Review of the film Snowden No. 2

Everything is presented in rough strokes with traditional subjectivism. According to the film, the viewer hears the following: it turns out that his girlfriend played an important role in inciting Snowden to apostasy, criticizing the US government and intelligence services at every opportunity, and Snowden himself was afraid that the intelligence services would spy on him while he had sex with her; that the intelligence services themselves never searched for criminals, did not monitor enemy organizations, and they only spied on people for entertainment and deliberately bombed exclusively peaceful cities, which they did not forget to openly talk about at every meeting; that the secret services used valuable information to recruit any kind of lowlifes, regardless of whether it made any sense or not... And so the whole movie goes. The apotheosis of stupidity can be considered the scene where Snowden talks with one of the high-ranking leaders on a huge wall-sized screen. If anyone didn't understand, this is a reference to Big Brother from the novel "1984", that is, between realism and symbolism (that is, stupidity) Stone chose the latter. And it's strange that he limited himself to just that - it was possible to move this scene to Times Square in New York so that Snowden could talk to his supervisor using local screens. The only thing that could interest the viewer in this film is how Snowden managed to steal secret information unnoticed, but the intrigue was again spoiled by those responsible for the PR of the film - they showed everything in promotional videos. And if someone wanted to see the real Snowden, then he will appear on the screen at the end of the film, along with Stone, of course.

The movie could have been saved by the actors, but despite the "stellar" cast, there's not much to praise. Of course, Joseph Gordon-Levitt played well in the role of Edward Snowden. But he looks good as an artistic character, but certainly not as an agent of the special services. The real Snowden was restrained enough, he managed to deceive the polygraph, and the film's character would have been easily figured out by the management only by giving him a sidelong glance and reading the emotions on his face. Woodley has never been impressed by her outstanding acting skills, but it is symbolic that it was "Divergent" who was cast as Snowden's girlfriend, who constantly criticizes the current system. Famous actors like Zachary Quinto, Timothy Olyphant and Nicolas Cage also got involved in the film, but they don't really have anyone to play here. However, it is unclear why Cage was "awarded" another nomination for the Golden Raspberry.

The film finishes off its visual side. The picture and cinematography look frankly mediocre, so it's unclear why, with a budget of $40 million, the film looks so cheap. It's not like it's an action movie. Or is it such a "law" on pseudo-documentalism? If so, then the budget of the movie "Cloverfield" (2008) was less.

In general, the film "Snowden" is a weak, ideologically shot biographical film about a notorious personality, whose director seemed to be trying to ride out this scandal, completely forgetting about the plot, drama and acting. The audience and critics didn't like the film very much, it failed at the box office, and Stone went to Russia to glorify Putin. That's where he belongs. Young porn https://www.blowjobvideos.xxx/categories/660/young/ watch online.