BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Brennan Camacho Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

leuphoto It's a shame to have to write a bad review about this title. It's actually some great information if you do not know much about the history of whistleblowers who I think are some of our greatest patriots, people who step up at the expense of their own well being in service of others and the US Constitution. That said, I'm not sure what else I could recommend that provides as wide of an overview as this film does. Certainly watching Citizenfour about Snowden is a fantastic start, and certainly The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Panama Papers is top notch as well. So, my main complaint is this film, which I stopped watching after close to 20 minutes, continually jumps between different stories and events with whistleblowers, apparently to make this seem more like a movie/film than the documentary it should be. Completely ridiculous for two particular reasons: 1 often one does not even know they've jumped to another topic, which takes place at a different time in history, place, and people...simply absured... 2 - even if one recognized the film has jumped or returned to another story, one is left trying to review (while also trying to pay attention to the film) what was said previously, say 5 minutes ago, and after listening to 5 minutes of other events. What a shame. Still a good film for a broad overview if you know nothing about whistleblower. Other than complicated direction, all stories are quite riveting when weighed against our democracy.

suite92 This documentary follows a small but interesting set of case studies of real whistleblowers who have been punished by the system in recent years.Daniel Ellsberg was a whistle blower from the 1970s who provides perspective throughout the film.In Iraq in 2006, our soldiers were dying due to the lack of armour on Humvees. An IED could take one out, and the military inside often died or were badly injured. Franz Gayl, Science and Technology Adviser to the Marine Corps in the Pentagon, became aware of this and brought it to the attention of his superiors. He championed the replacement of the Humvee by the safer MRAP, but was greeted with roadblocks. He went to USA Today to get leverage on the problem. He faced reprisals at work; his journalist contacts were threatened with lack of access. The Humvees were replaced, but Gayl was put on administrative leave for quite some time.Thomas Drake: (former) Senior Executive at the (US) National Security Agency was the second whistle blower profiled. 'We do not spy on Americans,' was a phrase Drake heard at work. However, he started his job on 2001/09/11; thereafter, however, he noted huge breaches of this key charter element of the NSA. Massive amounts of information were being collected on US citizens living inside the USA. Drake exposed portions of this process. His life was massively invaded in response by the FBI. The Justice Department threatened him with the Espionage Act, and specific charges that could potentially land him in jail for the rest of his life.Michael DeKort: (former) Lead Systems Engineer: The Deepwater Program, for the US Coast Guard was the third to be profiled. DeKort brought to the light of day two major problems with the Coast Guard fleet's upgrade: radios with non-waterproof circuitry, and hulls that were overly susceptible to buckling. DeKort used YouTube to spread the story, and it eventually found its way to 60 Minutes. DeKort stayed out of jail.Thomas Tamm: (former) Attorney in the Justice Department was the fourth to be profiled. He was in the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review within Justice. He talked to victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. His group applied for judicial warrants to listen in on persons in the United States who were thought to be connected to terrorists. His group worked with the FBI which had developed the 'probable cause' for these warrants. Some cases were treated differently, however.All of these whistle blowers suffered in their professional lives. All of them tried to go through official channels, where they were largely blocked. I specifically liked the point made that the recent administrations leak secret information as a matter of policy, and none of those leakers go to jail.How did these stories pan out? What are the implications for other potential whistle blowers? ------Scores------Cinematography: 8/10 Fine for a documentary.Sound: 8/10 Voices and words were clear enough. Incidental music was not overbearing.Acting: z/10 Not applicable.Screenplay: 8/10 The telling of the four stories were well packaged.

reeves9000 I disagree with both other reviewers on what the propaganda is. Essentially, this film is about freedom of the press and its importance. The viewer is being persuaded to feel protective of the press by using cases where public opinion helped innocent people being punished by a secretive government or big company. If you watch the film, you will find that synopsis oversimplified. I recommend this film to anyone interested in the topic of whistleblowing, corruption, and government secrecy. The film clearly makes a distinction between leaks and whistleblowing, and is not defending or telling the stories of anyone who "leaked" classified information. It focuses on individuals who were trying to stop fraud, waste and/or illegal activity and were persecuted for it. There were clear cautions given to any would be whistleblowers, be fully aware of what happens when you blow the whistle. (be prepared to lose your job, home, get blacklisted etc.) This documentary did discuss the Bush administration in a negative light also, but mainly focused on the current administration. If you watch the film it should be clear why.

gavin6942 War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State highlights four cases where whistleblowers noticed government wrong-doing and took to the media to expose the fraud and abuse.While it was great to get interviews with folks like Seymour Hersh, this had the feel of a promotional film that encouraged more folks to come forward. Because of this I have given it 6 rather than 7 or 8, because I felt like it had only one side and one motivation.Granted, I am on the same side and any push for transparency is a good thing. But there is a difference between a political ad and a documentary, and I am not sure if this film is aware of that.