This should be good. Topic has so much potential. But it is so lacking. How do people get paid to make things such a chore to consume?

Director makes interesting topic boring. Also inserts herself in story too much.

The documentary Risk from director Laura Poitras is an engrossing and fascinating portrait of a man that history has yet failed to fully grasp. Julian Assange would like to be thought of as the Robin Hood of the information era, robbing the rich of their secrets and sharing them with the world. But Assange's choice to make himself the public face of his Wikileaks organization has unquestionably gone to his head and rendered him a paranoid and strange figure who believes conspiracies against him are hiding behind every corner. https://geeks.media/movie-review-risk?_ga=2.96904415.1126457623.1513947710-953607229.1513947710

As slow as the whole Wikileaks's saga

A little choppy around the edges but in the main a continuous narrative all the same. An honest portrayal of Julian Assange & many of his delemmas confronting his struggle for transparency in a world starving for it.

Good information. Nice photography. Story not very well told.

Portrait of the narcissist's narcissist, the intelligent but profoundly misguided Julian Assange. This strangely edited, often inaudible, film mimics its subject in wanting to be taken incredibly seriously. But just because you punctuate your film with intertitles and portentous music and get to include footage of Trump, Clinton H and Snowden doesn't mean you've metamorphosed into Errol Morris or Werner Herzog. And this film certainly gets no closer to understanding Mr Wikileaks.

An interesting look at the man behind Wikileaks and some of the events behind the scenes during the 2016 election. It was ok. I did not care about Julian Assange's personal point of view as much.

Not bad, but not as compelling as Laura's previous movie, Citizenfour. I found Edward Snowden to be a much more compelling person than Julian Assange. It was interesting to discover a little bit more about the man behind WikiLeaks and what happened to him. I also liked the cross-over footage with Laura's other movie and the clips with Edward Snowden. I forgot that these two people were connected in some way. An o.k. documentary, but not great.

Laura Poitras has become a cinema master. This film is brilliantly shot, edited, and directed by Ms. Poitras (along with a talented editing, camera, and production crew. If you're a fan of high-toned political action pictures in the style of Costa-Gavras, Alan J. Pakula, Kathryn Bigelow, or Tony Scott, Poitras has knit together a documentary film so good-looking, telling this maddening political story cinematically with beautiful photography. It's lead subject of course is the only mildly charismatic Julian Assange whom Poitras and crew filmed nearly all the way up to the present, making Poitras' film highly dramatic and stunningly real. Mix this with the current U.S. political reality and you have a brain-teasingly breathtaking effort.The only slow moments were as the camera snuggled in for one more long take of Assange gazing toward the lens again to opine, pose, conduct phone calls. Otherwise watching this doc was entertaining and mind-blowingly factual. Poitras and crew deserve Oscars.

Terrible. For all of the profoundly interesting events during the timeframe this documentary was being filmed, this doc lacks the ability to drive any coherent storyline or depiction of the importance of what was going on. It's a shame that the filmmaker had so much access but couldn't tell the story in any interesting light. I was hoping for much more, but it was a severe let down.

What's most notable about Risk is director Laura Poitras' incredible access to Assange, at times capturing some of the most pivotal and dramatic moments of the Wikileaks mythos. And yet, it's as though this insider access clouded Poitras' judgment when constructing the film, like she was too far inside the boundaries of the landscape to accurately paint its scenery. From purely a storytelling standpoint, the film 'We Steal Secrets' is a better Wikileaks documentary, which should come as no surprise considering that was written and directed by Alex Gibney, perhaps the best documentarian in the business.

Documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras won an Oscar for her 2014 film Citizenfour that followed Edward Snowden in his last hours as a free man. It was exciting, insightful, and had an exclusivity that made it a must-watch for a pertinent political issue. Apparently, she made that movie in between work she had already started on a feature documentary about Julian Assange and Wikileaks back in 2011. Risk, the finished product years in the making, is clearly no Citizenfour. The one selling point it has is its exclusivity, being trusted alongside Assange and recording all sorts of personal footage. Except what we end up getting is meaningless stuff like Assange getting a haircut and being interviewed by Lady Gaga. Strangely, the most compelling moments of the documentary occur off screen or are hastily cast aside in voice over by Poitras. The filmmaker herself was drawn into the story when she started having a sexual relationship with one of the head Wikileaks guys, a man who she later says was abusive to her friend and was accused of being sexually abusive to others. That angle should have been the focal point of the movie, a filmmaker acknowledging she's lost her objectivity and questioning the motives of the men who might have good ideals but not be good people. There aren't any new insights into Assange or Wikileaks or its fallout, and its connections to the 2016 presidential election hack, which would provide the film with a spark of relevancy, are haphazardly addressed in a truncated closing ten minutes. There really isn't a compelling reason for this documentary to exist, and the reasons it should have don't materialize. Go watch Alex Gibney's Wikileaks doc, or Poitras' own Citizenfour instead. Nate's Grade: C

