nick, Jihrleah Showman,
- Director:Alex Gibney,
- Writer:Alex Gibney
A documentary that details the creation of Julian Assange's controversial website, which facilitated the largest security breach in U.S. history. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks torrent reviews
(br) wrote: The first time I saw this documentary, I was thrilled. I thought it did an exceptional job speaking the messages it needed to convey, namely the closing of Sound City, the stories of the records and the people involved, and digital technology's takeover. At the time it seemed the documentary captured the feeling of being in the studio with the people making what would become the soundtrack to this movie fairly well, and overall I thoroughly enjoyed the story of Sound City as it was told.However, for me, this documentary movie did not age as well as I hoped. After not watching it for a long time and then coming back to it, the documentary, while still technically superb and appearing historically accurate, came across to me as, in some parts, showing some older artists that are preaching cynical opinions about the current music coming out today. These opinions wouldn't be so problematic if they didn't show up as often as they do, but it gets distracting, especially if someone like myself isn't fully on board with the opinions which are shared. In addition to the opinions themselves, the people in the movie sometimes back up their points of view and the general opinion of the documentary in ways that either mean very little or are unclear. A common theme in the movie is that an artist must "play from their heart" and "be real" to be any good. This is one such example of something that on the surface sounds like it has the same universal meaning to everyone, but after digging a little deeper does not really have any set definition. To clarity, one person could theoretically define being "real" as making or playing what sounds good to them, whether or not sounding good contradicts the rest of the opinionated points made by the documentary.Another example of something that has little substance and also backs up the point I made earlier about the documentary focusing too much on older artists preaching about what is wrong with music today is the comment by Trent Reznor from around the middle of the movie:"Now that everyone is empowered with these tools to create stuff, has there been a lot more great shit coming out? Not really. You still have to have something to do with those tools. You should really try to have something to say."The reason this quote is being placed in this review is I found it to be the most prominent of all the quotes I could use that combines subjectivity with lack of meaning, and it therefore illustrates my point. To quickly break this down, the first half is regarding the music coming out (from where and what outlet, exactly?) not being great. Whether or not current music is great is an opinion, yet Trent is stating it as fact. The second half of that statement can be interpreted in much the same way that "playing from your heart" and "being real" can, which is completely dependent on the person.Not only does the meaninglessness show exclusivity towards certain artists, but it can come across as discouraging, not inspiring, because it implies not doing something "for real," or "faking it," whatever that means, indicates you shouldn't even start to make music. That is a message I am close to certain Dave Grohl likely doesn't want to send.The third part of it, however, is the most well done because the mood lightens up, the history has been covered, and the opinions and their reasons for the most part quiet down. These factors, coupled with the fact that watching the artists in the studio nearly gives the impression that you are in the studio with them due to the way it was filmed makes this part of the documentary the most fun for me to watch. Bottom Line: I am a fan of Dave Grohl's music and can appreciate this documentary as a great entrance for him into directing. I still have respect for Dave Grohl and his documentary on Sound City because it is technicaly well done and is fascinating to watch if you don't know about the studio, Sound City, because it gets the historical message across. But if it's goal was to change people's minds with it's opinions, I don't know how far it will get, as it certainly didn't change mine.
(ca) wrote: The movie itself was average at best. The actual story line has potential. However, it is slow and the plot and characters barely develop. Further the ending leaves a lot to be desired.
(de) wrote: Not bad, wasn't sure what to expect
(ca) wrote: Not nearly as good as everyone says...
(gb) wrote: I heard it wasn't that good, but Michel Gondry? I have to see it
(fr) wrote: A slow paced thriller with a good cast to keep what has going for it together.
