The Fifth Estate (2013) User Reviews

Should Be about the Truth

[claudio_carvalho · 5/10 · 9 August 2016]

"The Fifth Estate" is a film made by Dreamworks apparently with the intention of showing Julian Assange as an egocentric villain and seems to manipulate the truth about the role of the Weakleaks. On the contrary, his unfaithful and ambitious partner Daniel Domscheit-Berg a.k.a. Daniel Schmitt is depicted like a rational adviser and the hero, destroying the whistleblower information and data of the Weakleaks to protect the "innocent spies and informers". The film is based on a book written by Daniel Domscheit-Berg; therefore totally partial about the truth without showing the side of Julian Assange. I am not expert in this subject and I have just the common sense of reading and listening to the news about Julian Assange and the Wikileaks. But the film seems to be manipulative and depicting one side of the truth only. Therefore as a documentary, it is worthless; however a thriller, it is engaging and has good performances. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "O Quinto Poder" ("O Quinto Poder")

Benedict Cumberbatch only plays villains

[muthink · 6/10 · 8 November 2013]

As I walked into the theater with my wife, she asked me again what this film was about. I said, its about Wikileaks. I told her about Assange and the mission of Wikileaks. I had already had my own formed opinions about Assange, but refrained from sharing it with her. I was curious to see what her reaction was and what her opinion of Wikileaks and Assange was after the film.

The film was not bad. It was sort of an attempt to make a Facebook style film about Wikileaks and although it nowhere measured up to the quality of "Social Network." Its attempt was commendable and all-in-all, it was not a waste of the 18 Euros we spent to see it.

However, what really bothered me throughout the entire film was Cumberbatch's portrayal of Assange. I could see he was trying very hard to mimic Assange to the best of his ability, but I either don't think he had it in him or he was purposely playing Assange a lot crazier than he appears in real life. I have seen lots of interviews with Assange, who in my mind, comes across a bit like a mixture between a politician and professor. Cumberbatch, on the other hand, came across as a sort of eccentric nut.

The next thing that bothered me is where the film decided to stop. Basically, it skimmed over the current scandals, making Assange sound like more of nut than Cumberbatch's portrayal. The last five minutes especially sunk into me the feeling that the film unfairly portrayed Assange.

And my suspicions were confirmed. I asked my wife what her opinion of Assange was as a good or bad guy, and she seemed to indicate she was leaning towards bad. The last few minutes of the film, basically sunk that message in loud and clear.

My conclusion is, that, this film is a good example of the new way of being critical. Pretend to be fair and at the last minute, throw up a bunch of negative facts.

I believe that combining the positive portrayal of the U.S. state department with the crazy portrayal of Assange, was neither fair nor accurate. History will probably judge this film as just another propaganda piece of the corrupt powers that be.

If I were to write this film, I think it would have been much more interesting to concentrate on the incidents of human rights abuses rather than on the Assange himself. It would have also had the positive effect of encouraging, rather than discouraging whistle-blowers. This film does not seem to inspire anything.

Assange was right about the film.

The truth may be in there somewhere.

[TheSquiss · 5/10 · 29 October 2013]

I tend not to read reviews until after I've watched a film lest they sway my opinion, but it wasn't hard to miss the nonchalance (that veers towards damnation) with which The Fifth Estate has been received. Nor that it plays just once per day, at 9pm, at my local Cineworld compared to five screenings per day for Captain Phillips, eight for Ender's Game and fourteen for Thor: The Dark World.

But Bill Condon's (Gods and Monsters, The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn) film about Wikileaks founder and hero/pariah (delete according to your political stance) Julian Assange really isn't that bad. Take that as you will.

Not really a biopic, The Fifth Estate takes a similar approach to Assange as The Social Network did with Mark Zuckerberg, looking more at the product of the man than the man himself. It consumes 8 minutes more of your time than The Social Network, feels twice as long, is far more arduous and will require just a single viewing, compared to repeat visits for the Facebook flick.

Trudging through the meeting of the ultimate whistleblower Assange (Benedict Cumberbatch) and Daniel Berg (Daniel Brühl), the explosion of Wikileaks in the public's perception, the shadowy deals with The Guardian and the fall out from countless exposés about underhand dealings from governments and corporations, The Fifth Estate spews out a huge amount of information but never quite manages to get down to the gritty truth.