Risk often feels like a disjointed work-in-progress, instead of a fully fleshed narrative, which is somewhat understandable considering the nature of the subject and his continuing fight. So if on the one hand, the unprecedented access to Assange and his team can be riveting, on the other Risk lacks the social exposé Poitras is so gifted at building.

"It's not as strong as director Laura Poitras' previous achievement "Citizenfour" but "Risk" is a compelling documentary that explores the world Julian Assange and his inner circle created and it's major impact on a divisive American election." Movie Review: Risk Date Viewed: May 17 2017 Written and Directed By Laura Poitras (Flag Wars, My Country, My Country, The Oath and Citizenfour) Starring: Julian Assange, Laura Poitras and Sarah Harrison In this new world order we currently live in, one man is willing to risk everything to expose the world's most classified secrets. Julian Assange is the main topic for Laura Poitras' latest film "Risk", a compelling documentary that has real espionage and thrills. "Risk" also plays as a fascinating character study because we get to know more about the infamous whistleblower. "Risk" was filmed over the course of six years and director Poitras spend a great amount of time with Assange. Their relationship got tense and they didn't trust each other on some areas. Nevertheless, both Poitras and Assange patched together a really good film. With a running time of only 87 minutes, "Risk" explores the main flashpoints in Assange's life such as the building of a whistleblowing website called Wikileaks, his application for political asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, his 2010 leaks involving the Collateral Murder video, the Afghanistan and Iraq war logs and CableGate and of course his impact on the 2016 American election. During the time of the leaks in 2010, the U.S. government led a criminal investigation into Assange and Wikileaks and Sweden slapped Assange with rape allegations which he bluntly denies. With the possibly of being extradited from Sweden to the United States to face criminal charges, Assange applies for political asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy in London. We also see how Assange got to the embassy just as the authorities were closing their tail on him, he put on a disguise, wig and glued-on mustache just to stay hidden from the UK police. Assange then played a prominent role in the 2016 American election when Wikileaks began dumping emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) which suggest that they favored Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders because he's a socialist and he will end all the wars that they and George W. Bush started. Wikileaks dumped the emails and documents during the eve of the Democratic National Convention and this forced Debbie Wasserman Schultz to resign from her position as DNC chair. Also during the convention, mass protests which mostly consist of Bernie supporters began erupting with chants of "No More Wars!" and "Lock Her Up!". When we got to October, Wikileaks began publishing more emails and documents but from Hillary's private email server and those emails included her paid-speeches to elite Wall Street firms. This story wasn't covered a lot in the news because all they cared about was bashing Trump over and over again. Hillary seemed like she was on the path to winning the presidency after the release of Trump's Access Hollywood tape but thanks to those Wikileaks dumps and James Comey's reopening of the investigation into her emails, Hillary lost instead while Trump won the election. The Dems lost big that election night but Hillary, Obama, the Democrats and the mainstream news organizations didn't think she lost because of her email scandal or Comey's letter, they all pointed the finger at Russia at believing that they interfered in their election. This story is entirely a hoax, a scam, not true and so damn wrong. Assange explains that Trump is entirely unpredictable but come on was there a better choice? On the other hand, you could've helped Bernie more or Jill Stein. The other two key players in the movie are Wikileaks editor Sarah Harrison and Laura Poitras herself who speaks behind the camera. Harrison provided tremendous resources to the organization but in 2013 she accompanied NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden on a flight from Hong Kong to Moscow to seek political asylum. She helped deliver Snowden to safety but she may never return to the UK due to legal reasons. As for Poitras, she explains that during the making of the film, she returned home to her apartment to find her door open. This leads Poitras to believe that the government is on her trail too and I can't imagine why. How is Wikileaks doing right now? They're still kicking ass and plus Chelsea Manning who helped provide the 2010 leaks to Assange is being released from prison today. "Risk" is not as strong as Poitras' Oscar-winning doc "Citizenfour" but this is a movie that explores the world Assange and his inner circle created and it's major impact on a divisive American election. "Risk" is not just a documentary, it's also a brave and complex story about one man who's willing to sacrifice his personal freedoms just so he can reveal the actual truth to the world.

