Such a frustrating disappointment

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Whatever your view of Julian Assange, whether as a fearless crusader for truth or a heartless hacker and ego-maniac, Alex Gibney's amazing documentary following the Rise and Fall of Assange and the scapegoating of his sexually confused US Army collaborator, Bradley Manning, asks all the hard questions from every angle and paints a woeful picture of the crisis in western democracy. When the Wikileaks news was breaking it was so fragmented and intertwined with other war news, sensations, and scandals, that many people were unable to unscramble what was what, and who was who. For one thing with all the references to asylum in Sweden and the peculiar surname there were probably some who thought Assange was himself a Swede (he is not) and others who were possibly confusing wiki-leakage with the info website Wikipedia.All this is straightened out and put into context by Alex Gibney's "We Steal Secrets", which is partly an inquest into the dynamics of investigative journalism, and is itself a sparkling piece of investigative journalism -- in addition to which it has the feeling of an espionage thriller.The basics are this: Julian Assange (not his original name but the anglicized form of an Cantonese name) is Australian and started out as an expert computer hacker, later journalist and political activist, campaigning avidly for transparency of government information, particularly with regard to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Numerous deaths of civilians were blithely written off as "collateral damage" by the military, but because of Assange's Wikileaks website activity were eventually exposed as blatant murder of noncombatants. This is only the tip of the iceberg: Loads of secret army files were turned over to Assange by a young American soldier, also an expert hacker, Bradley Manning an intelligence analyst stationed in Baghdad who had access to all the information stored in the computers there. Bradley was openly gay but because of his computer expertise his top secret clearance was never pulled. Eventually, when he realized what was going on and his conscience got the better of him he made the moral decision to pass his privileged information on to Assange in order to expose the atrocities he had discovered. In 2010 when Assange put hundreds of such files out on the worldwide web through his Wikileaks website he was hailed as an international hero by those against the war and condemned as a dangerous enemy agent by the U.S. governmentGibney's movie traces Assange's rise to notoriety via interviews with various journalists who followed him around, especially one Australian journalist and fervent Assange disciple Mark Davis. The entire first half of the film paints a very positive picture of a valiant charismatic crusader sporting long silvery hair something like an aging rock star. We see constant street demonstrations expressing solidarity with Assange in placards such as "Telling the truth is not a crime". Assange has become a public hero, but later when he gets into trouble in Sweden the picture begins to change. Two young female groupies accuse him of illicit sex and purposely breaking the condom! His extradition from England for trial in Sweden is demanded. At this point the US government also wants to get hold of him as an enemy agent and the plot thickens rapidly. By equating the mission of Wikileaks with his own campaign to discredit the sexual assault charges in Sweden, and advocating the kind of secrecy he had been fighting against all along, Assange manages to alienate many of his closest supporters. If the Swedes get him the next step could be extradition to the USA. To save him from extradition Ecuador offers him sanctuary in their London embassy. Gibney offered to interview him there so that he could present his side of the story in this film but Assange demanded one million dollars or nothing so that interview was canceled. But this is only half of the story --the parallel story of the persecution of Pfc Bardley Manning is the other half of the picture. Without Bradley there would have been no such mass leakage of military and political secrets. Bradley denounced by a buddy who later in the film repents tearfully, has been wallowing in an army brig for three years without being brought to trial. This parallel story interwoven with the meteoric ascent of Assange reveals Bradley's struggle with gender identity --he really wants to be a woman -- and his personal torment over what to reveal and what not to reveal. If construed as giving aid to the enemy the beef against him could carry a sentence of death. The government condemns Bradley but admits that little was revealed which could directly place US military personnel in jeopardy. The most striking statement comes from Michael Hayden, former CIA chief, who admits with surprising candor, "Yes, we steal secrets from other governments -- it's all part of what we have to do to preserve democracy..." -- a remark which informs the title of the film. Manning will come to trial on June 4. The release of this film at this point in time will surely cause many people to rethink their views on the whole leakage business and the whole attitude and role of the US military.The big question posed by this film is not whether Mr. Assange is a good guy or a bad guy, but the thornier question of control versus free flow of information in a democratic society; how much revelation of government secrets can a democracy tolerate?What will actually happen now is anybody's guess but it is very unlikely that Assange will ever go to Sweden to face the charges there or leave the Ecuadorian embassy anytime soon. They have a place called "Gitmo" for people who are deemed as being overly dangerous to the American way of life ...

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.

WE STEAL SECRETS recounts in minute detail the rise and fall of Wikileaks, concentrating especially on its release of classified American government material, and the careers of Julian Assange and Bradley Manning. We learn a lot about Assange's career, his devotion to computers, his turbulent childhood, and his determination to do the right thing by releasing material. The same goes for Manning; although employed by the US Army, he believed it was in the public interest to tell the truth about the army's conduct during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. However Alex Gidney's film seems a little uncertain about how to judge the protagonists in the Wikileaks affair; on the one hand we are asked to admire Assange for his decision to act in the public interest, but on the other hand we see him as something of a fantasist, obsessed with conspiracy theories and apt to bend the truth if it serves his interests. Similarly Manning is praised for his bravery in releasing sensitive material, but criticized on account of his sexuality. While there are certainly no winners and losers in the entire affair, I think that the film should have adopted a bolder perspective - especially as it seems that Assange and Manning are now doomed to spend the rest of their lives in some form of captivity.

IMDb's plot outline is brief when it says 'A documentary that details the creation of Julian Assange's controversial website, which facilitated the largest security breach in U.S. history', but it fails to mention that the movie covers many more security breaches besides U.S. ones; it's just that all those other revelations pale in comparison.As documentaries go, this work falls short of the mark by a country mile as there are no interviews of the key people, other than rehashed stuff seen before, here and there. That being said, for those who only have a superficial knowledge of Wikileaks and its founder, you will learn a great deal you ought to know. I didn't think the movie was a hatchet job on Julian Assange, but it certainly doesn't glamorize him. It touched on several very influential achievements of WikiLeaks, without really getting to the meat of any of them. I suppose if you're interested in some of those topics you'll be tempted to dig on your own, on Wikileaks website (amazingly still up on the web). I recommend you do; it's as enlightening as any other good read, very.The 'Cablegate' scandal, which effects are still being felt today, the match that lit the flames of the Arab Spring and has been the bane of Obama's presidency almost from the start is talked about in this documentary, though not nearly as extensively as I felt it should, will blow your mind. You might even understand why so many leaders and countries despise the U.S, if you don't already. The cocoon of protection from secrets large corporations have hidden their shameful deeds has been shattered thanks to WikiLeaks; the veil of righteousness of world leaders has been ripped off their indignant looking faces to reveal the real world. But this movie did not come close to making that point unfortunately, unless you read between the lines.Assange's own credibility and motivation are covered and that admittedly will not reflect well on the man, but it should not deter anyone from consulting the website. I enjoyed watching this movie, but I have to admit it's not for the well informed; I recommend it to everyone else.