It feels cluttered and more of a lecture than a movie and I'm not sure I know a great deal more about Assange now than I did yesterday. Too much has been shoehorned into its 128 minute running time but it still only glances over some of the highest profile matters surrounding Assange: the Bradley/Chelsea Manning revelations and the sexual misconduct allegation against Assange that have led to his exile in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

Cumberbatch succeeds admirably in portraying Assange as an obsessive with a serious case of egotism and a lack of social graces or personal care. It's a fine performance and will be a revelation to those who know Cumberbatch only from BBC's Sherlock or Star Trek Into Darkness. He is eminently watchable and succeeds in making an unpleasant man fascinating to watch. Assange wrote an open letter to Cumberbatch hoping to dissuade him from portraying him on film in The Fifth Estate, a "wretched" film, a work of fiction "based on a deceitful book", and one imagines that, should a copy of the film reach him inside his 'prison' he'll be dismayed by the way he is portrayed. Perhaps he'll be magnanimous to concede that, nevertheless, it is a fine performance from Cumberbatch.

Many of the other prominent actors don't fare quite as well. Brühl follows up his superb performance in Rush with a more downbeat character that he never really sinks his teeth into. Like Brühl, Alicia Vikander, Berg's love interest and just one of many thorns in Assange's side, has little to play with and her performance is smothered by the presence of Assange.

Bucking the trend, David Thewlis gives a pastiche of a Guardian journalist, more given to flouncing noisily into meetings and huffing in exasperation than acting. But Thewlis' performance is evened out by able turns from the new Doctor Who, Peter Capaldi, Laura Linney and Stanley Tucci, though with so many characters vying for screen time and Condon battling to squeeze in as much information as possible alongside some outdated 80s techniques (text across faces, anyone?), they, too are lost in the mêlée.

The Fifth Estate isn't a great film and it may not be terribly truthful (the jury's still out on that one) but, despite it's flaws, I still enjoyed it. Once! And maybe truthful representations aren't important. As Cumberbatch wrote in his response to Assange, "…the film should provoke debate and not consensus."

And in that, at least, The Fifth Estate succeeds admirably.

For more reviews from The Squiss, subscribe to my blog and like the Facebook page.

Not even half as compelling as the actor or the character

[harsh007 · 6/10 · 28 October 2013]

The Fifth Estate

Plot In his quest to make information free for everyone whistle blower Julian Assange takes on the kingpins of the world by raging a sophisticated ,new age war that threatens to shake the foundations of diplomacy and overthrow established regimes .It tells the story behind the rise and fall of wiki leaks and of its creator ;Julian Assange who some people call a visionary and some a threat to national security .The story revolves around the complex character of Assange and explores his relationship with Daniel Berg ,one of the spokespersons for Wikileaks.

Script The Fifth estate is loosely based on the book "Inside WikiLeaks" by Daniel berg and uses real life examples as key points to narrate the story. The script is to the point, taut and close to reality but it never becomes more than that. It feels like a monotonous narration of the book with no elements of a thriller that it promised to be. If the makers wanted a boring narration of the events that are already available online why did make all the efforts to make a movie and waste a talent like Mr Cumberbatch?

The script is written to explore the association of Assange and Berg but fails to do so and only creates a one dimensional sketch of a Multidimensional relationship. Other parts of the movie are outwardly boring and dimensionless which makes it a Prime time News at max when the viewers expected a thrilling and insightful leak into the life of one of the most Controversial public figures of the 21st Century.

Direction Its Difficult to understand why Bill Condon was chosen as a director for such a controversial public figure (Mr Condon is the director of Twilight :Breaking Dawn 1 and 2, Now you get it ,right?).His lack of control of the story and the essence of Julian Assange's character is visible throughout the 128 minutes , his lack of understanding of the character is the prime reason why this movie fails to hit the right chords.

Performances Benedict Cumberbatch is the reason why you should watch this movie is watchable throughout its runtime.The expression, body language ,non- verbal cues are exactly like Julian Assanges.

Though Assange refused to meet when benedict requested him so that he could understand him better ,citing faults in the script which he disapproved, still he managed to bring such a complex character to life on screen with panache .He is one of the most exemplary actors of this modern world of cinema.

Final Word The only reason why you may want to watch the movie is Benedict Cumberbatch. Except for him the movie is a dull replay of events we already know off, this isn't the movie that Julian Assange deserves. If You are interested to know about Mr Assange I suggest you watch "We Steal Secrets" by Alex Gibney, that is at least honest in delivering what it promises.

I actually liked it

[blanche-2 · 7/10 · 30 October 2013]

I know I'm in the minority, but I liked "The Fifth Estate." Others will agree with me, though, that the best thing about it is Benedict Cumberbatch, who does brilliant job as Julian Assange.

I come at this film from a slightly different point of view because I still don't know what was so fabulous about "The Social Network." I understand the comparisons due to the similar stories. People seemed to find "The Social Network" incredibly compelling, but I guess it's a generational thing - I just didn't.

I attended this film with a friend who had only a vague knowledge of Wikileaks, and he absolutely loved it and found the "redaction" scenes toward the end of the film tense and suspenseful, as I did.

