Agents of Chaos (2020) User Reviews

Utterly depressing yet must-see

[paul-allaer · 8/10 · 24 September 2020]

"Agents of Chaos" (2020 release; 2 parts of 115 min, each) is a documentary about what Russia's been up to relative to the US elections in 2016. As Part 1 opens, we hear from the Editor-In-Chief of Russia Today, the state-run TV channel that is the master of disinformation. "That is how democracy is supposed to work", she smirks. In a voice -over, director Alex Gibney ponders: "if there is one clear conclusion from Special Counsel Mueller's report, it's that Russia interfered. But how did that work exactly?", and with that, we dive into the first of two topics that Gibey looks at in Part 1. First we get "Trolls", where Gibney examines in excruciating detail the humble origins of the infamous troll factory IRA in St. Petersburg, focusing on massively spreading disinformation into Ukraine in late 2013/early 2014, and eventually directing its attention to the US. One of the Russian talking heads interviewed for this calls it the "carousel of lies". The second topic is "Hack", where Gibney looks at how Russia relentlessly hacks into computer systems and data banks, including of course the DNC...

Couple of comments: this is the latest documentary from director Alex Gibney ("The Armstrong Lie", "Going Clear: Scientology and the prison of Belief"). He is without a doubt one of the more prominent documentary filmmakers of this generation, nothing short of the gold standard. Here he directs his attention to what Russia has been up to relative to spreading disinformation and hacking data banks. It is frankly utterly depressing to see how easily it all has been done. Interestingly, in this Part 1 pf the documentary, Trump is barely mentioned (the Trump campaign's interactions with Russia will be assessed in Part 2 of the documentary). "Was the IRA troll factory pro-Trump?", asks Gibney to one of the US experts interviewed for this. "It was anti-America", is the devastating response. And Gibney doesn't let off the Obama administration easily, calling into question why not more of what it knew in 2016 about the Russian tolling and the hacking was revealed to the American public." To anyone who is drinking the Trump Kool-Aid by the gallons, this documentary will of course be deemed "fake" and a "hoax", but the nuanced details with which Gibney and his team reveal what is going on show differently. That is why this documentary is utterly depressing yet must-see.

Part 1 of "Agents of Chaos" premiered earlier this week on HBO earlier this week, and is now available on HBO On Demand and other streaming services. Part 2 will follow very shortly. If you have any interest in understanding how Russia is meddling with our democracy, without any fear of retribution, I'd readily encourage you to check it out, and draw your own conclusion.

A MUST SEE IT REALLY IS

[dcmackdon · 8/10 · 27 September 2020]

This doc spreads the blame to everyone for 2016, where it should be. Don't care what anyone says or tells you. It points out the role that Trump (realistically) played, the role Hilary played (her team really let her down), the role the DNC played, the role Obama's administration played, and the role Russia (well the small group) played. Also talks about the role of media, not just mainstream, but independent as well and the events that happened before 2016. Anyone with a real bias eye, this is what you want, someone to point out the faults of all parties involved. It breaks down the social engineering taking place by BOTH, yes, BOTH parties. Look, I would tell anyone to watch The Social Dilemma, Frontline 20/20-Trump vs Biden (they breakdown both tactics very well) and this, you won't be disappointed with the knowledge.

The Sahara of Political Documentaries

[owen-watts · 7/10 · 2 November 2020]

BECAUSE IT'S VERY DRY AND QUITE EXPANSIVE.

Now buckle in because that's the only light-hearted bit you're getting. Gibney's sprawling account of Russian ties to the 2016 US election is a massive achievement and rather meticulous - and like any piece of investigative journalism it doesn't really answer any questions or provide many simple truths. It's pleasingly intricate and despite being deeply American doesn't opt for many of the hyperbole that mires US documentary work.

In terms of the subject matter there's rather a lack of American investigative journalists - you've got a Yahoo! News journo but most of the US talking heads are sincere but biased big-hitters like former deputy director of the FBI or National Security Council member Celeste Wallander. This is a choice of course, and hearing from some of the central players in the narrative is quite compelling, although it means that you only get the merest tantalizing glimpse of the larger social context for a lot of what it all means beyond fairly high tier political figures, however odd they may be.

As other reviewers have hinted, as enormous as this documentary is, there is likely an even larger story at play here and these elements that Gibney has laboriously pieced together is only the view from the present. What revelations are to come are going to be all the more fascinating - and hopefully will be communicated in a slightly more succinct fashion.

Doesn't just join the dots, but takes time to explain them

[fruitychalfont · 10/10 · 29 September 2020]

This is a desperately complex story with multiple threads. It's a more sedate Active Measures, which is no bad thing.

Let's be fair, the full unclassified version of events won't appear for another 50 years.

