Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

FrogGlace In other words,this film is a surreal ride.

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Celia A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Daniel Semenov In a nutshell, the documentary is mostly about the less known years of John McAfee during his stay in Belize. Thou some might say that the coverage in this documentary is mostly biased and intentionally created to show McAfee's shenanigans, I would highly recommend to keep a few things in mind before watching it: 1. McAfee sold his cyber security company before moving to Belize to Intel, which used his anti-virus with his last name during the whole period, until today. The company worth nowadays half of the price McAfee sold it, and its price got lower with every bad press coverage during the years of McAfee in Belize. Additionally, McAfee started a new cyber security start-up right after he got back to US. 2. During the last elections, McAfee was leading contender of the Libertarian Party. His political intentions are clear and may seem in his way of living during his days in Belize.This Documentary is HIS MAGNUM OPUS, it's his door opener to a movie starring Johnny Depp about his life - and later on, his political career. a must watch documentary in my point of view.

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.

Simon J Stuart Previous to watching this documentary, I knew very little about the man who's name had consistently popped up on my computer's desktop, and watched from a perspective of intrigue. Unfortunately, it became very clear early on that rather than being an unbiased peace of investigative journalism, this documentary would be the opposite and presented more like a biased hack-job, or smear campaign against John McAfee. Although it is all made very well, there is not a single moment throughout where I felt like I was hearing the full truth, and as such, decided to investigate the matter for myself after I'd finished watching. What I found was shocking... Although I found interviews with Nanette Burnstein (the documentaries maker), claiming that she'd not paid anyone for interviews, (merely 'photos'), whilst continuing to attack John McAfee. I also found articles from many Belizian news outlets stating that interviewees were paid to lie. These news outlets interviewed the same people, and also had proof of the money transfers sent by Nanette Burnstein. Overall, it seems like Showtime have a lot to answer for. I am very disappointed that I spent an hour and a half watching such fiction.