I realize that some of the film may be fictional, and that Wikileaks is a controversial subject. I can't pretend to know the truth. Cumberbatch portrays Assange as an egomaniacal, protective, arrogant man who refuses to compromise, even when information may hurt people. His right hand, Daniel (Daniel Bruhl) begins to see that Assange's dictatorial attitude and paranoia has gone too far and is actually in the long run going to hurt what could have been an important organization.

What should we know, and when should we know it? Assange wants to release unedited documents onto the World Wide Web. Yet in the beginning of the film, he wants at all costs to protect sources. He seems to forget that later on. That's all in the film, based on two books that we're told are biased.

Still, The Fifth Estate raises some interesting questions and also talks about the challenges we face now with news going out onto the Internet. I think some transparency is healthy; I don't think banks should help customers cheat the U.S. out of $30 billion in taxes; but I don't believe military strategy should be leaked, and I believe that sources should be protected. It seems like so much of what we hear today, from politicians and celebrities and publicists is "spin." And most of us are aware that there's more than they're telling us.

As far as the acting, Laura Linney and Stanley Tucci are marvelous in small roles; Cumberbatch gets excellent support from Bruhl, Alicia Vikander, Jamie Blackley, and the rest of the cast.

In short, Cumberbatch's performance should be seen and appreciated. I think this film has gotten a bad rap. It's certainly not an awful film.

The Confused State

[FilmMuscle · 7/10 · 18 October 2013]

The Fifth Estate is a film that's bound to attract a considerable amount of controversy and end up with a fairly divisive crowd, and that's basically why you're witnessing the overwhelming negative reception from critics. Ultimately, bias will sweep in and largely contribute to your final thoughts on the film, essentially depending on what side you're on. Admittedly, this picture paints a villainous image for Julian Assange, especially as the plot progresses, and a plethora of reviewers apparently took issue with that, including Mr. Julian Assange himself. Well, there are also those critics that post their extremely vague negative responses to the film that don't exactly address a particular fault within the movie's content and definitely produce a sense of shadiness in terms of what exactly drove them so crazy over its material.

Anyways, let's focus on my reaction to the feature in general with as much honesty as possible. I won't lecture you on how much you should hate the NSA and the government's surveillance activities nor should I protest such anarchists' decisions. I'll judge the film as it should be judged, but of course, the level of its accuracy should absolutely be considered. Concentrating on the strengths at first, right off the bat, it's quite obvious just how exceptional the lead performances from Benedict Cumberbatch and Daniel Bruhl are, and as usual, Cumberbatch carries that impressive volume of charisma with him where you simply can't take your eyes off his mannerisms and speech (I believe I already noted this in my Star Trek review); in short, his portrayal of Julian Assange is terrifically veracious. Daniel Bruhl, coming off of his memorable performance in Rush, makes his mark yet again, playing a foil to Julian in a way. Furthermore, The Fifth Estate unquestionably works as a full-fledged thriller with the several twists and turns throughout. The story, itself, is compelling and though it's abundantly filled with journalistic terminology and complicated concepts, you're forced to dedicate twice the attention to the screen.

On that note, The Fifth Estate suffers from a highly noticeable and detrimental flaw: its messy execution. What fundamentally follows persistently throughout the narrative are perplexing scenes that leave the audience scratching their head- and not in a good way in case you're asking. The movie's editing style and script will doubtlessly leave you confused in numerous instances. While you're attempting to understand how exactly a specific action or trade works, the film casts you into another situation that leaves you baffled yet again, and this really stems from- as previously mentioned- its wide array of terminology and the fast pace with which it irresponsibly deals with its explanation to the moviegoers. This is precisely why The Social Network shone in its brilliance: it was perfectly comprehensible and continued with remarkable execution- the pure opposite of The Fifth Estate. By the time the story comes to a conclusion, you will have likely properly sorted the film's ideas but to have a thriller work is to avoid placing your interested crowd into a muddled and jumbled predicament as it lessens the satisfaction and surprise that comes with a thrilling experience.

At the end of the day, The Fifth Estate is great in that it sparks a mixed reaction and requires both extreme sides of the table to continuously argue over the rightfulness or criminality of Wikileaks' existence and the path that Julian Assange took to see it to success. There are too many factors to just definitively point out if you should or shouldn't view it. However, if you're not one for complicated, fast- paced political thrillers, this probably won't be an enjoyable time at the movies. Otherwise, there might be something here that'll get you thinking about the whole debacle of our privacy vs. the so-called "evil government."

Not what I expected

[mohancraig · 7/10 · 29 October 2013]

As I was driving to the theater I was thinking about what my review might sound like based on just what I'd seen in the trailers, it sounded something like this "all journalist get into the business for the right reasons such as making the world a better place but it usually winds up being more about celebrity status after a while, this movie demonstrates the true initial journalistic urge"... well I was completely wrong and the movie did just the opposite of confirming my suspicions.

