Snowed In: Or, When Did Oliver Stone Lose His Mind?

I used to be under the impression that Oliver Stone was a pretty good director - not necessarily one of the greats, but at least highly capable. I've come to realize, however, that he's not so much a good director as much as he is one of those directors that mostly sucks but who is sometimes able to make a good film, possibly by accident. He's up there with Ridley Scott (who gave the world "Blade Runner" and "Alien", but is also responsible for such pieces of shit as "Exodus: Gods and Kings" and "The Counselor") and Francis Ford Coppola (Who made the first two "Godfather" films, but also regrettably made the third "Godfather" film).

A cursory glance at Stone's filmography will uncover more than a few missteps, including "Any Given Sunday," "Born on the Fourth of July," and "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" - the latter holding a special place in my heart, as it is without question the worst movie I've seen in theaters. I would have walked out, but I was too baffled by how bad it was to even feel my legs.

This is all my way of saying that I'm not Oliver Stone's biggest fan, but I also want to stress that it has nothing to do with the man's politics, which I agree with by and large (that is, when his movies are comprehensible enough to discern what the fuck he's trying to say), but what I don't agree with is his clumsy, ham-handed way of getting a message across. I think that what Edward Snowden did in exposing the extent of the USA's surveillance capabilities and practices was admirable - although I'm a little disappointed, as I imagine he is, that it didn't change anything. So I was prepared to like "Snowden" going into it, although I had a feeling based on the trailers that it had the potential to be a real shit-show.

"Snowden" is a challenging movie. Of course it is heavily based on the intelligence gathering mechanisms of the United States government, and a lot of that stuff could go over the heads of the audience. There is a fine line between oversimplifying the material for the audience's benefit and presenting the material in a way that is organic to the characters and the true story that the movie is trying to tell. It doesn't so much walk a fine line as it does zig-zag wildly back and forth across that line throughout the entirety of the film. There were moments that were akin to a high school level government class, with characters explaining what the fourth amendment guarantees to private citizens, and scenes where I sat back and realized that I hadn't known what the fuck had been going on for the past twenty minutes. The movie pretty well proves that you just can't make this shit interesting AND stay factual with it.

Also featured in the movie are some strange editing choices which further muddy the waters, some really corny dialogue, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt's bizarre choice of an affected speaking voice, which doesn't sound like Edward Snowden, but instead sounds like a transsexual with a sinus infection. Oh, and it boasts some of the most forced and stilted romantic scenes I've ever had the displeasure to sit through between Gordon-Levitt and Shailene Woodley.

The movie clocks in at around two hours and fifteen minutes - to me, it didn't feel like it was a second under four hours. Edward Snowden is a polarizing figure, and his story is worth finding out about and drawing conclusions about. There are, on the other hand, several documentaries about, or featuring, Snowden, making this dramatized telling unnecessary as well as technically inept. I would suggest trying out one of those if you want to see his story. Or, if you want to get more into the spirit of what he did, I'd recommend getting off of your ass and doing something about corruption and abuse of government power, but I suspect that's asking a little too much.