Really Surprised!

A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Shows real behind the scenes footage and is very suspenseful and enlightening

No real spoilers here, but I put a warning anyway.Oscar winner for Best Documentary.After watching SNOWDEN (Oliver Stone's movie) yesterday I watched a few more videos on YouTube about Snowden, which were interesting enough for me to reconsider whether I was wrong to give CITIZENFOUR a low rating. I wasn't.This documentary is terribly edited, making it extremely boring and hard to sit through. A different editing could have made wonders for this. It has very long scenes, both of Snowden talking in the hotel with the journalists and of other events - all given without any trimming. This is "a fly on the wall" in a bad way - it's like watching raw material. Why would I want to do that? There are also long scenes of voice-only (with unrelated and unedited video shown just as a filler) and text-chat exchange - this is just a terrible filmmaking.In addition, the ENTIRE filming of Snowden in the hotel was shot Hand-held. Why in hell would you do that?! It's a guy sitting in bed - not a car chase. Couldn't you just put the camera on a tripod or even on a chair/table? There was absolutely no reason to have the camera shaking the ENTIRE time.Both Snowden (while not a masterpiece) and the videos on YouTube were a lot more interesting and informative than CITIZENFOUR. The subject may be interesting, but that doesn't make a film good (whether documentary or not).The only benefit of watching the documentary was to see Snowden's real reaction to the situation (instead of watching an actor) and the short section towards the end, which isn't shown in the movie - meeting with the lawyer and planning the exit from the hotel.

Ever since films first starting being produced, many of them have had a political agenda, whether it be subtle or Leni Riefenstahl levels of obvious. However, that aspect alone shouldn't affect your judgment of the film overall, as you are reviewing the film, not the viewpoint it represents. Take Citizenfour for example, the documentary about Edward Snowden. Despite the prejudice I personally have for Snowden, I still had an open mind to the film. However, it is a badly made and boring film which lacks any structure, making it one of the most overrated films in quite some time. The documentary focuses on Edward Snowden, the whistle-blower who leaked NSA's surveillance activities to the world. Here, we see his leaking of the story to The Guardian and him hiding out around the world in order not to be caught by the US government. On top of this, there is also footage of NSA building surveillance sites and worldwide governments trying to stop the NSA's spying. While it sounds compelling, the film is anything but. One main reason for this is that a lot of the film takes place inside Snowden's Hong Kong hotel room, without much happening, outside of Snowden watching TV and getting dressed. Whoopee. It also doesn't help that the film is poorly structured. Besides the initial boredom you'll experience from watching Edward Snowden in his hotel room, the film also randomly puts in the aforementioned footage of the NSA building these sites and of the foreign governments without much context besides the film's obvious message (government surveillance is bad). It's put together in a very sloppy manner, and while I understand the circumstances behind this (director Laura Poitras had the pressure of the authorities finding her), it demonstrates the lack of experience Poitras has. It just makes you wish she would have handed the footage to someone with more skill, as it would have made the film more coherent. Another problem is how overly one-sided this film is. I understand that many documentaries are biased towards a certain view, but at least they often consider the other side of the debate. For example, a good documentary like The Times Of Harvey Milk may portray people like Milk's assassin Dan White and John Briggs (of the controversial Briggs Initiative) as morally bankrupt, but also tries to explain their actions and humanise them to an extent. Not here though. Not only does the film ignore the other viewpoint, but portrays it as completely dangerous and volatile. So as you can imagine, there's no mention as to why the system was set up (in order to prevent disasters like 9/11 from repeating themselves), why the authorities are after Snowden (as he threatened national security) or the negative consequences of Snowden's actions (potentially giving terrorists a loophole to go through in order to harm innocent lives - the fact that the Boston marathon bombers are mentioned at one point makes this factor more important).It also portrays Snowden in an overtly perfect manner, almost saintly, for his exposure, as if he was a kind young man wanting to protect the American people. So factors like how he didn't even read all of the documents he leaked or how thanks to him, Al-Qaeda are now changing their communication methods in order not to get caught by the NSA don't enter the conversation. Even some things that are mentioned in the film unintentionally work against him, mainly how he has put his own family at risk, and doesn't even try to protect them. On top of this, you can't help but feel that some of the criticisms of the NSA's actions in the film are filled with hypocrisy, mainly that of the Brazilian government, a country with higher internet censorship than the United States. I wouldn't mind the politics as much if the film was good, as I have enjoyed films in the past but don't necessarily agree with their ideology. Citizenfour however is extremely dull and boring, making the questionable politics even more problematic.In conclusion, Citizenfour is a very bad documentary which is poorly structured, tedious and sloppily handled, and is a blatant Leni Riefenstahl-esque propaganda piece for Snowden, that not only glorifies one side and ignores the other, but demonizes that same side as well. It is also notable for something that is becoming a major problem in our culture as a whole: the glorification of criminals in the media. There's no problem if you think Snowden was in the right, but all too often, people are praised and martyred in the media through their behaviour, despite being dangers to society, leading to the silencing of those who criticise them, regardless of their legitimate points. Usually this applies to traitors like Snowden who are treated as heroes as well as terrorists like the IRA and many Jihadists being excused as martyrs, both of which undermine the serious consequences of their actions. On top of this, we see gangsters like the Kray Twins being made out as folk heroes and common thugs like Mark Duggan & Michael Brown being seen as innocent victims. All of this shows how criminals are portrayed as heroes, which encourages both the infliction and support of illegal behaviour through their media endorsement, meanwhile we see the constant lynching of groups like the police and the NSA for protecting a free society. This not only divides people to antagonize one another but also makes people forget who the real bad guys are, leading to a society based on lies and deceit, rather than truth and honesty. This film (along with its undeserved media acclaim and Oscar win) are a testament to this, showing that society is confused as to where our priorities lie and who are the bad guys truly are. Because of this, I suggest that you skip Citizenfour, as not only is it cruddy agitprop, but as it glorifies a potential traitor, makes it rotten to the core.

Excellent documentary and important viewing for anyone who wants to have a more informed perspective on the extent to which we are being monitored in post-9/11 America. My only complaint has to do with the extensive text which sometimes appears on-screen. Many of these sentences convey information that is critical to the story, and yet the production team decided to use a font that is so small that it's virtually impossible to read on a television. In those passages there is no voice-over, so there's no way to get the information but to read it off the screen. I had to get up from my seat and stand right in front of the screen to read it. Given that the majority of the people who see this film will see it on TV, in my opinion the producers made a bad mistake by making the font so small.Still one of the better documentaries I've ever seen.