The movie starts out by convincing you of the genius and passion of Julian Assange where you feel compelled to see him as a champion for justice but about half way through you start to see him as a real A**hole (this is as the movie portrays him, not my personal view), as it proceeds his character gets worse... almost villainous (not that he surrounded by angels; mind you).

I think it worth a look especially if you were not aware of the WikiLeaks phenomena as it was occurring, I for one found much of it informative and I believe it will raise some awareness about censorship in the media and the plight of genius (if not bordering on madness but isn't that always the way?).

The Fifth Estate is only one side of the story

[StoneOcean · 1/10 · 19 September 2013]

THE FIFTH ESTATE is based on two books, both written by people who had personal and legal disputes with WikiLeaks.

These are personally biased sources and are now outdated by three years. They tell only one side of the story.

These authors had an interest in portraying Julian Assange as dishonest or manipulative for competitive, personal and legal reasons.

It is hard to imagine how a film which aims to dramatize only their version of events could genuinely aspire to being fair or accurate.

The film does not tell the story Julian Assange or WikiLeaks staff such as Sarah Harrison, Joseph Farrell or Kristinn Hrafnsson would tell. Hopefully, soon, their story too can be told.

Benedict Cumberbatch great actor but the movie is propanganda attack on Wikileaks

[ulfahl69 · 22 December 2017]

WOW! Berg guy is totally self righteous a hole. You don't even have to know anything about the subject matter and you know this movie is totally BOGUS! A complete smear campaign on the founder of Wikileaks. "People love the true WikiLeaks story: a small group of dedicated journalists and tech activists who take on corruption and state criminality against the odds," Assange writes in his statement. "But this film isn't about that. ... Instead of the exciting true story, we get a film about a bland German IT worker who wasn't even there and a fabricated fight over redactions with the old newspapers and the State Department saving the day. The result is a geriatric snoozefest that only the US government could love." "As justification it will claim to be fiction, but it is not fiction. It is distorted truth about living people doing battle with titanic opponents. It is a work of political opportunism, influence, revenge and, above all, cowardice."

Intriguing, Fun, Shallow

[Danusha_Goska · 6/10 · 20 October 2013]

Everyone seems to be mad at this movie because everyone who talks about it comes to it with a strong opinion about Julian Assange, and they wanted the film to depict him as a savior or a monster. I didn't have those preconceptions and I enjoyed the film from the opening title sequence. That sequence depicts hands carving hieroglyphics in Ancient Egypt, illuminated manuscripts, the first printing press, newspapers, computers – the myriad ways humans communicate. It's a title sequence Frank Capra would love.

I found "The Fifth Estate" intriguing, fun, and moving. Benedict Cumberbatch is very good as Assange. The movie wants you to be impressed by him at first, but slowly to see his feet of clay, and Cumberbatch does that job. Daniel Bruhl plays Daniel Domscheit Berg, Assange's partner. Bruhl expresses disappointed hero worship very well. Assange is invited to Berg's home for dinner, and he disrespects Berg's polite parents. That intimate, believable scene makes you hate Assange in a way that his secret-releasing shenanigans might not.

"The Fifth Estate" struggles, as all computer-related films do, to depict life on a computer. It creates a fake office with the sky as ceiling where Assange's "volunteers" work. Assange describes his submission process at Wikileaks and pages appear on screen. These visual flourishes are fun.

The movie is interesting and fast-moving but not very deep. There are very big questions at play here and "The Fifth Estate" does not engage them deeply. Laura Linney plays Sarah, an American agent whose contact, Tarek, is endangered by Assange's revelations. There is some tension as Tarek flees Libya. Will he get out before Assange outs him, or will he and his family be captured and perhaps tortured by their oppressive government?

Perhaps if "The Fifth Estate" had been more art than docudrama it could have gone deeper. Imagine a conversation between Sarah and Assange. One could argue for the importance, both strategic and humanitarian, of state secrets, and the other could argue against. Other questions – aren't secrets inevitable? Accept it: there is stuff you are simply never going to know.

And, in the end, what difference did Assange make? The US is still in Afghanistan. Guantanamo still operates. People will pay more attention to Miley Cyrus twerking than to documents about torture in a Third World nation. Someone said once of the Cambodian genocide that no one will ever read all the documents the Khmer Rouge amassed. No one cares enough to do so.

Laura Linney is every bit the actor that Benedict Cumberbatch is. I'd love to have heard these two characters have this conversation.

Good film, great acting, weak script

[Avwillfan89 · 8/10 · 18 May 2014]

I personally liked the film, which had a lot of suspense and superb acting.