Excellent

[cindymura · 10/10 · 27 September 2020]

This documentary takes all the pieces you have read about and puts them together in chronological order to explain what happened to our election in 2016. You will be glued to your seat. The last sentence of this documentary will be burned into my mind till the day I die. A "must see"

Part 2 of This Excellent Series is Even Better Than Part 1

[studiocity1949 · 9/10 · 25 September 2020]

Just in time for another chaotic and frightening U.S. presidential campaign, Alex Gibney delivers an all-too-timely reminder of how the Russians tried to undermine the integrity of the 2016 election, sow discord and division, and promote Trump. Having established in Part 1 who the Russian saboteurs were (including Russian military intelligence, the GRU), Gibney and his extensive team of investigators focus this two-hour Part 2 episode on what happened in the U.S. Follow the money and the power plays. Watch Trump's sleazy campaign manager Paul Manafort in action, bouncing between Russian oligarchs, the Ukraine, and the world of Trump Inc. It's painful but riveting viewing for any patriotic American.

Lots so assumptions

[nancyrph2 · 6/10 · 29 September 2020]

Clearly, this is a late-comer to the debate about the 2016 election. Loose ends are dangling for anyone's interpretation. That being said, I was riveted. I'm wondering if my confusion was due to classified info not being revealed. Or was this all there was. Not a Trump fan. I voted for Hillary.

Ripping democracy apart

[wernedal · 10/10 · 27 September 2020]

Sad story about where we are heading. Polarisation of the world just so the narrative will suit a few.

Biased but still factual

[JurijFedorov · 7/10 · 27 May 2023]

I watched Active Measures (2018) yesterday. It was very fun. A flashy doc with giant claims of collusion not bothering with good evidence. Just a full-on anti-Trump campaign using misinformation and rumors to attack Trump. Of course 2 years later the documentary makers knew 10 times more about the Russia and Trump claims and Agent of Chaos could be made. The story depicts how the Mueller report was a nothingburger. The stories big media spent 2 years on airing just didn't hold up. While in 2018 the Steele dossier was proclaimed expert evidence proving collusion in 2020 it was already seen as a fishy report ordered by Hillary Clinton and the doc cleverly uses this info when telling the very same story. It's quite amazing how all these stories fell apart this fast from 2018 to 2020 and how the 2 docs depict the differences.

So in 2020 anti-Trump people needed a new doc to finally show what happened. And we get this. It's way more factual. Focusing on single interviews. So not many great recordings or news segments shown here. More dry for sure. Many Democrats and centrists are interviewed. Most are quite tolerable. But some of these people are such huge anti-Republicans that they can't quite hide their bias. Secondly, while the doc is fairly neutral with what evidence it uses, which is great, it's quite biased in what it focuses on. The last scenes reveal the bias. A lot of shots of cops in USA pushing anti-Trump protesters while the narrator claims USA is very much like Russia. Alluding to Trump being similar to Putin and US cops being like Russian fascist cops as seen in the comparison videos. He uses White supremacist scenes to show how evil USA is and then uses BLM protesters with ACAB posters to show the good side of USA. These political docs often become obnoxious and shallow this way.

Unfortunately it has a narrow focus. I would have liked a doc that focused on misinformation and Russia. Active Measures (2018) for example showed a few seconds of left-wingers being pro-Putin. This doc didn't even care to do just that. We only get to see White supremacists as the truly bad guys. Which is totally unlike reality where ideologies mix. The interviewees themselves explain this, but the director doesn't get it at all. To him the world is Black and White and he shows it in how he finishes the doc.

It could have had interviews with more neutral people. And then remove all the stupid obnoxious stuff about what America is and isn't and who is good or bad. I get that the makers dislikes Republicans. But it's just not interesting to see this so on the nose in the doc. Besides this I liked it as I still could be critical enough to extract info from it and. You know what political bias you get in all these HBO docs and shows. But because the doc tried to stay neutral at times it does make you assume that it wanted to be neutral all the way, it's does not.

At any rate it's curious how much energy this story lost. After Trump became president and actually created new sanctions against Russia it was quite clear Putin didn't have much of anything on him as the primary goal would be to stop the sanctions. So to me the lack of story is the story here. How progressive media messed it up and created their own fake news. But of course HBO won't make a doc showing all this as they are not centrists. Someone else could make it. Hopefully someone less biased.

HBO, another biased but high quality product. They are so close to greatness with these shows. Maybe they could hire a few centrists or something.

Message from the Clinton Camp

[sergio-weigel-804-554022 · 1/10 · 15 May 2021]

I just watched The Crime of the Century and was totally blown away by the quality of the documentary on this shocking truth about how US elites like to treat their people (there are many more examples), so I decided to dig into more of his documentaries.

But this one both blows and sucks. First of all, it has a 100% Hillary Clinton bias, therefore it doesn't qualify as journalism.

Second, the only interesting part was the insights on the Russian troll factory, which essentially revealed that what Russia is doing there is what soooo many others, mostly P. R. firms, have been doing since as far back as I can remember the internet (2001). So, it is unethical, but nothing special or particularly evil. I highly doubt that it had enough influence to change the election.