(kr) wrote: Cast: William H. Macy, Julia Stiles, Joe Mantegna, Rebecca Pidgeon, Ling Bai, Denise Richards, Mena Suvari, Debi Mazar, Jeffrey Combs, Dul Hill Director: Stuart Gordon Summary: With a David Mamet play as its inspiration, Edmond stars William H. Macy as the titular character, a businessman who undergoes a personal revolution after he heeds a psychic's call to change his life. In his quest for fulfillment, he abandons his wife and children, initiating a nightmarish descent into a certain kind of hell, a dark and dangerous world he's never known but that may wind up owning his soul. My Thoughts: "This film is pretty brutal in it's words and actions. I personally didn't like the film for those reasons. But I will say it was pretty gratifying that Edmond Burke, in the end, became everything he hated and despised through the film. Also William H. Macy, although plays a hugely unlikeable character, did put in a great performance."
(fr) wrote: This is typical Gale fare. Odd. I love Gale though regardless!
(au) wrote: a little underrated.
(jp) wrote: This is Mi Favourite movie eva its awsum
(br) wrote: What is going on with this?? I really thought this would be like the Dark Knight Returns animation. How wrong I was!! Animation?? Yes, that is brilliant! Storyline?? AWFUL!! You must avoid this one!!
(gb) wrote: During the Hyborian Age, thousands of years before the rise of modern civilization, a father forge a sword and his son Conan is told of the Riddle of Steel, an aphorism on the importance of the metal to their people, the Cimmerians. Soon after, the Cimmerians are massacred by a band of warriors led by the evil wizard Thulsa Doom (James Earl Jones) and Conan's father is killed by the band's dogs. Watching his father's newly forged sword being used by Doom to decapitate Conan's mother, Conan is taken into slavery where he is chained to a large mill, the "Wheel of Pain", for years. Having grown into a strong man, Conan (Arnold Schwarzenegger) is then sold to a new master and trained to be a gladiator. Eventually, after winning many pit fights, Conan is freed. While fleeing from wild dogs, Conan stumbles upon an ancient tomb and takes refuge inside it. Inside the tomb, he finds an Atlantean General's ceremoniously displayed corpse along with his sword which he takes as his own. As he wanders the world, Conan encounters a young witch, with whom he has sex in exchange for information about Doom. However, she turns into a demon mid-coitus, forcing Conan to drive her off. Conan also befriends the witch's captive Subotai (Gerry Lopez), a thief and archer who becomes Conan's companion. Following the witch's advice, Conan and Subotai go to Shadizar, in the land of Zamora, to seek out Doom. They meet Valeria (Sandahl Bergman), a female brigand. The three burgle the "Tower of Serpents", a temple of Doom's snake cult, and steal a large jewel-the Eye of the Serpent-and other valuables; Conan and Subotai also battle and slay a large snake, to which a girl was about to be sacrificed. After escaping with their loot, the thieves celebrate and end up in a drunken stupor. Eventually the city guards capture them and bring them to King Osric (Max von Sydow). He requests they rescue his daughter (Valrie Quennessen), who has joined Doom's cult. Subotai and Valeria do not want to take up the quest; Conan, motivated by his hatred for Doom, sets off alone to the villain's Temple of Set to seek revenge...The media's reactions toward "Conan the Barbarian" (based on stories by Robert E. Howard, a pulp fiction writer of the 1930s, about the adventures of the eponymous character in a fictional pre-historic world of dark magic and savagery) were polarized. Roger Ebert called it "a perfect fantasy for the alienated preadolescent", whereas Richard Schickel of Time magazine said, "Conan is a sort of psychopathic Star Wars, stupid and stupefying." Although reviews were mixed at the time of the film's release, many modern critics review the film more positively. At the time Conan was released, the media were inclined to condemn Hollywood's portrayals of violence; typical action films showed the hero attaining his goals by killing all who stood in his way. Conan was particularly condemned for its violent scenes, which Newsweek?'