My issues with the film lie with the script, that seems to show Julian Assange as somewhat of an antagonist, although not all the way. The script is based on a book by Daniel Berg, a former colleague of Wikileaks who as since fallen out with Assange, which doesn't pan out as trustworthy source. I also felt it was made a bit too soon and could have benefited from being made in a couple of years.

In the film, everything about Assange portrays him as a man who is increasingly untrustworthy while being in charge of a website which exposes all kinds of corruption in different countries, and which fiercely protects its sources. Through Daniel Berg's point of view, as a person, Assange is an odd, anti-social egomaniac who constantly invents stories about how his hair grew white, cares very little about the consequences coming after the exposure of corruption through the leaks, not thinking things through and is sometimes mean, cold and condescending towards individuals and his friends and family.

Despite the positive things about him, such as his charisma, determination to change the world and the fantastic, wonderful things that his website Wikileaks has done, by the end of the film, he is still made out to be a liar and manipulator, wanted for rape in Sweden; a bad guy who's done a good thing with his website.

Benedict Cumberbatch is absolutely brilliant as Julian Assange, and succeeds in portraying Assange as a complex, three dimensional character, something the script was not at all prepared to do. The real Assange dismissed the film as propaganda and politely asked the actor not appear in the film.

My other issue with the movie is that they hardly focused anything on Chelsea (formally Bradley) Manning, the soldier who leaked the most voluminous and controversial documents in history. Here also, Assange is shown to seemingly care only about showing the world's most valuable secrets, and not think about the repercussions that Manning faces because of her leaking the documents (Assange publicly praised Manning as a hero for the exposure of the US military documents)

Maybe Assange is vain and hates that a film portrays him for who he really is (as it seems the same for many people who worked closely with him) or maybe he's right and the truth was not obtained through this film. But one thing is for sure, the whole truth of many things will probably never be known.

Not a hater or a supporter

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 15 March 2014]

The movie starts two years before the seminal leak of US government data by WikiLeaks. Julian Assange (Benedict Cumberbatch) coming off of his work in Kenyan takes on Daniel Domscheit-Berg (Daniel Brühl) as part of the team. Julian tells him that they have an army of volunteers, but pretty soon, he finds that they are mostly alone in the work. The whistle blowers start bringing in more and more shocking revelations, and catches the eyes of Guardian reporter Nick Davies (David Thewlis).

There seems to be a lot of Assange supporters hating on this movie big time. I'm neither supporter nor detractor. I'm just a guy who watches too many movies. Unless you think Assange is God, I doubt there's too much objectionable material in this movie.

Cumberbatch does a good job as a mercurial mysterious Assange. I do wish for a greater insight into his life, but this movie is mostly told through the POV of Berg. Daniel Brühl is a little bland. It makes me appreciate the superior work of Andrew Garfield in 'The Social Network' playing opposite another computer pioneer.

I'm good with its depiction of the computer world inside WikiLeaks as a series of desks. However when Berg finds out that there is only Assange and him in the room, the desks need to disappear leaving only two. Turning the other people into Assange is cute, but it's more visually honest to faze out the other desks.

I'm not so good with the preaching at the end. The movie wants to end, but the writers force David Thewlis to put in the two cents on the fourth and fifth estates. Then the stuff that Assange says is as forgettable as it gets. More than anything, it feels very dishonest unless he actually said those words. It seems the real Assange is much more angry at the movie than is depicted.

The Filth Estate: Hollywood

[thomasmorus · 1/10 · 8 May 2015]

I'll just leave to Wikileaks's response the task of identifying all the gross factual mistakes done by the movie (just search for 'wikileaks internal memo fifth estate').

This film is a joke, the objective of tarnishing Assange's image is obvious from beginning to end. It keeps portraying him as a paranoid, egoist, narcissist, sexual maniac, manipulative person, that has no principles whatsoever. Sometimes it even shows him as having some ideals, as a lapse, and then he comes back to his psychopath persona. Really, with so many factual blunders, there's nothing to comment except that it's a poorly written fairy tale.

If you have any interest in this topic, I'd rather spend my time and money on the 'Mediastan' documentary.

Quite a good movie with a terrific lead performance

[cllrdr-1 · 26 September 2013]

As you can see from previous reader reviews the Assanginitas are going to be out in force denouncing this dramatization of Julian Assange's rise and fall. Ignore them. Like all "based on a true story" films people ad incidents were compressed for dramatic purposes. But the story overall is quite true. Benedict Cumberbatch captures Assange's preening narcissism and raging paranoia perfectly. He's especially adroit in scenes in which Assange tells lies only to revise them when the truth surfaces. Visually rich and very exciting this is quite different from anything Bill Condon has done before. This is an Alan J. Pakula style dram brought up to date with exceptionally flashy graphics and a breathless pace matching it's leading character's seemingly unstoppable drive. Edward Snowden, who was in contact with Assange at some point, is not mentioned. But Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning certainly is. I hope Condon has plans form making a Manning film in the future, cause he's definitely the director for it.