Assange is a pawn of Vladimir Putin and is more interested in self-gain than he is in justice and accountability. When was the last time WikiLeaks published anything about the Russians? That's what I thought. Oh, and don't get me started on Snowden.

The risk of inaction is huge. Assange

Good movie. Though it fails to remain focused on its thoroughly compelling subject, it’s still a thrilling, captivating documentary that poses some interesting questions.

'Risk' is a 2017 American documentary film written and directed by Laura Poitras about the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Everyone involved in this doc is flawed. Poitras had sexual relations with one of the subjects. Assange while his intentions may have at one point been in the right place is now consumed with power and his own fame. Jacob Appelbaum, with whom Poitras had the aforementioned relationship, has been accused by a number of women of sexual assault. The people around Assange are as much sheep as the people whom he accuses of being globalists. The inside look at the international man of mystery is very surface. Assange doesn't open up about what his true motivations are. At times it seems like this is a hit piece from a scorned woman and other times it completely doesn't have anything to say. It should be noted that this is a much different film then the original cut. In fact, there wasn't one bad review on RT (12-12) from the first cut following Cannes. It is malpractice that the focal point of this doc, once the director reveals she can no longer be objective, isn't on Appelbaum. Poitras' voiceovers are the most fascinating part of a film that probably shouldn't have been released without a MAJOR disclaimer. Final Score: 5.1/10

Two and a half years after she focused on Edward Snowden with Citizenfour, Laura Poitras focuses her lens on Julian Assange, who is of at least equal intrigue in the political climate of the 2010s. Risk, however, seemed to come out of nowhere, which seems quite fitting given its subject matter. Having found out about this movie about a week ago and having just learned of its release date, I was hoping for the type of brilliant documentary work given to us from Poitras in 2014, and although Risk is not at that level, it maintains several stretches that continue to prove her ability to create atmospheric, riveting documentaries that implement the type of tone often reserved for narrative filmmaking. As a result, the middle stretch that stumbles is generally redeemed. With its footage spanning 2010 to 2016 and an epilogue relaying the events of early 2017, the film follows Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and his collaborative efforts and leaks with editor Sarah Harrison, soldier Chelsea Manning (then known as Bradley), Edward Snowden, and more, following the consequences and culminating in the results and accusations regarding the 2016 presidential election. It also touches on the sexual assault accusations against him and his seeking asylum on Ecuadorian ground, and the events are largely told in the same manner as demonstrated in Citizenfour. These filmmaking techniques and uses of narration from Poitras as well as title cards all along with an understated soundscape and score provide the exact tone that was intended. At about an hour and a half, its pacing is generally consistent and very little of the overall product feels overwrought or drawn out. This may seem a bit too brisk for some as the film assumes that the viewer has a decent amount of prior knowledge in regards to the content (e.g. the footage released by Chelsea Manning), but events are still touched upon adequately and, generally speaking, consistently. It's here that the issues with Risk arise. It's a success sandwich, its beginning and end being great with a timespan in the middle that meanders too much and is too messy to entirely forgive. There are scenes in which the intentions of footage feel muddled, and the appearances of some figures seem out of place or underwhelming. Lady Gaga is in this for a bit, which is cool, but the footage with her interviewing Assange seems too random and extraneous to justify despite the entertainment value associated with it. Assange's mother pops up and could have provided insight into his personal life, but she doesn't do much and it's unclear as to whether she's supposed to come across as so disposable (and almost passive). These problems feel especially out of place given the quality of the rest of the film, but as a whole, Risk works well. By maintaining her technical prowess and matching it with inherently fascinating and timely material, Poitras creates a watchable and attention-obtaining--if lopsided--piece. The longer timeline and larger amount of bases to cover compared to Citizenfour make it understandable as to why Risk's attempts at covering seven years of scandal aren't completely successful, but the problems are still there nonetheless. I remain excited for what she does next, assuming she doesn't bite off more than she can chew. 7.6/10, good, B, above average, etc.