?s Jack Kroll called "cheerless and styleless". Other film critics differed over the film's portrayal of violence. David Denby wrote in his review for New York magazine that the action scenes were one of the film's few positive features; however, exciting as the scenes were, those such as the decapitation of Conan's mother seemed inane. On the other hand, Vincent Canby, Carlos Clarens, and Pascal Mrigeau were unanimous in their opinion that the film's depicted violence failed to meet their expectations: the film's pacing and Howard's stories suggested more gory material. According to Paul Sammon, Milius's cuts to assuage concerns over the violence made the scenes "cartoon-like". Arnold Schwarzenegger's performance was frequently mentioned in the critiques. Clarens, Peary, Gunden and Nigel Andrews were among those who gave positive assessments of the former bodybuilder's acting: to them, he was physically convincing as the barbarian in his body movements and appearance. Andrews added that Schwarzenegger exuded a certain charm-with his accent mangling his dialog-that made the film appealing to his fans. Fanfare?'?s Royal S. Brown disagreed and was grateful that the actor's dialog amounted to "2 pages of typescript." While Sandahl Bergman earned acclaim for injecting grace and dynamism into the film, the film's more experienced thespians were not spared criticisms. Gunden said von Sydow showed little dedication to his role, and Clarens judged Jones's portrayal of Thulsa Doom to be worse than camp. Brougher faulted none of the actors for their performances, laying the blame on Milius's script instead. When this film was released, audiences filled up three auditoriums; a third of the audience were made up of bodybuilders. People lined up around the block in 16 cities for up to eight hours to see it. Universal were worried the film's violence was too excessive for viewers. Sid Sheinberg, the president of Universal saw a rough cut and thought it too violent for a holiday release so it was pushed back. On Golden Pond (1981) was Universal's Christmas release instead. The censors asked John Milius to tone the violence down which he did, but in the end it still wasn't enough for them. Arnold Schwarzenegger was annoyed about that but now thinks it brought more people to see it; it was his first real taste of large scale studio marketing and he also helped promote the film in six different countries. Director John Milius says in the documentary Frazetta: Painting with Fire (2003) that more than a few scenes were dedicated to legendary artist Frank Frazetta and based on his artwork, including the scene in the orgy chamber, Thulsa Doom turning into a snake, a girl chained to a pillar and a climactic fight scene. I saw "Conan the Barbarian" maybe a year or two after the release and I haven'treally seen it since as far as I remember. I had the notion it was an ok sword & sorcery tale (I did read a bit of the comic Conan back then ) based on Conan and his adventures. However, when re-seeing this so many years after the first view, Im of a different opinion. This is quite campy (moments of true unintentional comedy appears several times) and pretty poor at times in both direction, acting and general vibe. Schwarzenegger is truly the amateur he was back then, hardly lighting up the screen actingwise or dialoguewise, but bodywise for sure. With two heavyweights such as von Sydow and Earl Jones you get some dynamics and powerful performances going, but both seems to be a bit out of place, however Earl Jones tries his best to be evil as Tulsa Doom. I did like Sandahl Bergman, even if she is quite uneven as well in her acting and we get to see way too little of the beautiful Valrie Quennessen (R.I.P.). I reckon John Milius aimed high, but didnt have the knowledge or ideas to excute this in a better way, but thats my opinion and critique. Or he simply tried to pick up the cartoon/pulp Conan structure and make what he could from that. With that said I felt disappointed as it turned out to really be a bad b-movie fantasy/sword/sorcery film (which I apparently didnt think back in the 80s) with a touch of all those cheap Italian fantasy/westerns/sci-fi films. I simply didnt expect that. I will however also re-see "Conan the Destroyer" soon enough and Im hoping that one is a bit better as I cant really remember that one either. Fun fact: There is an enduring urban legend about the so-called "Conan toy line". The story is that the Mattel Toy Company started to make some Conan action figures, but after viewing the film, the executives realized that they couldn't afford to be associated with a film with such graphic sex and violence. They gave their doll blonde hair, called him "He-man", and thus created He-Man and the Masters of the Universe (1983). However, since the first He-Man figures were released in 1981, the legend appears to be false. In 1984, however, now-defunct toy company Remco released an officially licensed series of Conan action figures. Ironically enough, once the He-Man action figures became immensely popular, numerous knockoffs were produced, including a repainted He-Man figure that had brown hair, making it look like Arnold Schwarzenegger. The knockoff was sold mainly through mom-and-pop dollar stores and came in generic packaging labeled "The Barbarian".
(es) wrote: A childhood classic.