What is true?

[blanceto · 7/10 · 4 September 2021]

Is it coming based on the true narrative of both parties or only one of them to make as propaganda? Well, the last maybe 15 minutes of the film will tell you what everything was about then you can make your assumption.

"The Fifth Estate" is an important, if not exciting film.

[dave-mcclain · 6/10 · 16 December 2015]

In Medieval Europe, the First Estate was the clergy, The Second Estate was the nobility and The Third Estate were the commoners – basically, what we would call today "the 99%". The term The Fourth Estate emerged later as a designation for a group of people who aren't large in numbers, but are great in influence – usually the news media. This leads us to the title of the 2013 film "The Fifth Estate" (R, 2:08). What if there were another group of people, further outside the older classes of society – a group that was an offshoot of The Fourth Estate, smaller in size, but greater in influence? In this, The Information Age, the internet has created such a group, a group that plays a role similar to The Fourth Estate, but does it completely independently and with no accountability. It's a group that is influential enough, and different enough from the established media, that a new name seems appropriate to describe this group. This is The Fifth Estate, and there is no better example of The Fifth Estate than the WikiLeaks website, publisher of documents leaked to the site by people within corporations, military and government organizations who feel that they have a responsibility to expose corruption, questionable practices, lies and policies and practices with which the leaker simply disagrees. Calling a movie about WikiLeaks "The Fifth Estate" begs the question: Can people who work with such an organization really be called journalists, are they lawbreakers, or are they something new and different, something that defies definition? It's an important question and it's what this film asks its audience.

WikiLeaks went online in 2007 and was the creation of one man, Australian computer hacker – turned activist and publisher Julian Assange. Benedict Cumberbatch does a remarkable job portraying the enigma that is Assange. In Cumberbatch's hands, Assange is a brilliant visionary… as well as arrogant, rude, manipulative, paranoid, self-righteous and definitely lacking in the social skills. He makes Apple Computers co-founder Steve Jobs look like a puppy dog. Daniel Bruehl plays Daniel Berg, a computer genius who hitches his wagon to Assange's rising star. Berg believes in Assange's goal of revealing the truth about powerful organizations, especially those corrupt, scandalous, embarrassing, or just uncomfortable truths which Assange, Berg and a small group of friends believe can make a difference if exposed to the light of day. Over time, however, Berg comes to see Assange for the man he really is and grows increasingly upset over what he sees as Assange's recklessness in publishing hundreds of thousands of leaked U.S. military and State Department documents and communications without redacting names and other information that, if made public, could endanger the lives of all kinds of people all over the world. That's where Laura Linney, Stanley Tucci and Anthony Mackey come in, as government officials trying to limit the damage from WikiLeaks releasing the biggest treasure trove of documents the website (or any organization) has received from a single source. That source was former Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning, eventually convicted of violating the Espionage Act and other crimes and sentenced to 35 years in prison (and has since assumed the identity Chelsea Manning).

This should be seen as an important movie, regardless of one's opinion of the people and events portrayed. First off, WikiLeaks (along with the connections established among people around the world on social media websites) helped lead to the Arab Spring and other significant political changes in many different countries over the few years following Manning's actions. Secondly, whether you agree or disagree with Assange's approach to journalism (or whether you even consider him a journalist at all), this movie raises important questions that existed before the world even heard of Julian Assange, will exist into the foreseeable future, and may never go away. When does the freedom of the press enshrined in the U.S. Constitution conflict with the basic human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness promised in the Declaration of Independence? Is there any way to hold people who post news on the internet accountable without violating our most treasured freedoms? Where is the line between whistle-blower and traitor – and who decides where to draw that line? This film suggests the importance of asking all these questions and more without coming right out and asking them. This film also avoids suggesting that there are any easy answers. As entertainment, many will find "The Fifth Estate" a bit dry, a bit long or both. The director does his best to keep the film engaging by getting the best out of his talented cast, editing and scoring the film to create tension and using creative settings and camera work to represent certain concepts and events in the story. However, the real strength of this film is in its educational value and its ability to get the audience to think about some significant issues that face our country and our world - right now, today - and aren't going away any time soon. At the end of the day, isn't that one of the things that we want (and really need) movies to do – at least some of the time? That is a question that I think this film does answer and that answer is a resounding "yes"! For the significance of this film, its execution and its overall entertainment value, I give "The Fifth Estate" a "B".

