To summarize your post:
he has a big ego. he may have caused harm to someone. he made a mistake when handling blatant war crimes. you don't like that "some people" think hes literally perfect and want them to criticize him at least for the mistakes he makes before breakfast - not focus on the actual, real, concrete violations of law that he revealed.
Your entire post reads like you're trying to make mud stick. Give me a break. All of that is a far-cry from what the movie portrayed and is quite intellectually dishonest.
>want them to criticize him at least for the mistakes he makes before breakfast - not focus on the actual, real, concrete violations of law that he revealed.
These are not mutually exclusive goals. I'm grateful for Assange's work and the changes it has affected on the world. However, I think if you were picking the front-man for Wikileaks, he would be a poor choice.
Thankfully, the ideal people rarely do anything interesting, and Assange is a very interesting character (in both senses of the word). I was actually surprised by how little of the memo took issue with the film. Almost all of it is tone, and much of that tone is open to interpretation (does the film mock Assange's feeling of being watched, or do the characters in the scene mock it? The scene includes thugs following Assange.). I'm also surprised the film adds a disclaim as to its sources at the end.
Wikileaks seems really upset, but it seems like the film makers could have done a lot worse. I'm sure the people in the US government have their own list of inaccuracies. What do you expect from a form of entertainment?
Your entire post reads like you're trying to make mud stick. Give me a break. All of that is a far-cry from what the movie portrayed and is quite intellectually dishonest.