Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Wordiezett So much average

Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

kvodfak-983-624677 Smart movie, nicely reflecting the hypocrisy of modern society, and modern media. Tackles general ignorance, and wish of a talented young man to use his talents for something bigger than ordinary life. Without pathetic heroism and vanity, which might be expected, but rather suggests some different model of behavior to smart young people. Decently low grade fine suits to movie with non-orthogonal ideas.

zif ofoz How much 'fact' is involved with this story of Julian Assange early life I do not know. But the movie as itself stands as great entertainment, perfectly cast and with a fantastic script!Alex Williams as the young Assange gives a powerhouse performance of a young man focused and driven by his wanting to expose 'the truth' and not cause damage in the process. And he achieves his goal even with the dial-up internet of the late 1980's and early 1990's.The 'authorities' are full of disdain and envy for this group of geniuses and their knowledge of up and coming technology. Assange laid the groundwork for the digital oversight 'the press' has failed to utilize in their mission as the fourth estate to keep an eye on corruption in the state and corporations.This movie shows that Assange is a 21st century hero!

siderite Whenever a movie has some political agenda or seems to, the reviewer votes divide into haters and lovers, ten stars vs one star and so on. I am an admirer of Wikileaks, but I can't view this movie so singlesidedly. Instead, I have to compare it to similar movies like Operation Takedown or even Hackers. Also, I have to take into account that this is not a big budget American movie, but an Australian TV drama.On that scale, Underground is surprisingly good. I wouldn't know how factual it is, but take into consideration that it is based on a book (that is freely available online) about the hacker culture, written when Julian Assange was a nobody. It has no connection to Wikileaks at all and none of the Assanges consulted on the movie (even though Julian himself said he liked it when he saw it).The actors were well chosen, the boy looks like Assange a bit, and they all acted pretty well. There are two known names in the cast: Rachel Griffiths as the mother and Anthony LaPaglia as the cop chasing him. As for the story, it was eerily similar to Operation Takedown: the morally driven hacker that raises a middle finger to authority in his quest for truth. Unlike Mitnick, though, he only paid a 2100$ fine allegedly because the judge sympathised with his family's "nomadic lifestyle".As for the main complaint, that the movie doesn't explain the motivations of Julian Assange, that is a good thing. Several pieces of the puzzle are presented: his obsessive personality, his cult leader step dad, his morally outspoken mother, his discovery of American misdoings in the first Gulf War. They all are just pieces. Many other exist and it is the role of the viewer to get or not interested in putting them together.My conclusion is that for people not interested in the hacker culture or specifically Assange, the movie will seem pointless. For the others, though, it is a good watch. There is, of course, some dramatization, changes of perspective and so on, but in the end it does well what it set to do and that is why I recommend it wholeheartedly.

Alice Wilson The purpose of this movie should have been to show "what makes Assange tick". The producer/director and screen writer failed in this area because they do not know the answer.Assange's nomadic lifestyle does not explain what makes him tick, nor does Assange's father, nor does his girlfriend. These are certainly external factors in Assange's childhood, but they do not explain what makes him tick. Also, the superfluous details about his girlfriend and his child were absolutely ridiculous and should have been excluded as non-essential details.The film should have focused on Assange's motive that he has held and still holds. I should have seen more about his love for freedom of speech, his ability of using the internet; and his long days and nights in front of the computer (for which he is know). The "why" was left unanswered. It is not the external factors of a nomadic lifestyle that made him what he is today. It was not because his father or step-father was strange that Assange is what he is today. It is not because of his girlfriend. But it is because he holds certain ideas. Those ideas were buried throughout the movie.What made him risk his life? What made him follow certain principles that he is known for today? What are his principles?