A Victim of Politics
Films should be first and foremost (if not only) judged on their merits. Which means you should get a personal experience of it and if you're compelled to speak out about it, in favor or not, then do so. To jump on a bandwagon or politicize the film due to prejudice is poor form. A film critic would never be allowed to print a review for a film he or she didn't see. Yet, the IMDb message board, user rating, and user reviews for this movie are made up by a majority of people who haven't seen the film.
Not all films are made for all audience. Some are specialized for people's specific taste. This film is certain not for everyone, nor was trying to be. Filmmaker don't think they can change anyone's mind on politics; people's politics are as baked in as their religious beliefs or personal identity. This film was made for people who like smart and provacative political thrillers. That a niche audience. And it will find that entire audience at some point because so few films of that ilk are made. This film portrays a lobbyist in DC. Therefore, it needs to examine an issue which is being debated over on Capitol Hill. The subject of that debate in Miss Sloane is gun control. For one, no narrative feature has addressed the issue, making it a fresh topic in a film. And of course the characters in the film need to represent both sides, and the POV of the film will eventually be geared toward one side bearing the other - that's where satisfying conflict leads to. The film shows ethically debased characters on both sides - the main character (played by Chastain) being the most diabolical of them all. And she plays a Republican in favor of gun control, btw, not a Democrat. And it shows
honorable people on both sides (like the law-abiding gunman who saves the day for one of the lobbyist pushing the gun control bill). The film's most critical examination isn't about the virtues of gun control (the narrative largely abandons that storyline by the end of Act 2 and it becomes no more than an aside by the climax and aftermath). The film's most critical of the broken political system that's currently in place for passing new laws - revealing how politicians are self-serving and duplicitous. Can anyone disagreee with that, really?
If you are a hardcore 2nd Amendment advocate - in the sense that the mere mention of gun control in any form is treasonous - then it may be hard to view the film through a lens that isn't incensed by the very notion of gun control being even considered in DC. But if you view the film as it was intended - a political thriller made as a piece of smart, thrilling entertainment that pulls back the curtain on corrupt DC politics, there'a actually much to be enjoyed and appreciated here. It has excellent dramatic writing, great performances and direction, quality production value, and it manages to be both relevant and escapist.
Anyway, I'm certain this post will be attacked by people who haven't seen the movie, don't care to, and continue to assume it's propoganda and utter garbage as a result. I can't stop that hate nor am I here to change anyone like that's mind. But for those who haven't seen, aren't predisposed to hate it over its politics, and are curious about it, I recommend you check it out sometime. It really is a surprising, thrilling and deeply intelligent film. It'd compare its experience similar that of Michael Clayton, The Usual Suspect, and A Few Good Men. I just also happens to have an element to it that explores one of the most hot-button and divisive issues in America today. That makes it inherently controversial and polarizing for people have deep ideological opinions on the subject. For those who aren't indocinated one way or another, the film will hold your interest from start to finish and I doubt it will make you feel strongly about the issue of gun control one way or another. But it may make you feel a certain way about DC lobbyist and politicians. Which is more the point. And far more justifiable given that world is notorious for its corruption and duplicity.