A realistic portrait of a controversial figure who history, and the victors, will judge.

Rating: 7/10 (21 September 2016)

Snowden: A packet of good bytes
Oliver Stone directs another political thriller, Snowden.
Director Stone reveals uncomfortable truths about the government in Snowden as movies like "Salvador", "Missing" and many films about the Vietnam war did. The film argues that it is patriotic to tell the truth about the spying the U.S. has done in the name of security and that the spying that interferes with our rights is unpatriotic.
Supporters of PRISM and the NSA spying argue that if you have nothing to hide, then you should not be worried about being spied on. Let's suppose that is true. Then the government should have nothing to hide regarding the surveillance of citizens of the U.S. and the world. Why are they afraid to let the U.S. citizens know about their surveillance programs if there is nothing wrong with it, if they have nothing to hide? It's not like foreign intelligence services don't already know they are being spied on and that the leaks let them in on a secret of some kind. What Snowden did was let the American people know about the spying, and that was a threat to many in the government.
The acting in "Snowden" is excellent. Gordon-Levitt has Snowden's vocal cadence and tone down. Quinto as Greenwald does well as does Leo as filmmaker Laura Poitras. The most powerful performance however, is Rhys Ifans who plays Snowden's mentor Corbin O'Brian. He is a great foil to Levitt's Snowden. He is charming, friendly and also threatening. Sometimes all at once. The actors playing Snowden's co-workers are also top notch as is Shailene Woodley as Snowden's girlfriend, Lindsay Mills. The film looks great using a variety of shots for a variety of purposes.
Negative critiques of the film find it "fawning" over Snowden. That's what happens in a biopic. Did these same critics complain about Spielberg's fawning over Lincoln? Did Spike Lee Fawn over Malcolm X? Or is the truth that they are judging the film by how they feel about Snowden himself? Snowden is apparently too controversial to deserve positive coverage, a film showing his actions as heroic. And what appears to gall some of these critics most is that Stone succeeds in making a case for Snowden as hero.
What is shown in the film is the extent to which we are being watched and tracked, the extent to which our lives are being monitored. This multi-billion dollar surveillance regimen of our citizenry has had little if any success in ending threats to our nation and hardly seems worth it. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you do it. However, few people know the fact of this, and if you make a film about Snowden, you better tow the party line and repeat the lies about his actions being a threat to national security of the outing of people. The facts are that Snowden never included the names of agents in his reports. Their names were redacted as were ongoing operations. What he revealed was the extent to which the government is watching us.
I disagreed with the choice of putting the real Snowden in the film at the end. I wonder if Stone thought this would make Snowden and his story more real to some of the audience. I also wondered if putting Snowden in the film with a couple of spoken lines earned him some extra money. Fine. And the seemingly glib smile on Snowden's face when he left his assignment in Hawaii seemed out of place to me. A "Mona Lisa" smile would have been more appropriate considering the gravity of the situation.
The film makes clear that the government abused our trust and that we must be constantly vigilant to protect our rights.
Rating: Pay full price. The acting is excellent on all counts and the film is dramatic throughout despite the slow start.
Peace, Tex Shelters
PS: Anyone who accepts the line "The liberal media" that Snowden used on his soon to be girlfriend in the film without questioning the premise that the media is liberal, isn't liberal.