Aubrey Hackett
While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.
Bob
This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.
Haven Kaycee
It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film
Sawyer-4815162342
I have awarded 7 stars for sheer entertainment value. Despite some questions surrounding the authenticity of this documentary's sources the bottom line for me is that this movie hooked me from the start and held my interest from beginning to end. It's a disturbing look at the life of a rich man with questionable morals acting like he's king of his adopted foreign country. Be warned, there are some disturbing scenes and topics discussed such as rape, and graphic descriptions of torture and murder. But if you can handle that I recommend this movie, I found it engrossing.
Ben H
What i was hoping would be a journalistic piece turned out to be a pop-documentary and assassination piece.Stylistically it is very slick, however uses elements similar to shows like MTV's Catfish, with cheap animated email snippets.As a journalistic piece this documentary is very poor. Something from the offset does not ring true with the interviews, there are many inconsistencies which go unquestioned. At one point when interviewing Johns ex-girlfriends they all just happen to have the exact same story, one even says she was payed for sex and then says she never actually had sex with him (claiming only to have done other stuff), it feels like they interviewer is prompting towards it. At no point do the makers even attempt to come across as unbiased, When interviewing what they claim to be the actual murderer, he presents them with an alibi for the murder, which they openly state in the documentary they didn't bother investigating. The opening of the documentary is even dash cam footage of Mcafee being arrested, which at no point is made relevant, shortly followed after by the question; "is John simply a master manipulator?". At no point either are any of Johns claims investigated despite the fact there does seem to be evidence towards them in the free press and what could of been a very interesting thread of the story (John being intimidated for $2 million dollars by a government official and days later being raided by an elite police unit.One of the most compelling parts of the story is about how John treated a female American botanist, though again this story has a falsity that it is hard to place a finger on. The documentary does not challenge or attempt to question aspects of her story. She states that after an incident she "smashes the vials so John could hurt anybody", the documentarian never asks why or what the vials were.More than that defeating the legitimacy of this documentary are the various interviews with people from it, either claiming to have been lied to by the director or producing receipts showing they had been payed by Nanette (simply check YouTube), including one produced by "Mac-10", who on the documentary it was claimed fled the country.The most painful part is when she confronts Mcafee while running for president and seems delight in making him uncomfortable.I did not mean for this to be such a negative point of view or an attempt to defeat what is presented. The documentary lays out and presents the arc and story of Johns life very well, focusing on the period of his life spent in South America. It is well filmed and put together, however journalistic-ally it is lacking and seems quite happy to make no attempt to really investigate anything.Worth watching, especially if you are not aware of who John Mcafee is but with a large pinch of salt and a little extract research on the side.
zat-83174
McAfee was and is not a security guru, but a very good spin doctor for his own purpose. Surely he was at the right time in the right place and sensed a business opportunity. But creating a program to get rid of first virus with global media attention has not been rocket science. Not at the time when the computer world has been much more simple and not so interconnected and multi-layered like today. But John was and is good in getting media presence and making business out of it. Now he manages to transport his deception of the security guru legend into the modern IT world and sell it to young gullible people. Have a look at the negative reviews on IMDb trying to discredit the documentary and its film maker to get a glimpse on the success of the ruthless self-marketing abilities of McAfee.The documentary is about how to get away with murder when you are John McAfee. If you want a label for it then I would compare it to The Jinx. There are a lot of different people interviewed whose testimonials in combination shed light on McAfees dangerous personality and make a strong point that John needs to go on trial for the murder of Gregory Faull.
OneEightNine Media
This isn't a documentary. I know and love watching documentaries, been doing so for years now. I started out watching Micheal Moore's stuff and branched out into everything under the sun. The biggest problem real documentaries are facing today are films like this one, if you can call this a film. Basically anyone thinks they can make a documentary nowadays because they have a camera, laptop and an idea for a cool title. And once someone's watches these so-called "documentaries", they'll cringe at the idea of wasting 2 hours of their time watching another documentary. These random 2 hour over-glorified slideshows are killing the art of documentary films. The market has been oversaturated thanks to lame films like this and now real, I repeat REAL DOCUMENTARIES with an actual message or story to tell are getting thrown under the bus because of hipsters like this director who random cut and paste clips together and call it a day, and are doing so just for a paycheck. This is not a film, it is basically 2 hours of some chick p!ssed off at John McAfee because he would not give her an interview for her lame slideshow of a movie. She literally interviews random people (in serious need of money) and has them repeat the same story about John McAfee. They come off as coached. During the interviews they're giving answers like "yah" and "sure." When the director has to finally go somewhere to supposedly verify something, she chickens out because she claims it is too dangerous. It is like a bad high school project, not only half-piped and fake but lacking of much effort. Whatever she was paid to do this, I can tell you she not only pocketed most of the production money but got a free trip out of it. I'm giving it 2 stars because it was kind of funny to hear her keep complaining about John McAfee refusing to give her an interview. It probably forced her to waste more money on paying off locals for bogus interviews. This wannabe documentary isn't worth your time.
