Good concept, poorly executed.

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

This film tells the first hand story of Julian Assange, and his life after launching the leaks website.It is very interesting to see what goes on around Assange up close, as there is probably very little opportunity to do so. The opening of the film is strong, as the characters try to get in touch with senior government officials. However, the film goes downhill quickly, mostly because there is little narrative to what is shown on the screen. For example, there is a scene where Julian puts a device on the window sill, and I have no idea what is going on. The scene where he gets a haircut, and doing boxing can be enhanced by a narration that he could not leave the embassy. To me, the documentary is so personal to the filmmakers, that they forgot that viewers are not in the middle of it. Viewers can't follow the scenes as they could.

Documentary Filmmaker Laura Poitras ("Citizenfour" (2014) follows up that Oscar Winner with this "Julian Assange", "Wikileaks" Exploration and it is a Mess. Suffering from a Number of Outside Influences the Film became even More Messy after its Initial Release. It was pulled and Re-Edited and Re-Released.The Movie is Confusing, Scattered, Lacks Focus and can cause Headaches trying to Follow the Themes or the Intent. It Plays like a Crazy Women's Quilt. Even more so if You are Unfamiliar with the Players or the Subjects Presented in a Haze of Haphazard History. Keeping Things Straight as the Film Unfolds is a Daunting Task.It Hops and Flops all over the place. Locations and Points of Interest Covered are so Random it Feels like a Treasure Hunt and the "X" is Never Found. It moves here and there and Never Settles. Nothing is very Clear. Ambiguity Reigns, and those Seeking Insight or Truth about any of this will be Disappointed.The Soap Opera Elements Overtake the Political and the Historical and it almost Devolves into a "People Magazine" Kind of Thing. Surely the Intentions were anything but. But in the End that's what it Feels Like. The Movie got Spoiled somewhere, sometime along the way and the Restoration to Something Palatable was Unsuccessful.

In Risk, Laura Poitras, who in 2013 got called specifically by Edward Snowden to be there to document the moment he decided to release the information on how the government was mass-collecting data and spying on the US public at large, she puts her attention on Julian Assange. She actually started filming years before, around the time when Assange was first dealing with the fall-out of the rape allegations (still going on to this day, or at least the one that hasn't expired - what's going on with that, we don't know by the film's end, one can assume it's still pending). She originally screened a version at Cannes in 2016, but because of the banana-animal-crackers-WTF train that was the election, and Assange's role in (arguably) affecting a great deal of the outcome for voters concerned about the leaked DNC emails, she had to update it to reflect that outcome.So this promises to be a rather expansive look at this man and his times, and I suppose in a way it is. There are also some gaps; the movie jumps from when Assange gets into the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK via asylum (where, by the way, he has a personal trainer guy to help him, uh, stay in shape while not able to go outside, yes this is seen) to (briefly) a bit about Snowden and how one of Assange's lawyers got involved, and then it goes right to 2016. I wish we could've seen what happened, if only briefly, in those few years. Was nothing of consequence done by Wikileaks in that time? To an outsider, it might appear so, or at least in the shadow of people like Snowden and Manning perhaps Assange didn't have much to do while in exile... until those DNC emails, of course.At times this is interesting, but it lacks the narrative focus and suspense of Citizenfour. Then again comparing to other Assange movies, or at least one documentary, I think it's not necessarily that I *must* learn something new about the man, but I still consider We Steal Secrets, the Gibney doc from 2013, to have a more comprehensive *story* about this man (not to mention the focus on Manning, who is almost a footnote here). It gets a little better in the third act, after we're done seeing what Assange was doing in those heady years of 2010 to 2012, once it gets into 2016, but that also feels too short and we don't get enough from Assange to see where his head was at when it came to the release of the DNC emails.And I get what Poitras is trying to do here, and it's admirable that it's not the same thing as that we might get in a talking-heads Gibney approach; we're seeing process unfold as far as how Assange talks to his lawyers and associates; how he gets his message across to a spokesperson when talking about an info dump on Syrian military matters; how the news-people comment. But at the same time I'm not sure if there is an engaging through-line; with Citizenfour, to go back to that again, if you can get a really strong emotion going through your film (like in that one, total intensity and suspense of the moment), you can get by showing those small moments going on when not much seems to be happening. With Risk, it's... Lady Gaga now is going to do a (somewhat) shallow interview with Assange where she's halfway engaged with him and we get to see Assange with one of his people in the, uh, woods and he's paranoid about other people listening in. And... yeah, it's a series of things, with a more compelling character, Jacob Applebaum, popping up sometimes as the man behind "Tor" and who, most interestingly, has a relationship off-screen with Poitras that ends with him being sexually abusive to one of her friends(?!) Wow, where's that movie? Come to think of it, will there be a third movie about a hacker? Maybe the real piece of work Applebaum - followed by an Avengers like team up with Assange and Snowden? As far as showing the cult-like world that Julian Assange has created for himself goes, the depiction of that is captivating. But there's not enough *there* there, if you get my meaning. I wanted a little more of *some* sense of a side she was taking, even if she wanted to keep ambiguity.

Preferring to find a movie on what the theme is and liking more imported foreign films and documentaries than those made in prolific USA, here the main person and the well-known 'Wikileaks' was an instant  click,  so had to go and see & learn more than mass media informs us about Julian Assange.  And this writer was totally fascinated and involved throughout entire film. While Poitras' personal inserted comments came in  - but voiced more quietly,volume down-  we  had to attended  more to hear and absorb these inserts.  We needed to hear these  added, helpful information bits to the scenes portrayed. Assange was mostly seen in close-ups, so his every impartially-held facial expression could still not be easily read.  But some  good glimpses of his attitude were revealed anyhow. He hid some when filmed, even while talking lots, and he sometimes droned on ....so  when his words were mumbled / hummed Assange was  heard less. So while he was carefully conveying some info in his not-subtle ways, at times he left this writer confused, as when he refused to give direct answers to clear questions asked in film.His female associates were not identified if in  what kind of 'relationship'  to Julian, or what their expertise was.... other than being always there, supportive, helping him groom or  make escapes. That women were always in the " rescuer" roles left the impression that they may be  & still are attracted to Julian as "hero", and  thus to do the usual 'woman's work' only.  As  only assistants ? Their other values, whatever they are, were not clarified nor appreciated either. Julian's mother, also included in such roles,  was seen as only-adjunct helper. Can this be so ?  But other scenes showed Julian more actually responding to his circumstances -which is mostly well known & displayed in ordinary TV news clips. His complaints - while living well - and while limited to living in only 1 fancy embassy- bldg seemed petulant and childish, as he refused to admit  responsibility to eliciting the  'unexpected unwanted consequences' to his work .  His own actions  affected many political people, who still want to censor and punish any 'whistle-blowers', including but not just Assange.Wikileaks has emerged as a very influential media platform source and  as a threat to those who prefer their secrets kept away from the many people the actions do affect, kill, and distort . Many lives may have been/ are still changed from their exposures, as noted even in the most recent / now current events.  To  learn more about the main man, tho not the only 1, who still holds dominance on the organization is very relevant and important to us all = the viewers and citizens of these media-blitzed and news-censored worlds. Tho film was a bit long, but still held the viewers' full attention,no one walked out.This is a must-see film to those who want to better understand the man who  helps  still now reveal" what is happening " behind many locked 'confidential' doors/ documents &emails.  Those are, perhaps, more real than what is exposed  as governments' workings elsewhere.  " Risk" is not a risk but a must-also-see-this-film.... for anyone watching daily propagandized & commercialized  & censored news anywhere.