lavatch This 2013 documentary film by Alex Gibney focuses on the enormous Wikileaks data dump of 2010, which was prompted by the massive files released by Bradley (Chelsea) Manning. The filmmaker takes an open-minded and balanced approach to this controversial topic. While Gibney was unwilling to pay the $1 million asking price for an interview with Julian Assange, there is still abundant footage and sound bytes of Assange in his own words.The film is successful in raising the ethical concerns about whether such classified information as strategic military data should be in the public domain. The position of Julian Assange is clearly stated in the film: "Information should be free." In this regard, Assange was breaking new ground in using his computer skills to release a video of war atrocities in Iraq when civilian deaths resulted from American military incompetence. Of course, the video footage drives home Assange's point when the driver of a truck was taking his kids to school when he was killed, and a bystander's camera was mistaken for a weapon, prior to the bombing. This kind of information was aired nightly during the Vietnam War. Today, it is not. Thus, the importance of accountability to the American public.The opposing position presented in the film is that it is necessary for the military to keep secrets to protect those who are engaged in a covert operations. This position is argued in the film by Michael Haden, a retired general and former Director of the CIA. The film's title, "We Steal Secrets" is a line spoken in the film by Haden, as he argues that the nature of war in the twenty-first century demands secrecy.But Haden's countervailing argument about mandatory secrecy does not hold up under close scrutiny. Haden believes that the American public must be kept in the dark about issues that HE deems imperative to national security. This paternalistic attitude is at the heart of why there have been so many needless wars in American history of the past century when bureaucrats, as opposed to elected officials are making decisions of policy and shaping our history as a nation. Haden was not an elected official, hence, the importance of Hayden keeping the Congress and Americans apprised of the protracted wars. As an apologist for state secrecy, Haden was also proven wrong about the computer skills of Bradley (Chelsea) Manning that allowed Manning to store images even after he had assaulted his female supervisor and was relegated to the mail room. There appears to be no concern from Haden about the ease of access to United States government classified materials that led to their eventual dissemination to the public. The ethical issues raised in the film appear to be tied directly to bureaucratic incompetence on the part of leaders like Michael Haden.Towards the end of this long documentary, the film went off the rails by spending far too much time on the allegations of sexual misconduct of Julian Assange (the rape charges against him were eventually dropped in Sweden in 2017). There is also too much time wasted on the personal sexual identity and the incarceration of Bradley Manning. (President Obama commuted the sentence of Bradley Manning, who had become Chelsea Manning by early 2017). So, where does that leave us now? ANSWER: Probably in the same state of confusion, controversy, and public apathy about the secrecy issue as when Assange was using the handle of "Mendax" as a teenager computer geek.

zif ofoz 3 stars is being generous to this flick.It's two movies in one - one part tells about the 'secrets' but fails to explain in detail how a lot of the secrets were obtained. It explains the process but not the steps in detail, which would have been helpful in explaining the title of this documentary. Then the rest is filled with pointless opinions by authoritative figures.The second part is a psychological diagnostic biography of Assange and Manning ... which is totally unnecessary to the theme of the movie. The theme is stealing secrets and not a expose' of a persons troubled childhood and teen years! If that was a necessary part of being a hacker then there would be many many more in this world.Yet I did get the message that runs throughout the movie ... without these hero's who are willing to place their personal existence on the line by showing and bringing to light the corrupt actions by government and corporation; we would be that much more worse off.

Shubham Mittal Watch this documentary if you have heard about WikiLeaks only in papers or on the daily news channel. The documentary is the longest I have even seen(~130 minutes); bit it needs those extra minutes to explain a complex whistle-blowing organization. The film provides you with the core details of the organization, its working, its past employees and mainly on Julian Assange and Bradley Manning. It will take you on a super informative ride,and will constantly shift your bias!What I loved about this documentary was that the unbiased view which which the narration is done. Don't get fooled by the title! This film is not to tear apart WikiLeaks, nor is it in place to be a propagandist of Julian Assange. It praises as well as take digs at Assange, his personal life; providing a view from the both sides of the coin. It will provoke you to ponder as to is WikiLeaks really a one man show? When does a whistle-blower turns into a traitor-aiding the enemy? Who is the "real" enemy? Are the informants of WikiLeaks safe?Gibney has done an excellent job of storytelling. Its easy to see that much effort has been put to compile this brilliant piece of work. Sometimes it takes a full 2 hr feature film to stitch something we think we already know! Kudos!

Hellmant 'WE STEAL SECRETS: THE STORY OF WIKILEAKS': Four Stars (Out of Five)An in-depth look at the website called WikiLeaks, featuring several interviews with it's founder Julian Assange and other key figures involved with it over the last several years. It was written and directed by Alex Gibney (Gibney has also helmed such critically acclaimed documentaries as 2005's 'ENRON: THE SMARTEST GUYS IN THE ROOM' and 2007's 'TAXI TO THE DARKSIDE'). Assange was not involved in the making of the film in any way and has publicly denounced it (and it's title) as being biased against him. The film's producers argue that this is not true and that the title is in fact taken from a quote by Michael Haden, a former CIA director, (which is used in the film) about the US government. Interviews with Assange, and a few others, were provided by previously recorded footage. After seeing the film I can definitely say it's not biased towards Assange in any way, if anything it shows him as sort of a hero. It's not the best paced film but it's definitely informative and interesting, for the most part. The film begins it's story by discussing an attack on NASA computers in 1989 by Australian hackers (through a 'WANK worm attack'), which included Assange. It goes over the financial collapse of Iceland, controversial Iraq and Afghanistan war footage (uploaded by WikiLeaks), Bradley Manning's leaking of classified information (and his communications with Adrian Lamo, who later betrayed him) and many other notorious WikiLeaks moments. The film details the creation of the website in 2006 and how Assange became a celebrity almost overnight. It discusses the sexual assault accusations that were brought up against him and interviews both his critics and supporters. Most of the information provided in the film is stuff I already knew (and I'm assuming most other viewers will be just as informed) but not in this much detail. I found the interviews to be insightful and moving (especially the ones with people like Adrian Lamo) and definitely feel like I learned at least a little from the movie. I don't think it's a film that leans one way or the other in it's narrative; those that see Assange as a hero will continue to see him that way and those that think he's a despicable traitor will keep thinking that as well. The film just reinforces whatever you already think (there's nothing but facts provided). I for one definitely don't think Assange is a traitor. I believe all important government information should be available to the public and I support Assange's cause. I don't know what kind of a person he is in his personal life but I do think he's a hero in the work he's done with WikiLeaks (I also believe this, even more so, about Bradley Manning).Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZa4L9FExKY