Instead it ends up being just "good" enough to where it's entertaining and interesting to view, but doesn't really leave any lingering effect on the viewer after the fact.
Admittedly, director Oliver Stone seems to have lost his touch as of late and Snowden is no exception. It's competent film making, sure, but it's not challenging film making. And with a topic/figurehead as controversial as Snowden, I was hoping that it would have had a little more to say.
For those living under a rock, Edward Snowden was the ex-CIA, ex-NSA operative who leaked a plethora of this nation's secrets to the public. Among those secrets were that the United States NSA was listening/watching to everyone's phones, not just suspected terrorists.
Many argue that Snowden was a hero whistle blower, others deem him a traitor against his country, and both groups are fairly adamant about their positions (as is the case in politics these days). The film itself paints Snowden 100% as a hero in our modern time and one that's almost void of any flaws. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with the portrayal of him in the film for this reason because I feel that there's more to the story than what's provided in this "white knight" version.
![]() |
"Have you ever watched one of your own movies?" |
![]() |
Sure, because when the fate of a nation is on the line, let's focus on the love... |
Other than that laundry list however, Snowden is, as I've said, an interesting and good watch. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is fantastic as Snowden himself, able to mimic many of the man's attributes and even looking strikingly like him at times. His performance is probably the most memorable part of the film and coincidentally also the best. Woodley is good as usual too as is the rest of the remaining cast that even includes Nic Cage! The plot organization is also one of the film's strengths as it bounces back between his post-leaving the country and before to show us how he got to that moment. This is all shown in typical Oliver Stone film style, which is welcomed and helps the film to feel somewhat unique. The original score, while it seemed like it was sparingly used, also had some memorable bars, though I feel like a film like this could have used a really strong theme.
![]() |
Ed...you're standing too close to the screen again. |
And, if you know how easily I can talk about films, that's never a good thing.
CONS:
- Forgettable
- Feels like it doesn't provide the whole story and paints Snowden as an absolute hero. There's no challenging what he did or controversy within the film
- Overlong by about 10-20 minutes
- Focuses too much on the love story and it really messes with the overall tone
- JGL is fantastic as Snowden, even looking a lot like him from time to time
- The remainder of the cast does good here too, including Woodley
- Features Stone's signature style
- Plot organization makes for an effective way to tell the story
Rath's Review Score: 7/10
Whats to challange about what he did? One hundred years from now mothers will ask their children " What would Snowden do?"
ReplyDeleteWhy did 'American Sniper' not get points taken off for 'paints XXXX as an absolute hero", but 'Snowden' did? Because AS easily painted the guy as a hero and didn't even remotely tackle him as the controversial figure he is.
ReplyDeleteFair point. I'd also argue that much of the controversy surrounding Chris Kyle is inaccurate, but at that point we're essentially arguing about two people that neither of us have met.
DeleteIn general however, AS was the far superior movie though. Snowden was missing something and the lack of any flaws in the hero was probably the smallest issue.
Understandable, was just curious. thank you for the response
DeleteAnytime! Thank you for the read!
Delete