Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

Spoonatects Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Frances Chung Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Dreaded Eddie OK I got here after Fifth Estate - a Hollywooded fairy tale story about WikiLeaks - well depending where you sit on the fence I suppose. So I thought I'd give Mediastan a shot, WikiLeaks own documentary. A journey with Julian's "Remote control" team trying to wheel and deal by "giving away" the diplomatic cables. Giving away the unredacted diplomatic cables after signing a Memorandum of Understanding which is non-binding and represents nothing more than a gentleman's agreement between the two parties - not my words - the remote teams words - that seems bloody irresponsible because once the cables are given to these outlets where else would they go unredacted? You have lost all control – was that the point to this whole exercise? This demonstrates by itself to me how wreckless Assange truly is. Oh the MoU appeared to be in English and these Newspaper editors didn't seems to have a good understanding of English - ie probably didn't understand what they were asked to sign - simply irresponsible by all parties involved. Filming quality was not bad in general, for an amateur. Much better than I expected. As was sound quality. But the documentary itself was lacking with little or no substance. So there we open with Julian in Northfolk reviewing one presumes a US cable with a college and they fall over themselves laughing at "...is already in correspondence with Karl Rove".. Excuse me, Hello?, Over here? Let me into the joke please, I had to go and Google Karl Rove – it didn't help. Some context would be awfully nice chaps. Then we move to the 5 "tourists" otherwise known as Jullian's remote control. The opening gambit about printing or re-printing positive American material in the local press. They were stating that the press would be paid to re-print this material - but he read it out loud at verbatim - yes there was an incentive - but nowhere did it say they would be obliged to re-print anything. It was very interesting how the "boss" of these newspapers were not in central asia but somewhere else like Czech republic or the US itself. What I have to say at the end of all this is Julian Assange is just someone who "lucked out" With Manning but left the poor guy high and dry for what is it? 35 years?? And for what? To put Wikileaks out there and hope to catch some other poor unsuspecting poor soul.Finally if you are going to cross a boarder, and get intercepted by gits carrying rifles then telling those people "my beard is my passport" deserves to get you some time. Admittedly 5 years at Guantanamo Bay is harsh, I mean it was an impressive beard after all.

Chris Smith The first thing that struck me about this documentary was how beautifully it was filmed. The stunning snow-capped mountain scenery of Central Asia in the opening shots got me hooked immediately. This is a road film that travels through some of the most remote and rugged territory in the world that is rarely seen by people in the West. It is where the old Silk Road used to run between Europe and China that is now a geopolitical battleground between East and West.An intrepid team of Wikileaks supporters tours the capital cities of the "Stans", the Muslim states of former Soviet Central Asia, looking for local media organisations to partner with and to publish Cablegate files relevant to their countries. The interviews with local editors and journalists provide some sobering insights into the pressures on them from both local state authorities and their corporate owners. The negotiations with editors also shed light on the Wikileaks' approach to disclosures and the need to protect vulnerable people via redactions.The team--including Swedish director Johannes Wahlstrom--enters a Swedish military base in northern Afghanistan and films a memorable encounter with the person in charge of development aid about the reality of her role in this military intervention.The film ends up back in the West interviewing editors in the UK and US about the pressures they also face--hammering home the fact that it is not just publishers in dictatorships that face problems.Highly recommended.

caravanistan I never write movie reviews, but since the topic of the film is Central Asia and the current state of the media, 2 things I care a lot about, I wanted to air my views.I had high hopes before the start of this film, since so few movies come out about Central Asia. I found the film however to be quite boring, misleading and demagogic.I think there are many things wrong with the way the American government, secret services and military act abroad, and there are big issues with today's media landscape in Central Asia and the US. Sadly, Mediastan, with its confused narrative, illuminates nothing here beyond the basic facts most educated people already know.The basic point of the film is that the American government tries to make itself look good in Central Asia through the media there. Obviously, it does, like every other government and large company. But why does the film focus so much on the Americans here, who are generally a force for good in the media landscape in Central Asia? Journalists don't get killed or locked away by Americans in Central Asia, they get killed or imprisoned by local governments and mafiosi. RFE/RL is one of the best sources of independent information in Central Asia, thanks to the support of the American government, but Wikileaks makes them look like they are nothing more than a propaganda channel for the West. Of course they promote Western values, but they also provide valuable news services in a region where this is not always possible, and their journalists risk a lot.AsiaPlus is a courageous independent newspaper in Tajikistan, but after watching Mediastan, you get the impression that they are also being backed by the Us Government.In its focus on the crimes, mistakes and manipulations of the US Foreign Service, Mediastan misses a good opportunity to discuss the real problems in the media landscape of Central Asia.I think a film like this would have been better if it focused on the media landscape in the US, like when at the end, images of a park with peaceful protesters from Occupy Wall Street are juxtaposed with the sound of a journalist who says they are very dangerous people and the chance of rape is very high in the park. Or, alternatively, focusing on the pressure by Russian or local governments on the journalists would have been great too.I also didn't understand the interviews afterwards with Rusbridger and Keller. Both respected, concerned, intelligent editors who are implicitly accused of being 'all about the money' in this movie. Everybody knows the Guardian and the NYT are very serious about journalistic standards and often break news other newspapers wouldn't, and at the same time we all know the newspaper business is in a difficult place and they need to earn money to survive.The pauperization of the news landscape in the US (and everywhere else) due to commercial interests and ideological bipartisanship is a story that cannot be told enough, but this road movie without a script accuses all the wrong people. Not a wikileaks fan anymore.

qpllpq An intriguing journey into the interface between journalism and the state; Wikileaks associates travel through Central Asia and the West talking to news managers about news and secrets.Perhaps surprisingly, viewers with their minds already made up on either side of the Wikileaks/Manning/Assange debates will find plenty to reinforce their views. The open minded, after a sometimes slightly comical tour of heavily managed news outlets in various -stans in Central Asia, are quietly invited, without preaching or polemic, to consider just how different are the famously 'free' presses of the West.Along the way: some neat travelography, lots to think about, and I suppose a little bit of history captured being made.