A good watch for those who wanna know more about wikileaks

[aarti_rana89 · 6/10 · 1 September 2014]

This movie had a gripping start and to those who had a background about wiki leaks and Julian Assange, the movie got into the depths of information in an entertaining way which otherwise would have been very boring to just read. It was nothing like a documentary but was towards Daniel shown in a better light. The whole movie was like a chase but lost the plot to confusion and chaos in between. Since the length was pretty long it was slight boring. The only thing I didn't like was the sudden abrupt end where I thought it could have been a little more elaborated. Benedict Cumberbatch has done an extraordinary job of playing Julian Assange's character and completely justifying his role. I was excited to see him in a new avatar other than Sherlock Holmes which made me look forward to watching this movie. All in all this movie is a good watch for those who are interested to know in depth about Julian Assange and Wikileaks in a non-documentary way!

Ambiguous Portrayal of the Celebrate Whistleblower

[l_rawjalaurence · 6/10 · 10 June 2014]

THE FIFTH ESTATE is certainly an intriguing piece of work - not least for the fact that it hasn't made up its mind about how view the central character. Played with narcissistic grace by Benedict Cumberbatch - in one of his best film roles to days - Julian Assange comes across as both obsessive and righteous, impossible to live with yet possessed of firm convictions, haunted by his past yet dedicated to improving the future. His relationship with Daniel Berg (Daniel Bruhl) is a combustible one; Assange doesn't want his partner around yet can't seem to operate without him. Eventually the two of them break up for good, and Assange is quite literally hoist by his own hubristic petard. Structurally speaking. Bill Condon's film is particularly flashy - full of rapid cuts and awkward zooms. Sometimes it becomes rather irritating in its attempt to stress the central theme; despite Assange's assertions to the contrary, Wikileaks was not a worldwide organization but a two-person operation. The repeated shots of office desks, peopled by clones of Assange, emphasize the protagonist's ambitious, if somewhat unrealistic, dreams. Eventually the flashiness gets in the way of the film's resolution, especially at the end, when the shots of burning books and campfires seem especially unnecessary, and Nick Davies' (David Thewlis') concluding speech is nothing short of tendentious. Nonetheless THE FIFTH ESTATE remains perversely watchable, if only to witness the extreme yet ineffectual reactions of US government officials (played by Stanley Tucci and Laura Linney), once the extent of the leaks becomes evident.

Cumberbatch shines in a dull and only occasionally interesting account of the Wikileaks story

[DubhDoo · 4/10 · 15 October 2013]

You know what they say – you wait for a bus and then two come along at once. After causing a media frenzy in recent years, Julian Assange and his whistleblowing website WikiLeaks have found their way to the big screen this year, twice. Earlier in the year, the documentary 'WikiLeaks: We Steal Secrets' was released to highly positive reviews and a lengthy complaint from Assange himself. Now, we have Bill Condon's dramatic (and according to some, heavily fictionalised) account of the history of the now-infamous website and its founder. Similarly to aforementioned documentary, 'The Fifth Estate' has notably been objected by Assange, who wrote to lead actor Benedict Cumberbatch outlining why he shouldn't take the role or have any part in the film. Despite this, Cumberbatch didn't, instead delivering an excellent and nuanced performance that never feels like an impersonation. On the flipside, Cumberbatch is far-and-away the best thing in the film.

That's not to imply that 'The Fifth Estate' is a bad film by any means, it's just that it's regularly flat and occasionally boring. Many have compared it to David Fincher's 2010 masterpiece 'The Social Network' and the similarities do exist (the foundation of a revolutionary website involving two different people who eventually fall out over said site), but the difference is that this film lacks the spark and most importantly, the compelling dialogue of the latter. When making a film such as this centred on dialogue, it is imperative to make the talk as gripping as possible, but despite trying their best, the conversations here are only sporadically attention-grabbing. Additionally, the sequences set inside the 'cyberspace' feel out-of-place and don't work at all.

The film has good intentions and attempts to raise some interesting questions, as it successfully manages not to show favour to any side of the WikiLeaks argument, even going so as far as questioning the film itself, as we see Cumberbatch's Assange dismissing it in an interview. As well as Cumberbatch, Daniel Brühl is very good as Assange's partner Daniel Domscheit-Berg, while David Thewlis is as usual, a pleasure to watch, here playing the best on screen Guardian journalist since Paddy Considine in 'The Bourne Ultimatum'. Overall though, the film is not as good as its star – it's a plodding and unremarkable account of one of the biggest new stories in recent history.

Better then it's Box office

[sleggin · 7/10 · 10 January 2014]

The Fifth Estate is actually a much better film than it's abysmal performance at the box office suggests. Possibly it will find it's audience in DVD release. It's worth the time and money for Cumberbatch's performance alone and a sad fact that it's sudden-death at the box office will preclude anyone from giving that performance serious Oscar consideration.

The problems with this picture are the lack of any real thruline in the narrative, an incredibly confusing first ten minutes, an assumption by the writer and director that the audience would come armed with foreknowledge of the subject and events.

