Ewen MacAskill | Kevin Barrett's Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Ewen MacAskill’

Most Americans Don’t Want Freedom… They Want Security

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Politics, Reviews, tagged AI, American Politics, Artificial Intelligence, Best Documentary Feature Oscar, Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, Citizenfour, Corbin O’Brian, COVID, Edward Snowden, Ewen MacAskill, General Comments, Geneva, Glenn Greenwald, Hank Forrester, Hawaii, Hong Kong, Japan, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Laura Poitras, Lindsay Mills, Luke Harding, Melissa Leo, Moral Crisis, Movie Reviews, National Security Agency, Nicolas Cage, NSA, Oliver Stone, Reviews, Rhys Ifans, Russia, Shailene Woodley, Snowden (2016) — movie review, Strong to MUST See Movie Recommendation, The Snowden Files, Timothy Olyphant, Tom Wilkinson, U.S. Army, Zachary Quinto on April 8, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Snowden” (2016) — movie review
Today’s review is for the biographical political-tech-thriller “Snowden”, directed by Oliver Stone and starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Edward Snowden, the young intelligence contractor whose growing alarm over mass surveillance pushes him toward a life-altering decision; Shailene Woodley as Lindsay Mills, Snowden’s girlfriend, whose relationship becomes strained as his secrecy deepens; Melissa Leo as Laura Poitras, the documentary filmmaker who helps bring Snowden’s story to the world; Zachary Quinto as Glenn Greenwald, the journalist whose reporting ignites the global debate; Tom Wilkinson as Ewen MacAskill, the veteran reporter providing balance and caution; and Rhys Ifans as Corbin O’Brian, the composite mentor figure representing the intelligence establishment’s worldview. Supporting roles include Nicolas Cage as Hank Forrester, a sidelined intelligence analyst who hints at the system’s long-standing excesses, and Timothy Olyphant as a CIA operative who embodies the “ends justify the means” mentality. The film follows Snowden’s path from idealistic Army recruit to disillusioned NSA contractor, showing how a series of small realizations accumulate into a moral crisis.

Background: I first watched this film with my brother pre-COVID. He was a massive conspiracy theorist and saw the NSA and CIA behind every political occurrence – domestic or international. This is my third viewing since COVID and second in the last year, but I’ve just never gotten around to reviewing the film. I first heard about Edward Snowden back in 2013 when the news broke about the NSA’s mass-surveillance programs. At the time, I didn’t know what to make of him: whistleblower, traitor, hero, something in between, and frankly, I still don’t have a neat label. Released in 2016, “Snowden” did not receive any Academy Award nominations, but it is historically significant because it dramatizes one of the most consequential intelligence leaks in modern history. The film is based partly on Luke Harding’s book “The Snowden Files” and partly on the real-life documentary “Citizenfour” (which won the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature). While the movie takes dramatic liberties, it captures the broad arc of Snowden’s transformation and the global debate his disclosures triggered about privacy, security, and government power.

Plot: The film moves between two timelines: Snowden’s interviews with journalists in a Hong Kong hotel room in 2013, and the earlier years that led him there. We see him join the Army, wash out due to injury, and then enter the CIA as a bright, patriotic computer specialist. Under Corbin O’Brian’s mentorship, Snowden learns the technical and political realities of intelligence work. As he moves through various assignments (Geneva, Japan, Hawaii) he becomes increasingly disturbed by the scope of surveillance programs that sweep up data from ordinary citizens with little oversight. His relationship with Lindsay suffers as he becomes more secretive and stressed. Eventually, Snowden decides he cannot stay silent. He gathers classified documents, contacts Poitras and Greenwald, and meets them in Hong Kong to reveal what he has taken. The film ends with the publication of the leaks, Snowden’s flight to Russia, and a brief appearance by the real Edward Snowden discussing the consequences of his choice.

So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Yes; strong; clean and effective; a few; yes.

Any good? Yes. “Snowden” is a steady, accessible political drama that focuses more on the human side of the story than on the technical details. It doesn’t try to overwhelm the viewer with jargon. Instead, it shows how a series of small compromises and realizations can push someone toward a drastic decision. The film is not a thriller in the traditional sense. It’s more of a character study wrapped in a political argument. And it works on / within its own terms / framework.

Acting: Gordon-Levitt gives a controlled, thoughtful performance. He captures Snowden’s quiet mannerisms and internal conflict without turning him into a caricature. Woodley brings warmth and frustration to Lindsay, grounding the story in the personal cost of Snowden’s secrecy. Melissa Leo and Zachary Quinto are convincing as the journalists trying to understand the magnitude of what they’re hearing. Rhys Ifans is particularly effective as O’Brian — calm, confident, and unsettling in his certainty that surveillance is simply the price of modern life. Nicolas Cage’s small role adds a touch of melancholy, hinting at how long concerns about overreach have existed inside the system.

Filming / FX: The filming is clean and straightforward. Oliver Stone uses a mix of handheld shots, muted colors, and digital overlays to show how surveillance systems operate without turning the movie into a tech demo. The scenes in the Hong Kong hotel room are tight and tense, relying on close‑ups and quiet conversations. The visual effects are minimal: mostly screens, interfaces, and a few stylized sequences showing data flows, and they serve the story rather than distract from it. The film’s pacing is steady, and the editing keeps the dual timelines clear.

Problems: A few. The film simplifies some of the technical and legal issues, which is understandable but occasionally makes the story feel too neat. Some characters, particularly the intelligence officials, are drawn broadly, leaning toward archetypes rather than fully developed people. The romance subplot sometimes feels like it’s there to break up the political material rather than deepen it. And the final cameo by the real Snowden, is interesting, but kind of breaks the fourth wall. None of these issues spoil the film.

Did I enjoy the film? Yes. It’s a thoughtful, steady drama that raises important questions without shouting at the audience. I appreciated that it focused on Snowden as a person: his doubts, his health issues, his relationship — rather than turning him into a symbol. The film doesn’t demand that you agree with Snowden’s choices; it simply shows how he arrived at them. It’s not a movie I’d re-watch often, but it held my attention and made me think.

Final Recommendation: Strong for the film / MUST see for the political threat it establishes for the viewer: so, strong to must see recommendation. “Snowden” is a well-acted, accessible political drama that captures the tension and moral weight of one of the most significant intelligence leaks in recent history. While it didn’t receive Academy Award recognition, its historical significance is clear, and the film provides a solid entry point into the debate over privacy, surveillance, and government power. If you’re interested in modern politics, civil liberties, or character-driven dramas based on real events, it’s worth watching. Just remember: the real story is still unfolding and will get MUCH worse in the next few years as Artificial Intelligence takes over the surveillance. “A word to the wise should suffice…“

.
Click here (8 April) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.