Third, what he could at least have mentioned was that the country with the largest and oldest official troll factory is Israel, followed by the US, the UK, and Ukraine - all very official. Since he fails to mentioned these fine little details, it also fails to qualify as unbiased journalism.

Fourth, just for historical context, he could also have mentioned about how the US has meddled in Russian elections in 1995 (0r was it 1996?) to guarantee Boris Yeltsin another term. Again, failure for unbiased journalism.

Fifth, the narrating style and cinematography was really good.

Excellent - Highly Recommend

[fwh-13046 · 9/10 · 6 October 2020]

This documentary hits all the important points of Russia's involvement in interfering not only in the Ukraine, but also in the 2016 election in its myriad of ways. It paints an accurate picture of Putin and Russia's cunning propaganda campaigns. It also lays a lot of honest blame on government officials and media where it is deserved.

I only give it 9 stars because it could have been more detailed about how Russia interferes all over the West with its propaganda campaigns. There is an equally important story how Russia is generally trying to undermine the democratic West, so Putin doesn't look so bad being a dictator.

Disappointing Effort From Gibney

[tonymascia1 · 4/10 · 24 September 2020]

I loved Alex Gibney's documentary on Scientology.

His documentary on Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos was on shakier ground but still very compelling because of the sheer mountain of documentation and interviews detailing the funny business.

This "expose" on Russia's influence on the 2016 US elections is a huge comedown.

First, the positives. Information on Vladimir Putin's hold on power, is thorough. The network of Russian operatives successfully planting misinformation on world events is given some time, mostly well spent.

The "tell" - the turd in the punchbowl - comes 45 minutes into the first episode: Gibney, in his own voice, pushes the theory Putin put into play interfering in the US Presidential election because Hillary Clinton would be too tough on Putin and Russia, based on Gibney's perception of Hillary's supposed toughness as Secretary of State.

The next few minutes has Gibney talking about Trump using the very early perceptions from the Pundit Class in 2015. Five years from then through today, with perspective, fails to change his tone.

It falls apart from here.

The biggest "name" interviewed is John Podesta, one of the senior members of the Clinton campaign. That's fine; a mature viewer can clean something from Podesta.

The rest of the "experts" interviewed are ex-ambassadors, career low level bureaucrats, and tech folks who, while in government, were clueless as to Russian doings, if true, but often sounding like papering over their resumes and spinning tall tales for future work. THESE folks sound today like they knew all these alleged doings all along.

How can Russian operatives be so sloppy and yet so brilliant at the same time? For the last 3 1/4 hours, Gibney never asks, and no one has the answers.

Discussions on this may fill time on the twitterverse and on Cable talk shows, but it's empty talk.

Gibney lowered his standards to weave a story that is only somewhat true in a limited way It fails to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Just watch it.

[darkjester-96927 · 9/10 · 14 October 2020]

Whether you're a republican, a Democrat, a member of the Green party, independent party, whatever, or wherever your allegiances lie . Just give it a watch and make your OWN decision. I feel as if that's something in and of itself that the majority of people don't do nowadays. WATCH THE DAMN THING AND HAVE YOUR OWN OPINION. All that said, it's pretty straightforward, pretty black and white, and definitely sheds light on a great many issues that more Americans should be painfully aware of.

THANK YOU

[ahkxgg · 10/10 · 12 October 2020]

Thank you for clearly laying out the evidence of interference in our elections. Beautiful and clever animations; succinct and straightforward interviews.

Democratic commercial

[trimblair · 1/10 · 7 November 2020]

Congress spent $50M and 3 years to get to "no collusion." The billionaire candidate got no help but there were huge donations to the Clinton Foundation and a false dossier that a corrupt sitting president and his staff used to tap Trump and plant a mole. Skip this and save your soul.

Too bad they put in the bias...

[dshell102 · 2/10 · 31 October 2020]

It's interesting to see how it all works, all the information they have about what happened. But the problems: 1) The Hillary Crimes uncovered. 2) There's a huge difference between having met or talked to someone and actually knowing them. 3) Andrew Weissman was an activist and put together the Mueller team. 4) The best they have is a joke as evidence? 5) Yes, they have documents showing Hillary was trying Russia to Trump to cover for the release of her emails. Whoops! The documents are from when they notified Obama. 6) Carter Page was CIA and his job was to have Russia contacts. An FBI agent was convicted of changing those documents so they could spy on him/Trump via the fisa court.

I didn't vote Trump, I just read the documents as they are released. Again, interesting, but so many basic facts left out which show DNC/Obama/FBI collusion.

Disappointing

[Joro-3 · 2/10 · 26 September 2020]

It is too biased, one-sided and manipulative at the end. Russians are presented as dull and geniuses at the same time. Common known facts are mixed with interviews with people whose words you would guess even before they open their mouths, Quite disappointing from Gibney this time, Nevertheless, this series is good source of information about Russia, Ukraine and some events we tend to forget easily, There are some rare documentary videos included as well. But in general it is far from what I expected.