Yet, it would be a mistake to miss seeing this picture when it does come out for home viewing. Once we get past the sad start, the character is compelling, the performances excellent and the events of great significance.

Liked it a lot!

[palavitsinis · 8/10 · 25 August 2016]

Two of my favorite actors as of late. A really nice movie. Although I cannot actually verify the truthfulness of it all, it was overall a nice script with lots of intense moments and most of all, based on parts of a true story. From my part, I really liked Julian Assange. Truth, there is lots of controversy on what's narrated on the movie but I really enjoyed this character. The story of Wikileaks is really deeper than that and needs a lot of reading if you're going to come anywhere near figuring what has happened but this movie was really pleasant to watch.

Would not go higher than 8 but also no less than 7.5. I am not sure why it's so low on IMDb, my guess is that's because of the controversial content that seems somewhat biased on one side. Anyway, a really nice movie to watch and one of these thrillers that really thrill!

The Man

[abcvision · 23 October 2013]

In information age world we are filled with an over abundance of information, some good, some bad. This movie explores the information that is often withheld from the public in the name of the security. Based on the real life tale of Julian Assange from Wikileaks, it is a fast pace thriller of the how one person takes on "the system" and the sacrifice of exposing corruption and the wrongs of the system. The Fifth Estate sheds light on the am other wised overlooked part of the modern digital age. This movie does make you think about the world we live in and the impact of the digital world. Following this story in the news, the movie gives you a whole new understanding to the mystery of the the internet.

Interesting

[petarmatic · 6/10 · 29 October 2013]

Where did he find the money to start his website? How did he come up with the idea? Those things are lacking to be reviewed and explained. Wikileaks is an interesting idea and a concept, free information should be disseminated and explained all the time to the whole of the world. What Assange did not understand, that we are involved in this world of ours is Clash of Civilizations of the Huntington type. USA is desperate to protect itself from the big flood of refugees, bigger then the flood of Bosnia, Kosovo. Right now we are witnesses of flood from Siriya and Libiya, Egypt is not far behind. USA is simply afraid it will become another failed Muslim state. That is a lot of humanity and they do not have space for them, they simply do not want them. I think Arabic and African countries will never become free or rich enough to not to pose a problem for the USA. Like all who do not understand world in general they get burnt by the sun, so did Assange.

Watch for the Cumberbatch performance

[Pankakesnotstellar · 7/10 · 2 February 2014]

I tried to avoid reading anything about Assange's reaction to the film before seeing it. I am glad I did. Benedict Cumberbatch plays flawlessly and is brilliant in this. It is a pity that his performance should be included in a film that tells a very different story from the the actual one. Well, I read the criticism from Assange and the whole debacle articles afterward. I found these ones pretty thorough if you want to take a look for yourself.

www.salon.com/2011/09/02/wikileaks_28/

www.spiegel.de/international/world/leak-at-wikileaks-a-dispatch- disaster-in-six-acts-a-783778.html

It certainly diminishes how the story has been treated. Nevertheless, in the film they do picture a strangely positive picture of Assange's work. It is not boring and it is quite interesting, but it bothers me that much more could have been done with it while staying true to the actual story that is a bit more interesting and complicated. Still, an extremely enjoyable performance by B.C., a little less so by Daniel Brühl and an interesting political thriller, if you consider it thoroughly fictional.

Edit: if you want a more genuine version of the story watch : We still secrets.

Let There Be No Secrets

[view_and_review · 7/10 · 21 March 2022]

I've learned more about WikiLeaks in two films than I did in the last twelve years since it gained notoriety. I just recently watched the Alex Gibney documentary, "We Steal Secrets: The Julian Assange Story" and today I watched "The Fifth Estate," which is like the dramatic twin of that documentary.

As you may or may not know, the press is known as the fourth estate. It's an English term that refers to the three groups represented in Parliament: the nobility, the clergy, and the common people. The public press, that had an unofficial but often great influence on public affairs, was called the fourth estate. "The Fifth Estate" would seem to be recognizing that there is a body that is outside the aforementioned four bodies. The fifth estate is even beyond the press.

In this case it was Julian Assange (Benedict Cumberbatch) and his website WikiLeaks. Julian had such a radical view of information that he believed all information should be transparent and openly shared with the public. "Editing reflects bias," as his protege put it. In other words, there should be no secrets. To that end he exposed the dealings of banks, corporations, and governments. With the help of his partner, Daniel Berg (Daniel Bruhl), he posted many classified documents for the world to see.

The problems that "The Fifth Estate" highlights are 1.) Assange's ego and mentality, and 2.) how much information should truly be available to the public?

This movie had a spectacular cast: Cumberbatch, Bruhl, Anthony Mackie, Laura Linney, Stanley Tucci, and Alexander Siddig. It was a nice production that was pretty on point, comparing it to the documentary I watched.