We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks (2013)

best movie i've ever seen.

A lot of fun.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

I watched this entire documentary wondering why it so closely focused on Bradley Manning's sexuality. This idea that Bradley Manning wanted to be a women and that he liked men was constantly reinforced to the point where it seemed that his actions were a result of a messed up state of mind. His actions were somewhat selfless yet he was portrayed as some as a pervert who craved attention. I don't know whether any of it was true, but I feel that it was totally blown out of proportion. The film maker never secured an interview with Assange which really brings into the question, the legitimacy of every so called "fact" presented. a lot of the information presented was highly focused on the negative side. We are given a sense that Assange is a self destructive man, he wants to be a star, he wants to travel from place to place and have children with many different women. This is of course speculation and very little evidence is brought to the table. It is very hard to know what is true and what is false. I feel that this documentary almost seemed to make out the free speech was wrong, that only deranged fools stand for it. If you watch it, be aware that it is very one sided.

After watching this film, I wanted to research this film further (something I typically do after watching a documentary, rather than taking a film at face value).After internet searching for Assange's response to the documentary, I found the Wikileaks' response in the form of an annotated transcript of the film. The documentary appears to be a slick piece of anti-Wikileaks propaganda, peddled as critical and objective journalism. I won't go into this further as other reviews provide information challenging the factual errors.I encourage you to read the transcript yourself and make up your own mind. Because IMDb does not allow reviews to include URLs, I can not provide the direct link to the transcript. However, it can be found by performing an internet search for the following: "We Steal Secrets the annotated transcript".

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.

I'm a retiree living in Mexico who doesn't read newspapers, internet news or watch television. I'm as unbiased as you can get. I was stunned by the venom of many reviewers, most of whom are pro Assange. I kept reading reviews, waiting for someone to state what I considered the obvious point of the movie makers. I didn't see it, so here is my opinion of what the movie is about.People are weak. We easily lose sight of our original goals when we obtain power. Through power, we become what we originally detested. It's inherent in human nature, and cannot be avoided.The United States struggles worldwide. Each public servant begins with ideals. Gradually, though the accumulation of power, they face the same decisions as their predecessors. Often, they make the same mistakes. Thus, the Obama of today becomes what the pre-presidential Obama would have considered a war criminal. Ironically, WikiLeaks began the same; idealistically. Then they, particularly Julian Assange, succumbed to the same faults in human nature as their government antagonists. The documentary is the story of good people doing bad things, including Assange. It is also the story of inevitable consequences. If you make a credible challenge to the United States government, don't expect the enemies you've made to say "thank you, you're right, nice job." When a small power declares war on a larger power, don't expect fair play. Expect annihilation.In war amongst nations, strange allies are created. Assange living in the Ecuadorian embassy? If you believe, as I do, that you can tell the character of a person (or nation) by their friends, what does this say about Assange? One thread of the movie is the character development of this unusual and charismatic man, from idealist to Rock Star Rebel screwing attractive women without thoughts of consequence to paranoid recluse turning on his own friends and ideals to fugitive living under the protection of a corrupt government that is the antithesis of every ideal of freedom he began with. The documentary shows clearly that Assange is just a human being misusing immense power, no different that the governments he first turned on. The movie would have been better if he had been interviewed, but succeeds in making it's point without it. Assange, the man who supposedly puts the dissemination of information ahead of all other considerations, won't do the interview without being paid huge sums of cash. He will also accept in payment secrets damaging to his enemies. He ends up being what he originally hated. Like all great main characters in all good stories, he changes from who he was at the beginning. Through the power of media, he becomes a digital Dorian Gray, an ugly reflection of what once was a beautiful, courageous person.The documentary carefully gives credit to the original ideal of WikiLeaks, and shows the inevitable path of every idealistic rebel in history (except the American Founding Fathers, especially George Washington) who gains power then becomes what he hated...a corrupt person who puts the protection of acquired power ahead of all other goals.The movie ends with an image of earth viewed from space, and questions of how we can save ourselves from this vicious cycle of idealism becoming corrupted with power. Every who views this movie with a political axe to grind gets disappointed. There are no heroes or villains in this movie. The documentary is an indictment of human nature, a problem they evoke clearly and with great skill. It's also a problem they don't attempt to solve, except by initiating a dialog.To those wanted this movie to reflect their own political, moral or legal views, try setting aside your agenda and watching it again. This is a remarkably well made movie with balanced reporting. Their only agenda is telling the truth.